U2 on J. Ross Show.....

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='bassicinstinct' post='423349' date='Mar 2 2009, 04:02 PM']No, I do appreciate all of that.

[b]But [/b]does that not mean, then, that no band can be over or under rated - except in someone else's opinion? [/quote]

That's right. One would be expressing the opinion that a band could be more or less highly rated than one believes they should be.

In some peoples opinion, I'm under-rated as a nit-picking pedant. Personally, I think I'm on an upward curve

IMO.

[Linus27]

As I said earlier in this thread, I am a massive U2 fan but have been dissapointed by the latest album as are other U2 fans. I think one fan has summed up U2 for me with this sentance,

[i]"U2 have stood still for the last 8 years, and they have suffered for it."[/i]

[P-T-P]

[quote name='RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE' post='423603' date='Mar 2 2009, 08:02 PM']At least I have a reason for disliking bonehead.
I had the misfortune of seeing them at Twickenham on their last tour.

Misfortune? Yes! Here's why:

Paid£ 75.00 for tkt. 1st few songs were ok (I do like some of their stuff,my friend likes'em alot so I went along)
Anyway, about half way through the set bonehead puts this stupid rag on his head and
rants for an eternity that WE SHOULD DONATE AS MUCH AS WE CAN to various charities.
I've never been to a concert where a number to text is dominating the whole stadium.

Where is his tax free money secured??? Why weren't the tkts cheaper??
I didn't pay to see a preacher!!
I'm sure that many bands donate without the big I AM!!

If Lennon can get shot so can bonehead!

By the way ,love 'em or not they are good musicians at the end of the day. Not knocking that..
..just that tosspot of a singer.Or is that the chosen one ?[/quote]

See, this is where I have a bit of a problem, 'cause the "rag" on his head bore a graphoc of the word "coexist" with the c represented by a crescent, the x by a star of david and the t by a cross. He put it on during the song "Bullet the Blue Sky" and was making a point about the futility of war. He didn't ask you to donate [b][i]anything[/i][/b] to charity at all. The "rant" lasted about a minute and the number he asked you to text was simply to sign up to the concept of "Make Poverty History." a campaign which is largely funded by his "tax free" money.

I've no problem if you don't agree with any of his politics, and maybe it's inclusion made the show less than you would have liked it to be, but you say you didn't pay to see a preacher and in fairness there was a whole 2+ hours of concert surrounding that brief detour.

As for the £75 ticket. The majority of the tickets to those UK gigs were priced at £40 and even those £75 tickets were cheaper than every other big tour of that time.

A wider question, to everyone who has a problem with the money side of U2 and uses it as a knock against them - why is it not okay for a band to make money?

[bassicinstinct]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='423621' date='Mar 2 2009, 08:24 PM']That's right. One would be expressing the opinion that a band could be more or less highly rated than one believes they should be.

In some peoples opinion, I'm under-rated as a nit-picking pedant. Personally, I think I'm on an upward curve

IMO.[/quote]

You certainly seem to have embarked upon a passionate voyage of positive pedantry.

[BigBeefChief]

I was thinking about this thread whilst soaping myself up in the shower this morning.

I'm not really a fan of U2, I think Bono is a dick, and the modern stuff is rubbish. However, I really believe that all you haters of the band, if you were standing in a pub in 1984 and heard an unsigned band called U2 belting out Sunday Bloody Sunday, you'd be impressed.

U2 have written some quality tunes (much as it pains me to say it). If they hadn't of been succesful, half the people who slag them off would be talking about the "massivley underated Irish band U2". I'm no physologist, but I think a lot of you lot slag off the mainstream to justify your own unsuccesful noodling tripe.

Whether you like them or not, U2 have the ability to connect with millions of people. If that means that can't keep a few beardy misicians happy, then I'm sure they're fine with that.

The fact is, the 4 notes used by Adam Clayton in "With or Without You" mean more to most than the natural harmonics of "Portrait of Tracy".

[risingson]

Wise words from the man who chooses to think and soap up at the same time. They write good tunes that a lot of people like, and some other people don't. I don't like U2, but even I can see that the Joshua Tree was crammed with well written tunes. To dismiss a band's entire back catalogue as 'sh*t' when they're so well loved by so many people isn't right.

[51m0n]

Very few people who hang off every album by U2 and aren't musicians have heard of Jaco, much less have heard and listened to Portrait of Tracy.

It's sad but true, so to state that the 4 notes of the b-line to With or Without You means more than something they probably never heard is a bit silly, I mean its a fair point in some respects, but then I doubt most of them could even tell you thos four notes either, cos they are concentrating solely on the vocal in fact.

Like with every other normal punter listening to pop, its ALL about the vocal.

I agree that they wrote a couple of decent songs early on, they are absolute masters of playing the media game to best effect, or their record company are.

