Log In | Register
39 Comments
PrintWhy U2 Really Is "The Best Band in the World"
News Type: Other — Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:26 PM EST
He's about to say something important. Pay close attention.
Misadventures in fashion and photography.
advertisement
That's right, music fans: I'm back by popular demand. However, in the interest of experimenting and staying fresh, I'm going to give things a twist. So, today I'll be defending famous artists, rather than slandering them. Now, I know what you're thinking, and it goes something like this: "But wait a minute! U2 sucks! They couldn't rock a baby's cradle during an earthquake!"
"The Best Band in the World"
U2 is the best band in the entire world – just ask them, they'll tell you (scroll down in the link for a direct quote).
After all, it's not like U2 needs to rely heavily on pre-programmed electronics to distract the listener from fundamentally uninspiring musicianship, or grandiose visual displays to create an artificial sense of showmanship during performances. Do they?
And even if they did, it wouldn't matter as long as it sounds good, right? As long as it rocks - and they do rock. Right?
Besides, they keep selling records, and you know what they say: "50,000,000 Elvis(-wannabe) Fans Can't be Wrong." Popularity is the ultimate measure of quality: I defy you to show me a single example of an important artist who failed to achieve commercial success during his lifetime.
Beyond the "Music"
Not content to change the face of popular music, U2 has moved on to saving the world itself. Mostly, this seems to involve awkward photo ops and very silly sunglasses, but I'm confident there's some kind of bigger picture we're all missing. In fact, it's probably a measure of their influence that they can save the world without actually solving any problems.
Think of it like Woodstock: the hippies fixed the military-industrial complex, soulless value-cheapening commercialism, crushing economic injustice, and violent international strife, didn't they? And they did it with sex, drugs, and rock and roll!
U2 has known of their greatness since the beginning, too – just look at the expressions on their faces in 1980. I know you're thinking, "That look screams douchebaggery," but it also whispers, "We're the most important people in the universe. We know it, and so should you, for your own good."
Hey, what do you expect from a band that was once known as "The Hype"? Really, the music was just a means to an end.
What – you didn't think I'd actually defend them, did you? U2 sucks!
Cross-posted from the new ListenInMusic.com.
© 2007 Evan Mix for Listen In. Some rights reserved.
16 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Evan Mix's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Newsvine Music: Listen In, Tunes, U2 Fanatics
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (39)
- Public Discussion (0)
- Newsvine Music: Listen In
- Tunes
- U2 Fanatics
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
21
5.3
{"commentId":1210527,"authorDomain":"emix"}
Seriously, U2 couldn't rock their way out of a paper bag.
{"commentId":1210527,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"emix"}
- 2 votes
#1 - Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:27 PM EST{"commentId":1210616,"authorDomain":"deatienza"}
Seriously, U2 couldn't rock their way out of a paper bag.
Looks like paper beats rock again...
{"commentId":1210616,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"deatienza"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1210618,"authorDomain":"emix"}
{"commentId":1211189,"authorDomain":"dougfunnie"}
some would argue that Radiohead is "the best band in the world"
{"commentId":1211189,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"dougfunnie"}
- 2 votes
#2 - Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:54 AM EST{"commentId":1211492,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
I would argue that those people are silly.
Radiohead has 2, maybe 3 great albums, and a lot of stuff that coasts on that greatness.
Everything else is just sentimental schmap over the fact that Tom Yorke is fan friendly.
{"commentId":1211492,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1211872,"authorDomain":"emix"}
{"commentId":1211891,"authorDomain":"deatienza"}
Yeah, as much as I like some Radiohead, I've always had a sneaking suspicion that you could cut their library down by about half without anyone noticing.
Though there are very few bands that have been around for a long time for which you couldn't say that. The Beatles are the example that springs most to my mind. I wouldn't mind never hearing "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" ever again.
{"commentId":1211891,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"deatienza"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1211935,"authorDomain":"emix"}
{"commentId":1212076,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
I certainly wouldn't ever argue that a band with a few misses is ruled out for greatness. I think the question is:
Did this band try something new? Did they grow over the course of their careers? Were the misses outweighed by the hits? I think there's something to be said for sticking to your genre, but being so good at what you do that you pull in people who wouldn't normally touch that genre, as well. What kind of show do they put on?
