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.
Linear Mode
