GEN
Active topics
  1. Let your friend have his opinion. You have yours, he can have his.

    The only thing I would argue is his comment about what impact a bands history would have on evaluating their work - did he even think about that before he said it? A bands 'history' is their back catalog, essentially, and is pretty much the same thing as their 'work'.


    The only other I might suggest is casually having 'Miami' playing at some point when he's around - dont make abig deal about it just let it play in the background. If he asks about it, I'm sure he'll be surprised. My brother told me once he didnt like U2 because they were too 'folksy'. I played him Miami - he doesnt like them anymore now than he did before, but now he keeps his mouth shut 'cuz he realizes he doesnt know enough about the band to really comment.
  2. The only songs that might get to metal-fans are half of Boy, BTBS, some War-tracks and SUC...but it's a lost case anyway
    It's just in their genes, no-one can change that. And the funny thing is that U2 is everywhere inbetween: They're too soft for heavy-metal guys, too hard for the general Pop-crowd
    Oh well, at least we all know better
  3. I wudnt care the slightest, theirs always gonna be ppl who dislike somethin u like or do
  4. We're just discussing opinions here, quite pointless..




  5. Yeah, couldn't agree more with both of you
    There'll always be people who dislike U2. You cannot force them to like it (Well, you can, but I'm sure they wouldn't like that ).
    So this dicussion is quite pointless

    Altough I must say your friend comes with decent arguments It's not like he dislikes them just 'because'
  6. Exactly.
    You can try to change someones likes and dislikes by showing them your way, your point of view... but if he or she has a formed and argumented opinion on one matter, you have just to respect it. That's all. If we all had the same opinions this would be a way too boring world, wouldn't it?
  7. So...the question remains: apart from this In Flames, what other metal bands is he into?

    And is he into Sweedish metal more than anything? If he says he's a metalhead and has Slipknot, Three Days Grace etc in his collection, he ain't a real metalhead. You could call him a fan of pop-metal, but not true metal. See, In Flames started in 1990. The true metal started in 1966. Does he like any of these bands:

    Buckethead? Thin Lizzy? Cream? Led Zeppelin? Hawkwind? Judas Priest? Uriah Heap, etc etc? Any of those? You could always tell him Stand Up Comedy and Breathe were described by Bono, supposedly, as heavy metal (which was a load of crap).




    Exactly.
    You can try to change someones likes and dislikes by showing them your way, your point of view... but if he or she has a formed and argumented opinion on one matter, you have just to respect it. That's all. If we all had the same opinions this would be a way too boring world, wouldn't it?


    And you'd have jack all to talk about. I like pop music as well as jazz and opera and classic, and that gives me plenty of stuff to talk about - and from here, we don't all share the same taste, so we can tell each other what's great, and if you don't like it, good for you. People tell me Sgt Peppers is one of the greatest albums ever recorded - not to me. But we share opinions; and that's a perfect example of that.

    That said, some of the metal bands coming out today and even as recently as 1995 (Velvet Revolver with a few of the former GnR members like Slash) are not too bad. Even some of the recent albums in the genre in the last 5 - 10 years have been great little releases.

    If he doesn't like U2 (a lot of metal heads don't, they find it to be too quiet, as you'd expect), show him other bands he may not have heard of. Or bands and artists he has heard of, but hasn't really bothered to check out their stuff.




    The only songs that might get to metal-fans are half of Boy, BTBS, some War-tracks and SUC...but it's a lost case anyway
    It's just in their genes, no-one can change that. And the funny thing is that U2 is everywhere inbetween: They're too soft for heavy-metal guys, too hard for the general Pop-crowd
    Oh well, at least we all know better


    Probably the only song out of that lot would be Bullet The Blue Sky, if that, and maybe Love Is Blindness.

    The general Pop crowd, if what I think is what you're referring to, are pleased by whatever crap the record companies are happy to promote, and won't go out of their way to find interesting and unusual stuff. I certainly can't imagine someone who loves everything on the radio knowing who Brian Eno is, or his history as a legend in the music and sound industry. They might know he worked with Coldplay on a record, or U2 on ATYCLB, but they wouldn't know about Ambient, Obscure Records etc.

    They would not appreciate what we would appreciate - it has to be under four minutes (five on a good day) and be so overly loud with such simplistic techniques in the sound and the songwriting (which 90% of them don't write themselves), which shows you the change in today's generation and sound.




    I've never understood metal, honestly. I remember a friend a very long time ago arguing that the Beatles weren't a great band, on the grounds that George Harrison was not in the guitar players' Top 50. Iron Maiden's lead guitar player, on the other hand, was number 1, hence Iron Maiden were a much better band - or so the argument went. What can we say?


    It's an acquired taste.





    And that's an opinion for you.
  8. Originally posted by U2Nick:[..]