I don't agree that the average pop listener pays any attention to Adam Clayton at all. Why would they, he deliberately does nothing noticeable, thats, if anything, his style, and it clearly works for them.

I reserve the right to have an opinion that apart from one or two reasonable (though not staggering) early songs which I thought were OK when I was 14 or however old, they have done literally nothing that I have enjoyed, liked, thought of as great music or whatever.

In that regard then I feel that they are generally over rated. We will all have to agree to disagree, since no amount of your personal enjoyment, or there frankly staggering (in light of their, IMO, mediocre product) record sales will change my mind for a moment. The fact is I clearly have different (not necessarily right or better, just different) criteria for what I consider good/great or simply decent pop music, for me that really isn't U2, and never will be. If you think they are modern messiahs of musical performance and expression I'm pleased you have found what you are looking for. I have found mine elsewhere.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='51m0n' post='423938' date='Mar 3 2009, 10:20 AM']Very few people who hang off every album by U2 and aren't musicians have heard of Jaco, much less have heard and listened to Portrait of Tracy.

It's sad but true, so to state that the 4 notes of the b-line to With or Without You means more than something they probably never heard is a bit silly, I mean its a fair point in some respects, but then I doubt most of them could even tell you thos four notes either, cos they are concentrating solely on the vocal in fact.[/quote]


But there is a reason why more people haven't listened to Potrait of Tracey. People who don't play bass don't tend to like it! Put in on popular radio and people will turn over.

And the bass line to With or Without You is instantly recognisable, even for non bass players. Next time you have friends or family round, start playing it and see how many people recognise it.

[risingson]

[quote]It's sad but true, so to state that the 4 notes of the b-line to With or Without You means more than something they probably never heard is a bit silly, I mean its a fair point in some respects, but then I doubt most of them could even tell you thos four notes either, cos they are concentrating solely on the vocal in fact.[/quote]

But why is this sad? Ignorance is bliss, what you haven't heard before can't have any emotional impact on you, where as what you have heard will. Not everyone wants to seek out the musings of Jaco Pastorius, where as some people (like me) have enjoyed his work. Some people want music served to them through radio and not have to actively seek new music out. That's reality. It might cheapen the musical endeavours of some people who might be more musically minded, but that's just life. U2 is a familiar sound that some people enjoy listening to.

[Spoombung]

U2 are one of those bands that won't go away - a bit like REM or heart disease.
The Irish boys in Stump loathed them and when we released our first indie album they insisted on the catalogue number '[b]STUFF U2'[/b] (a little joke, y'know). Unfortunately, the band (or someone representing the band) noticed this and it had a somewhat detrimental effect on out Irish press because unknown to Mick and Rob, U2 held some sort of vested interest in [i]Hot Press[/i], (the main Irish music mag), and their publishing - and we didn't get the usual double page spreads. It didn't matter, though, as we still sold bucket loads.

[Adrenochrome]

Okay, I've listened to U2 on and off since the early 80s. They recorded some great tunes back in the day. They seemed to get more bland in the mid-late 80s though with a more polished sound. I haven't enjoyed anything they've done from Achtung Baby onwards but admit they've had some catchy hits. I don't have any problem with them personally and I'm quite happy that they;ve made some money. I have a lot of respect for their very solid rhythm section who seem to really get what their contribution to the songs should be to work best.

[Linus27]

[quote name='51m0n' post='423938' date='Mar 3 2009, 10:20 AM']Very few people who hang off every album by U2 and aren't musicians have heard of Jaco, much less have heard and listened to Portrait of Tracy.

It's sad but true, so to state that the 4 notes of the b-line to With or Without You means more than something they probably never heard is a bit silly, I mean its a fair point in some respects, but then I doubt most of them could even tell you thos four notes either, cos they are concentrating solely on the vocal in fact.

Like with every other normal punter listening to pop, its ALL about the vocal.

I agree that they wrote a couple of decent songs early on, they are absolute masters of playing the media game to best effect, or their record company are.

I don't agree that the average pop listener pays any attention to Adam Clayton at all. Why would they, he deliberately does nothing noticeable, thats, if anything, his style, and it clearly works for them.

I reserve the right to have an opinion that apart from one or two reasonable (though not staggering) early songs which I thought were OK when I was 14 or however old, they have done literally nothing that I have enjoyed, liked, thought of as great music or whatever.

