U2, what's the point? • Non-Gaming • Music • Eurogamer.net

Deleted user 16 February 2005 14:30:49

It just strikes me that they're minted and there really is no point left since they're not exactly making political music any more and they just seem to be recycling the same stuff that's made them famous for years. I just don't understand their motivation above just being famous.

The same can be applied to any number of people like Tom Jones and the like that just seem to churn out stuff for the sake of something which I don't really understand.

Thoughts?

gamingdave 16 Feb 2005 14:32:24 5,087 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

Theyre musicians, they enjoy making music, they enjoy performing.

boo 16 Feb 2005 14:36:24 13,901 posts
Seen 20 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

They haven't done anything worth listening to since Achtung Baby.

Some bits of Zooropa I can just about cope with.
Otherwise, very boring indeed.

Beautiful Day? Should have given that one to Westlife!
And that piece of wallpaper he wrote cos he forgot his anniversary? Is this really the same band that recorded New Years Day?

/listen's to Marillion's new album, Marbles, and is pleasantly suprised

IronGiant 16 Feb 2005 14:36:32 6,352 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

Yup they must still get a kick out of it. I don't anymore though, all they can come up with nowadays is dull pop pap. Probably great band to see live though.

pjmaybe 16 Feb 2005 14:38:07 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

What Boo said. They're has beens. They're doing it for the money, oh and because Bono likes the thought that he'll somehow be the person that gets the debt dropped...

Peej

boo 16 Feb 2005 14:38:17 13,901 posts
Seen 20 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

IronGiant wrote:
Probably great band to see live though.

I saw the Zooropa show at Cardiff Arms Park - that was pretty good, but I've seen better.

WoodenSpoon 16 Feb 2005 14:39:01 12,360 posts
Seen 7 months ago
Registered 19 years ago

They make music = They make money

I always thought Bono (+ crew) did quite a bit for charity.

I don't want to listen to the music, but if it's doing some (a little bit of) good then I don't mind people spending their money on it.

Edited by WoodenSpoon at 14:39:59 16-02-2005

Tiger_Walts 16 Feb 2005 14:39:52 16,674 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

Related link.

WoodenSpoon 16 Feb 2005 14:40:28 12,360 posts
Seen 7 months ago
Registered 19 years ago

Heh!

I wonder what this announcement thing is that's meant to be coming this week.

Tiger_Walts 16 Feb 2005 14:41:07 16,674 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

boo wrote:
/listen's to Marillion's new album, Marbles, and is pleasantly suprised

Heh, Go Fish, eh?

/empties entire cloakroom

Deleted user 16 February 2005 14:43:08

They may not make political music anymore, but Bono dont 'arf seem to be right in there with ole' Blair and maybe the 3rd way or 'middle of the road approach' is rubbing off from the pm!

ssuellid 16 Feb 2005 14:43:08 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Bono comes across as an OKish bloke - even tho he is the principal songwriter the royalties are split evenly. Don't know if his efforts with politicians actually get him anywhere tho - maybe donating some cash or setting up publicity events would be better?

Musically I find them very bland - very copy and paste guitar sounds and exceptionally lame choruses and lyrics - which is a shame as there was some promise of great things in the 80s.

Deleted user 16 February 2005 14:46:02

"Theyre musicians, they enjoy making music, they enjoy performing."

I always get this reply and I'm confused, if that was true why do they have to do it on such a grand stage, if they really enjoy making music why do they have to endlessly promote themselves and make themselves stars?

I don't even class them as musicians really, more like entertainers, Edge is a rubbish guitarist and has never really evolved his style or his sound. Compare him to Jimmy Page and you wonder what he's been doing for the last Twenty years. Anyone can play like Edge, it just requires the use of lots of effects pedals.

sephy 16 Feb 2005 14:49:18 4,036 posts
Registered 18 years ago

I like U2. There current stuff isn't as good as their 80's stuff, but that doesn't make them a bad band. The only reason I have for complaint is this iPod thing.

