U2 hasn't made a decent record since the Joshua Tree.
Achtung Baby and Zooropa were less than "decent?" Everyone would do well I think to ditch the U2 hate train. If nothing else it's too fucking easy.
Edit: ditto to the Sonic Youth and Wilco suggestions--SY's last three albums are all among their very best, which is saying an awful lot, and Wilco, whatever you think about Tweedy's "laptop" proclivities, make some of the most imaginative, relevant pop music there is right now.
I'll second the vote for RHCP, though. Californication was pretty interesting because it didn't just mope around in its maturity like By the Way did. Haven't heard the new one, though, so I guess I can't *really* talk.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bryan_K,
U2 hasn't made a decent record since the Joshua Tree.
Achtung Baby and Zooropa were less than "decent?" Everyone would do well I think to ditch the U2 hate train. If nothing else it's too fucking easy.
Edit: ditto to the Sonic Youth and Wilco suggestions--SY's last three albums are all among their very best, which is saying an awful lot, and Wilco, whatever you think about Tweedy's "laptop" proclivities, make some of the most imaginative, relevant pop music there is right now.
I'll second the vote for RHCP, though. Californication was pretty interesting because it didn't just mope around in its maturity like By the Way did. Haven't heard the new one, though, so I guess I can't *really* talk.
OK, to be fair, U2 didn't become god-awful until 'Atomic Bomb'... on a related note, this is a very funny cricism of the album. It points out, in a humorous (but scathing) manner how ridiculous the entire concept is. If you don't like offensive material, don't go to this link.
Don't listen to Sonic Youth much, so I won't comment on that whole bit.
As far as Wilco, I like everything Tweedy has ever made, from his Uncle Tupelo days to 'Being There' to the sublime pop moments of 'A Ghost Is Born'. They're all different, and they're all great.
U2 hasn't made a decent record since the Joshua Tree.
Achtung Baby and Zooropa were less than "decent?" Everyone would do well I think to ditch the U2 hate train. If nothing else it's too fucking easy.
Agreed. Acthung Baby is an amazing album, that I think actually outshines The Joshua Tree. And Zooropa, although it kind of fizzles out in it's second half, is one of the most original things put out by an established rock band. They pissed of a lot of fans with that album, but the first 6 songs are incredible.
As for the new U2 stuff, It's not as good as their old stuff, but I still contend that you could do alot worse than U2. I mean I'd much rather listen to "Vertigo" than 90% of the crap on modern rock radio.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
I feel like I want to keep U2 around because they might be good for another really good album. I think it all depends on whether they care about making good music... so who knows maybe all they got left is another ipod commercial.
who should definitely reitre? Robert Smith totally. What an old man. Still dresses the same too. And fucking Morissey. God I hate that man. Just go away please Morissey I'm begging you. I never want to see your god damn moping face again.
And oh yes the Red hot chilli peppers. What a horribly bad band that is. How many good songs have they wrote in their 10 year career? One maybe three. They were retarded when they started, and they are still retarded today in a different way.
Originally posted by subrock: And oh yes the Red hot chilli peppers. What a horribly bad band that is. How many good songs have they wrote in their 10 year career? One maybe three. They were retarded when they started, and they are still retarded today in a different way.
Actually their career is more like 20+ years, and they really played a pretty big part in popularizing alternative music. Since you only know of their career over the last ten years, I'm assuming you've never heard anything prior to 1995's One Hot Minute. Mother's Milk and Blood Sugar Sex Magic are both pretty impressive albums, with more than a "few good songs" between them. Additionally, from a technical standpoint, Flea and John Frusciante are two of the most talented musicians in alternative rock.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
ah yea you're right, I forgot I lived in 2006. I've heard and owned Blood Sugar Sex Magic (but not one hot minute or mother's milk). Its the most overrated album ever. I was like 14 when I heard it and thought it was dumb. I'm 20 and I really haven't changed my opinion about it. Besides "under the bridge", the album manages to be stupid, misogynistic, and boring pretty much the whole way through.
Seriously, how do you combine punk and funk and make it sound so incredibly boring and stupid.
To their credit, "under the bridge" is an amazing song but if your career spans 20 years, you better have at least one song that is amazing. John Frusciante is also an interesting character, he strikes me as the only member in that band that has a genuine interest in exploring music. Flea I would put into the Les Claypool category of "good bass player but otherwise boring". The main culprit is obvioulsy the lead singer, who really has no redeeming qualities to him. His voice is horrible, his lyrics are dumb, and for a Iggy Pop look alike, is incredibly unsexy.
