U2 Finally Touring Australia!

[sammynb 3508]

Egads. I didn't expect to generate hot debate.

 

I'm going all ouf for premium tickets $200ish a pop (I think). Will be well worth it. Coldplay and U2 in the same year - the only thing to make it better would be Robbie for the trifecta. 

59901[/snapback]

 

As in Williams?!?!

 

 

 

 

59902[/snapback]

 

And may I second that.

 

 

mags glad to have someone with a bit of music taste back.

[The Fish 10963]

a little part of me is hoping she means Savage....

[sammynb 3508]

a little part of me is hoping she means Savage....

59905[/snapback]

Fuck that fish, we'll take that freak williams over that dirty welsh prick any day.

[Guest alex]

Elliott?

[Renton 21998]

the robot?

[Happy Face 29]

The Beatles are a far better example and really set the standard, U2 as I mentioned earlier are not the pacesetters, mere followers of what other have done before. Listen to Tom York speak, there is none of this "we are the greatest band in the world" dribble. The guy is modest and knows that it is an honour to make a living doing something they enjoy.

Yeah, but everyone's a follower. Led Zeppelin were just doing what the Rolling Stones did, they just had louder amps. The Rolling Stones were just doing what Leadbelly did, they just did it with louder amps. Just because "The Beatles set the standard" Doesn't mean others haven't advanced it. And The Beatles were influenced by Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, Roy Orbison, Ravi Shanker, Little Richard, Eddie Cochran etc etc but I wouldn't argue against their legacy.

 

I went to a wedding the other day and someone played the exact same song. So just because some owns it, listens to it doesn't make it an "influence."

I own a host of stuff that I have been given or bought out of sheer stupidity but it doesn't "influence" me.

As I said above I was just pointing out that Dave Grohl chooses to listen to U2. There's something he likes and that will inform him musically. I reiterate that I think you are influenced by what you hear (good or bad). If you hate U2 you will go against what they do. you might do a one note solo with some delay and think "shit that sounds like the edge, I can't have that!" and bin it - U2 have influence.

 

So whatever my opinion is, do peole really believe that U2 has been a greater influence on contempary guitar music than:

Jim Morrison, Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, Zepplin, Purple, bowie, the birds, the stones, the who, the 60's psychedelic, the blues masters, glam rock, the whole English punk movement, new wave, fuck even Paul Weller. And I even forgot the Beatles.

 

I can't disagree U2 have been successful but so have people like Mariah Carey and a host of other talentless trash that I can't be bother mentioning and do you really think they have influenced others?

59861[/snapback]

 

I don't think U2 are more musically influential than any of the above (except The Birds. I mean it's a great film, but a bit of a strange inclusion) and I don't think it's been suggested. But then the only one you mention from the 80's is Paul Weller! How many other 80's bands were as influential as U2?

 

If you think U2 are comparable to Mariah Carey and are talentless trash, then I'm not sure if there's much point in continuing the discussion. As ambivalent as I am toward them, I can recognise that The Joshua Tree had some awesome songs on.

[NJS 4411]

Like I said, I quite like U2, especially their old stuff. I always find these threads quite amusing though. I couldn't really care if people don't like what I like, musical taste is a very personal thing. Bono is a knob like

59325[/snapback]

 

Exactly, it all down to personal taste, and it's pointless arguing about it really.

 

Now personally, I respect U2 but somehow could never bring myself to waste time listening to them, unless they were played at a pub/club/wedding do etc. They are just too bland and don't suit my tastes.

 

I've never particularly minded Bono though, although again I would never listen to an interview with him if I could avoid it.

59465[/snapback]

 

THis what I'm getting at - its not so much about liking or disliking them its about degrees of respect. I like HM quite a lot and Black Sabbath are one of my faves. Its recognised that Sabbath along with Led Zep and Deep Purple are "founding fathers" of the genre. As it happens I've never liked Led Zep's music but I still "respect" their place in the scheme of things.

 

More than 95% of the music I listen to is guitar based. Even if I don't like a particular band/artist the fact that they use guitars "properly" means I consider them as having a good start and worthy of a base level of respect.

 

To use phrases like "wipe their existence from history" for any guitar based band is just something I couldn't contemplate. I save any contempt I have for artists and genres who don't "bat for my team" like mainstream dance which I find painful to listen to and manufactured pop.

59787[/snapback]

 

What absolute bollocks!

You are saying that U2 ARE THE INFLUENCE on all contempary guitar based bands.

What you think they invented stadium rock???

You think that because Bono strutted around in leather pants Michael Hutchence decided to follow?

