U2start.com | Latest U2 News / Sightings

Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

Attitude and popular appeal, influence etc.

No critic or music mag will ever put Bono or U2 at the top of any list due to the fact that they are probably the most reviled band around.

Well, in that case Elvis doesn't deserve first place, Axl shouldn't be on the list, Steven Tyler should be even further down the list (see the albums Toys In The Attic and Rocks as to why) and Robert Plant should be down a few places, if not at least ten spots down. Marilyn Manson should also be off that list.

Why are they so reviled though? I've never worked it out. Is it because of Bono, purely?

vanquish

15 years

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

Well, in that case Elvis doesn't deserve first place, Axl shouldn't be on the list, Steven Tyler should be even further down the list (see the albums Toys In The Attic and Rocks as to why) and Robert Plant should be down a few places, if not at least ten spots down. Marilyn Manson should also be off that list.

Why are they so reviled though? I've never worked it out. Is it because of Bono, purely?

Yes, Robert Plant definitely should be much higher. I mean the guy founded heavy metal
I think Elvis is first purely because he was the first to elicit that kind of reaction from his audience.

I think they are hated primarily due to a mixture of tall poppy syndrome, general ignorance and the modern musical climate.

To your average testosterone fuelled rock fans U2 are like Coldplay; 'softies' who shouldn't even call themselves rock bands.

Indeed they're disliked more than Coldplay et al because Bono is a loudmouth and of course they're much older than pretty much every group still relevant today and so it's automatically daggy for most people to admit liking them.

Also unlike younger groups like Snow Patrol, Coldplay, the Killers etc.U2 aren't 'sensitive new age guys' and don't have the sex appeal or hearthrob status to capture the same kind of young female audiences that are key to these bands fanbases.

The only people who are fans of older bands are the rock faithful and U2 is very much the antithesis of their favourite bands - Led Zepp, the Stones/Who, Pink Floyd, Queen and the rest of the punk rock, hard rock, classic rock and metal spectrum.
The closest band to U2 are probably the Beatles (a few critics have called U2 their successors) and being the gods of modern music few people will say they hate them, 'cos you know everyone likes the Beatles, they invented music man!'.

The other thing is that U2 have always been an ambitious band, that dared to dream.
Like the whole Rattle & Hum backlash echoes much of the traditional rock fans attitude towards them - "how dare these young upstarts put themselves in the same league as B.B King and Bob Dylan, my grandmother can play better guitar than that Edge dude"

Being Irish in a genre dominated by American and Britsh acts doesn't help either.

ad87

15 years

Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

Yes, Robert Plant definitely should be much higher. I mean the guy founded heavy metal

I think they are hated primarily due to a mixture of tall poppy syndrome and general ignorance.
To most rock fans U2 are like Coldplay 'softies' who shouldn't even call themselves rock bands. Indeed they're disliked more than Coldplay et al because they're much older and so automatically daggy for most people. ( the only people who like older bands are the rock faithful and U2 is very much the antithesis of their favourite bands)

Also unlike younger groups like Snow Patrol, Coldplay, the Killers etc.U2 don't have the sex appeal to capture the same kind of young female audiences that are key to these bands fanbases.

agree, for most of it. about the female part you could be wrong i think.

i dont like that list at all.

bono should be at 1 closely folowed by Freddie Mercury.
i like bono at one because imo he has got everything a frontman should have, attitude, ego, stage performance, great connection with fans, great music, great voice, endlessly efforts for side projects, charisma....and so on.

not just the sex drugs and rock and roll... and paint your face and be at number 6 for example.

just my opinion

drewhiggins

15 years

Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

Yes, Robert Plant definitely should be much higher. I mean the guy founded heavy metal

I think they are hated primarily due to a mixture of tall poppy syndrome and general ignorance.
To most rock fans U2 are like Coldplay 'softies' who shouldn't even call themselves rock bands. Indeed they're disliked more than Coldplay et al because they're much older and so automatically daggy for most people. ( the only people who like older bands are the rock faithful and U2 is very much the antithesis of their favourite bands)

Also unlike younger groups like Snow Patrol, Coldplay, the Killers etc.U2 don't have the sex appeal to capture the same kind of young female audiences that are key to these bands fanbases.

Let's not forget Ozzy, the Yardbirds, Deep Purple, Jimi Hendrix, Black Sabbath...they all did their bit for hard rock and heavy metal. The Killers, Snow Patrol and Coldplay (and on the later stuff, U2) are all classified as pop-rock. The same as Bon Jovi, Poison and all those now-terrible bands.

Of heavy metal, it makes you wonder when some big-name band or singer will put out something killer, not short pop-rock shit.

I think a lot of younger listeners might associate U2 now with such songs as Beautiful Day and Elevation and now Boots - not the coolest way to launch your new album but it had the same effect as Discotheque. They say they'll be back when they hear songs as great as Beautiful Day...which I only say isn't as good because the stuff before is so hard to top. The whole 90s output is too good for any band.

