catapult magazine

as I like frozen pizza. I tried to live on it, but it’s still junk food. I know this isn’t the most popular opinion on this board, but there has been so much praise lately. Are we deifying them yet?
Anybody else find them mediocre? Or am I a lone wolf here?

Well, i am in on this like a fat kid on a smartie. Or so they say.

Anyway, in a nutshell and nothing more, I say that U2 is popular with the masses, because of one thing: SIMPLICITY. They are simple. If you strip away the effects from edges guitars, the voice simulator from bono’s voice in the early nineties albums, the overdubs. All you have is one thing. SImple. That is why they appeal. And people, most of which have no musical knowledge, other than i like this i like that, like it because they dont know any better. That is why they are more revered than the Stones or Tull or Floyd. Which I think personally, are horrible comparisons. It is like comparing grapes and grape nuts. or something like that. But i really think that people like them so much because of the sheer simplictiy of most of their music. if not all.

take With or without for example. Timeless. Classic. Stands up as well now on “modern rcok radio” as it did in 1987. Yeah, thats right 18 years ago. Point is, it is 4 chords. All you guitar junkies: d/a/bm/g. thats it. verse, chorus, bridge, coda. All the same thru the whole song. now of course edge throws a whole bunch of effect at it, which work wonderfully, and the lyrics are unreal, but seriously. 4 chords. over and over. how much fun do you think that have playing that night after night.

Although i really like U2, i dont think they have reinvented the rock and roll wheel like grant states in different words. i think they have influenced a lot of bands out there but i dont think they have had as much influence as bands like zep, cure (they have their own genre and a whole bunch of bands that follow in that genre) and mnay more.

but to say that U2 has thrown glam rock in their rep? thats a bit of stretch grantee-boy. where in any of their music do they pull out stuff that sounds anything close to a motley crue or poison riff? i dont see it. Sure the Macphisto thing in 93. BUt does that count for glam music?

Like i said i enjoy U2. got tickets for the tour. But they have pushed thru on 3 things: 1 Simpe rock licks and beats. 2. a drive and determination 3. Bono’s big mouth and some clever marketing. The whole fly/macphisto thing? Clever, but a clear marketing re-invention.

Just a side note: to compare BB and edge is just . . . sheer. . .bollocks.

I agree that Edge’s solo on “Untill End of the world” is amazing. It’s rebelious, raging and ecstatic all at once. Perhaps it can be compared to Jimmy Page’s solo at the end of “Stairway to Heaven”. Both solos have a similar feeling to me. Page still has the edge on cockiness though.

Maybe a bit of cockiness is good. It needs to be balanced off by some heartbreak and longing though. I think cockiness that’s short on heartbreak ends up sounding like Limp Bizkit or Nickleback.

Not that it matters much, but I do want to defend my glam rock assertion. Maybe I have the wrong genre name in mind, but I’m thinking about the original glam rockers David Bowie and Lou Reed. I think U2’s Zoo TV stage show borrowed alot from David Bowie’s 70’s schtick. The Lemon in the PopMart tour is practically a reincarnation of the spacecraft Bowie used to ride onto stage! And look at the liner notes for Achtung Baby. The boys are dressed in drag! (ala Lou Reed “Transformer” album). Why? you ask. I think part of it has to do with the fact that U2 was working in Hansa studios and was intentionally trying to bring Bowie and Reed’s German period into their own German reunification album. You can actually hear similarities between the drum sounds on Achtung Baby and those on Transformer and the Bowie albums recorded at Hansa. U2 isn’t anything if they’re not intentional. And I think their most exciting period (the early to mid-nineties) intentionally took on aspects of glam rock. So there.

Check out Hold me, Thrill me, Kiss me, Kill me.’ This is a direct tribute to Marc Bolan and T. Rex, if any of you can remember that far back, (the 1970’s). String arrangement and the odd Bolan ‘Yeah!’ in the background, were meant to recall the brilliance that was Bolan!