NJS you seem like a person with more musical knowledge than that but obviously that's not the case.

 

I'm amazed at people's complete lack of knowledge or is it just ignorance?

Jim Morrison, Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, Zepplin, Purple, bowie, the birds, the stones, the who, the 60's psychedelic, the blues masters, glam rock, the whole English punk movement, new wave, fuck even Paul Weller are far bigger influences on contempary guitar bands than the U2.

I give you this U2 are good as a point of reference for contempary bands as to how successful they are in comparison for record sales and gig sizes.

But is that really anyway to measure music???

No, I think not.

59849[/snapback]

 

 

There a lot of modern bands for which U2 are a major influence and there a lot of other bands for which they are AN influence. To reject the notion so positively shows your ignorance imo.

 

I also don't accept that most British based guitar bands have any nos to the like of Morrison, Pop and Reed.

 

There was an explosion of "u2" type rock and related indie in the very early 80s - if your named influences hold why did it not exist previously?

[Jill 0]

If you mean who I think has generally decent taste then Steve and Alreetlike - I don't know enough about your taste.

 

Ash, Bush, Green Day, Jimmy Eat World, Mercury Rev, Muse, Placebo, Smashing Pumpkins,The Cure, The Verve.

59255[/snapback]

 

Why thank you.. but I've amended your list to get rid of the crap bands.

 

It is all down to personal taste of course and there's just something about U2 that just doesn't sit right with me.

[sammynb 3508]

I don't think U2 are more musically influential than any of the above (except The Birds.  I mean it's a great film, but a bit of a strange inclusion) and I don't think it's been suggested.   But then the only one you mention from the 80's is Paul Weller!  How many other 80's bands were as influential as U2?

 

If you think U2 are comparable to Mariah Carey and are talentless trash, then I'm not sure if there's much point in continuing the discussion.  As ambivalent as I am toward them, I can recognise that The Joshua Tree had some awesome songs on.

59987[/snapback]

 

So the birds (or Yardbirds as they originally were known) had little influence?

What about the beach boys?

And why do you think Paul Weller is an 80's influence?

The Jam were a band from the 70's!

Yes he has produced music since, and some great music but his 70's work is the stuff that has inspired many.

 

Look twice now you have made similar statements:

I reiterate that I think you are influenced by what you hear (good or bad). If you hate U2 you will go against what they do. you might do a one note solo with some delay and think "shit that sounds like the edge, I can't have that!" and bin it - U2 have influence.

 

And yet you make this comment:

If you think U2 are comparable to Mariah Carey and are talentless trash, then I'm not sure if there's much point in continuing the discussion.

Well if you want to argue the influenced by what you hear argument then don't you think it applies Mariah (s)Carey?

See this is where I disagree with your argument because you are saying that a reactive response is one that has been influenced, I think musically influence is something that inspires.

 

There a lot of modern bands for which U2 are a major influence and there a lot of other bands for which they are AN influence. To reject the notion so positively shows your ignorance imo.

 

I also don't accept that most British based guitar bands have any nos to the like of Morrison, Pop and Reed.

 

There was an explosion of "u2" type rock and related indie in the very early 80s - if your named influences hold why did it not exist previously?

My ignorance? And yet you are adamant that:

I also don't accept that most British based guitar bands have any nos to the like of Morrison, Pop and Reed.

Sorry but do you actually have any musically knowledge or are you making it up as you go along?

Joy Division, a band which has had more influence over bands since their demise are renown for crediting the velvet underground and the stooges as their biggest influences and I would have to say that New Order (you know the connection don't you?) have since influenced more bands that U2.

Not including the fact that a lot of the bands you listed as influenced bands aren't British based.

Look it appears NJS you are pro U2 great enjoy it, just realise there has been a few more bands out there that may not have reached the heady heights of millions of cd/record sales or stadium shows but at the same time their influence has been far greater than the commercialise pap U2 has churned out for the last 18 years (I'll pay that up to The Unforgetable Fire, they produced some good music but the ultimate influence, I don't think so).

Edited November 24, 2005 by sammynb

[NJS 4411]

Joy Division, a band which has had more influence over bands since their demise are renown for crediting the velvet underground and the stooges as their biggest influences and I would have to say that New Order (you know the connection don't you?) have since influenced more bands that U2.

Not including the fact that a lot of the bands you listed as influenced bands aren't British based.

Look it appears NJS you are pro U2 great enjoy it, just realise there has been a few more bands out there that may not have reached the heady heights of millions of cd/record sales or stadium shows but at the same time their influence has been far greater than the commercialise pap U2 has churned out for the last 18 years (I'll pay that up to The Unforgetable Fire, they produced some good music but the ultimate influence, I don't think so).