This isn't necessarily a slam on you, but there's a ton of music I hated when I was 14, or 20, or even 25, that I appreciate and enjoy today. Though coincidentally, I was 14 when I first heard RCHP and bought my copy of Mother's Milk. I will admit the band's been in a rut lately, but RCHP's contributions to music are far from negligible.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
The Who definitely need to retire. Daltrey's voice has never been strong anyway. Their cutting edge rock in the 60s made his voice bearable, but no longer. The Stones also need to spend their time on the beach of Barbados (provided that Richards stay out of the palm trees). Jagger's awkward movements (I just can't call it dancing) expressed the raw sexuality of their music in their prime. Now, it is sad to watch. Their new music sounds like their old music poorly rehashed. Any band that plays more for money than the love of their craft should quit. And, finally I agree with the contributor who suggested that Dylan stop touring. Yes, keep writing, and even recording because you can sing it 100 times until the lyric is understandable; but to listen to Dylan mumble in concert evokes deep grief in those who once hung on his every word to help us understand the turbulent 60s.
Um, why did Bon Jovi even form a "band" to begin with? This guy thought a rock band was the fastest avenue to stardom. So he (sambora) cranks out some mediocre cheese and people actually enjoy it? jon bon jovi should just admit he's a hack and quit embarrassing himself.
Originally posted by futureman83: Um, why did Bon Jovi even form a "band" to begin with? This guy thought a rock band was the fastest avenue to stardom. So he (sambora) cranks out some mediocre cheese and people actually enjoy it? jon bon jovi should just admit he's a hack and quit embarrassing himself.
Ehh, I don't mind a little Bon Jovi from time to time. Maybe it's because I grew up with it. I remember buying Slippery When Wet on vinyl when I was about 12. I still own it BTW.
I went through a period in my Indie-snob years (which I'm finally over, thank God), where I considered them cheesy as well, so I can kind of see where you're coming from. But, if you compare Bon Jovi with most of the other stuff from that time period, in that genre, their music has held up pretty well, so I wouldn't really call them hacks.
However, I fully admit that just about everything they've put out since 1990 is either crap or a retread of something great they did in the 80s. So, maybe they should at least refrain from making albums and stick to touring.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Well, bottom line is they have produced some very shallow anthems. bon jovi somehow slipped through critical disdain and have gotten by with a wink and a smile.
Originally posted by futureman83: Well, bottom line is they have produced some very shallow anthems. bon jovi somehow slipped through critical disdain and have gotten by with a wink and a smile.
Well, of course their music is shallow. Bon Jovi isn't some intellectual band, and I don't think they were ever really critical darlings. I don't believe that was really ever their intent in making music, however, and therefore I'm willing to cut them some slack.
I'm guessing you look at music strictly as an intellectual excercise. That it should all be deep, meaningful, and high art, right?
If so, you're missing out on a lot of music that's just plain fun.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Originally posted by Rev. Rikard: And, finally I agree with the contributor who suggested that Dylan stop touring. Yes, keep writing, and even recording because you can sing it 100 times until the lyric is understandable; but to listen to Dylan mumble in concert evokes deep grief in those who once hung on his every word to help us understand the turbulent 60s.
I saw Dylan a couple of months ago for the first time. Although I was in awe of actually seeing the man in person, I thought it was an excellent show. Sure, his voice is pretty much shot, but I'll gladly pay to see those songs being played by him any time.
Originally posted by L. R. William Spencer: I'm just curious... what's good about 'How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb'?
Hardly an amazing album, paling in comparison to "All That You Can't Leave Behind" (which I think is second only to their best work, like "The Joshua Tree" or "War") and it was a semi-conscious effort on the band's part to re-create some "Joshua Tree" kind of vibe, but I'd say about half of "Atomic Bomb" is very good-- "Miracle Drug," "Love and Peace (Or Else)," "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own" (one of their most moving songs ever, as far as I'm concerned), "All Because of You," "Vertigo" (which sounds like old-school "I Will Follow")-- whereas the rest is pretty much mediocre, but not entirely awful. Every band with a big catalog like U2 is going to have weak, or weakish, spots.
U2 has some painfully corny parts, which I think most interpret as "weak." Particularly lyrically, and particularly on "Atomic Bomb," but that's Bono. I KNOW, or I can TELL, that he genuinely means what he says-- at least to me, I've "drinken the Kool Aid," as it were-- even if it is trite. I think Bono is unstoppable idealist and Edge makes an unstoppable guitar sound. Both of together with a durable, versatile rhythm section who let Bono take most of the camera time and you've got the next Beatles or Rolling Stones.
Like it or not, though, U2 are here to stay. They sailed through 20-25 years with relative ease (easier than, say, the Chili Peppers) because the bandmates are also best friends.
Everyone would do well I think to ditch the U2 hate train. If nothing else it's too fucking easy.
