Lol, no biggie, I wouldnt get upset because someone doesnt like them. If your dad was Wingers bass player, I still wouldnt feel bad about saying how I hate Winger...

I only know Barracuda and Magic Man, but they're pretty good songs. I don't know if they're Hall Of Fame material, though.

I dunno, U2 persevered into the 90's and produced some pretty great stuff... Achtung Baby, Zooopa and about half of Pop make for some pretty scintillating listening, in my opinion... pity about all the backwards steps and conversatism of their two most recent new releases... ughh, mostly awful rehashes of their eighties sound with traces of their nineties greatness... all done with less quality than both eras... it feels like a once great band has sunken to a parody... and "get on your Boots' really hasn't helped me to like them better recently...

When "Barracuda" is the only song you can remember from a group you've spent some time listening to, you know they're piss. Screw Heart, the Rock & Roll HOF, and the moronic journalists who continue to foster musical ignorance to generations of readers even today.

On U2 for a minute though....the problem with them for me (in my humble opinion) is that their overall sound, whether it was their stadium-rock antics from the 80's (Boy, The Joshua Tree, etc...all crap) or their "We inspired R.E.M so lets try to do college rock better than them" 90's tripe, are simply the kind of group that aren't worth the listening time and analysis people seem to give them. I've heard better, seen better, READ better lyrics after hearing them. So why should I be interested in giving them attention? Because they're popular? Because their music can "touch your emotions"? Big freakin' whoop. EVERY band I listen to on a regular basis have the capacity to reach someone's emotions, and most of them manage to do it in ways so innovatively stark that Bono's little mind would probably explode trying to understand them. That is if he can shut up about children in Africa long enough to get some decent music down his ears anyway.

I'll say this though. Considering all the sellouts and ****ty bands who cite them as an influence, I will thank U2 for providing such a conspicuous standard (a foundation even) of what I know is worth my time and what isn't. :laughing:

God dammit, this isnt supposed to be a U2 thread.. We all know they will get into the RR HOF, regardless of whether we like them or not....

None of you even like Mistral Wind? I think that is their most underrated song ever....

I'm puzzled by your comparison of 90s-era U2 with REM. If anything, the 90s saw U2 moving further away from REM stylistically. Late 80s U2 albums like The Joshua Tree and Rattle & Hum were quite a bit more in sync with REM's more rootsy aesthetic than their more electronic-leaning albums like Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Pop.

I'll always side with REM in the whole REM vs. U2 debate, mainly because I am a huge REM fan and a casual, critical U2 listener...

But perhaps this topic is overrunning this board... anyone wanna make a REM vs. U2 board, feel free, I'll be one of the first to post on it...

I don't give a damn about the Rn'R HOF, real Rock n' Roll doesn't need nor desire any sort of ****-stain museum for it.

And **** REM and U2, I'm sick of fish-faced british false-rock bands dominating the hipster empire of the modern day world.

REM are from Athens, Georgia, I believe, so their british - ness is debatable on those grounds alone... But I get your point anyways...

Getting back to the topic at hand... Yes, I believe Heart should be inducted in the hall of fame... they have made significant contributions to the rock canon, especially in terms of bringing in a female perspective to what can be sometimes an overtly male influenced genre...

Go listen to The Runaways and The Frightwigs, they make Heart look like a soggy **** on the highway.

Georgia. . . King George, yep british enough for me.