Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
General U2 Discussion / Is BIG even relevant anymore?
« Last post by Edgedisciple on Today at 03:50:55 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For a rock band, in this age of manufactured and overproduced pop, it's impossible to become "big". The most relevant rock band today are probably Foo Fighters. U2 are still influent because they've invented a sound (guitar-wise especially) that is copied by everyone from pop to rock music. Other ones might be The Black Key who hit big in the past couple of years (but it is unknown if they'll be able to maintain this level of popularity, I say no and I don't like them) and Coldplay (don't know if I should consider them "rock" anymore...) No one else. The concept of the "big rock band" is dead and won't resurrect any soon. Rock isn't relevant anymore, and it's sad. Terribly sad. Because I think that rock music, when it carries a message, makes people (who want to listen) think. It can prompt a change in them. Another big problem is that, with the age of internet, youtube and the fact that everyone can record an album with few money, there are thousands of bands and artists around with nothing interesting to say and nothing original musically. This makes really hard to understand who's good and worthy. The market it's saturated. It's a really bad moment to be in a rock band or even to be an interesting artist in search of exposure, maybe the worst ever...

What about...

Green Day
Arcade Fire
fun.
Foster The People
John Mayer
Kings of Leon
Muse
Pearl Jam
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Paramore
Fall Out Boy
Thirty Seconds To Mars
?



Also...the song "Rude" by Magic! is very much guitar-based and it's listed at number 1 right now on the above chart...
I wouldn't call the bands you've listed "relevant" nowadays apart from Muse, and some of them have changed their style and become pretty much pop. Fun are pop, not rock. Same as Foster the People. John Mayer is a bluesman. The song you've mentioned is reggae pop.

Yeah, I guess I was associating your post with what an tha was saying...he was simply referring to "guitar-based music" and I was coming up with examples of artists whose music was heavily guitar-based.

Even still...while I kind of see what you're saying about it being more "pop", I think of pop and rock very interchangeably, or rather as rock largely being a subcategory of pop. If you ask me, most of U2's career has been spent making pop-rock, so to say that U2 is the only rock giant left on one hand but make the distinction of many of the artists I listed as being pop but not rock seems somewhat artificial. "Some Nights" by Fun. sounds like a reincarnation of Queen and "Carry On" has a soaring guitar solo, so why can't you call it rock?

Paramore and Fall Out Boy are certainly relevant by strictly commercial standards, each having two songs in the Top 100 last year.

I guess relevance is subjective, but to me it's also more than simply being in the Top 40, and I think U2 are aware of that. There are still rock bands that I would consider "big", maybe not on the Top 40 stations, but on rock and alternative-type stations.

I don't think rock is really dead, I just think it's reinvented itself. As Neil Yong said, "there's more to the picture than meets the eye."
I get your point, I don't think that rock is dead either, just sayin' that it's a really dark time for rock bands if they don't drench themselves in pop to go mainstream. Yes, U2 have flirted with pop many times during their career, nothing bad about it, but they've never crossed the line like Fall Out Boy, Paramore and Thirty Seconds to Mars, which I love, but their last record is pretty much pop, and it's is awful and embarassing, a commercial move that has been a complete failure (luckily). I'm not agaist pop music regardless of the artist, I like a few things, but there are some aspects of it that I can't really stand.
2
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If there is to be a surprise release album, it does follow that if they are to be part of iTunes festival, that will be a surprise thing too. And if fans had 48 hours notice (or less) of U2 playing a small venue in London, they will have no trouble filling it. But unless the band are practicing somewhere it isnt happening. U2 won't perform underprepared.

How long were they in Nice-Matin filming the new video? Maybe they did some rehearsing there as well.

