View Thread

Atheists Today » Taking it easy » Music Discussions
 Print Thread
U2 ????
JohnH
I noticed yesterday that Q Magazine (whatever that is) proclaimed U2 as the greatest act in the last 25 years. Now I will admit that my sense of music in the last 25 years has gotten somewhat distant but I think in terms of interest I find many more groups in front of U2, Public Enemy or the Clash come to mind. U2 are to my mind a group that has its moments but is not in any way great.

I am sure this anointment is meaningless but I find it so wrong headed as to be commented on.
 
catman
The Clash was more than 25 years ago (at least their greatest popularity was). But I agree that U2 is nothing really special musically. I like them OK, but I wouldn't go out of my way to hear them. What they do was better done earlier.
 
JohnH
catman, the mistake on the Clash reference so upset me I had to pull out some of my Little Richard 45's to reground myself. Shows where my head is at.
 
Bob of QF
Seein' as how I've never heard of "the Clash" or "Public Enemy" (nor am I even slightly curious with such silly names), I'd have to agree U2 is ahead of either of these...

... but ahead of such fundamental groups as The Rolling Stones? (who are still touring, last time I checked)

I think not.

And no-- I've never willingly listened to a whole song by Little Richard either...

... just to keep it in perspective.

Grin
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
Actually, I think U2 is more or less in the Rolling Stones' style, only more derivative and less interesting (that's somewhat redundant, isn't it?). I don't think U2 would be nearly as popular as it is without Bono and his position as spokesman for many causes. As I said, they aren't horrible, just sort of pleasantly mediocre.

I would take The Clash over Public Enemy. They were surprisingly tight musically for a punk band, although the "singing" left a lot to be desired. But that went with the territory.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Photon
If we only consider bands producing material since 1986, U2 is one of the most commercially successful bands in that period, and have a rather impressive range of songs and musical ability under their belts. I don't have much issue with the choice.

Q Magazine publishes in Britain, also since 1986, with relatively small circulation, and kind of have a history of being Brit-centric when it comes to their musical endorsements (like gushing over Oasis). So, I think this "award" can be properly parsed in that context.

Queen might be an option, but they've been mostly done since the mid 90's. The Who still tour but are nothing like their former glory in regards to current output. The Rolling Stones can still sell out a show, and were prolific, and good, and were it for the period 1965-1990 I think they'd win, but since 1997 I honestly can't think of any Stones songs that were awesome. Radiohead might be considered, though they are relative latecomers for consideration over the last 2.5 decades. Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, Genesis, David Bowie, even Led Zeppelin one could make arguments for. Even Springsteen and Michael Jackson could be in the discussion.

But really, doesn't everyone know the answer is really Justin Beiber?

Hell, if half the Beatles weren't dead, I'd vote for them, and they haven't produced anything collectively for 40 years.


All in all, U2 is a good choice.
 
Bob of QF
I like several of U2's songs-- alas, few of their albums though. But that's just me.

As for Justin Beiber... who's he? I saw a bit on him(her) and he looks more androgynous than anything else. Cannot fathom the attraction.

But then again, I did not understand the Hanson-craze, either...

... what about that Rebecca one? The one with the autotune?

If you go strictly by the number of views, she was pretty "successful"... (and no, I won't inflict a link... too horrid)

Autotune is an abomination, as you can use it to make a cat "sing"... (yes, I've seen vids of exactly that...)
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
I couldn't agree more concerning Autotune. For under $200, one can buy one that can be used in the studio AND in live performance. Give me the Beach Boys for good intonation.

Justin Bieber is just another teenybopper fave with an exceedingly strange coiffure. He does seem to sing pretty well, but Autotune is doubtless helping.
 
Bob of QF
Yes, the beachboys close harmonies are/were a pleasure to listen to, I agree-- and because of the time-frame, it's all talent with those guys.

I love close harmony if it's real.

Just as I appreciate a singer-songwriter who does their own stuff (and manages to maintain in tune with the instruments).

I suppose my tastes are all over the map in that regard.

But the bottom line is, I love a good musical story-- something that tells a tale that is interesting, or evokes strong emotional appeal within the story telling.

But no, I loathe country and/or western sh1t-- too whiny, too unmusical. Hit the note, or don't-- don't try to slide all over the scale in a frikkin' attempt to pay brief homage to where the note should have been...

In my opinion, of course.

Smile
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
cheshiredragon
Autotune has been helping "pop" singers for decades now. I Generally prefer the ones who abuse it. T-Pain for example, you can hear it when he starts singing.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxRvDpF2FDA[/video]

Justin Beiber makes me sick and I wish that he gets hit by a boat.

Here is Rebecca Black WITHOUT Autotune:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTNquPzvbWY[/video]

Here is the one WITH Autotune and you can actually hear it if you listen closely:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OxWD85Ngz4[/video]

This is why I mainly listen to Classic Rock, Punk, Ska and Metal. No Autotune. Even though I don't like American Idol it is getting NON-Autotunable people in the mix(meaning they have to prove themselves singers with out it) As noted at the top I like Rap too... when Autotune is abused and because it works great with the system I have in my car. I like music, not lyrics.