Put that into a bowl, mix well -- and you're starting to approximate greatness.
At any rate, "greatest band of all time" is pretty much a thought game. I'm not sure that could ever be definitively nailed to a tree.
{"commentId":1212076,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1212267,"authorDomain":"emix"}
{"commentId":1212302,"authorDomain":"deatienza"}
What about "bigger than Jesus." Does that count?
{"commentId":1212302,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"deatienza"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1212308,"authorDomain":"emix"}
{"commentId":1213335,"authorDomain":"mrgeniussir"}
actually,he said "more popular than Jesus"
the Archbishop of Boston admitted that he was probably right
I don't think Lennon was bragging, it was just an offhand comment.
{"commentId":1213335,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"mrgeniussir"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1219262,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
My brother once declared his (now defunct) band to be "Bigger than Jesus and the Beatles collaborating...)
I don't think he was serious, though...
{"commentId":1219262,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1211223,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
I have always liked U2 despite the South Park jokes. Despite all the pomp and circumstance and pomp and more pomp, they have made some pretty relevant music. I haven't bought anything of theirs since Achtung, Baby, and I think they peaked with Joshua Tree, but I am not sure they deserve the slamming they get. The emperor's clothes have been off for a while; I can't fault the guys for continuing to play music and make money. As far as the best, well... no one is really that great in rock and roll, anyway. It is really brilliant in its simplicity and turns to @!$%# when people make to much ot it.
{"commentId":1211223,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
- 3 votes
#3 - Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:09 AM EST{"commentId":1297428,"authorDomain":"RebelGirl"}
NewDraper...
All that you can't leave behind is phenominal. Sorry that many feel they are a great band, they obviously have a few people that think so, they sell out their shows in minutes.
Mel
{"commentId":1297428,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"RebelGirl"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1211457,"authorDomain":"mrgeniussir"}
I like em better than Bon Jovi (not that that's saying a whole lot).
{"commentId":1211457,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"mrgeniussir"}
- 2 votes
#4 - Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:46 AM EST{"commentId":1212389,"authorDomain":"bruskinm"}
My problem with U2 isn't so much with Bono's egotism (I should say my BIGGEST problem isn't that), but rather the fact that they represent the victory of marketing and PR over substance which has become a fact of life in this era. U2 had one great album in Joshua Tree, which also happened to be their debut album that NO ONE bought for the first year and a half it was available.
After months of rock critics pissing and moaning about the world missing out on the greatest rock band of our era, people finally started buying it and discovered what it was: easily palletable rock music with broad appeal because of it's total lack of identity. It's kind of catchy, it's inoffensive, and it reminds you of some other band that you really like, but not enough to make you think it's derivative.
Once the label got wind of the belated success of the album, they started cutting and pasting all of the hype from "legitimate rock journalists" (a phrase which instinctively forces me to make finger quotes in the air when I say it) into their promotion, thus telling the world that not only was it ok to like them, but liking them made you musically savvy. You had good taste and were able to spot a groundbreaking, relevant, talented band when you saw one, despite the fact that this band had none of those attributes. It just appeared like they might, someday, with a lot of musical growth.
And that's how we ended up taking a band with some potential and a handful of easy on the ears songs and convincing the world that they were rock messiahs. Who wouldn't turn into a vinegar-spewing douche nozzle if the entire world fellates everything you do and pays for the privilege?
{"commentId":1212389,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"bruskinm"}
- 1 vote
#5 - Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:45 PM EST{"commentId":1212407,"authorDomain":"emix"}
{"commentId":1212426,"authorDomain":"deatienza"}
U2 had one great album in Joshua Tree, which also happened to be their debut album that NO ONE bought for the first year and a half it was available.
After months of rock critics pissing and moaning about the world missing out on the greatest rock band of our era, people finally started buying it and discovered what it was: easily palletable rock music with broad appeal because of it's total lack of identity. It's kind of catchy, it's inoffensive, and it reminds you of some other band that you really like, but not enough to make you think it's derivative.
