U2 on Letterman for a week

[TripletDaddy]

They're probably so ashamed of being the biggest rock band in history.

you should stick to medicine and darwin, which seem to be your established strong points.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

A good example would be The Stones. While I am not sure they are being pathetic, their current music is completely irrelevant. However, they are wise businessmen, as they have made fortunes touring every few years on their back catalogue from 15-30 years ago.

My guess is that we will see U2 in 15 more years, still putting out increasingly lame albums and selling out arenas all over, with a playlist that looks essentially like their greatest hit discs.

The Stones are about 15 years older than U2. They came out with an album back in 93 or 94 called, I think, Voodoo Lounge. And then they did a tour to support the album. They had this video for one of the songs where it had these emaciated models as giants walking around the city. The song totally blew, and I was around 17 at the time and NO ONE my age gave a crap about the Stones. Ironically, this was also the time when people started paying a lot of attention to 70s acts again like Clapton and Led Zeppelin.

Even though their new music blew, the Stones still weren't a total parody of themselves like what happened to Aerosmith. If they can still sell out venues and make a ton of money and not totally embarass themselves, then by all means do it. I just don't want these guys to act like they're on the cutting edge.

The biggest liability for U2 is also their biggest asset- they haven't crashed and burned and they've made a helluva lot of money. Their second biggest liability is that all of their fans are total geeks.

[RockyBalboa]

Their new song is downright shitty ass awful.

[Shaka]

I thought All That You Can't Leave Behind was an amazing album. In fact I liked it more than Achtung. Kite is one of my favorite songs ever.

[TripletDaddy]

Their new song is downright shitty ass awful.

And truthfully, you are simply being kind with that assessment.

[jay santos]

I liked their last two albums. The new song does suck. But Vertigo was the worst song on the last album, so I'm holding out hope. They try to connect with the younger generation with one pop song.

Their live concerts are what I love. They continue to tweak the old classics enough to keep them fresh.

[TripletDaddy]

I liked their last two albums. The new song does suck. But Vertigo was the worst song on the last album, so I'm holding out hope. They try to connect with the younger generation with one pop song.

Their live concerts are what I love. They continue to tweak the old classics enough to keep them fresh.

This is basically The Stones formula. New music increasingly more and more irrelevant.

Tour based off the oldies.

Rake in a pile of cash.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[ERCougar]

you should stick to medicine and darwin, which seem to be your established strong points.

Which part of that do you disagree with. That U2 is making a lot of money with their lame antics? Or that they're the biggest rock band in history? I'm assuming the latter, although I wonder which band has been bigger for longer...The Stones may have a claim to this, but U2 has arguably stayed far more relevant for longer, and they're not done.

I was a big U2 fan up through Achtung. Unforgettable Fire and War are still two of my favorite albums. I haven't paid much attention to them since Pop came out, but I haven't paid attention to much new music at all. They're still getting talked about. As bad as their latest release is, it's still getting lots of play. When's the last time anyone talked about Mick Jagger?

[TripletDaddy]

Which part of that do you disagree with. That U2 is making a lot of money with their lame antics? Or that they're the biggest rock band in history? I'm assuming the latter, although I wonder which band has been bigger for longer...The Stones may have a claim to this, but U2 has arguably stayed far more relevant for longer, and they're not done.

I was a big U2 fan up through Achtung. Unforgettable Fire and War are still two of my favorite albums. I haven't paid much attention to them since Pop came out, but I haven't paid attention to much new music at all. They're still getting talked about. As bad as their latest release is, it's still getting lots of play. When's the last time anyone talked about Mick Jagger?

The latter.

U2 was nowhere near as big or as important as the Beatles.

The Beatles impact as a cultural phenomenon and the anchor of the British Invasion of the US could probably fill an entire thread worth of discussion. The pioneered new music techniques. Clothes...hairstyles...etc... They popularized the music/movie concept and really were amongst the first to make "videos," albeit rudimentary ones. They have recorded what is widely considered by critics to be the greatest album of all-time and several of their records are in the top 50 or so of all-time. Also, and perhaps most telling...the Beatles grew exponentially better with each record. Moving past Sgt pepper, consider albums from that time period like White, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road......just amazing stuff.

Bono's political activism is rooted in everything Lennon did first. Amsterdam Hilton, Ballad of John and Yoko, Montreal Bed-In, Nixon tries to get the INS to deport him, from the US, friends with Abbie Hoffman, the FBI keeping hundreds of pages of files on him, and he and Yoko even creating a country....Nutopia! Bono, by contrast, sold his music to Target for a commercial.

As you said, and I agree, U2 peaked a long time ago and have been putting out largely forgettable albums for the past decade. Unforgettable Fire, War, Boy, Joshua Tree...all excellent albums, though.

I do admit that the Beatles mystique was "enhanced" my the assassination of John Lennon, but The Beatles, both as a band and as solo artists (not so much Ringo) have probably made more of an impact on music than any other band in history. U2 is nowhere near that level.

Once again, as with basketball, once you start talking about greatests of all time, the bar gets raised. I have long admitted that U2 is amongst the most popular bands of the last few decades, no question.

EDIT: one other thing....U2's concert on the roof in LA......gee, I wonder where they got that idea?...

[ERCougar]

The latter.

U2 was nowhere near as big or as important as the Beatles.

The Beatles impact as a cultural phenomenon and the anchor of the British Invasion of the US could probably fill an entire thread worth of discussion. The pioneered new music techniques. Clothes...hairstyles...etc... They popularized the music/movie concept and really were amongst the first to make "videos," albeit rudimentary ones. They have recorded what is widely considered by critics to be the greatest album of all-time and several of their records are in the top 50 or so of all-time. Also, and perhaps most telling...the Beatles grew exponentially better with each record. Moving past Sgt pepper, consider albums from that time period like White, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road......just amazing stuff.

