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?

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.

I’m not necessarily partial to any of the bands mentioned above, but how are the 12-bar blues riffs that Zep and Jimi relied on more complex than some of the stuff U2 has done (especially the modal changes Edge makes)?

I’m not necessarily partial to any of the bands mentioned above, but how are the 12-bar blues riffs that Zep and Jimi relied on more complex than some of the stuff U2 has done (especially the modal changes Edge makes)?

modal changes? i’m tempted to call into question the integrity of that term. especially when it’s employed to make any kind of comparison between the edge and jimi hendrix.

it’s clear that you’ve listened to the edge, but have you ever really listened to jimi hendrix? i don’t mean “foxey lady” and “purple haze”, i’m talking about “hey baby (new rising sun)” and “bold as love”. “machine gun” for crying out loud!! i’m not going to pretend i know exactly what modal changes are, but i’m quite certain that it would not have been a problem for jimi on his worst day. possibly even post-mortem.

the simple fact of the matter is that hendrix could have done anything the edge has ever played on guitar, but the reverse is not true. it’s kind of like comparing batman to superman. batman’s pretty nifty, but he needs all this gear to really kick some ass; while superman is just a natural born crime fighter. so, it’s nice to give the dark night some props because he does his fair share of evil foiling, but he’s obviously no man of steel.

alright grant, here’s the deal.

a band is a band. that means two or more musicians that get together for the sake of creating music. one of them might really like girls, one of them might really like boys. maybe one of them is into politics. sometimes a couple of them might really like to drink alcohol and smoke hash. this varies from person to person, band to band. however, the one universal thing that ties all of these different groups together, the one common element by which we can judge and compare one to another is the music. not what they say or why they say it, but HOW they say it. they say it with instruments. they say it with noise produced with any and all kinds of instruments. guitars, drums, midi’s, and vocals…whatever, it’s all just sound.

it just makes sense to me that one of these groups of musicians that is emotional, but not as technically skilled (U2) should not be held in the same regard as a group that is both emotional and highly skilled at their craft (zeppelin). the main reason people find it hard to agree with this stance is because we are dealing with art here and it’s hard to seperate our personal preferences from what is universally good.

zeppelin plays blues based rock’n’roll and that’s what personally enjoy listening to, but this is not why i prize them as a band over U2. i have simply taken the known qualities that make art good and applied them to U2 and they have come out lacking.

Lopez:

Hendrix and Zep is all I listened to growing up. I know about them. If you think I’m saying that Hendrix isn’t a good guitarist, you’re wrong. But on the same token, you seem to be making the “faster solos” = “better music” arguement. Yeah, Hendrix put tons of energy behind his playing (way more than the Edge does). But if you’re going to going for pure technical guitar skill, why don’t you just listen to Yngwie Malsteen and be done with it?

As for “modal,” modes are the way you play scales. Major and minor are the most common (as in major scale and minor scale). The Edge uses lots of church modes, like Dorian and Phrygian. Most musicians don’t do this or know how to do this (I remember the Edge gave props to Tom Verlaine and Richard Lloyd— both from the proto-punk band Television —that soloed the same way). This probably doesn’t phase you much, but seeing as how many popular rock guitarists don’t even know how to play scales, I’d say that the Edge is gifted in his own right.

But you’re just going to label U2 mediocre regardless, so I’m wasting energy.

You’re going to have to give me more information on modes. I’m only familiar with them in bop jazz (and then only moderately).
Are you saying that the Edge is an impressive musician because of scales. I know there has to be more to it than that. Jimmy Page can play scales.
And it’s not how fast a guitarist can play. Malmsteen and Eddie Van Halen can play quickly but lack the soul that Jimmy and Jimi and even the Edge have.

You’re going to have to give me more information on modes. I’m only familiar with them in bop jazz (and then only moderately).
Are you saying that the Edge is an impressive musician because of scales. I know there has to be more to it than that. Jimmy Page can play scales.
And it’s not how fast a guitarist can play. Malmsteen and Eddie Van Halen can play quickly but lack the soul that Jimmy and Jimi and even the Edge have.

I think I might mess something up if I type a lot, so here is a link to an article on church modes. Modes are basically how you arrange notes in a scale. Saying you know tons of modes doesn’t mean you can just play scales; it’s all vital to how you actually arrange and write music, since chord progressions (and songs in general) stem from this. If you only know I-IV-V major chord progressions, then you’re going to end up sounding like…all of the other bands.

The sole reason why I posted anything is because is because of the “Hendrix and Zep are more complex than U2” comment. Hendrix wrote the book on rock guitar insanity, and at the end of the day I’d probably rather listen to some of his tunes over U2’s. I think the classic rock bands mentioned and U2 are all complex in their own way, and I mainly just stepped in to defend U2 a little for being dismissed as some yawn-inducing pop band. I mean, I get my musical jollies from hearing Hendrix lay down that awesome rhythm guitar riff on “Crosstown Traffic” but I also think the Edge’s staccato guitar lines in “New Year’s Day” is just as intense.

I can understand the distain for U2, but it never hurts to dig into a band’s sound a little deeper before dismissing them.

I think whether I like to listen to u2 or Jimi Hendrix depends on what mood I’m in. One of my favourite rock songs of all time is “let me stand next to your fire”. The performance of the band in that recording is really amazing.

