U2-worst band ever

The problem with U2 is that the music they did (FWIW) best - big of production, mid of pace, awash with vague yearning - has now become the lingua franca of a certain kind of 'serious' rock. They get slagged for that even though their exercises in it - "Bad", "The Unforgettable Fire", etc. - are loads better than a) anyone doing it since and b) the uniformly apalling records they made after they'd 'wised up' and 'got into loops' to use that old Dave Q bugbear.

I suppose this train of thought makes Chumbawamba a better band than Wu-Tang. Ick.

Most embarassing great band ever. I love the sound on all their albums until before The Joshua Tree, then on Zooropa, then on the new one. But however great their music can be, the lyrics--sheesh. "In the Name of Love" is just a godawful sentiment, a historically inaccurate recounting of the assasination (early morning?), a stupid reduction of the civil rights movement to MLK's martyrdom, the worst kind of projection. And I say this as someone who thinks Bono seems like a cool and intelligent cat. He had to know the Rattle and Hum movie made him look like an asshole.

You can't slag U2 without having heard their new album. I think it has the songs and lyrics of their career. The sound isn't as exciting as it used to be, but it's still something.

You seriously prefer AYCLB to Acthung Baby and The Joshua Tree?

Hot damn.

I don't know, Tom. "Achtung Baby" is post their discovery of irony, yet is a surprisingly good record with lots of top tunes. Even "Zooropa" has its moments, viz the wonderful Johnny Cash vocalled "The Wanderer".

I agree somewhat with what Tom E says. But I also agree with what the Vicar says.

But they did an album which still sounds as fresh and sparkling as ever. Though the Boy is more than twenty years old now.

sclub7 are better than u2 becuz there are girls AND boys QED

I quite like Zoo Station on Achtung - even though it's the sound of eggheads (Eno et al) trying to figure out how to be *contemporary*, when their idea of contemporary is circa 1982. It's still not a bad track. The rest of the album isn't up to much IIRC.

War and Rattle and Hum HAVE to be two of the worst albums ever made. I have no opinion on any of their others.

1) They wear clown makeup.
2) Mike E Clark pops off some ridiculous beats from time to time (see "Toy Box", "The Loons", "Wagon Wagon", "Cotton Candy", "12", "Ol' Evil Eye", "My Fun House", "Cemetary Girl", "Amy's In The Attic", "Beverly Kills", "Hokus Pokus", "Boogie Woogie Wu", "Superballs", "Santa Is A Fat Bxtch")
3) Their cartoon gore style can be hellaciously funny.
4) They make me dance.

Having said that, there is a lot of criticism of _Achtung Baby_ that isn't entirely fair. "Zoo Station", "The Fly", "Even Better Than The Real Thing" and "Until The End Of The World" all rank up there among U2's best songs.

U2=classic. Since when did acting ridiculous garner you anti-points around here? Rock'n'Roll stops the traffic!

What I meant was Bono's chest-beating, arse-clenched delivery. You could be right that it's got worse, Alex. I wouldn't really know.

Sorry to hijack the thread but it is so much more interesting to talk about The Smiths than about U2...

true I hate all of these bands but will try to express why u2 is worse than each...

CREED
they suck but they won't last 25 years....

NICKELBACK
they suck but...the guy did a single for spiderman....so much better then doing a single for batman 2

PUDDLE OF MUDD
they suck....but the main guy will probably never insist that the whole band appear inside of a giant mirrored lemon

STEREOPHONICS
they suck but are completely unknown in north america...so WE don't have to put up with them

STARSAILOR
ditto

INSANE CLOWN POSSE
reasons mentioned above by dan perry

LINKIN PARK
they suck...but one day BONO will try to rap...(I guarantee it)

LIMP BIZKIT
they suck but they did a video with method man, whereas u2 picked wyclef jean

KORN
they suck but at least adam clayton is not a member

S CLUB 7
quite simply a better band then u2

#1 reason why all above mentioned are better than u2....mcphisto!

One could argue that U2 is a worse band now largely because of the "fall-from-grace" issue (ie, they used to be fantastic and the fact that they now aren't makes something that would normally be mediocre seem to be unbearable shit, aka the Toxic Trap Of Raised Expectations), but I think the most recent U2 album is the best thing they've put out in years.