Alright, it looks like this threads been dead for a couple of weeks, but i just got a load of the dump-splash that’s been going on here and thought i’d better straighten this whole thing out.

norbert’s right. U2 is highly over-rated.

that’s all he was saying. he didn’t even say that he didn’t enjoy listening to them. he was simply pointing out that when analyzed apart from it’s socio-political nuances the music that these fellas make isn’t amazing. it just isn’t.

Q:is it heartfelt?
A:yes. it is obvious from the first notes of “joshua tree” that this band wears their blood-soaked hearts on their sleeves. however if you believe that this is grounds for musical greatness then there’s a one-armed vietnam vet who plays the kazoo in downtown bellingham i think you should really check out because, man, he’s really givin’ it his all.

Q:is it influential?
A:without a doubt. i believe eddie made some good points concerning this topic. they are very musically simple and heartfelt and therefore extremely accessible to “joe average top 40 listener”. for more examples of this see your local country music station. anything listened to on that wide of a scale is bound to influence. but please pardon me for not being too impressed with their musical offspring i.e. coldplay.

Q:do they deserve 1/2 of the accolades they recieve from the general musical community?
A:absolutely not. although the content of their songs appear to contain depth the sonic quality is more often than not sub-par when compared to the buffet of musical nutrition that is readily available elsewhere, but perhaps a little harder to digest.

i would disagree with norbert’s comparison of U2 to a frozen pizza. i think they’re more akin to a TV dinner. just as convenient as a frozen pizza, but seemingly more nutricious. however upon inspection of the health indications you realize that you would be better off eating the box.

Q:is it influential?
A:without a doubt. i believe eddie made some good points concerning this topic. they are very musically simple and heartfelt and therefore extremely accessible to “joe average top 40 listener”. for more examples of this see your local country music station. anything listened to on that wide of a scale is bound to influence. but please pardon me for not being too impressed with their musical offspring i.e. coldplay.

Well, it’s good I suppose that we can express our opinions, even derogatory ones. I could of course as a ‘european’, suggest that you are jealous that the boys aren’t from the good ol’ USofA! I can’t think of many ‘local country music’ singers that the IRA would put out a death threat because of their music, so your comment here is wide of the mark! Unless the boys in black masks were driven mad with all that yee-hah stuff, whining on about unrequited lurv!

Too much sour grapes makes for a sour wine!

Geoff

for those of you following this thread here’s a paraphrased re-cap of the exchange between myself and geoff:

lopez said: “U2 isn’t anything musically special when seperated from their politics”

geoff responded: “yes, but what about their politics?”

i believe the phrase was “wide of the mark”.

i think space probably came the closest, earlier in the thread, to explaining why i should give a crap about this band based solely on their music. let’s hear more of that because i’ve gotta say, when i’m listening to the radio and hear that really long intro to “where the streets have no name” or the “funky” intro for “mysterious ways” i can’t get to that tuner knob fast enough because i know a great big shot of musical mediocrity is headed my way.

Yawn! Me thinks your ego is not allowing your intellect enough room to think!
Time to put this to sleep…..ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Geoff

Lopez (and Norbert),

When you say “musical mediocrity”, are you saying U2 lacks musical complexity? Are you saying that the melodies and bass lines are too simple as opposed to Hendrix or Zeppelin or Zappa? Is that what you mean? Or are you saying that the feelings in the music are mediocre? I feel like you’re operating on some kind of definition of musical genius that I’m not connecting with in your comments. Is this like what a friend of mine thinks about Nirvana, that the music is too simple and that anyone can do it? Hence, “mediocre”.

Yes to the first one.
U2 is emotional overload, but there’s more to good art than emotional overload. I listen to Zeppelin and Hendrix and Zappa over and over again because of the richness and complexity of their music. I don’t see the same in U2.
Not necessarily for the second one.
But, for the record, if I’m going to listen to a four note guitar solo, I’d rather listen to “Down by the River” than “Pride” because I see more passion in Neil Young than the Edge.