60510[/snapback]

 

I'm actually a big Joy Division fan as well - the list I gave off the top of my head in a rush is not the entire extent of my collection and I recognise many other influences in other bands I like.

 

The "ancestors" of any band are not as simplistic as either you or I have argued in this thread for effect - they tend to be much more multi-faceted but I'd still maintain that U2 have a place high up in a lot of "good" music. The period you dismiss for U2 for examples includes The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby - two albums I have read being mentioned by loads of other musicians as being big influences.

[sammynb 3508]

Joy Division, a band which has had more influence over bands since their demise are renown for crediting the velvet underground and the stooges as their biggest influences and I would have to say that New Order (you know the connection don't you?) have since influenced more bands that U2.

Not including the fact that a lot of the bands you listed as influenced bands aren't British based.

Look it appears NJS you are pro U2 great enjoy it, just realise there has been a few more bands out there that may not have reached the heady heights of millions of cd/record sales or stadium shows but at the same time their influence has been far greater than the commercialise pap U2 has churned out for the last 18 years (I'll pay that up to The Unforgetable Fire, they produced some good music but the ultimate influence, I don't think so).

60510[/snapback]

 

I'm actually a big Joy Division fan as well - the list I gave off the top of my head in a rush is not the entire extent of my collection and I recognise many other influences in other bands I like.

 

The "ancestors" of any band are not as simplistic as either you or I have argued in this thread for effect - they tend to be much more multi-faceted but I'd still maintain that U2 have a place high up in a lot of "good" music. The period you dismiss for U2 for examples includes The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby - two albums I have read being mentioned by loads of other musicians as being big influences.

60516[/snapback]

And what about their complete rip off of the brilliance of B.B King?

See this is probably the best example of why I find it so hard to see how they were a direct influence/inspiration to others, they are a mere plagerisation of others themselves.

Maybe they are the first point of contact for a lot of young musicians but any talented individual will inevitably listen to the sounds that U2 have exploited (so yes you are correct it can't be argued as simplistically as it has been but maybe that is what fired me up in the first place because of the broad brush statement that they influenced a host of contempary guitar musicans.)

[Shearergol 0]

Without labouring a point, did someone say that Oasis were influenced by U2?

 

Influenced in the sense that Noel once thought "that music's a bit shite like, better avoid doing anything like that?"

 

Also, haven't the Stones been around for longer than 25 years?

[NJS 4411]

And what about their complete rip off of the brilliance of B.B King?

See this is probably the best example of why I find it so hard to see how they were a direct influence/inspiration to others, they are a mere plagerisation of others themselves.

Maybe they are the first point of contact for a lot of young musicians but any talented individual will inevitably listen to the sounds that U2 have exploited (so yes you are correct it can't be argued as simplistically as it has been but maybe that is what fired me up in the first place because of the broad brush statement that they influenced a host of contempary guitar musicans.)

60519[/snapback]

 

How is collaborating with another artist on a couple of records ripping them off?

 

Apart from obvious punk/new wave influences on their very early stuff I'd say that even the most adamant "disliker" would admit that U2 have always been pretty original in their own way even if you don't like it.

[Meenzer 15716]

And why do you think Paul Weller is an 80's influence?

The Jam were a band from the 70's!

Yes he has produced music since, and some great music but his 70's work is the stuff that has inspired many.

60510[/snapback]

 

I dunno, I'd say the Jam's genuinely original, and hence influential, phase stretches from Tube Station in late '78 to Town Called Malice in early '82. Before that they were too derivative to be groundbreaking musically, though I'm sure they made an impact in terms of style and attitude, and afterwards it was all downhill towards the whole Style Council sound.

[Meenzer 15716]

Not that there was owt original about "Start!", mind...

[sammynb 3508]

And what about their complete rip off of the brilliance of B.B King?

See this is probably the best example of why I find it so hard to see how they were a direct influence/inspiration to others, they are a mere plagerisation of others themselves.

Maybe they are the first point of contact for a lot of young musicians but any talented individual will inevitably listen to the sounds that U2 have exploited (so yes you are correct it can't be argued as simplistically as it has been but maybe that is what fired me up in the first place because of the broad brush statement that they influenced a host of contempary guitar musicans.)

60519[/snapback]

 

How is collaborating with another artist on a couple of records ripping them off?