In that regard then I feel that they are generally over rated. We will all have to agree to disagree, since no amount of your personal enjoyment, or there frankly staggering (in light of their, IMO, mediocre product) record sales will change my mind for a moment. The fact is I clearly have different (not necessarily right or better, just different) criteria for what I consider good/great or simply decent pop music, for me that really isn't U2, and never will be. If you think they are modern messiahs of musical performance and expression I'm pleased you have found what you are looking for. I have found mine elsewhere.[/quote]

Sorry but I have to disagree with you on the point of concentrating solely on the vocal. Peaches by The Stranglers for example is all about the music and the bass primarily. The Doors Light My Fire is based around the keyboard riff. Eric Clapton's Layla is about the guitar riff and Big Country's In a Big Country is based around the guitar riff, Simple Minds Waterfront is based around the bass and keyboard hooks, U2's New Years Day is based around the bass hook and the best of all, New Order's Blue Monday which was just a keyboard demo track is based solely on the music of that demo. Take those elements away and the song would be nothing. Take the vocal away and the song would still remain. Its natural for the listener to follow the vocal, thats the whole point of popular music. Jazz or clasical is different but not all pop music purely hangs on the vocal.

I would be interested in hearing what music/bands you do consider good/great.

[51m0n]

[quote name='Linus27' post='423961' date='Mar 3 2009, 10:41 AM']I would be interested in hearing what music/bands you do consider good/great.[/quote]
How about The Funk Brothers?

[bassicinstinct]

[quote name='51m0n' post='424008' date='Mar 3 2009, 11:52 AM']How about The Funk Brothers?[/quote]

Here come the sales stats.........................................

[Linus27]

[quote name='51m0n' post='424008' date='Mar 3 2009, 11:52 AM']How about The Funk Brothers?[/quote]

If thats the genre of music you like then its unlikley you would be raving about U2.

[51m0n]

[quote name='Linus27' post='423961' date='Mar 3 2009, 10:41 AM']Sorry but I have to disagree with you on the point of concentrating solely on the vocal. Peaches by The Stranglers for example is all about the music and the bass primarily. The Doors Light My Fire is based around the keyboard riff. Eric Clapton's Layla is about the guitar riff and Big Country's In a Big Country is based around the guitar riff, Simple Minds Waterfront is based around the bass and keyboard hooks, U2's New Years Day is based around the bass hook and the best of all, New Order's Blue Monday which was just a keyboard demo track is based solely on the music of that demo. Take those elements away and the song would be nothing. Take the vocal away and the song would still remain.[b] Its natural for the listener to follow the vocal, thats the whole point of popular music[/b]. Jazz or clasical is different but not all pop music purely hangs on the vocal.

I would be interested in hearing what music/bands you do consider good/great.[/quote]

I never said you couldnt have instrumental hooks, the stronger the better, but like you said, and I was saying in pop it is all about the vocal first, you need hooks too, but vocal hooks are all important, and every song you've listed IIRC (with the possible exception of New Order) has a strong vocal hook too.

[51m0n]

[quote name='bassicinstinct' post='424012' date='Mar 3 2009, 11:55 AM']Here come the sales stats.........................................

[/quote]

Yeah right, like I could be bothered to figure out how many records they've sold over the last 50 years for countless artists!

I bet it would knock U2 into a cocked hat and then some, and then theres the amount of advertising based around there work, or just airplay - but these are not why I put them forward, I really believe they truly added to the popular canon, and therefore are more relvant to me than U2 could ever be.

[51m0n]

[quote name='Linus27' post='424015' date='Mar 3 2009, 11:57 AM']If thats the genre of music you like then its unlikley you would be raving about U2.[/quote]

Oh please, dont for one moment dare to make assumptions about the breadth of my personal taste based upon that response. You have no idea how far and wide that may range, and your assumption is therefore utterly absurd.


<TongueInCheek>
Why would admiring the band behind Motown in anyway prevent me from liking U2 if they were as fantastic as you say?

Could it be cos Motown is significantly better then?
</TongueInCheek>

Edited March 3, 2009 by 51m0n

[bass_ferret]

Been avoiding the thread but seen it get cross referenced on here and also on other forums so I read the first page.

If you dont like U2 - get over it. Likewise Oasis. Seems to me a lot of you just hate success, which makes it cool to like Jaco in a reverse snobbery kind of way.

I think U2 made some great albums in the early years - and dont forget that they have been going for years and made lots and lots of albums, many more than other rubbish bands like Led Zep, Beatles and Floyd etc (joke). I am not surprised their creative juices have dried up with such a limited format.

[bassicinstinct]

[quote name='51m0n' post='424022' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:00 PM']Yeah right, like I could be bothered to figure out how many records they've sold over the last 50 years for countless artists!

I bet it would knock U2 into a cocked hat and then some, and then theres the amount of advertising based around there work, or just airplay - but these are not why I put them forward, I really believe they truly added to the popular canon, and therefore are more relvant to me than U2 could ever be.[/quote]

Agree with you totally.

[51m0n]

[quote name='bass_ferret' post='424046' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:35 PM']Been avoiding the thread but seen it get cross referenced on here and also on other forums so I read the first page.

