<div class="quote_poster">AKIRA Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">bands you forgot:
the doors (best band in history)
</div>
Thank you.
<div class="quote_poster">Sasha Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">This whole thread is based on their talent level BTW.
Even so, if we were to base U2 on an impact scale and use the given outlets in which they were expressed, any true fans of music know that Rolling Stone is a hack, and some goes to VH1. They are both recycled, media whore pumping bastard children. To illustrate my point further, Rolling Stone put
Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart Club Band as the best album ever. They went as far as to call it the most important rock & roll album ever made. Um...let's just take a look at the other albums released in 1967 alone...
<ul>
[*]Pink Floyd - Piper at the Gates of Dawn
[*]Velvet Underground - Velvet Underground and Nico
[*]Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced & Axis Bold as Love
[*]The Doors - The Doors
[*]Captain Beefhart - Safe as Milk
[*]The Who - The Who Sell Out
[*]Cream - Disraeli Gears
[*]Bob Dylan - John Wesley Harding
[*]The Moody Blues - Days of Future Passed
[*]The Rolling Stones - Between the Buttons
[*]Frank Zappa - Absolutely Free
[*]Traffic - Dear Mr. Fantasy
[/list]
Zappa even released an album the next year entitled called "We're Only In It For The Money," with a parodied version of the Sgt. Peppers album art. That kind of speaks for itself right there about what other musicians even back then thought about the Beatles. The Beatles sold out plain and simple, ****, they made movies and endorsed dolls. They sold out so they could write better more gifted music in the end granted, but only followed suit after others.
There you go, that speaks volumes about Rolling Stones hack reviews and bullshit-o-meters. Least credible/interesting publication around in my opinion. Hell, they recently had a former meth-addict write a story about JFK's assassination. Uh...what the ****?!
I'll give you props on the impact thing, especially the world and what Bono's done (when in front of a camera) though.
All of what you said, and my thoughts aside, this thread is here because I brought up their "talent level," or really, lack thereof. Saying Bono saved 2349872347 million African kids or that they've appealed to the masses says nothing about talent, especially in the last 2-3 decades. Bring up their technically proficient music, lyricism and the such and you might have a case. Until then, U2 is nothing special to someone that values music for what it is, not what the media and top lists portray it to be.</div>
Agreed with most of what you have said, especially about Rolling Stone and VH1, but are you trying to discredit the Beatles for selling products? Are bands not supposed to make money? Maybe I misunderstood you, and I don't want to open up a whole new debate on the Beatles' influence/talent/etc., but it seems like that's just be being antiestablishment for the sake of being pedantic.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Nothing annoys me more than people who get all technical with music. So what if someone can play a more complicated riff than the next guy, or can hit a higher note?
People will always hate on U2. Some because they can't stand Bono, some because their last decade or so pales in comparison to the 15 or so years before that, some just because they have been so successful.
As far as talent goes, Edge isn't the most talented guitarist going around, and Bono isn't the most talented singer, but both are as unique as has been in the last 25 years, and both have a really distinguishable sound, which IMO is just as important, if not moreso, than pure technical ability. I agree Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen are fairly generic, but that's all they've needed to be. Bono has waned as a vocallist and a lyricist, but at his peak he was outstanding in both areas. Achtung Baby is an absolute masterpiece.
Fact remains there are few bands/singers in history who can boast the success, worldwide acclaim and sheer amount of trademark songs as U2 can. Maybe they have gone on too long, but I saw them last November for the first time live, and they still put on a phenomenal live act.
In the end it comes down to what you define as musical talent, but to me it goes far beyond just technical ability.</div>
I don't think anyone in this thread is being technical to a fault, especially not Sasha.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I can't stand U2, not because I don't like Bono but rather just because I don't enjoy their music. I always thought it was hackneyed and ostentatious.
As for whether or not other bands can boast the worldwide acclaim has, that argument is basically saying that popularity determines how great a band is, and by that logic, the Backstreet Boys should be considered a great musical act.