Can you really get a feel for U2 from those records and songs? I'd say go right back before Boy to see what they were about. A lot of people probably skipped Zooropa and Pop too, so they should check those out first before they go on about U2 being too soft or going soft.

agree, for most of it. about the female part you could be wrong i think.

i dont like that list at all.

bono should be at 1 closely folowed by Freddie Mercury.
i like bono at one because imo he has got everything a frontman should have, attitude, ego, stage performance, great connection with fans, great music, great voice, endlessly efforts for side projects, charisma....and so on.

not just the sex drugs and rock and roll... and paint your face and be at number 6 for example.

just my opinion

They have to do that because the reaction to the 'unmasking' was unbelievable. Die-hard fans of that particular band - not the new 'cover-band' making horrible albums like Sonic Boom - would not buy their records until they covered up again. Even if you are an ugly fucker making music, why should it stop you from buying the albums. If the music becomes shit and you don't like it, then yeah you have a reason to.

By the time KISS had put on the makeup again, well...it became ridiculous. A bit like Aerosmith making crappy ballads and forgetting where they came from originally. They had one of the best debut albums in history (at the time) and followed up with some other great albums, but fell into the MTV trap of making shit and losing their original fans in the process.

Sex and drugs and rock and roll has been a drawcard to heavy metal and rock music for a long time now, but now it's become overdone.

vanquish

15 years

Originally posted by ad87:[..]

agree, for most of it. about the female part you could be wrong i think.

i dont like that list at all.

bono should be at 1 closely folowed by Freddie Mercury.
i like bono at one because imo he has got everything a frontman should have, attitude, ego, stage performance, great connection with fans, great music, great voice, endlessly efforts for side projects, charisma....and so on.

not just the sex drugs and rock and roll... and paint your face and be at number 6 for example.

just my opinion

I think the female part is important, I was watching the Killers Live at the Royal Albert Hall yesterday and at least 70 percent of the audience is squealing British girls who pounce on Brandon at every opportunity. Same with Coldplay, Snow Patrol etc. their music appeals to a feminine audience.

U2 are really stuck in a no man's land between the usual macho rock and soft, indie feminine rock. And they're really old too.

With regard to the Spin list, this is their criteria:

What is it that makes a man a great rock frontman? A rare mixture of style, swagger and charisma – and having the vocal chops to back it all up certainly doesn't hurt, either. But this isn't a list of the greatest singers of all time here – and things like No. 1 hits or platinum album sales don't even factor. Instead, let's look at those male vocalists who just exude cool every time they take the stage and see if it is possible to pinpoint what sets them apart from the also-rans.

So I don't think we should be too concerned that Bono isn't at or near the top.

LikeASong

15 years

Originally posted by vanquish:U2 are really stuck in a no man's land between the usual macho rock and soft, indie feminine rock. And they're really old too.

U2`s land

vanquish

15 years

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

Let's not forget Ozzy, the Yardbirds, Deep Purple, Jimi Hendrix, Black Sabbath...they all did their bit for hard rock and heavy metal. The Killers, Snow Patrol and Coldplay (and on the later stuff, U2) are all classified as pop-rock. The same as Bon Jovi, Poison and all those now-terrible bands.

Of heavy metal, it makes you wonder when some big-name band or singer will put out something killer, not short pop-rock shit.

I think a lot of younger listeners might associate U2 now with such songs as Beautiful Day and Elevation and now Boots - not the coolest way to launch your new album but it had the same effect as Discotheque. They say they'll be back when they hear songs as great as Beautiful Day...which I only say isn't as good because the stuff before is so hard to top. The whole 90s output is too good for any band.

Can you really get a feel for U2 from those records and songs? I'd say go right back before Boy to see what they were about. A lot of people probably skipped Zooropa and Pop too, so they should check those out first before they go on about U2 being too soft or going soft.

[..]

They have to do that because the reaction to the 'unmasking' was unbelievable. Die-hard fans of that particular band - not the new 'cover-band' making horrible albums like Sonic Boom - would not buy their records until they covered up again. Even if you are an ugly fucker making music, why should it stop you from buying the albums. If the music becomes shit and you don't like it, then yeah you have a reason to.

By the time KISS had put on the makeup again, well...it became ridiculous. A bit like Aerosmith making crappy ballads and forgetting where they came from originally. They had one of the best debut albums in history (at the time) and followed up with some other great albums, but fell into the MTV trap of making shit and losing their original fans in the process.

Sex and drugs and rock and roll has been a drawcard to heavy metal and rock music for a long time now, but now it's become overdone.

I was just trying to name the biggest bands off the top of my head, obviously all of those bands and others factor in.
U2 are really, really different from any other band past or present. For one their contemporaries change every few years eg. from all the other post-punk groups, to R.E.M to to Coldplay, the Killers, KoL, Snow Patrol etc. now

The whole fact that everyone likes stuff like BD and Vertigo etc. is part of my general ignorance point (which I didn't elaborate on). See the problem is their pop songs like BD, the Sweetest Thing, Vertigo etc. succeed commercially, get heavy airplay etc(IGCIIDGCT was an alarming exception).

