<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Did some spring cleaning around here. BTW, I've only heard like 3 Dredg songs posted by M21 (can't recall them, can you PM me a list of some songs to check out?), and I don't see the U2 connection...To each his own. Phun, how would you rank U2 in Rock n Roll history? Their impact, etc...</div> Okay i'm at work and it is s-l-o-w. Anyway i like these debates. I'm wouldn't even call myself a U2 "fan", but I would put them pretty high in terms of impact because they sold a lot of albums, did a lot of political stuff, and also got critical acclaim. According to "the critics": Rolling Stone has Joshua Tree (20m sold worldwide) at 26 and Achtung Baby (15m sold worldwide) at 62 in the best 500 albums of all time....that list includes Beatles, Miles Davis, Marvin Gaye, etc... They have Joshua Tree as better than any Led Zeppelin, Doors, Pink Floyd or Eagles album. Time magazine has those same 2 albums in the Top 100 of all time. So does the VH1 Top 100 of all time, Joshua Tree at #15 on that one. So that's 3 "official" lists that have those 2 albums in the top 100 of all time in ALL genres.... i think you could say that puts them in the top 50 music artists of all time in terms of impact, visibility, sales, etc... To change the topic slightly, my top 20 or so artists of all time that i think had the most impact, visibility and influence would probably be: Beatles Muddy Waters Rolling Stones BB King Pink Floyd Bob Marley Jimi Hendrix Madonna Michael Jackson Robert Johnson Chuck Berry James Brown Miles Davis Elvis Presley Dr. Dre Sex Pistols Nirvana Bob Dylan Black Sabbath Led Zeppelin Call 'em "Tier One" artists. "Tier Two" would be the next group - I would put U2, Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, 2Pac, Biggie, Jay-Z, in this tier. Sold a lot of albums, influenced a lot of people, but they didn't define or invent a whole type of music. Before anyone hates on me putting Madonna in the top 20, does ANYONE define pop star over the last 20 years better than Madonna? has anyone made dance music more popular? not really.
bands you forgot: the clash (how do you forget the clash) the beach boys the cure ( they have the biggest influence on todays modern "rock", which is basically emo music, i hate emo but you cant argue that they didnt influence it) the ramones the doors (best band in history) the skatalites lee 'scratch' perry NEIL YOUNG (probobly the most influencial folk/rock artist along with Dylan) sly and the family stone funkadelic/george clinton and bootsy collins frank zappa the allman brothers i think thats about all i can think of rigt now, but all of these artists are alot more influencial than madonna or dr dre, and a hundred times more influencial than u2 or jay-z.the cure are more influencial, musicaly, than sex pistols. without lee perry there'd be no reggae, and without skatalites reggae would sound completely different. duane allman is really good.frank zappa, i dont think anything needs to be said. funkadelic, without them the chili's wouldnt exist. the ramones are more influencial than sex pistols. without the doors, mainly jim, lead singers wouldnt be jumping around and f***ing the microphone and doing all kinds of crazy stuff. u2 doesnt come anywhere near, theyre not really that great musicaly, they have no distinctive style, and the whole save the world thing is just another celebrity bandwagon peice of bullshit, bono just wants to be bob geldof, and he cant sing, thier guitar player cant play anything good, its almost allways just power chords or something really boring and simple. u2 suck theyre no good, record sales doesnt detirmen how good a band is.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting phunD:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm wouldn't even call myself a U2 "fan", but I would put them pretty high in terms of impact because they sold a lot of albums, did a lot of political stuff, and also got critical acclaim. According to "the critics": Rolling Stone has Joshua Tree (20m sold worldwide) at 26 and Achtung Baby (15m sold worldwide) at 62 in the best 500 albums of all time....that list includes Beatles, Miles Davis, Marvin Gaye, etc... They have Joshua Tree as better than any Led Zeppelin, Doors, Pink Floyd or Eagles album. Time magazine has those same 2 albums in the Top 100 of all time. So does the VH1 Top 100 of all time, Joshua Tree at #15 on that one. So that's 3 "official" lists that have those 2 albums in the top 100 of all time in ALL genres.... i think you could say that puts them in the top 50 music artists of all time in terms of impact, visibility, sales, etc...</div> This whole thread is based on their talent level BTW. Even so, if we were to base U2 on an impact scale and use the given outlets in which they were expressed, any true fans of music know that Rolling Stone is a hack, and some goes to VH1. They are both recycled, media whore pumping bastard children. To illustrate my point further, Rolling Stone put Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart Club Band as the best album ever. They went as far as to call it the most important rock & roll album ever made. Um...let's just take a look at the other albums released in 1967 alone... <ul> [*]Pink Floyd - Piper at the Gates of Dawn [*]Velvet Underground - Velvet Underground and Nico [*]Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced & Axis Bold as Love [*]The Doors - The Doors [*]Captain Beefhart - Safe as Milk [*]The Who - The Who Sell Out [*]Cream - Disraeli Gears [*]Bob Dylan - John Wesley Harding [*]The Moody Blues - Days of Future Passed [*]The Rolling Stones - Between the Buttons [*]Frank Zappa - Absolutely Free [*]Traffic - Dear Mr. Fantasy [/list] Zappa even released an album the next year entitled called "We're Only In It For The Money," with a parodied version of the Sgt. Peppers album art. That kind of speaks for itself right there about what other musicians even back then thought about the Beatles. The Beatles sold out plain and simple, ****, they made movies and endorsed dolls. They sold out so they could write better more gifted music in the end granted, but only followed suit after others. There you go, that speaks volumes about Rolling Stones hack reviews and bullshit-o-meters. Least credible/interesting publication around in my opinion. Hell, they recently had a former meth-addict write a story about JFK's assassination. Uh...what the ****?! I'll give you props on the impact thing, especially the world and what Bono's done (when in front of a camera) though. All of what you said, and my thoughts aside, this thread is here because I brought up their "talent level," or really, lack thereof. Saying Bono saved 2349872347 million African kids or that they've appealed to the masses says nothing about talent, especially in the last 2-3 decades. Bring up their technically proficient music, lyricism and the such and you might have a case. Until then, U2 is nothing special to someone that values music for what it is, not what the media and top lists portray it to be.
Nothing annoys me more than people who get all technical with music. So what if someone can play a more complicated riff than the next guy, or can hit a higher note? People will always hate on U2. Some because they can't stand Bono, some because their last decade or so pales in comparison to the 15 or so years before that, some just because they have been so successful. As far as talent goes, Edge isn't the most talented guitarist going around, and Bono isn't the most talented singer, but both are as unique as has been in the last 25 years, and both have a really distinguishable sound, which IMO is just as important, if not moreso, than pure technical ability. I agree Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen are fairly generic, but that's all they've needed to be. Bono has waned as a vocallist and a lyricist, but at his peak he was outstanding in both areas. Achtung Baby is an absolute masterpiece. Fact remains there are few bands/singers in history who can boast the success, worldwide acclaim and sheer amount of trademark songs as U2 can. Maybe they have gone on too long, but I saw them last November for the first time live, and they still put on a phenomenal live act. In the end it comes down to what you define as musical talent, but to me it goes far beyond just technical ability.
<div class="quote_poster">AKIRA Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">bands you forgot: the doors (best band in history) </div> Thank you. <div class="quote_poster">Sasha Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">This whole thread is based on their talent level BTW. Even so, if we were to base U2 on an impact scale and use the given outlets in which they were expressed, any true fans of music know that Rolling Stone is a hack, and some goes to VH1. They are both recycled, media whore pumping bastard children. To illustrate my point further, Rolling Stone put Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart Club Band as the best album ever. They went as far as to call it the most important rock & roll album ever made. Um...let's just take a look at the other albums released in 1967 alone... <ul> [*]Pink Floyd - Piper at the Gates of Dawn [*]Velvet Underground - Velvet Underground and Nico [*]Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced & Axis Bold as Love [*]The Doors - The Doors [*]Captain Beefhart - Safe as Milk [*]The Who - The Who Sell Out [*]Cream - Disraeli Gears [*]Bob Dylan - John Wesley Harding [*]The Moody Blues - Days of Future Passed [*]The Rolling Stones - Between the Buttons [*]Frank Zappa - Absolutely Free [*]Traffic - Dear Mr. Fantasy [/list] Zappa even released an album the next year entitled called "We're Only In It For The Money," with a parodied version of the Sgt. Peppers album art. That kind of speaks for itself right there about what other musicians even back then thought about the Beatles. The Beatles sold out plain and simple, ****, they made movies and endorsed dolls. They sold out so they could write better more gifted music in the end granted, but only followed suit after others. There you go, that speaks volumes about Rolling Stones hack reviews and bullshit-o-meters. Least credible/interesting publication around in my opinion. Hell, they recently had a former meth-addict write a story about JFK's assassination. Uh...what the ****?! I'll give you props on the impact thing, especially the world and what Bono's done (when in front of a camera) though. All of what you said, and my thoughts aside, this thread is here because I brought up their "talent level," or really, lack thereof. Saying Bono saved 2349872347 million African kids or that they've appealed to the masses says nothing about talent, especially in the last 2-3 decades. Bring up their technically proficient music, lyricism and the such and you might have a case. Until then, U2 is nothing special to someone that values music for what it is, not what the media and top lists portray it to be.