Bono's political activism is rooted in everything Lennon did first. Amsterdam Hilton, Ballad of John and Yoko, Montreal Bed-In, Nixon tries to get the INS to deport him, from the US, friends with Abbie Hoffman, the FBI keeping hundreds of pages of files on him, and he and Yoko even creating a country....Nutopia! Bono, by contrast, sold his music to Target for a commercial.

As you said, and I agree, U2 peaked a long time ago and have been putting out largely forgettable albums for the past decade. Unforgettable Fire, War, Boy, Joshua Tree...all excellent albums, though.

I do admit that the Beatles mystique was "enhanced" my the assassination of John Lennon, but The Beatles, both as a band and as solo artists (not so much Ringo) have probably made more of an impact on music than any other band in history. U2 is nowhere near that level.

Once again, as with basketball, once you start talking about greatests of all time, the bar gets raised. I have long admitted that U2 is amongst the most popular bands of the last few decades, no question.

EDIT: one other thing....U2's concert on the roof in LA......gee, I wonder where they got that idea?...

Read again...didn't say "greatest". "Biggest".

The Beatles still might have an argument if you consider all the covers that have been done. And like you point out--the cultural and musical impact. But as far as cumulative bigness of their actual production (what the band releases), I still think U2 takes it.

EDIT: I see your point...I answered before really reading your post. I guess it just bugs me that it seems to be the cool thing to bag on U2, when I think it's impressive to put out music that a lot of people will buy for that long, be it U2 or Neil Diamond. I also don't think U2 gets nearly enough credit for their innovation in their early albums. Boy is a very different album from Joshua Tree, which is a very different sound from Achtung Baby, and so on. I really can't comment on their recent stuff as I've become decidedly lame since getting married and all I know is what I hear on the radio.

[creekster]

Read again...didn't say "greatest". "Biggest".

The Beatles still might have an argument if you consider all the covers that have been done. And like you point out--the cultural and musical impact. But as far as cumulative bigness of their actual production (what the band releases), I still think U2 takes it.

SO what is bigness? the numer of tracks? Yhe total length of recorded material? Album sales?

[Shaka]

I'm a huge fan of both bands. to me the Beatles mystique is huge because they were the first. Everyone who comes after will always be lumped in to those who were influenced by but not as great as The Beatles.

Again Lennon was sort of the prototype rock activist but a vastly prefer Bono's approach. I've always thought that if I knew John Lennon on a personal level I'd think he was a tool.

[ERCougar]

SO what is bigness? the numer of tracks? Yhe total length of recorded material? Album sales?

Well, that's why I used the term "bigness"--I can't think of a good substitute. Sort of a combination of album sales (or I guess, mp3 downloads?), concert tickets, awards, etc. If we're talking impact on music, then we seem to be talking more about greatness.

[Surfah]

I guess it just bugs me that it seems to be the cool thing to bag on U2, when I think it's impressive to put out music that a lot of people will buy for that long, be it U2 or Neil Diamond.

I have never purchased a single U2 album. I don't have a single U2 song on my hard drive or ipod.

[TripletDaddy]

Read again...didn't say "greatest". "Biggest".

The Beatles still might have an argument if you consider all the covers that have been done. And like you point out--the cultural and musical impact. But as far as cumulative bigness of their actual production (what the band releases), I still think U2 takes it.

EDIT: I see your point...I answered before really reading your post. I guess it just bugs me that it seems to be the cool thing to bag on U2, when I think it's impressive to put out music that a lot of people will buy for that long, be it U2 or Neil Diamond. I also don't think U2 gets nearly enough credit for their innovation in their early albums. Boy is a very different album from Joshua Tree, which is a very different sound from Achtung Baby, and so on. I really can't comment on their recent stuff as I've become decidedly lame since getting married and all I know is what I hear on the radio.

Actually, I always feel like it is NOT the cool thing to bag on U2. In fact, when I first admitted to not really digging U2 a few days ago, I even prefaced it with an admission that I was about to commit heresy. Maybe there are more U2 detractors than I had thought, but I generally keep my U2 feelings under wraps for fear of flogging and stoning.

While not sure how to measure which band is the "biggest," wiki says this about Sgt Pepper....

It has been on many lists of the best rock albums,[24] including Rolling Stone, Bill Shapiro, Alternative Melbourne, Rod Underhill and VH1. In 1987 Rolling Stone named Sgt. Pepper the greatest album of the last twenty years (1967-1987).[25] In 1997 Sgt. Pepper was named the number 1 greatest album of all time in a 'Music of the Millennium' poll conducted by HMV, Channel 4, The Guardian and Classic FM. In 1998 Q magazine readers placed it at number 7, while in 2003 the TV network VH1 placed it at number 10;[26] In 2003, the album was ranked number 1 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time.[4] In 2006, the album was chosen by Time Magazine as one of the 100 best albums of all time.[27] In 2002, Q magazine placed it at number 13 in its list of the 100 Greatest British Albums Ever.[28] In 2003, it was one of 50 recordings chosen by the Library of Congress to be added to the National Recording Registry.

Keep in mind that all these awards were for only ONE of the Beatles records.

Rolling Stone's list of the Top 500 of all time.....4 of the top 10 are Beatles records, 6 of the top 25 if you also count Lennon's Plastic Ono Band. By contrast, U2's highest ranked release, Joshua Tree, is ranked at 26. When you consider that the Beatles released about 12 or 13 studio albums, to have 5 of them considered to be amongst the top 25 greatest albums of all time....that is a pretty sweet slugging percentage.

A look at the rolling stone list...admittedly only one list and not necessarily definitive.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...s_of_all_time/