If you dont like U2 - get over it. Likewise Oasis. Seems to me a lot of you just hate success, which makes it cool to like Jaco in a reverse snobbery kind of way.

I think U2 made some great albums in the early years - and dont forget that they have been going for years and made lots and lots of albums, many more than other rubbish bands like Led Zep, Beatles and Floyd etc (joke). I am not surprised their creative juices have dried up with such a limited format.[/quote]

I've no problem with success, I love loads of successful artists.

Thats another sweeping generalisation from all you lovers of Oasis and U2 and the like; if I dont like artist blah, therefore I dont like success.

Rubbish. I dont like artist blah, they are, to me and many others, far more successful than anything I have heard from then would or should warrant IMO. Therefore they appear to be over rated.

Its not complicated, I dont like their stuff particularly as I dont see much to like, therefore I dont see the mass appeal. If they were reasonably successful I wouldn't comment, but they are staggeringly successful given the quality of their work, hence overrated.

Again I'll compare their music to the Funk Brothers since I thought of them already, and the Funk Brothers have better grooves, better tunes, more ideas, better "avg output" etc, just IMO, but thats all this is about anyway, my opinion versus yours.

Is liking the Funk Brothers reverse snobbery now?

What about Squarepusher, Plus Tech Squeeze Box, The Doors, Suicidal Tendencies, The Young Gods, The Stranglers, Corrosion of Conformity, Bare Naked Ladies, Bob Marley, Ramones, Beautiful South, Johnny Cash, Housemartins, The Banshees, Blondie, Madness, Talking Heads, Bjork, Michael Manring, Ruiner Severhead; I mean when is it reverse snobbery and when is it just something I like cos I like it and enjoy it and think its good music since I find more to move me and or interest me in it than anything I have heard to date from U2 (or Oasis)?

I really like the vast majority of output from all the bands I just mentioned, who are you to try and tell me I'm wrong to like or dislike any of them? Who are you to say that since I find less to like in the output of Oasis and or U2 I should think that they are not overrated when they patently are considered so great by so many, yet I find so little to like or admire in what they have produced.

Why am I not supposed to think that U2 are overrated? How is their music better than any of that I just mentioned? Just because more people bought into it?? That is your best and most complete argument to say they deserve all the hype so far. In that case enjoy your McDonalds, please remember you will be wanting to super size yours.....

[Clockworkwar]

[quote name='bassicinstinct' post='421633' date='Feb 28 2009, 12:56 PM']Blimey!!

I really wouldn't know [b]where[/b] to begin!! [/quote]

I thought he was an Ashdown man?

[Linus27]

[quote name='51m0n' post='424024' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:01 PM']Oh please, dont for one moment dare to make assumptions about the breadth of my personal taste based upon that response. You have no idea how far and wide that may range, and your assumption is therefore utterly absurd.[/quote]

Well, all I asked was I would be interested in hearing what music/bands you do consider good/great and well, thats all the answer you gave. Can't blame me for that one.

[51m0n]

[quote name='Linus27' post='424081' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:13 PM']Well, all I asked was I would be interested in hearing what music/bands you do consider good/great and well, thats all the answer you gave. Can't blame me for that one.[/quote]

No you were fine at that point, and I responded with a band that I consider truly great, and an inspiration to all musicians; this however:-

[quote name='Linus27' post='424015' date='Mar 3 2009, 11:57 AM']If thats the genre of music you like then its unlikley you would be raving about U2.[/quote]

Is the point where your comment became absurd, since you assumed that liking and admiring the Funk Brothers for any reason at all could in some way prevent me from liking U2, unless of course you consider liking Motown to probably mean I have more discerning taste than to like U2 (which I'm starting to believe may well be the case)

So is there anyone out there who likes Motown and U2?? or is Linus27 correct in his assumption that you can like one but not he other??????

Anybody??

[Linus27]

[quote name='51m0n' post='424084' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:19 PM']No you were fine at that point, and I responded with a band that I consider truly great, and an inspiration to all musicians; this however:-



Is the point where your comment became absurd, since you assumed that liking and admiring the Funk Brothers for any reason at all could in some way prevent me from liking U2, unless of course you consider liking Motown to probably mean I have more discerning taste than to like U2 (which I'm starting to believe may well be the case)

So is there anyone out there who likes Motown and U2?? or is Linus27 correct in his assumption that you can like one but not he other??????

Anybody??[/quote]

I think your looking to deep into some of my comments as half the stuff you have written above is assuming on what I was thinking which is clearly wrong. Oh and to answer your other question, I like Motown and U2. So much so that only the other day I was saying to dave_bass5 that I would like to play in a Motown covers band. So to answer your question, then Yes.. ME