This mad thread keeps appearing in the Rock window on the main page, and it's as obtuse as ever to me. What does "commercially overrated" mean.....?

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
Shit, they're 10X better than the Stones were after a quarter century.

Meh. They're about the same. U2 had the potential to be more politically effective than RS but both are just about sales.

So Bono's going to "buy" the Nobel Peace Prize? Oh sorry, I forgot; everybody does.

Maybe he can purchase Arafat's on Ebay. Just a thought.

I agree that the last two albums were overrated.
Pop is deemed a failure by most critics, but I'd rather have an album full of experiments by someone who is interested in change than an album made by someone with the idea to copy their previous succesful sound.
That said, of course the albums are a lot better than most of the oter stuff.

Yeah but have you heard the song Stuck in a Moment lately. Brilliant.

quote:

Originally posted by Helpy:
Yeah but have you heard the song Stuck in a Moment lately. Brilliant.

Meh.

quote:

Originally posted by Helpy:
Yeah but have you heard the song Stuck in a Moment lately. Brilliant.

If I was a musician and put a quarter in the Pop-Song vending machine, this is the type of song that I'd expect to hit the tray. Maybe our ideas of brilliant differ?

yeah... they're brilliant, 100 million people see it my way. U2 are prolific, they'll be rocking long after you've hung up your <air>guitar.
FYI. "All That You Can't leave behind" was a masterpiece. Now you know that

ALL THAT YOU CAN'T LEAVE BEHIND is a commercial masterpiece, in the same way that Pepsi achieved to sale its products to everybody without discrimination of class, race, or else.
You buy it and listen to it unconsiously, because everybody does it anyway, so you have to. It became a reflex, so it's a big achievement in a way. This album isn't bad at all, it's pretty enjoyable, it sounds good, but to me and a lot of people it doesn't deserve the top ALBUM OF THE YEAR from the academy.
It's just about economic performances, sales.

See them live and you'll be amazed at there power and presence. If relating to peoples emotions and vocalizing our inner thoughts becomes a commericail masterpiece then so be it. Rest assured these songs where writen to move hearts not dollars. Any artist will tell you they got into music because they love it, U2 were as surprised as anybody that they became known as they worlds greatest band. Pepsi hasn't even had a good album yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Helpy:
If relating to peoples emotions and vocalizing our inner thoughts becomes a commericail masterpiece then so be it.

Well, exploiting emotions to create sales is what Bono does best.

Exploiting is what you do when you're taking advantage of something. Does it make sense to say that U2 is exploiting the industry I don't feel they've somehow manipulated my emotions selfishly, they can play a F'ing tune for godsakes. Which is beyond local Calgary Radio. cjay92 blows ass.

Since a couple of years, they are using exactly the same pattern to build melodies; it's a formula. I don't think they really feel the need to rock inside them... they are too comfortable and they'll get off the bus soon.

It's been 26 years since Boy came out. It's a bit much to expect them to still be "groundbreaking" at this point in their career. The fact that they remain so incredibly popular is quite an achievement. I compare them to the Rolling Stones, but U2 has had much more album/chart success in their latter years. In this age of image-based popularity, it's amazing that these 40-somethings can still be seen on MTV (in those rare cases when they play videos).

If nothing else, I think their recent move towards the "formulaic" is a bit of over-correction from their over-reaching towards experimental dance music on Zooropa, and especially, Pop. Many of their long-time fans were really disenfranchised by those albums. Their last two have won a lot of those fans back. At this stage in their career, U2 is a band for the people.

U2 has been there for many of the most-important times of the second-half of my life. Sure, the last two albums DO retread some of their earlier material, but any band that put out War and Zooropa and has never, in my opinion, put out SHITE, deserves to rest on their laurels (or whatever euphemism you prefer. )

Actually, POP was a good album. The fans reaction to this one wasn't great but there's a lot of good material here. It's about the same with Zooropa.

They finally came back on their trone with 2000's ATYCLB and 2004 HTDAAB. I think they could have put out just one very good album by mixing the best of both; this one would have been awsome! Old fashion U2 with today's sound.

quote:

Originally posted by Helpy:
Exploiting is what you do when you're taking advantage of something. Does it make sense to say that U2 is exploiting the industry

No, Bono exploits the plight of Africa and the emotional responce to it in order to create sales. He doesn't give a rat's ass about anything but money. F*ck him.
Here's Ed The Sock with more details:
Part 1
Part 2
Timeline

I will admit that I actually read through that "report" with all its broken links, links to Amazon.com, links to anti-Bush sites, links to U2/Bono interviews, reviews of albums and concerts, a timeline of U2's history, and except for, to quote ex-Nixon press secretary Ron Ziegler (I admit he turned out to be full of it), all there was were "lies, innuendo, and half-truths" to "substantiate" crazed accusations that support Bono as a money grabber (he very well may be, but getting pissed about it with shitty "proof"?) The conclusions are that U2 "appears" to be rich, they "seem to own" a lot of Dublin, Bono doesn't pay taxes in Ireland, "apparently", and, without a shred of proof, U2 are apparently making millions off their concerts for Live-Aid and the Tsunami [probably because somebody must be making millions and Bono was on the Time magazine cover with Bill and Melinda Gates (the Unholy Trinity.)] Actually my fave is this from the Timeline: "No album to promote = no Bono at WEF." Let's hang him by his platinum balls!!

I'm sure U2 is rich. Does anybody know anybody who bought a U2 album in lieu of donating to a cause or actually bought their music, specifically made for fundraising, without donating? I don't, but I realize that I'm different.

I guess if Bono was actually getting rich from these charity events while no money went to the charities, that would be a different story. But whether he gets publicity from it or not, the guy's still doing a lot of charity work, and he's undoubtedly doing more than most people of his stature.

Would you respect the guy more if he just sat in his mansion all day counting his millions?