U2 Bashing: What's The Deal?

[deethelurker]

[i]Rolling Stone[/i] has always had a pervert mentality, though, when it comes to portraying females on its covers. The fact that all of the above are tweenypopper types makes it easier for them to continue with this disturbing trend under the guise of tradition. But their covers have little-to-nothing to do with its actual editorial content, aside from giving its middle-aged editors visuals to wank to.

birdmadgirl: Fair enough. Though -- could you understand the need for acknowledgement some people might have regarding what they've found to be most appealing to their ears? I don't know, maybe I wouldn't feel that way had I actually lived during the era when my favorite musical artists were at the peak of their popularity, but I've always gotten the impression that a lot of my contemporaries sneer at what I consider to be the best music ever recorded because of its lack of critical acceptance. And I place much of that blame squarely on U2's shoulders, because they were one of the artists who sucked up the lion's share of the critical acclaim throughout the '80s, and the only then-contemporary artist to do so.

[birdmadgirl]

[quote][i]Originally posted by deethelurker[/i]
<br>[i]Rolling Stone[/i] has always had a pervert mentality, though, when it comes to portraying females on its covers. The fact that all of the above are tweenypopper types makes it easier for them to continue with this disturbing trend under the guise of tradition. But their covers have little-to-nothing to do with its actual editorial content, aside from giving its middle-aged editors visuals to wank to.

birdmadgirl: Fair enough. Though -- could you understand the need for acknowledgement some people might have regarding what they've found to be most appealing to their ears? I don't know, maybe I wouldn't feel that way had I actually lived during the era when my favorite musical artists were at the peak of their popularity, but I've always gotten the impression that a lot of my contemporaries sneer at what I consider to be the best music ever recorded because of its lack of critical acceptance. And I place much of that blame squarely on U2's shoulders, because they were one of the artists who sucked up the lion's share of the critical acclaim throughout the '80s, and the only then-contemporary artist to do so.
[/quote]

I see what you are saying, but I don't agree [:)]. The bands I like most are some of the bands that get slammed the most, critically (I'm sure) and even here on NWO. I just don't think blaming U2 for that is correct. I don't have a high opinion of critics--movie, music, etc. If anyone wants to be upset that U2 or any other band has been rammed down our throats, I say blame radio and MTV. I think those are more influential than the critics.



<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h301/xxbirdmadgirlxx/big-hand-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

[Synthpopfan]

[quote][i]Originally posted by birdmadgirl[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by deethelurker[/i]
<br>[i]Rolling Stone[/i] has always had a pervert mentality, though, when it comes to portraying females on its covers. The fact that all of the above are tweenypopper types makes it easier for them to continue with this disturbing trend under the guise of tradition. But their covers have little-to-nothing to do with its actual editorial content, aside from giving its middle-aged editors visuals to wank to.

birdmadgirl: Fair enough. Though -- could you understand the need for acknowledgement some people might have regarding what they've found to be most appealing to their ears? I don't know, maybe I wouldn't feel that way had I actually lived during the era when my favorite musical artists were at the peak of their popularity, but I've always gotten the impression that a lot of my contemporaries sneer at what I consider to be the best music ever recorded because of its lack of critical acceptance. And I place much of that blame squarely on U2's shoulders, because they were one of the artists who sucked up the lion's share of the critical acclaim throughout the '80s, and the only then-contemporary artist to do so.
[/quote]

I see what you are saying, but I don't agree [:)]. The bands I like most are some of the bands that get slammed the most, critically (I'm sure) and even here on NWO. I just don't think blaming U2 for that is correct. I don't have a high opinion of critics--movie, music, etc. If anyone wants to be upset that U2 or any other band has been rammed down our throats, I say blame radio and MTV. I think those are more influential than the critics.



<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h301/xxbirdmadgirlxx/big-hand-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>
[/quote]

I second that. [;)]

[newwavepunkgirl]

[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by deethelurker[/i]
I feel like publications such as [i]Rolling Stone[/i] and [i]Spin[/i] have existed over the past 20-plus years purely as fanzines for such overtly political groups as U2 and Pearl Jam, and haven't given a lick of attention or respect for any subtly political or non-political groups as a result...
[/quote]

You may want to rethink that statement...