I'd rather have average U2 then average pop wannabe's thankyouverymuch

Shinji 16 Feb 2005 15:00:49 5,902 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

What he said. Asking "what's the point" about any band is a ridiculous exercise from the outset. They sell a lot of albums, thus people must quite like them, thus they continue performing. It's not a difficult fucking concept, seriously.

Deleted user 16 February 2005 15:02:01

sephy wrote:
I like U2. There current stuff isn't as good as their 80's stuff, but that doesn't make them a bad band. The only reason I have for complaint is this iPod thing.

I'd rather have average U2 then average pop wannabe's thankyouverymuch

I guess I just have a bad reaction to wealth, even if they give to charity it doesn't mean a great deal when you're worth ten million and you give away fifty grand it's hardly going to make much impact on things.

I also get irked when superlatives are thrown at a band that they just don't deserve, even their earlier stuff isn't really that good imo.

ssuellid 16 Feb 2005 15:04:25 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

But other bands who sell well give up and sit on the cash, so why not U2? Doubt there are that many bands who perform purely because their fans like them to. Money might be an issue but not for U2.

Deleted user 16 February 2005 15:05:00

Shinji wrote:
What he said. Asking "what's the point" about any band is a ridiculous exercise from the outset. They sell a lot of albums, thus people must quite like them, thus they continue performing. It's not a difficult fucking concept, seriously.

Erm, the point is what drives bands to do this, I guess in my intellectually inferior world it just seems a bit pointless. If I made a few million I'd fuck off and give up and maybe do the odd free gig or something. I wouldn't feel the need to keep churning out uninteresting pap. You either get driven on by some need to make music or what's the point?

Edited by Mr Sleep at 15:06:23 16-02-2005

Deleted user 16 February 2005 15:08:11

Fruit_Salad wrote:
This is actually a "pointless" debate and this thread doesn't have a "point". Slightly ironic.

Only pointless because Shinji doesn't seem to think it has a point and neither do you. So am I to think that any opinion I have is to be passed by some monitor to make sure it conforms to Shinji and your opinion of what's important?

ssuellid 16 Feb 2005 15:09:39 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

/Totally agrees with Mr_Sleep.

What keeps U2 going whilst other successful bands give up?

Deleted user 16 February 2005 15:14:16

Fruit_Salad wrote:
OK good for you. But not everyone who is rich wants to just sit back and do nothing. Bono uses his fame and money to actually help charities rather than sit back and give up.

Oh I'd believe that if I didn't think that he'd dissapeared up his own arse years ago and it's nothing more than an ego thing.

That is your opinion. I'm sure the band wouldn't call their recent album uninteresting pap.

It's not exactly challenging though is it? The lyrics are about nothing in particular (as opposed to the song he wrote for his wife a few years ago, that was quite good and understandable) the music is the same they've been doing for years.

"The idea a band should stop just because you are part of the "not as good as they used to be"

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying they haven't evolved or devolved, they make the same music they always have imo. They're one experiemental album Pop was at least a bit interesting to me.

Load_2.0 16 Feb 2005 15:15:31 33,582 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

Just stop because you reach a certain level of success?

If valve said yeah Half Life 1 & 2 were great we made some cash so why keep making games?

Or if I said yeah ive had some great shags so why bother having any more.

There motivation is simply that they enjoy making music and people love hearing their music.

Me personally I like all their music new and old, the cliche'd "I like your old stuff better then your new stuff" (A funky regurgitator song btw) is the only tired aspect of U2 I'd like to stop.

Deleted user 16 February 2005 15:21:30

Akeldama wrote:
Well here's a radical idea. Just don't listen to their music. Why deprive the rest of us who enjoy the band's output of it just because you don't like it.

Unfortunately I have no choice but to listen to them.

"stop because you reach a certain level of success?"

Why not?

"If valve said yeah Half Life 1 & 2 were great we made some cash so why keep making games?"