I give them Joshua Tree, not because I like how it sounds. It's still U2, which means kind of boring "guitar work" over Bono's kind of irritating crooning. It is, however, incredibly relevant, lyrically, and and the fact that it was their first album means it was their first dip into their well. Subsequent albums were just lather, rinse, repeats of something that was just good enough to get through one record. And that's where it got annoying.
but rather the fact that they represent the victory of marketing and PR over substance which has become a fact of life in this era.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
{"commentId":1212426,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"deatienza"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1212442,"authorDomain":"emix"}
{"commentId":1212591,"authorDomain":"bruskinm"}
Oh my God! You're right! They're an ultra-ironic meta-band commenting on the crass commercialism of our era through parody and we didn't even catch it until just now!!! Wow....In the Name of Love is a good song now......I've seen the light......I'll never doubt you again Bono. And you too The Edge.
{"commentId":1212591,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"bruskinm"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1213654,"authorDomain":"BeneluxBandit"}
{"commentId":1213656,"authorDomain":"BeneluxBandit"}
{"commentId":1214354,"authorDomain":"stacym"}
Agree 100%, bruskinm.
But I thought "Boy" was their major debut? That album is awesome.
I usually state that U2 broke my heart and I'm bitter, which is why I hate them, heh. Loved pretty much everything up until Achtung Baby, and then no matter how I tried, I had to face the reality that they were getting progressively worse with every album (I don't believe they ever tried to grow as artists), and they had finally reached the point of suck.
{"commentId":1214354,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"stacym"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1214384,"authorDomain":"deatienza"}
I usually state that U2 broke my heart and I'm bitter, which is why I hate them,
That's so... well, you know.
=P
{"commentId":1214384,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"deatienza"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1215852,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
While Joshua Tree was the best produced and may well be U2's acme, I don't think it is fair to say that they had one good album (sorry youngins, CD or a whatever you call it these days). Even though old video of a moused out Bono doing that silly frickin 80s dance are downright embarrassing, U2 made some great music early on (Boy, October, ...). It was also relevant music about the times we lived in. U2 has made a lot of music and explored a great deal. So they are commercial. If that's your beef, you'll have a pretty hort list of bands to choose from. Oasis was riffing on Lenon's Jesus comments after one or two albums. Guns and Roses went through every trite rock star phase like clockwork. I'll give you that Bono developed a bit of a Messiah complex and they definitely went through the rock star motions.... but I don't think anyone who suggests that U2's music lacks substance is seeing the whole picture.
PS Springstein did that silly frickin 80s dance also.
{"commentId":1215852,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1219159,"authorDomain":"sbutki"}
Wait, Joshua Tree was far from their first album. It was maybe the first on a new label but by the time that album came out they had released Boy, October, War and Under a Bloody Red Sky.
{"commentId":1219159,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"sbutki"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1221982,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
thanks. War was the one I was trying to remember.
{"commentId":1221982,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
{"commentId":1222003,"authorDomain":"deatienza"}
War was the one I was trying to remember.
War? Huh. What it is good for?
{"commentId":1222003,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"deatienza"}
{"commentId":1297512,"authorDomain":"tcervo"}
Wait, Joshua Tree was far from their first album. It was maybe the first on a new label but by the time that album came out they had released Boy, October, War and Under a Bloody Red Sky.
1 !
#5.10
Don't forget "Unforgettable Fire", which was really there major breakthrough. ("War" was very popular, particularly on MTV, and that album resulted in many people discovering their earlier albums "Boy" and "October", but "Unforgettable Fire" really put them on the map.)
To even suggest that "Joshua Tree" was their first album automatically disqualifies any opinions you may have about the band.
{"commentId":1297512,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"tcervo"}
{"commentId":1297533,"authorDomain":"tcervo"}
U2 had one great album in Joshua Tree, which also happened to be their debut album that NO ONE bought for the first year and a half it was available.
Sorry, not so.
The Joshua Tree was released in March of 1987. Both "With or Without You" and "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" reached #1 on the Billboard charts (both doing so very quickly), and the album itself also reached #1 on the the Billboard charts. Sales were strong right out of the gate, and the accompanying tour sold out every venue.
{"commentId":1297533,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"tcervo"}
{"commentId":1215542,"authorDomain":"sbutki"}
I really liked U2's first few albums when they were focused on politics. This was at a time
when I was really into bands's with strong political messages.