<img src="http://www.andpop.com/gallery/data/media/18/00332719.jpg">

<img src="http://i.rollingstone.com/assets/rs/65/6720/images/00285646_med.jpg">

<img src="http://everyscreen.com/photos/ChristinaAguilera_03.jpg">

<img src="http://i.rollingstone.com/assets/rs/5/2044961/images/00337558_thumb.jpg">

<img src="http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/Beyonce-Rolling-Stone-Cover.jpg">

The next time anyone of these hitmakers has a cogent political thought will be the first time.
[/quote]

I suppose it's nice for britney to have that picture now she's washed up spotty greasy fat trialer trash LOL It's strange if I wanted to pose nude for a magazine Playboy would be my first choice, personally I'd want my music to be taken seriously funny enough and besides Playboy pays better[}:)]

Devolution is real

[newwavepunkgirl]

[quote][i]Originally posted by birdmadgirl[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by deethelurker[/i]
<br>[i]Rolling Stone[/i] has always had a pervert mentality, though, when it comes to portraying females on its covers. The fact that all of the above are tweenypopper types makes it easier for them to continue with this disturbing trend under the guise of tradition. But their covers have little-to-nothing to do with its actual editorial content, aside from giving its middle-aged editors visuals to wank to.

birdmadgirl: Fair enough. Though -- could you understand the need for acknowledgement some people might have regarding what they've found to be most appealing to their ears? I don't know, maybe I wouldn't feel that way had I actually lived during the era when my favorite musical artists were at the peak of their popularity, but I've always gotten the impression that a lot of my contemporaries sneer at what I consider to be the best music ever recorded because of its lack of critical acceptance. And I place much of that blame squarely on U2's shoulders, because they were one of the artists who sucked up the lion's share of the critical acclaim throughout the '80s, and the only then-contemporary artist to do so.
[/quote]

I see what you are saying, but I don't agree [:)]. The bands I like most are some of the bands that get slammed the most, critically (I'm sure) and even here on NWO. I just don't think blaming U2 for that is correct. I don't have a high opinion of critics--movie, music, etc. If anyone wants to be upset that U2 or any other band has been rammed down our throats, I say blame radio and MTV. I think those are more influential than the critics.



<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h301/xxbirdmadgirlxx/big-hand-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>
[/quote]

This reminds me of some moron middle-aged critics on British TV when their last album came out slagging off Bono for not dressing/acting his age and suggesting he should write songs in the style of Bob Dylan, go figure, yes I'm sure that would help their record sales no end...Go get the pipe and slippers out Bono and ditch the shades and leather...LMAO

Devolution is real

[randy]

[quote][i]Originally posted by newwavepunkgirl[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by deethelurker[/i]
I feel like publications such as [i]Rolling Stone[/i] and [i]Spin[/i] have existed over the past 20-plus years purely as fanzines for such overtly political groups as U2 and Pearl Jam, and haven't given a lick of attention or respect for any subtly political or non-political groups as a result...
[/quote]

You may want to rethink that statement...


<img src="http://www.andpop.com/gallery/data/media/18/00332719.jpg">

<img src="http://i.rollingstone.com/assets/rs/65/6720/images/00285646_med.jpg">

<img src="http://everyscreen.com/photos/ChristinaAguilera_03.jpg">

<img src="http://i.rollingstone.com/assets/rs/5/2044961/images/00337558_thumb.jpg">

<img src="http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/Beyonce-Rolling-Stone-Cover.jpg">

The next time anyone of these hitmakers has a cogent political thought will be the first time.
[/quote]

I suppose it's nice for britney to have that picture now she's washed up spotty greasy fat trialer trash LOL It's strange if I wanted to pose nude for a magazine Playboy would be my first choice, personally I'd want my music to be taken seriously funny enough and besides Playboy pays better[}:)]

Devolution is real
[/quote]


Hell-I ALWAYS saw her as trailer trash.