I’m currious about whether the classic rock dudes like Tom Morello, guitarist for Rage against the machine. He is extremely fast and perfect technically but plays simple riffs and wild solos that are usualy more about the sounds.

Also, what do classic rock dudes think of Hip hop? Not too many notes going on there.

I’m certain that U2 work just as hard or harder on there music than hendrix/zepplin. They just focus on different elements of a musical experience. If music is made up of melody, harmony, timbre, and rhythm, I would say U2 is more technically proficient at timbre and zepplin/hendrix is more technically proficient at melody and rhythm. It seems weird to talk about blues bassed music as melodic but thats the best explaination I can think of.

It really comes down to taste. I used to despise Frank Zappa. It took a few years of being in America and breathing in the culture and the music to help me understand where he was coming from. Now I love it. Maybe classic rock dudes should live in Ireland for a while to see if they start relating to U2.

Yes, this is a matter of taste, but that could easily end a conversation. The goal here is to change people’s taste, let’s be honest.

Many of the people in this dialogue agree that Hendrix is great at what he does, but it is unfair to measure the Edge accordingly because the Edge has a different style (which is what makes him worth talking about as a guitarist—his uniqueness). The Edge is a minimalist and it takes as much skill to play less notes well as it does to play lots of notes well. In fact, the feeling of “wanting more” from the Edge is exactly what he does so well. There’s an undercurrent of rage and power stuffed into the muted percussive jabs and a deep longing in the spare use of single “almost there” notes that run throughout songs like “With or Without You”. Hendrix’ expressivism is a certain kind of artistic genius. Neil Young’s own “soulful” minimalist approach is its own thing. And the Edge does his thing with as much artistic skill as these guys. Perhaps Bono’s outlandish personality distracts people from the subtle simplicity of the entire band. Great art, in my mind, often communicates simply and directly without calling attention to the great skill necessary to pull it off. Such is the case with Satie, Philip Glass, and Bach. Perhaps the invisibility of the Edge’s skillfulness is the mark of such artistic genius.

I think whether I like to listen to u2 or Jimi Hendrix depends on what mood I’m in. One of my favourite rock songs of all time is “let me stand next to your fire”. The performance of the band in that recording is really amazing.

here’s a great example of the problem i see here. these two statements made by space seem to be two different things. on one hand he’s saying it depends on his mood as to whether or not he likes something. i agree with that whole heartedly. in fact the kind of music everyone listens to and enjoys has to do with all sorts of personal factors. space then goes on to talk about the amazing performance of jimi and his experience on the track “fire”. this is now moving into the realm of something actually being undeniably musically good as opposed to what you happen to like or feel like listening to. when joel doesn’t feel like listening to hendrix does it then mean that “fire” is any less of a great performance?

my stance is that there is a world where space’s two statements are seperate and that in this world people can stand back and measure the artistic greatness of something without getting bogged down with personal preference. i believe this world is difficult to live in because it makes us uncomftorable to admit that things we enjoy might not be in the best form. not only that but it’s much easier to live in the other world, just listening to what’s on the radio, trusting corporate clear channel to set our playlists, and believing that just because it’s happening right now that it’s artistically relevant. no offense to grant here, but when you start arguing for the artistic validity of a band based on things like “invisible skill” it shows how strong the urge is to try and combine these two worlds even to the point of silliness.

a local radio station has been playing nothing but U2 all weekend and i’ve been listening. some of their live performances were quite spirited and i was occasionally surprised by the edge’s moments of prowess, but i must say in the world of an un-hyped, leveled musical playing field bono and co. remain mediocre to my ears.

I’m currious about whether the classic rock dudes like Tom Morello, guitarist for Rage against the machine. He is extremely fast and perfect technically but plays simple riffs and wild solos that are usualy more about the sounds.

i have always enjoyed tom morello’s playing and admired his ability to make his guitar roar with anger and remain very controlled. i especially love the funky feedback tweeks that have seemed to become his trademark. “mic check” off of “the battle of LA” is probably my fav. i must say i enjoy that stuff more than his hyper note-filled solos from their debut, but it’s assuring to know that he knows how it’s done. it’s funny that you would have brought him up now since his new band “audioslave” has really started to suck it up ever since they decided to become a crappy U2 knock-off.

Also, what do classic rock dudes think of Hip hop? Not too many notes going on there.

i really despise this musical form. perhaps one day it will evolve into something worthwhile, but for now it seems to be one big never ending crap factory with each subsequent artist being worse than the one before.

that being said i would never deny that it’s very cool and i’m sure it’s good fun in a club or to turn up really loud in a car. when listening to certain artists such as the roots and the beastie boys it’s obvious that the funk is still there. i just don’t see hip hop becoming valid until the MC’s get together with some real musicians, kill all the producers, and bring that funk front and center. of course then people would say it wasn’t hip hop anymore, but “urban rock” or some bullshit like that.

that being said i would never deny that it’s very cool and i’m sure it’s good fun in a club or to turn up really loud in a car. when listening to certain artists such as the roots and the beastie boys it’s obvious that the funk is still there. i just don’t see hip hop becoming valid until the MC’s get together with some real musicians, kill all the producers, and bring that funk front and center. of course then people would say it wasn’t hip hop anymore, but “urban rock” or some bullshit like that.

Check out Blackalicious, Jurassic 5, Talib Kweli and De La Soul. They might interest you.