 

Apart from obvious punk/new wave influences on their very early stuff I'd say that even the most adamant "disliker" would admit that U2 have always been pretty original in their own way even if you don't like it.

60521[/snapback]

No they haven't.

See NJS that's why we are discussing this at such length.

Your musical knowledge only seems to lead you to U2 but believe me, nothing they have done is original.

From their Zooropa stadium shows which were merely a rip off of Bertold Brecht's theatre from the 1930's to the "collabortation" with B.B King.

If you really want to disect their music Brian Eno was the reason they moved away from their early sound, do you know who Eno is?

By the way their early sounf was neither Punk or New Wave, it was rock pure and simple and Bono in his leather pants was just an Irishman trying to be Jim Morrison just like Michael Hutchence was an Australian trying to do the same thing on the opposite side of the world at the exact same time both influenced by the Doors, same age, same stage of musical development.

 

Gol, yes the stones have been around for longer than 25 years, that is what I've been trying to explain to NJS!

[NJS 4411]

And what about their complete rip off of the brilliance of B.B King?

See this is probably the best example of why I find it so hard to see how they were a direct influence/inspiration to others, they are a mere plagerisation of others themselves.

Maybe they are the first point of contact for a lot of young musicians but any talented individual will inevitably listen to the sounds that U2 have exploited (so yes you are correct it can't be argued as simplistically as it has been but maybe that is what fired me up in the first place because of the broad brush statement that they influenced a host of contempary guitar musicans.)

60519[/snapback]

 

How is collaborating with another artist on a couple of records ripping them off?

 

Apart from obvious punk/new wave influences on their very early stuff I'd say that even the most adamant "disliker" would admit that U2 have always been pretty original in their own way even if you don't like it.

60521[/snapback]

No they haven't.

See NJS that's why we are discussing this at such length.

Your musical knowledge only seems to lead you to U2 but believe me, nothing they have done is original.

From their Zooropa stadium shows which were merely a rip off of Bertold Brecht's theatre from the 1930's to the "collabortation" with B.B King.

If you really want to disect their music Brian Eno was the reason they moved away from their early sound, do you know who Eno is?

By the way their early sounf was neither Punk or New Wave, it was rock pure and simple and Bono in his leather pants was just an Irishman trying to be Jim Morrison just like Michael Hutchence was an Australian trying to do the same thing on the opposite side of the world at the exact same time both influenced by the Doors, same age, same stage of musical development.

 

Gol, yes the stones have been around for longer than 25 years, that is what I've been trying to explain to NJS!

60526[/snapback]

 

So now a bit of showmanship is a rip-off of some intellectual student wank?

 

See you ignored how writing a song together is a rip off as well.

 

Yes I know who Eno was.

 

The Stones have not moved on musically since the late 70s/80s - I don't know much about them I'll admit but I get the impression that since then they've just toured the hits and certainly won't have continued to influence anybody other that those they did originally.

 

Have you heard the pre Boy demos? - they were very New Wave.

 

I forgot to add that if you take it far enough nothing is "original" because of all the influences but good artists make it seem so - I can't name many other bands as long lasting as U2 who have varied what they;ve done yet are sill so "recognisable" - thats wha I was getting a.

Edited November 24, 2005 by NJS

[sammynb 3508]

So now a bit of showmanship is a rip-off of some intellectual student wank?

 

See you ignored how writing a song together is a rip off as well.

 

Yes I know who Eno was.

 

The Stones have not moved on musically since the late 70s/80s - I don't know much about them I'll admit but I get the impression that since then they've just toured the hits and certainly won't have continued to influence anybody other that those they did originally.

 

Have you heard the pre Boy demos? - they were very New Wave.

 

I forgot to add that if you take it far enough nothing is "original" because of all the influences but good artists make it seem so - I can't name many other bands as long lasting as U2 who have varied what they;ve done yet are sill so "recognisable" - thats wha I was getting a.

60528[/snapback]

See right up until that first line I thought you might be a music fan and not a U2 worshipper, obviously I was wrong. Intellectual student wank hey? I take it you don't know a lot about film production either?

Brecht is one of the biggest turning points in media (theatre and film) and yet you call it intellectual student wank! From him german expressionism, french new wave, even hollywood westerns grew - and you think U2 are post modernist!

Mate I can't be bothered discussing it with you any more, obviously you just "love" U2 more than your ability to actually go out and listen to other music. As for your Rolling Stones comment, that is just beyond belief. They might not have written anything of substance since the early 70s but what they produced in their time has and will influence and shape music far more than any pap U2 will ever produce.