I like a lot of bands from the 80s as well. U2 was alright, but I am no so sure that they are the greatest act in the last 25yrs. There are plenty of bands that could fit that category. Nirvana and Metallica just to name a few, BUT they are not in the same genre being Grunge and Metal, respectively. For the type of music U2 plays, then sure.
That's right, I said it...
 
catman
I like almost everything pre-Autotune (or non-Autotune), even country, but most rap is simply beyond the pale. It isn't racist on my part because I love James Brown, Wilson Pickett, the Supremes, etc, and a jazz musician who is racist is only fooling himself. But I just can't take much rap. It seems designed only to loosen quarter-panels on cars and wake up the neighborhood at 0200. I love bass as much as anyone (I play it professionally!), but that isn't at all the same thing as synthesisized low-frequency sounds which test the cone excursion of your woofers and not much else.
 
Bob of QF
Yep.. that was the no-talent hack I was thinking of.

Dreadful drek....

... as for rap? I've heard a couple that were not that bad, mainly because I could actually understand the words, and they had something worthwhile to say to me. But mostly, it's just repetitious anti-establishment speech, or so it seems to me. Not my cuppa.

I like the older stuff mostly, but an actual musician who has talent (no autotune), I'll listen. I like to listen to live recordings, if possible-- you get a better feel for the performer's actual abilities I think, no polished editing with live stuff. If, it's real... alas I've not forgotten the lesson of Milli Vanilli [sp]...

Cannot stand country, mainly because it's both shallow and unmusical (to my tastes).

Classical? I like that. Jazz? Love it. I even dabble in the Big Band stuff occasionally.

Modern stuff? Not so much-- don't care for heavy metal, or punk rock or anything that has the performers screaming their lung-tissue onto the audience....

My 2 and a half cents and another quarter still won't buy you a cuppa joe...
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
I try to keep an open mind, but the lyrics of most rap seem to be macho boasting. I admit that I have liked a few rap tunes which were either humorous or undeniably catchy.

I think some country is a lot more like the kind of rock I liked back in the 70s than most new rock is, with a fiddle and pedal steel added. I like some of it, althouhg it isn't my favorite music. That would be classic rock, classical and jazz (not necessarily in that order...it depends on what I feel like listening to).
 
Bob of QF
Yes to your last line-- it depends on what I feel like listening to.

That is why I dumped my classic iPod-- in classic CrApple fashion, you can't... you just can't...

Pfft Smile

I like choosing my music on the fly, as I go, based on impulses of the moment-- but I always listen to at least one whole album at a time-- I have very few stand-alone songs.

And with the crap interface on iPods, you just can't do that easily-- they have no on the go playlist creations. You are forced to connect the shit to iTunes... which means a computer. Wait. What?

If I had a computer along? Why do I need an iPod?

Smile

I very much like to pick my tunes based on the whims of the moment--- but I also like to cue up a selection of several albums, typically with random style, but have them play one after the other.

Can't do that on the go with iPods....

... on the other hand, I also like having my entire collection along for the ride too-- all 22 gigs worth, so I do not have to choose ahead of time. That venerable old iPod, with it's 160 gig spinning metal spoiled me in that regard.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
I seldom listen to music while I'm on the move. I usually listen to it through headphones in my living room, on either CDs or vinyl. I have no experience with iPods or mp3 players, I'm afraid. I have a couple of portable CD platers with built-in AM/FM tuners (Sony Discman and Panasonic), but I seldom use them. I'm usually listening to a ham radio in the car, and on the motorcycle, I don't think it's a very good idea to be distracted (and the wind noise inside the helmet is rather high on the highway).
 
Bob of QF
yeah, music on a bike is problematic... if you have it loud enough to hear?

Everyone in the county can hear it too... kinda rude.

Grin
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
I would have to listen to music on my motorcycle through spealers inside the helmet (which I always wear), much like headphones. But the wind noise at speed inside the helmet would mean that the music would have to be extremely loud to come out on top, and I wouldn't like that or the distraction. I have to be able to hear the police sirens or the cops are really angry. Smile
 
JohnH
Yes I admit that much of rap is insulting to women. I reject that but I do not think that all of rap is that way. I offer two that I think hit home as regards life in the us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WHe5fxS3dA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxV8QGfjLNo&feature=related

And yes I say fuck the police.
 
catman
Yeah, the second one Fuck The Police was more entertaining, partly because of its shock value/bluntness. But musically, you must admit it ain't much. As a polemic, it was great.

I just have to wonder whether or not any of those dudes would give any white guy an even break. We are all ofays, dig? (I have a semi-auto AK myself.)
 
JDHURF
U2 is so bland. All of their material sounds the same to me. I don't understand the hype.
 
Jump to Forum: