Bono's BS

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

If we ask young musicians 20 or 30 years from now who they were most influence by musically, lyrically, etc. I doubt we hear Bono's and U2's name come up that frequently.

U2 filled a void, but I highly doubt years from now they will be viewed as a legendary band in the way the Stones, The Beatles, Zeppelin etc. were/are viewed.

The problem now, and maybe why the old music I think will stand a better test of time, is the raw nature of the music produced back then, and the times it came out of.

Face it, the 80's and 90's were pretty vacuous compared to the 60's and early 70's.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

You couldn't be more spot on. I've owned 4 U2 albums (War, JT, RH, AB) and don't find but a handfull of songs on those albums to still be memorable. ("The Fly" for sure!) Compare "Streets Have No Name" to "Street Fighting Man". Nuff said.

I tell you love, sister, it's just a kiss away..... 200 years from now the Stones will live.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Uhhh, so you are enlightened?

ROTFLMAO...

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Capitalism and rational selfishness have a lot in common, although one may debate how "same" they are. The fallacy of your logic, however, is to assume a strawman that socialism is "unselfish" and then proceed to argue against it. The illusion that socialism as the opposite of capitalism is one that both socialists and the ultraliberals (who call themselves anticommunists) want to maintain. But it's only an illusion. In reality, socialism is the more pragmatic version of an utopian dream that persisted throughout human history, well before there was capitalism.

You also make the false assumption that selfishness is bad. That's a very pre-enlightenment idea. That's why I said in an earlier post that it's a carry-over from before enlightenment. Although not an explicit foundation of the "social contract" concept, the idea that rational selfishness is good, or at least it is an essential part of human society, was definitely implied.

The evangelicals probably never went through this thought process.

 

[acronym]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

If we ask young musicians 20 or 30 years from now who they were most influence by musically, lyrically, etc. I doubt we hear Bono's and U2's name come up that frequently.

U2 filled a void, but I highly doubt years from now they will be viewed as a legendary band in the way the Stones, The Beatles, Zeppelin etc. were/are viewed.

Yeah, but thats because of the attempted meaningfullness, and quasi religious symbolism they employed.
A couple of notches one way, their virtually a christian band, a couple notches the other, they totally rock.


But, if you look at "live at red rocks", rattle and hum, then zoo station, i'd say they've reinvented themselves pretty well over time.

All of which is astonishing, because bono really cant sing-if it weren't for mullen's percussion, they likely wouldnt have made it out of the garage.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Uhhh, so you are enlightened?

ROTFLMAO...

I'm not sure if you are doing this on purpose or out of ignorance. I'll assume that you're not ignorant...

"The" Enlightenment.

Does that make you happy?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

U2 had their decade or two as being "relevant" Stones had four...

I recall the arguments of people who thought The Rolling Stones were the greatest band vs. The Beatles, that The Beatles were the intellectual ones, but that the Stones were the greatest Rock and Roll band ever.

Rolling Stones have been a karaoke act for the past 2 decades. A huge touring draw, but so is Britney.

As far as the Stones being the best rock band ever... all the best Stones song put together aren't as good as any one of 5 Led Zep records I could name.

Look, to say that the Stones have made the transition into the 21st century in the way that bands like Led Zep and Pink Floyd have is absurd. Anyone who claims otherwise obviously doesn't spend any time with kids age 11-17 (Z, that would be you for sure - you know exactly what I mean). There are a lot of Led Zep freaks in that age group, and I don't know one of them who cares about the Stones. I know that my indifference to the Stones isn't exactly representative of the feelings of the general population. In my experience, the more one knows about music, the less one chooses the Stones over bands like Led Zep.

And let's face it - AC/DC is 10 times the rock band the Stones are now. AC/DC kick the Stones ass up and down the stage when it comes to live shows.

btw hap... U2 with Pearl Jam opening, in Honolulu, huh? Yeah, life's a bitch I'd tell you how I felt about that but I'm too goddamn cold to type (-12 Celcius here).

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from acronym:

All of which is astonishing, because bono really cant sing-if it weren't for mullen's percussion, they likely wouldnt have made it out of the garage.

Quite true about Bono - he ain't no Lou Gramm

It was a synthesis thing with U2, the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

 

[acronym]

Quote from traderNik:

Quite true about Bono - he ain't no Lou Gramm

It was a synthesis thing with U2, the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

Yeah, exactly-(i dont know who lou gramm is) , its all a personal taste thing.

Few things sadder, than a poor solo career, a "fat elvis" if you like-but i dont see U2 playing in vegas, you know?

Actually, i dont see acka dacka (ac/dc)in vegas anytime soon either, but when Z talks about "iconic" bands-its likely the case, most people dont even mention bands like ac/dc, there actually so remarkable its accepted their up their in the pantheon, without even mentioning them, or there work.

You gotta admit, acka dacka friggin rock, always have-and they DIDNT have to reinvent their musical style to sell out stadiums, because they ARE rock.

Hope that made sense.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from acronym:

Yeah, exactly-(i dont know who lou gramm is), its all a personal taste thing.

Lead singer for Foreigner. Whether or not you dig Foreigner, Lou is one of the best rock singers of all time. Guy could flat out sing.

And no, you're right, you won't be seeing AC/DC in Vegas. Now that they've joined the billionaires club, they probably wouldn't care much about it.

 

[hapaboy]

"Satisfaction" is such a simple tune it's ridiculous. That old fogies like the resident troll think it's a masterpiece illustrates that....well, that they are old fogies.

Is it a catchy song? Yes.

It it a classic? Yes, to those old fogies who are endeared to old, simple, catchy songs.

Compared to "Where the Streets Have No Name" all of The Joshua Tree and basically most of the U2 catalog, "Satisfaction" is a reject that wouldn't even see the light of day on a collection of U2 B-sides. It remains famous because generations of graying fogies who love simple, catchy songs have perpetuated the myth of its greatness, and continue to shell out hundreds of dollars to see a skeleton-ish Mick Jagger prance like a crippled peacock and Keith Richards spit out embalming fluid. Doing so reminds them of the Summer of Love when they might have gotten laid, and that they were once young.

For a REAL classic band from that era see Zeppelin, Led.

--------------------------

Nik, Pearl Jam almost stole the show when they did a version of Braddah Iz's Hawaii '78. They're playing it like crazy on the local radio stations but it's not available for sale on iTunes....

-12 Celcius? Oh man.....I'll remember that next time I'm bitching about being stuck in traffic over here!!

 

[reg]

Quote from hapaboy:


The Stones had Satisfaction, Miss You, and ....well, nothing else is memorable to me, frankly. You couldn't pay me to see 'em....

The Stones are more than just Satisfaction and Miss You, hapaboy.
Their older songs like Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses, You Can't Always Get What You Want, etc. are true rock classics - songs which even the best of U2 can't even come close to.