Open your ears, longevity is not a reason to argue a band is great. my bloody valentine released 2 lps and 4 eps and yet what they left behind in 4 short years U2 will never be able to even comprehend.

[NJS 4411]

So now a bit of showmanship is a rip-off of some intellectual student wank?

 

See you ignored how writing a song together is a rip off as well.

 

Yes I know who Eno was.

 

The Stones have not moved on musically since the late 70s/80s - I don't know much about them I'll admit but I get the impression that since then they've just toured the hits and certainly won't have continued to influence anybody other that those they did originally.

 

Have you heard the pre Boy demos? - they were very New Wave.

 

I forgot to add that if you take it far enough nothing is "original" because of all the influences but good artists make it seem so - I can't name many other bands as long lasting as U2 who have varied what they;ve done yet are sill so "recognisable" - thats wha I was getting a.

60528[/snapback]

See right up until that first line I thought you might be a music fan and not a U2 worshipper, obviously I was wrong. Intellectual student wank hey? I take it you don't know a lot about film production either?

Brecht is one of the biggest turning points in media (theatre and film) and yet you call it intellectual student wank! From him german expressionism, french new wave, even hollywood westerns grew - and you think U2 are post modernist!

Mate I can't be bothered discussing it with you any more, obviously you just "love" U2 more than your ability to actually go out and listen to other music. As for your Rolling Stones comment, that is just beyond belief. They might not have written anything of substance since the early 70s but what they produced in their time has and will influence and shape music far more than any pap U2 will ever produce.

Open your ears, longevity is not a reason to argue a band is great. my bloody valentine released 2 lps and 4 eps and yet what they left behind in 4 short years U2 will never be able to even comprehend.

60531[/snapback]

 

 

I'm a normal music fan who has no interest in the technical side of arts and theatre. I see now that means I'm not clever enough to discuss anything with you. Fair enough.

[Gemmill 46028]

Went to see Paul Weller last weekend. Did a nice version of "A Town Called Malice" as the final encore.

[Guest alex]

Went to see Paul Weller last weekend.  Did a nice version of "A Town Called Malice" as the final encore.

60613[/snapback]

Have you heard 'Days of Speed'? The acoustic live set he did a few years ago. He did solo stuff and material by The Jam. It's quality like.

[Gemmill 46028]

Went to see Paul Weller last weekend.  Did a nice version of "A Town Called Malice" as the final encore.

60613[/snapback]

Have you heard 'Days of Speed'? The acoustic live set he did a few years ago. He did solo stuff and material by The Jam. It's quality like.

60616[/snapback]

 

No I haven't. Is it available in the shops or is it a bootleggy type thing? Sounds good. I went to an acoustic set that he did when I was living in San Francisco - it was just him and the geordie guitarist bloke out of Oasis. Might be a similar thing to that.

 

He did "That's Entertainment" the other night too as well, which was quality.

[Guest alex]

Went to see Paul Weller last weekend.  Did a nice version of "A Town Called Malice" as the final encore.

60613[/snapback]

Have you heard 'Days of Speed'? The acoustic live set he did a few years ago. He did solo stuff and material by The Jam. It's quality like.

60616[/snapback]

 

No I haven't. Is it available in the shops or is it a bootleggy type thing? Sounds good. I went to an acoustic set that he did when I was living in San Francisco - it was just him and the geordie guitarist bloke out of Oasis. Might be a similar thing to that.

 

He did "That's Entertainment" the other night too as well, which was quality.

60619[/snapback]

It's available in the shops. Came out 2-3 years ago. Click here

You can get it on DVD too.

[Gemmill 46028]

Nice one cheers. I'll be getting it.

[Renton 21998]

Went to see Paul Weller last weekend.  Did a nice version of "A Town Called Malice" as the final encore.

60613[/snapback]

Have you heard 'Days of Speed'? The acoustic live set he did a few years ago. He did solo stuff and material by The Jam. It's quality like.

60616[/snapback]

 

No I haven't. Is it available in the shops or is it a bootleggy type thing? Sounds good. I went to an acoustic set that he did when I was living in San Francisco - it was just him and the geordie guitarist bloke out of Oasis. Might be a similar thing to that.

 

He did "That's Entertainment" the other night too as well, which was quality.

60619[/snapback]

 

Are they the only Jam covers he did? I don't much like his solo stuff really.

 

I saw Terry Hall play at the Riverside a few years back (obviously), and I remember this bloke constantly shouting out "Terry, your a Special". He didn't give in and play any old stuff though, in fact he played nothing but new material which was a bit disappointing, as it takes me a few listens to really understand most music.