Different example, they are clearly pushing themselves forward and have some drive, they probably haven't actually made that much money either since they're a reasonably sized company. Not four blokes.

"Or if I said yeah ive had some great shags so why bother having any more."

I'm fairly sure porno actors get bored of their jobs too

marilena 16 Feb 2005 15:22:07 8,238 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

I actually liked U2 until the latest album. That one's absolutely horrible. I usually can stand music I don'y particularly like, but the new U2 song I keep seeing at VH1 - Vertigo, I think - makes me want to puke. Awful, awful stuff.

Also, I dislike Bono profoundly. He is vocal about his view on politics, but said view is shallow and his efforts are pointless.

Still, I see no reason why they would have to stop. They still like what they do, there still is a public that wants them, so go on, I say. But stay off my bloody TV screen!

ssuellid 16 Feb 2005 15:22:29 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Fruit_Salad wrote:

ssuellid wrote:
/Totally agrees with Mr_Sleep.

What keeps U2 going whilst other successful bands give up?

I can't believe that a group of people [U2] are getting slagged for not giving up! Why on earth should they give up, isn't that abit like someone walking into where you work and shouting: "Give up!"
There are alot of successful business people who are very rich, would you tell them to give up what they find challenging and rewarding?

Can you not read or something? It was a simple question.

Here is a multiple choice option for you.

U2 keep going because....

a) money
b) they enjoy it ( as others say)
c) they do it for the fans
d) they like to piss off the people who wish they would stop
e) Bono wants to take over the world and has blackmail info on the rest of the band
f) another reason that you will now explain

Deleted user 16 February 2005 15:23:12

Fruit_Salad wrote:
Perhaps they should do more experimental albums to please you, but at the risk alienating millions of their other fans.

So, on the flip side, bands should continue making the same album throughout their career to please the fans? Like Radiohead should have just made The Bends 2/3/4/5 to please everyone? Instead of exploring something different, inventive and interesting.

Also I don't really care if they carry on or not, I won't buy their records anyway until they produce something that turns me on, which seems unlikely, if you really enjoy their music then good for you, I don't want to seem like a patronising twat. If you genuinely like what they produce then good for you. I just wonder why they don't want to change their sound or evolve musically.

Edited by Mr Sleep at 15:26:29 16-02-2005

Load_2.0 16 Feb 2005 15:24:17 33,582 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

On another note it really fucks me off to see Bono's charity written off as ego driven.
"Oh he makes so much money he could afford to give more"
Yeah no shit him and every other motherfucker on the planet, you telling me you couldn�t afford to give more of your salary to save the children? You living on a subsistence wage? I doubt it. Id like to see proportionally how well you stack up in the �give to charity stakes�, goddamn tall poppy syndrome.
When you have done as much for charities as he has then feel free to make derisive comments about others good work.
I dont understand how you would be satisfied... should he give all his money away? Or do nothing at all? which of those would make him less "Up his own arse"?

Deleted user 16 February 2005 15:25:12

ssuellid wrote:
/Totally agrees with Mr_Sleep.

What keeps U2 going whilst other successful bands give up?

..being tied into some complex contract involving Labour and Ipods for the next 20 years? ;0)

Nemesis 16 Feb 2005 15:29:04 20,312 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 20 years ago

What a bunch of fucking arse to come out with.

They do it because it's what they do, because some of us still like 'em, and because they still kick playing live.

Seriously, there's more to life than moaning about stuff you don't like. I don't personally like Keane, but if you did I wouldn't piss on your fire because it's a polar opposite to my tastes.

Deleted user 16 February 2005 15:29:40

Load "$" wrote:
you telling me you couldn�t afford to give more of your salary to save the children?

I could probably afford to give a few quid here and there, I don't make very much money and I don't have a very affluent family. Bono on the other hand makes loads of money, if I won the lottery tomorrow half of it would go to charity and I'd keep they other half, I can survive quite happily on four million thank you