Re: Taylor Swift naming her album after the year she was born. U2 should do this, call it The Best of 1960-61.
3
If there is to be a surprise release album, it does follow that if they are to be part of iTunes festival, that will be a surprise thing too. And if fans had 48 hours notice (or less) of U2 playing a small venue in London, they will have no trouble filling it. But unless the band are practicing somewhere it isnt happening. U2 won't perform underprepared.
4
General Music Discussion / Who Sells Out?
« Last post by Edgedisciple on Today at 03:23:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
those are good points id agree. i take it on the assumption, like Coldplay with MX or even VLV some would argue, it seemed to be a huge change in sound to a more contemporary sound, ESPECIALLY in light of a huge failure <in the case of X&Y>. Or, the transition from Pop to ATYLCB, etc.

I know Rivers admits that the record label wanted Weezer to right "big singles" so we got Pork and Beans and Troublemaker after the sessions for the album were nearly done.

It's true that labels often push for a single and sometimes artists will record something just so the label will get off their back or so they can have a marketable lead single. In that case it's hard to know if the artists believe in the singles or just recorded them to get the label off their back. It's probably a little of both in a lot of cases.

yea i agree

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
those are good points id agree. i take it on the assumption, like Coldplay with MX or even VLV some would argue, it seemed to be a huge change in sound to a more contemporary sound, ESPECIALLY in light of a huge failure <in the case of X&Y>. Or, the transition from Pop to ATYLCB, etc.

I know Rivers admits that the record label wanted Weezer to right "big singles" so we got Pork and Beans and Troublemaker after the sessions for the album were nearly done.
X&Y was not a failure, it was the best selling album of 2005. It has sold 13 million copies since now. It's their second best selling album if I'm not wrong. Not tryin' to argue, just to point out. It's the only Coldplay record that I like, in fact I love it.

it wasn't though, it was 6th best seller of 2005. in america, anyways.

it's the only Coldplay album i force myself to revisit. i really don't like it.
Not in the U.S. but worldwide it was. To me is their most sonically interesting album. After that they went downfall for my tastes, and I stopped caring about them.
5
U2's not on the list. Yet.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

However, there is room for one hell of a surprise:

More artists are due to be announced closer to the opening night, with Taylor Swift touted as a potential headliner following the release of her new album 1989.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Great to see David Gray back, I gave White Ladder a spin just yesterday.
6
General U2 Discussion / Re: Does U2 need a rival group ?
« Last post by macfoley on Today at 02:52:52 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I disagree " Iron sharpens Iron " (IMHO) U2 needs a strong worthy opponent to bring out their best.

Really? Since when does an artist think, I need a rival to compose my next masterpiece? If U2 have not got it in them to do it, it is maybe because their best creative days are way past behind them and they are creating art they feel is worth putting out because they feel confident it will do well. Nothing to do with the fact, there have been better albums in the past 14 years from other bands and artists. Even though I don't like some of the artists, but respect that the work they are putting out is more original, finished and produced better.

Arcade Fire are the masters of that in my opinion in this generation.
7
News and Rumors / Re: New Album In (Anyone Care To Make A Guess?) Thread!
« Last post by Argo on Today at 12:59:40 AM »
Bono has always seemed short on confidence to me...

I do find it amusing how "we" talk ourselves into things because we have nothing else to do why we wait for the new album. The extent of discussion over an interview or 2 from 5 years ago where Bono mentioned the word "relevance" is astonishing. Imagine if we knew that they wanted a change of direction with a new album and went away somewhere different to start recording, went around in circles, had all sorts of disagreements and after some time only came up with one song that they liked but with plenty of ideas to work on. Us fans would be going nuts thinking it would be the end and they dont know what they were doing. But this did happen, the song was called One and the album that came from it was Achtung Baby.
8
General Music Discussion / Re: Post Your Most Recent Acquisition
« Last post by TheU2Ken on Today at 12:44:58 AM »
I still don't like Turn Blue.

They do have some of the best merch AJ
9
General Music Discussion / Re: Coldplay - Ghost Stories
« Last post by TheU2Ken on Today at 12:43:24 AM »
CB is a top 3 CP song
10
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How could any of us know for certain that the band's confidence level is at an all time low ?

Because we know each member of the band better than they know themselves, silly.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10