[korova1]

Ahhh yes, a subjest close to my heart. U2 were and probably still are (although I really don't listen to the new stuff at all) an amazing band when they were hungry. I just don't think they have anything to say anymore. Honestly. Plus Bono's lost his voice basically. When Achtung Baby came out my heart sank. It was evident they had nothing to say after success came in. For me this memory just sticks with me... and Joshua Tree was bad enough when every dill weed jock asshole was driving around in his parent's Saab jammin' to "With Or Without You" and "Still Haven't Found", I must say I got turned off. No offense to Saab owners. I just like when bands stick to their roots and keep pluggin away.
I loved this band growing up, Their first four albums are amazing stuff. Their origins are almost punk, emotions are high, the music is powerful, and you can hear them singing about stuff that was going on in their lives at the time. Which is usually a good sign for quality music. For me the end was the one two punch of Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum where Ireland's famous band decided to trade in their punk history and their sound for the same old shit American soul, rock and roll bands were making... oh yeah, and they felt an obligation to be the late 80's Beatles. Give me a break. Only the Beatles are the Beatles. I basically think Bono has been channelling John Lennon for the past 20 years and I think it is EXTREMELY BORING. Although I think he is more important these days as a politician than a musician. Check.
In their early days U2 has the most amazing original sound ever. Now they sound like an average band, nothing spectacular. Take away their money, put 'em back in the studio with Steve Lillywhite and maybe you can get the same passion they had in the old days. Still a great live act, but I'd take "Rejoice" with it's three lines sung over and over over the wordy pompous "Original Of The Species" any day of the week.
After the success of Joshua Tree, they didn't focus on the ball and with the exception of "One" or "Acrobat" off the AB album I basically got tired of the routine. I guess they were too good to stay underground and I lost interest in their music after the whole McPhisto Fly crap. I like my music hungry, passionate, and meaningful. U2 used to be that way, but you honestly can't keep that up when you are multimillionaires. I still get excited when I hear an old bootleg or throw on "A Celebration" but I fall asleep with the new tunes. "Walk On" and "Can't Make It On Your Own"... actually have meaning and I must say have been their best songs since "One" or "Stay". Overall though maybe they should just release singles. I have too many other bands that interest me more at least for a full album experience. But those first four albums are five stars apiece.... the last four are two and a half apiece. Different band now. Totally.

[hnmm]

I agree with a previous comment - after "War" they simply lost it, went "global" and became bland, bland, bland!

[KYYX4ever]

I don't slam them, but I feel similarly to how many posters here think. They became a different band through the years. 1st 4 albums are classics. After that, they had a random great single now and then.
Count me in for one who loves "beautiful day", though. Brilliant !
Up above was stated that they slowly started to morph into a more American-type sound, almost Springsteen-ish. Yup.
But I am also in awe that they are still around, still making albums that (from what I hear) rock, and they're still relevant. And what WolverineSyr said--that they began in the NW heyday and they're pretty cool b/c of that.[:)]

[deethelurker]

[quote][i]Originally posted by birdmadgirl[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by deethelurker[/i]
<br>[i]Rolling Stone[/i] has always had a pervert mentality, though, when it comes to portraying females on its covers. The fact that all of the above are tweenypopper types makes it easier for them to continue with this disturbing trend under the guise of tradition. But their covers have little-to-nothing to do with its actual editorial content, aside from giving its middle-aged editors visuals to wank to.

birdmadgirl: Fair enough. Though -- could you understand the need for acknowledgement some people might have regarding what they've found to be most appealing to their ears? I don't know, maybe I wouldn't feel that way had I actually lived during the era when my favorite musical artists were at the peak of their popularity, but I've always gotten the impression that a lot of my contemporaries sneer at what I consider to be the best music ever recorded because of its lack of critical acceptance. And I place much of that blame squarely on U2's shoulders, because they were one of the artists who sucked up the lion's share of the critical acclaim throughout the '80s, and the only then-contemporary artist to do so.
[/quote]

I see what you are saying, but I don't agree [:)]. The bands I like most are some of the bands that get slammed the most, critically (I'm sure) and even here on NWO. I just don't think blaming U2 for that is correct. I don't have a high opinion of critics--movie, music, etc. If anyone wants to be upset that U2 or any other band has been rammed down our throats, I say blame radio and MTV. I think those are more influential than the critics.
[/quote]

I'm willing to agree with you as far as the radio goes, but MTV is pretty much nonexistent now on the musical radar. Has been for several years. We will have to agree to disagree on the whole "not blaming U2 for the critical trashing" issue, but I give you major respect for giving a well-reasoned, rational post that allows me to see where you're coming from. Thanks for that.