    There is just no way that you will get to him, simple as that. Metalheads just naturally hate U2. It's a cruel, cruel world. I've learned this from experience, unfortunately.


    I've never understood metal, honestly. I remember a friend a very long time ago arguing that the Beatles weren't a great band, on the grounds that George Harrison was not in the guitar players' Top 50. Iron Maiden's lead guitar player, on the other hand, was number 1, hence Iron Maiden were a much better band - or so the argument went. What can we say?

    I think there may be criteria for judging someone's technique - at playing guitar, singing etc. - but I also think that these criteria aren't the same we need to judge whether a band is good or not. Being good at playing x isn't a sufficient condition for being a great artist - probably not even a necessary one (was Kurt Cobain a great guitar player?). Furthermore, electric guitar is a very tricky instrument. Edge may not be very fast, but he creates new sounds, he has his own style - that's not something one can rate I guess.

    This said, I can probably agree that U2 may not be the best musicians in the world - they say this themselves. But I don't think it follows from that that they are overrated. What counts is the quality of the songs, and what we hear. I like what I hear - I quite love it. I wouldn't get discouraged by someone who listens to death metal... If they like noise and if, for them, lack of imagination is a very valuable thing, well, they're more than welcome to think that bands like the Beatles and U2 are overrated
  9. I like some kinds of heavy metal. I own a lot of hard rock and some metal LPs and CDs.

    Punk and metal are both quite aggressive, and they both rely on sonic power and volume. But there's a big difference in the technical aspects. Punk is usually kept as simple as possible, so that most anyone could play it. Metal can be quite technical and might require a lot of virtuosity at enormous speed. Needless to say, there are a lot of different attitudes. The first Motörhead album for example was filed under "punk" AND under "metal".

    U2 were founded as a punk- based band, that's right. But they dropped most of punk's rebellious aggression that could connect them to metalheads.

    Edge is a guitar player who doesn't rely on his technical abilities but on his simplicity, his trademark delay sounds and his innovative sound ideas. He has stated that he prefers to serve the song than to have the song serve him. He has named Keith Richards and Pete Townshend as role models. He has stated that he considers notes as something precious that should be used sparsely and not be wasted mindlessly. Edge would most likely fail miserably if trying to play Anthrax songs. Probably most of his innovative guitar attitude comes from the fact that he lacks speed and technical virtuosity. Nothing of all that appeals to the kind of metalheads who want to worship their fav guitar player for virtuosity and speed.

    Same for Larry and Adam. They compensate technical deficits with innovative approach and strict song- serving attitude. Additionally, Bono's voice and vocal style aren't metal at all. He's no screamer, he's no shouter, he's no growler. No point in comparing him to Robert Plant, Ronnie Dio, Ian Gillan, James Hetfield, Bruce Dickinson, Rob Halford, Ozzy Osbourne, Chris Barnes, etc.

    Finally, U2 don't dress, behave, act, speak and preach like metal musicians. No black leather, no iron spikes, no "evil" poses... they dress like a pop band. Bono engages in social charity projects, confesses his christian faith and meets the world's leaders. I'd guess that appears to a metalhead as the opposite of rebellious behaviour. A lot of metalheads prefer angry rants about society and leaders, "escape through music" attitude and an openly criticizing depiction of any kind of faith (except probably the faith in music itself). U2 have nothing of that ever so popular "Fuck the World, save yourself" attitude.

    So it seems to me like a logical conclusion that a person who likes the rebellious, aggressive or technical aspects of metal doesn't like the non- technical and non- aggressive rock of U2. To those, U2 are just a piece of pop culture they can't relate to.

    And that's completely fine with me. U2's music is not really "better" or "worse" than metal. It's just based on different foundations, drawing on different resources, relying on different virtues and therefore appealing to different people.

    Peace and Love

    Alex
  10. I don't see a problem. He doesn't like U2, and he has very good arguments. No need to give him answers. By the way, metal is a great style, with many great musicians. I like U2 and I like some heavy metal bands, no problem with that.


  11. Tell him "You're right" and then go eat lunch.
  12. Originally posted by Alex:U2's music is not really "better" or "worse" than metal. It's just based on different foundations, drawing on different resources, relying on different virtues and therefore appealing to different people.

    Sure!

    I would even go so far as to say that U2's music is not really "better" or "worse" than anything else, if it's just a matter of opinion, which I think it is. If someone doesn't think that U2's music is their cup of tea it doesn't matter whether U2 has sold millions and millions of records and got praise from prestigeous magazines, or are innovative, or skilled musicians or whatever.

    I would actually recommend that you tell him that he has good arguments, that it IS a matter of taste and that you just happen to disagree with him. And possibly that you think it's sad that he doesn't enjoy U2's music, since it is a wonderful thing ...

    Anyone got a problem with Swedes, by the way?


Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.