This gets them a few casual fans, ie. people who'll put BD and Vertigo on their MP3 players, but of course they quickly forget about them until there's another big U2 hit (and it really has to be big, cause their vintage makes pop hits hard)

However these pop songs also raise the bile of rock traditionalists, whose own bands can't write anything as successfull and just enforces their view that U2 are a lucky bunch of wankers who can only write pop tripe (singles like Elevation didn't do the band any favours either).

And of course both groups completely ignore their other work, which as you know is hugely varied and radically different from their radio staples (I don't think any other band has covered as much musical ground - and done it as well as U2).

However that's not to say that they'd like their other work if they heard it either.
I'm afraid the vast majority of listeners lack the musical taste and artistic sensibility to appreciate stuff like Zooropa or Pop or even most of NLOTH. I don't think even most U2 fans fully appreciate their output.
Some proof of our 'elite' status :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/neilmccormick/9168081/Proof_that_U2_fans_are_smarter_/

Also I'd like to add that bands like Radiohead gain much of their fanbase, simply because (like the Beatles) they are critical darlings and can do no wrong, which draws many people into liking them just because it'll elevate them above others with 'low brow' musical tastes (similar also to Pink Floyd fans).
U2 have and will never get this same kind of acclaim, simply because (an as I read in a NLOTH review) it is impossible for the music industry to evaluate a U2 piece on its own merits due to the divisive attitudes towards the band.

Just look at Pop which was a much better album than ATYCLB yet was pilloried just because U2 dared to be something that was not U2 (especially to Americans) and didn't have any nice, pop hits to please the masses.

Radiohead can do something like Pop and get exalted for it, U2 however has never and will never be able to please everyone (or even most of them) just due to the attitudes towards the band.

I think the music industry and listeners really don't know what to make of U2, really they should have broken up by now or become an obscurity the Stones, certainly they do not expect them to compete with bands half their age while simultaneously trying to solve the world's problems. Perhaps they've just been around for too long (and not quietly either) and people just want them to go away and never hear about Bono, the Edge or U2 ever again.

djrlewis

15 years

If this doesn't stop being a discussion topic, I will close it.

NEWS ONLY, NO DISCUSSION

There are plenty of other topics to discuss. This topic is designed for people to see genuine news or sightings, not have to wade through loads of pointless speculation/discussion.

LikeASong

15 years

Paul McGuiness Interview in a Chile newspaper

Invalid url 'http://[IMG]http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/6069/42167822.th.jpg[/IMG]'

I've translated it for you non-Spanish speakers

Like just another one visitor in Midem, the worldwide musical industry which is taking place this days in Cannes (France), goes Paul McGuiness, the one and only manager that U2 has had in over 30 years.

It's widely believed that this good-natured Irish is mainly who turned a group of 4 Irish boys into the biggest band of the world. And, always interested by what's going on in the musical bussiness, McGuinness answers a few of our questions. "We, U2, are in the live music business. We started with some shyness, but we've become the biggest live band of the world, maybe even the biggest band in the history of popular music. With this tour, we'll do, at least, 90 concerts; we did 45 last year and we're planning to do another 45 during 2010. In total, we're bound to play to about 6 million people", he says.
According to McGuinness, U2 is thinking / has thought seriously in the idea of releasing their own videogame, Rock Band-style. "We haven't decided what will it be like, but we really wanna do it. And soon. Really soon".

- It was said that U2 would come back to Chile in november of this year.
We're probably not going to South America this year (2010). Maybe we go over there on early 2011, but we have to decide/define it yet. The reason is that this tour has 3 giant stages, that have to travel by ship, in over 200 containers... The cost of each tour day is about 3'000'000 $... But we'll do whateveer we can to go back to South America, of course.

- When you define yourself as a "live band", do you care about the crisis that the world's living right now?
U2 has become, with the years, in a live band; but that doesn't mean that we don't have respect for the proper albums. In fact, we put lots of efforts in our last recording, and we have cared about every detail of its presentation live. Moreover, since the start of the tour we have kept the ticket prices lower than usual.

-The band has made some contracts and agreements with telephon companies and other formats to sell their music.
Yes, the music is evolutioning and focusing in the digital market, the downloads and other kind of electronic stuff... but the digital supply companies don't care about (ED. or "have yet not cared about") of inverting in new platforms that satisfy the musicians, yet. I think that the whole thing is changing, indeed, but it will take some time until it stablishes and normalizes again.

-It is said that U2 is currently working in the NLOTH successor/continuation.
We'll resume the tour in California, next June... and of course the boys have been working composing new songs. We probably will reelease a new album after the tour (ED Note: yes, he said "after" the tour), but I don't know for sure, I'm not certain.

MWSAH

15 years