If this weren't a New Wave-oriented form, I'd take this opportunity to say how I find Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young to be more odious music-wise and critic lapdog-wise, but that's for another forum. Although I *will* say that, even though I've seen nothing but critical adulation toward those two, I really feel sorry for Springsteen/Young fans for being fans of music THAT lame and boring. At least U2 is vaguely interesting as apers of the post-punk sound.

[birdmadgirl]

[quote][i]Originally posted by deethelurker[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by birdmadgirl[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by deethelurker[/i]


If this weren't a New Wave-oriented form, I'd take this opportunity to say how I find Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young to be more odious music-wise and critic lapdog-wise, but that's for another forum. Although I *will* say that, even though I've seen nothing but critical adulation toward those two, I really feel sorry for Springsteen/Young fans for being fans of music THAT lame and boring. At least U2 is vaguely interesting as apers of the post-punk sound.
[/quote]

We can both agree on this part! I'm not a Springsteen/Young fan at all! [8D]

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h301/xxbirdmadgirlxx/big-hand-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

[Boyish_Days]

I'm new so I haven't read most the posts in this thread. IMHO bashing U2 is like going into denial. I mean they're the 2nd greatest band in rock history! I admit I was a lackluster fan of theirs but when I finally get to watch them live (Vertigo Tour '05- MSG in Newyork), I finally discovered what I had been missing all these years. I'm now a hardcore fan!

[zalasta]

I love U2, and I think they have only gotten stronger as they've aged. Achtung Baby will probably always be my favorite U2 album, but their last record was stellar.


---
www.BluespaceRadio.com
New Wave and beyond... music without boundaries.

[newwavepop]

i was never a fan of u2 albums, i thought they had great songs but not great albums.
whenever i feel like making an upbeat energy comp i always put out of control on it.

then came joshua tree, it was the first u2 album i liked.
i did get quite burned out on hearing still havent found what im looking for and streets have no name, but otherwise its one of the rare albums i have ever liked all the way through by any band.
and i am even sometimes impressed by lyrics on the album.

but then when the followup rattle and hum came out it was the first u2 album that i just didnt really like any song on.
and when achtung and those others of that period came out i absolutely couldnt stand that stuff.

and to this day i have not heard a single song i actually like by them since joshua tree.
now all admit i havent heard most of the stuff they have done since joshua tree as the singles and songs i have heard i have had no interest in whatsoever, and maybe there are some great songs hidden somewhere in there but i just cant get motivated to care.

as far as bono and u2s politics etc.. i really seldomly pay attention to or care what musicians have to say about politics or anything.
it is hard to not get annoyed though when a band that your not impressed with is constantly being forced at you about things.

i prefer blue in heaven.

[rewindmylife]

I never got to see U2 in concert until 2000 when I won tickets to see them play at Irving Plaza. I was expecting, since they were used to playing huge stadiums and such, that they wouldn't remember how to play to a smaller crowd (Iriving Plaza had about 2,000-2,500 people there that night, if that). But they were really amazing! After that, I saw them play on the Elevation tour in '01 (pre 9-11) and again in '02 at MSG and once again, they were incredible. They really put on a great show....I've been to many concerts in my life but U2 is probably one of my favorites to see live.

Secondly, I love Boy, War, The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. They were my favorite albums and I didn't really like Pop when it came out. However, I love All That You Can't Leave Behind. I thought it was one of their best and a lot of the songs really meant something to me after 9-11 happened: Stuck In A Moment, New York, Peace on Earth, Walk On. Considering it came out in late '00, I thought it was pretty profound and I really could relate it to 9-11 and what was going on in NY post 9-11.

How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb was a little disappointing. Bono was saying that it was going to be more punk-like, but there are a lot of ballads on it that are so-so. I'm hoping their next album will be another great one!