Originally Posted by mankycaaant

Want to know what I think of U2. I wrote this rough analysis of them the other night.

U2 are one of those world renowned bands. Recognized globally, hailed as superstars. If I were to ask the average person to name one Irish musician, what are the odds Bono would be a top answer on Family Fortunes. Rather low I would assume.

I think most are familiar with the singles, The Beautiful Day’s, The With or Without You’s and the Vertigo’s, but how many have actually listened to an entire u2 album. Prior to last night I hadn’t. And what better place to start than what many consider to be the groups masterpiece; Joshua Tree.

Have you ever had someone come up to you and present you their work?
Be it a painting, a mixtape, a creation, **** even a loved one presenting a self-made birthday present. We’ve all received something of the kind.

Now they’re proud of their work, they’ve put effort into it and come over to wherever you may find yourself. You know what’s going to happen; the gleam in their eyes, the look of anticipation as they can’t wait to share their work with others. You take a copy, assuring the creator that you’re sure it will be as good as their enthusiastic bounce in their step would suggest. When they leave you with said work and are out of sight you can drop the fake smile because you know despite their best efforts, the work in question just isn’t very good.

That was Joshua Tree for me.

I can see what Bono and co were going for with this album, they had wanted to create an album of memorable slow ballads, hoping that in a state of depression after drinking alone one night I may choose to belt out the lyrics to ‘Still haven’t found what I’m looking for’ whilst pondering why life hasn’t followed the path I envisioned, or whilst rolling the last cigarette back and forward on an empty bar counter despairing over a lost loved one I may recite the lyrics to With or Without You. Yes, for some those feelings may be relatable to this album. For me, they weren’t.

How am I to feel these emotions, when the man trying to convince me this is how I feel doesn’t believe it himself. The album felt flat, devoid of real emotion. Bono a man who’s trying to bluff his way from ballad to ballad trying to deceive the listener into thinking that he believes.

He doesn’t.

This is blatantly apparent to me, and thus leaving the entire record with a lackluster feeling as it just feels so manufactured, so insincere.
The music itself is nothing complicated, I can’t help but feel this wasn’t an album for anal music analysts, as I stated above I believe this album was aimed at the floating voters, those who are so confused in their mindset that perhaps they feel Bono is relating to their predicament, singing about them. He’s not, he’s not sure what he’s singing about.

Now, I can imagine myself nodding along to more or less any of the tracks on this album if they come over contemporary radio whilst driving one night, there’s nothing wrong with the songs for that purpose. Had this just been a pop album, which knew its boundaries I may be hailing this is a really good record. However the feeling that U2 are trying to present this collection of attempted crowd pleasers as something more than they are is inescapable.

The album begins by immediately throwing out the three hits back to back, Streets Have No Name, Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For and With or Without You are all decent pop songs. I have no real issue with them, and featuring them on a compilation album with some other assorted u2 hits from their discography may create a pretty good Greatest Hits record.

However, taking your three radio hits and throwing them out back to back is brave. This means that from the fourth track to the albums end, the band must rely on album material to hold the listeners interest. And, to be honest with this much filler chock a block with more insincerities the albums does little to hold my now waning interest.

Perhaps it began to slip with Bono creating a political tirade referencing the under privileged citizens of the world and how far we’ve come from the Bible’s teachings or something along those lines.
Hell, he could have been talking about anything, it just causes me to turn off. Bono alludes to being just a regular guy trying to change the world.

What he fails to realize is he is no regular man, he’s a multi-million earning rockstar who try as he might just can’t convey the thoughts and feelings of a regular guy. This may be why the record feels so flat, Bono just isn’t convincing in his role, portraying a part he was never born to play.

If he’d have begun to sing about his wealth, doing drugs and the many woman I’m sure he’s pelted in his time, perhaps I could have enjoyed this album more. It would have felt more real, less fabricated.

Now I get the impression Bono is a nice guy and bad mouthing him brings me no satisfaction but when he tries to paint himself as an ambassador for the common thinking man, it irks me. He does not fill this role, it is not him. It’s like the legions of privately educated hip hop artists pretending to be gangsters. It is so obviously fabricated that it’s impossible to buy into.

Therein lies the issue with Joshua Tree, whilst it spawns several good pop songs, it tries to be so much more than it should have and in the end falls flat on its face taking on far more weight than it could carry.

Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle

I would say that U2 is not a bad band but like most rock bands, they are at best, either average or horrible. I would say they are average. They have laughable guitarists

Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle

but they have a grerat lead singer in Bono is a great human being who has a heart for everyone. I would add that Bono is someone who you can meet and feel great about. I would love to Bono only. He is a great person to me.

Now does that U2 is overrated? Of course. However they are some more laughable rock bands than U2. U2 are only good because of Bono. Bono makes them a good band but nothing special.

Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle

I mean Radiohead is not the only not so special band but also don't forget about Rush, Nirvana, and Alice in Chains. They are no better than U2. In fact it could be that Rush is more laughable than U2. I would also say the same about Alice in Chains.

So when I say what rock bands are good. One of them is U2 but the only reason is because of Bono.

Originally Posted by mord

Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

Originally Posted by mankycaaant

So according to you Queen have a lot of artistic ability, but Radiohead don't?

Originally Posted by The Virgin

what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.

Originally Posted by Forward To Death

On the subject of Queen being novelty, they were definitely corny and fun-sounding. I wouldn't call them novelty because they had a lot of artistic ability.

I also agree with everyone who's said Radiohead is overrated. Good lord, it feels like every person who listens to them is obsessed with them, and thinks that there is no valid reasoning as to why any other band could possibly be your favorite.

Radiohead fans are pretentious and they debate each other over stupid crap like how because The King Of Limbs has so many layers that it's their best album so far, even though it sounds like complete horse****.

Originally Posted by Duraddict

Radiohead is definitely overrated. And if you say you don't like them, fans claim that it's just because it's "fashionable" to dislike them.

How about not liking Thom Yorke's horrendous voice that sounds like a cat being forced to gargle with rocks.