</div> Agreed with most of what you have said, especially about Rolling Stone and VH1, but are you trying to discredit the Beatles for selling products? Are bands not supposed to make money? Maybe I misunderstood you, and I don't want to open up a whole new debate on the Beatles' influence/talent/etc., but it seems like that's just be being antiestablishment for the sake of being pedantic. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Nothing annoys me more than people who get all technical with music. So what if someone can play a more complicated riff than the next guy, or can hit a higher note? People will always hate on U2. Some because they can't stand Bono, some because their last decade or so pales in comparison to the 15 or so years before that, some just because they have been so successful. As far as talent goes, Edge isn't the most talented guitarist going around, and Bono isn't the most talented singer, but both are as unique as has been in the last 25 years, and both have a really distinguishable sound, which IMO is just as important, if not moreso, than pure technical ability. I agree Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen are fairly generic, but that's all they've needed to be. Bono has waned as a vocallist and a lyricist, but at his peak he was outstanding in both areas. Achtung Baby is an absolute masterpiece. Fact remains there are few bands/singers in history who can boast the success, worldwide acclaim and sheer amount of trademark songs as U2 can. Maybe they have gone on too long, but I saw them last November for the first time live, and they still put on a phenomenal live act. In the end it comes down to what you define as musical talent, but to me it goes far beyond just technical ability.</div> I don't think anyone in this thread is being technical to a fault, especially not Sasha. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I can't stand U2, not because I don't like Bono but rather just because I don't enjoy their music. I always thought it was hackneyed and ostentatious. As for whether or not other bands can boast the worldwide acclaim has, that argument is basically saying that popularity determines how great a band is, and by that logic, the Backstreet Boys should be considered a great musical act.
<div class="quote_poster">Voodoo Child Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> As for whether or not other bands can boast the worldwide acclaim has, that argument is basically saying that popularity determines how great a band is, and by that logic, the Backstreet Boys should be considered a great musical act.</div> How? One band is self-made and has been around for nearly 30 years, the other is a marketing pop group. Horribly simplistic comparison. It's not the main factor, but it certainly is a factor given how rare such longevity is in the music industry. To make music that is so popular over such a timespan takes talent. Whether you like their music or not is a different matter.
<div class="quote_poster">Sasha Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">This whole thread is based on their talent level BTW. </div>there is no talent-meter. If you like a band, they're talented. If they make you feel good or make you think, then they are talented. A whoooolee lot of people have that reaction to U2, so a whole lot of people must think they're talented. Yes, they've probably gotten a boost here and there from the mainstream press - as have EVERY good band that caught on. Sometimes I agree that they get a bit overrated by the mainstream media. All That YOu Can't Leave Behind was very overrated and I never liked "Beautiful Day". But they wouldn't be where they are without the music. Do you think Zappa or Beefheart or another quirky band would be just as big as U2 if Time or Rolling Stone got behind them? You give those publications too much credit for how much power they have. Face it, U2 has a knack for crafting memorable songs that make you think - a little - without going too far off into quirksville. And whoever said U2 didn't come up with anything fresh? They, along with R.E.M. paved the way for so many 90's alternative bands as well as the "thinking-arena" bands. In fact I would say U2 is the premier thinking-person's arena act, paving the way for Oasis, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, etc........... Before U2 took off in 1987, what other band mixed a college rock thing with a stadium rock thing? None that I can think of. You either had your CBGB's punk thing or Bob Seger sold out stadiums. Aerosmith, Ted Nugent, etc... So U2 and REM set the stage for that. I think U2 are better than REM because they were more original basically and mixed more influences. REM tended to stick to their roots while U2 were more restless. by the way, Nirvana's Nevermind is the most overrated album. The album is a very very solid indie post-punk album. It's one of the best albums of 1991. But top 5 album of all time???? Just proves that if you meet a tragic end, you will be WAY overrated.