I suppose what I'm saying is that it seems to me a rock band like U2 presents itself as having something important and meaningful and touching to say. When it doesn't have something important and meaningful to say (which tends to be, oh, always, though I can hear the attempt to say it) I then feel somewhat cheated. Britney, it seems to me, does not present herself in this way and I do not feel cheated. (If Britney then does say something important, meaningful, or touching then it's a pleasant bonus!) This isn't the same as saying either is authentic or inauthentic, and it's not saying that Britney isn't cheating me in other ways. It's also entirely possible that the fault isn't U2's at all, it's mine for interpreting their 'offer' wrongly.

With Pop, it seems that U2 change the offer and are now saying that what they're presenting is the non-presentation of importance and meaningfulness, but then I listen to the records and what I get is the same old U2 with more up-to-date drum programming. So I feel cheated AGAIN!

"I'm A Slave 4 U" comes close....

Two types of content it's not great at presenting are philosophical ideas and argument. Both of these are quite complex and the song-form is generally too short for full exploration, so 'meaningful' songs usually seem to me to be muddled or trite. Whether certain things are more "worth discussing" than others or not, a song isn't a discussion.

So yes, I have a personal hierarchy of content - there it is. Outside this hierarchy are the vast morass of songs which are just extremely vague lyrically or unengaging musically ("unengaging" as defined by the listener which in my case means 'poor hooks'!).

This is to go off topic again, and another question that probably no one will be interested in, but in Tom's hierarchy of what 4 minute songs can and can't carry, where does existentialism stand? Seems like U2 keep trying to make short existentialist statements and failing so appallingly badly the world throws up. Can anyone do it?

B-Rad: yeah I thought of saying 'except rap' but actually I think even rap is pretty bad at handling argument - though better than rock and pop, sure.

Wow. This, and all the rest = Classic Q. (And I thought he could only hit such heights re. the Boss.)

If you're going to take this to the stadia though, you've got supply something else to hook people in. Hence in U2's case shoutinng about 'standing for something' (whatever it is they stand for) and how loudly they shouted did the trick.

Reason U2 sucks to be proven with science by The Onion this week.

As an aside, if U2 had split up after 2 albums they'd probably be having their moves aped by hip retro bands like the Strokes. Instead I spent my teenage years in Dublin in the 80's being force-fed shite local bands who were going to be the next u2. None of whom were and it serves them right - just like all those crap Oasis clones.

Hope that makes some sense.

"After recording Achtung Baby, Bongo gave up music to make records"

"They named their movie Rattle & Hum after the sounds their instruments gave off when they played them"

etc.

I have yet to hear enduring funniness about Nickelback.

That's what I was trying to get an answer for, sorry.

So it's fair to assume that, by your definition, any band that tries deliver 'philosophical ideas or argument' in a four-minute song form are doomed to failure and therefore, disappointing you?

(Not even saying I disagree necessarily, just trying to see how deep your belief goes..)

The reason i chose existentialism to bang on abt above rather than neo-platonism or somesuch is that "existentialist" thought seems to have seeped into literature more thoroughly than most other philosophical schools - hence, potentially easier transference to music. I don't think this happens in an explicit sense though - (U2's "One" vs "Killing an Arab" by the Cure - boring clumsiness vs clumsy boredom)

Maybe just the poetic atmosphere of the most literary philosophers (IMHO Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche) has found its way into some music. Maybe not.

Let's say I got a gun in my hand
Six slugs six points of view
materialism
Let's say I've got a book in my hand
fifty thousand words fifty thousand translations
idealism
tear up your dictionaries!

-- Minutemen, "Definitions"

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/images/justice1.jpg

Symbolize the statements and provide a proof for the sequent.

A line from Bob Dylan's song, "Like a Rolling Stone", "When you got
nothing, you got nothing to lose", suggests this argument:

A thing can be {l}ost only if it is {p}ossessed. Therefore, if you got
nothing, you got nothing to lose.

(Lxy = x can lose y, Pxy = x possesses y)