I know exactly when they began underwhelming me - it was when they had the Hollywood
premiere of Rattle and Hum. They'd announced on the radio that the band would do a
surprise free show so three buddies and I ditches class and waited for 8 hours for about
20 minutes of music, which was pretty good. But then watching the movie and hearing
the new songs it was like, uh oh.
Then Zoo tv and zoorapa and Bono began playing the clown and trying to mock rock
instead of trying to do something remarkable via the band.
I began to feel like John Lennon complaining about all of Paul McCartney's love songs
in that I wanted edgy stuff again, not safe stuff.
That said, u2 live - especially back around the Unforgettable Fire era - is some of the best
live stuff I've seen. The Live at Red Rocks album is one of my favorite live albums and
their performance at Live AID and Amnesty International were kick-ass.
{"commentId":1215542,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"sbutki"}
- 2 votes
#6 - Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:37 AM EST{"commentId":1215853,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
Yeah, that whole we are going to discover America thing did kind of chap my arse.
{"commentId":1215853,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1216660,"authorDomain":"sbutki"}
Well, I'm not sure what your chapped ass has to - oh,god, why'd you have to provide that metaphor/imagery!
It wasn't just the idea of discovering America but it was around that album that they starrted to try to write pop songs (desire) instead of protest songs.
{"commentId":1216660,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"sbutki"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1222016,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
Wait. Rattle and Hum was political. Silver and Gold, Desire, the song Rattle and Hum... But, "Charles Manson stole this one from the Beatles and we're stealing it back..."??? Come on. It was that kind of crap... Maybe, that's it. Maybe during the eighties (retro-sixties chic) protest became so commercial that it wasn't protesting anything. Maybe that is what this huge resentment is about. Maybe that is post-modernism. Maybe protest was always like that (an attempt to sway popular culture).
Still, I can sit down and listen to U2 and enjoy many of their songs. They made some good music. I think if I disregard the music and start hating them because it is cool not to like Bono right now, then I am just as phony as everyone says the band is.
{"commentId":1222016,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
{"commentId":1222121,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
I still think that "One" is really gorgeous in its own right.
{"commentId":1222121,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"darkside"}
{"commentId":1222178,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
I think if I disregard the music and start hating them because it is cool not to like Bono right now, then I am just as phony as everyone says the band is.
Yeah, and those who dislike Bono probably need to admit that he's done more good in the last 5 years than they'll likely do in their lifetimes.
{"commentId":1222178,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1222194,"authorDomain":"deatienza"}
I'm going to alienate myself from my fellow U2-haters and say that I really like Bono as a person. I think if you have that big of a platform it's laudable to use it in the way he has. I'm extremely glad for the good work he's done and I don't find fault with his behavior at all.
I also applaud the Beastie Boys for their "Free Tibet" award show acceptance and Michael Moore for his anti-war Oscar acceptance.
{"commentId":1222194,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"deatienza"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1297442,"authorDomain":"RebelGirl"}
What really cracks me up about this whole line of reasoning is that you all have this attitude that because someone is trying to do something that he's a peice of @!$%#. I dont see Van Halen, or the Cure, or any other half wit talent out there atleast trying to make a difference, so put your money where your mouth is.
What is funny is my exboyfriend hated U2 for everything all of you are saying, but I drug him along to a concert here in Dallas and everything changed.
There are plenty of rock stars who spend their money on coke, or women, or what the hell ever, atleast he's not sitting on his couch, pissing his money away.
{"commentId":1297442,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"RebelGirl"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1217455,"authorDomain":"acm"}
Hmmmm... based on your (satirical) axiom that "Popularity is the ultimate measure of quality", then, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is great art (and Van Gogh is not, at least during his lifetime). My understanding is that this song (".. Hand", not "Starry Starry Night") was really a marketing scheme to get the Beatles into the American market. And it worked! This is the first Beatles single to have advance orders of one million copies. So clearly the art part is the marketing, not the music. Which is, of course, your original point. Isn't that the object of all pop music? That's why it's called pop. Right? Thanks for the chuckle.
{"commentId":1217455,"threadId":"180238","contentId":"1117877","authorDomain":"acm"}
- 1 vote
#7 - Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:15 PM EST{"canLink":false,"threadId":"180238","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
COMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
