Here's what he had to say:
Musically speaking, there is nothing impressive or compelling about U2 to catch my attention. I'm not a person that listens to music for thoughtful lyrics. So that aspect is lost on me. From an instrumental perspective, there isn't any noteworthy or groundbreaking musicianship going on in their music. They could be any other rock band that you hear on the radio, as far as I'm concerned. The reason why I make such a big issue about it is that I simply don't feel that their music is necessarily worthy of all the praise they get. Sometimes I think people give their music a bit of a pass because of Bono's humanitarian projects. I believe that people love Bono too much not to overrate U2. So it really bothers me when a band achieves more success than they deserve like that.
After speaking with a few U2 fans that I know, I then confronted him and defended U2 by making the following points:
1) U2's musicianship consists of simple pieces of musical composition woven into a well-crafted "lattice" for the right feel.
2) U2 boasts a diverse catalogue of material spanning several decades, in which they made very unique music that went against the norms of a given time period.
3) He should get an mp3 collection of U2 songs from 1980 through 2009, in order to get a breadth of U2's evolution.
Yesterday, my friend emailed me with this rebuttal:
1) U2's musicianship consists of simple pieces of musical composition woven into a well-crafted lattice for the right feel.
Their take on U2's musical approach is a sheer matter of opinion, just like the opinion I stated when I said that there was nothing in their musicianship that impressed me. If combining simplistic musical structures from all the different instruments is what U2 fans like, that is fine. It isn't what I like.
2) U2 boasts a diverse catalogue of material spanning several decades, in which they made very unique music that went against the norms of a given time period.
Appeal to numbers, argument to antiquity. The number of people who still like U2 does not make them a good band, in my opinion. U2 made different music than other groups in the late '80s and early 90s? Good for them...so did a lot of other bands. What impact should the history of a band have on one's appraisal of their work?
3) He should get an mp3 collection U2 songs from 1980 through 2009 to get a breadth of U2's evolution.
I am not about to download a bunch of songs from a band that I don't like. I have heard older songs from U2 because it's hard to avoid, just like I have heard their newer songs. I stand by my evaluation that U2 is overrated and is not a band that I personally find compelling.
I think it's interesting that your fellow U2 fans feel that there needs to be some sort of logical, historical process that one must utilize to determine if they like a band or not. Appreciation of music is subjective, so most of their arguments are wasted. History, building a "lattice" of simple songwriting, standing out in the 80s (in a sea of terrible music, I might add). All of these things are not part of my personal criteria for good music.
This is why people shouldn't debate about what good music is, because there is no standard set of criteria that everyone can agree to.
So how would you guys respond to my friend's criticism of U2?
By the way- My friend is a self-professed metalhead and worships the Swedish death metal band In Flames.