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?

what an absurd discussion! if you had never heard rock and roll before you might hate both dylan and hendrix. you might prefer bach, or you might only like polka. These arguments are going nowhere. u2 does well what it does. hendrix did well what he did. i agree with eddie that trying to compare them is not a worthwhile activity.

You may be right Dan and Eddie. Lopez and I have probably compared U2 to other bands too much. U2 is a totally different genre than Tull or Yes or Neil Young. They are the kings of their genre (whatever that may be), I just don’t care for it very much. In the same way that I don’t care for the genre of R&B.
Again, frozen pizza.

well, if dan’s not enjoying this thread anymore then i really can’t see the point in continuing. i’m just glad he’s here to tell us when a conversation isn’t worthwhile.

in the meantime, i think that we ought to settle this like adults and agree that the last person to post wins the debate.

it looks like i was right.

sweet.

You totally were right.

I wonder if you are familiar with some of their older stuff. I was a bigger fan in the 80’s and then their music was still not technically strong, but passionate, raw and bohemian. Kinda the way people talk about Dylan – his voice is almost silly and his music can be banal, but he manages to sing what people are feeling.

U2’s music in the 80’s had more of the unspeakable quality – Boy, War, Unforgettable Fire. I admit I didn’t follow them as much when I ran out of money and got married (in reverse order) in the 90’s .

time to resurrect this post – hello eddie:

never, i say never, judge a musician until you’ve heared’em jam with a couple of his buddies with nobody around, no cameras, mics, sound boards, producers, etc.. you think the edge or the jimi that you hear on their albums actually reflects how talented they are? think about it. not a chance.

you CAN say "i like u2’s style more than Jimi’s" or vice-versa, but to say one person is better on the guitar is just pure conjecture based upon a recording.

if any of you have been involved in creating an album, you know that the moment the thing goes out to production, the musician finds 12 things wrong with each track and wants to slit his own throat for about a week.

any thoughts?

Can you judge base on 10 albums?
I agree that studio recordings are not the best basis of judgement, but they do give us an idea of what a musician is capable of right? One track or one album gives us a pretty 2-dimensional perspective. But several albums covering several genres and several years gives us a much better idea as to what a musician can do.

And even though I’m sure there are things U2 regrets musically, they definitely have much more control over the production of their music than many bands. Sometimes I think U2 might get in the way of themselves, like on the last album maybe.

Are we making music equal to the sum of its parts? I’ve read this discussion board on and off and have tried to think why I love U2 so much. If I break it into parts, I am at a loss. In its parts perhaps there isn’t much to commend the high praise so many give them. When I listen to the various parts of the music, I too am disappointed (and surprised!) by its simplicity. On the other hand, other music I listen to and love, when I break it into parts, is incredible. Each part is well played. The creativity is genius.

But then other music wears out on me. It seems to capture almost my absolute devotion…for a time. I try to figure that out. Why do I continue to listen to U2 when other bands eventually collect dust?

The only explanation I can find is that U2 far excels the sum of its parts. It’s inexplicable how it happens. It’s the place U2 comes from. The spirit in which it is written. Maybe to see it you have to strip some of the pop off the surface and start with some of their earlier music. Listen to "Bad" off of The Unforgettable Fire, or the live version off Wide Awake in America. I have the same experience with "A Sort of Homecoming."

I think the reason lots of really creative music eventually collects dust is because, eventually, all it has is its parts. The music has lost its interest; my ear’s no longer entertained as it once was. It becomes obvious that the spirit in which it is written was impoverished. Lots of genius and no soul. I come to see the lack of depth of soul. Its lack of depth of soul trivializes the music, and there’s no longer a reason to listen to it.

"Bad" comes from such a place that I’m drawn to it again and again. I wonder where it came from. It’s not just music at that point; it’s a really good question. I love pondering the words trying to search out their meaning, while the music, guided by the lyrics, seems to do a better job of getting at it. At least together they do. Change the lyrics and the music would be trivial. Change the music and the lyrics wouldn’t fit. They present the question of the place together. The place of a lot of music doesn’t seem worth visiting, at least not for very long. But like so many of U2’s songs, the place of "Bad" seems like somewhere worth visiting. Time and again it regenerates interest in that place.

Does anybody else think that Bono should run for Prime Minister of Ireland? Or is it President…maybe King?

Does anybody know if Ireland has a King?