Author Topic: The U2 of the 2000's  (Read 10554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #90 on: October 23, 2013, 12:21:36 PM »
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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

           Ok, so we should say the Grammy's mean nothing because one of your hippie bands did not win one. I think not.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 01:49:27 PM by edge245 »

Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #91 on: October 23, 2013, 12:25:58 PM »
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
Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

Edge, your passion for HTDAAB is awesome. But album sales and Grammy wins are facts which do not support whether or not an album is good. See Milli Vanilli for one of many reference points.

              Correction, they are facts that CAN support or CAN indicate excellent quality in an album. Pointing out certain exceptions like you did does not change that.

             At the end of the day, I have something other than my own personal opinion to support the idea that HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century. What do the haters of HTDAAB have other than their own opinion? NOTHING!

No, we have every other album in the 21st century that sold more copies or won more awards than Bomb did. You can't appeal to your selected criteria to prove Bomb's greatness, and then dismiss counter-evidence as an exception to the rule. It's called arguing ad hoc, and first-year philosophy students can see through the fallacy.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 12:28:33 PM by The Exile »

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #92 on: October 23, 2013, 12:34:13 PM »
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
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

Its individual and highly subjective even within discussion amongst fans of a certain artist - I can see how bomb would be lauded and appeal to individuals and a demographic though to be fair - to the point where it is lauded as not only u2s best but the best of the 21st century to date. . . . . . . . Those with a hearing impairment!  :)


           Lets see here, we are in a U2 forum and people are making negative comments about other U2 fans simply because they expressed a certain amount of love and admiration for something U2 recorded? Does a U2 fan on a U2 forum really deserved to be told they "don't get out much" or are "hearing impaired" because in their opinion HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century at this point?

            I can only imagine the reaction to a U2 fan who stated that HTDAAB was by far the greatest album of all time.

         This is a U2 forum, seeing such expressions of admiration for U2's work should not be surprising or shocking. Its to be expected. Its their individual opinion, and they have other things to back it up, that people saying the opposite do not.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #93 on: October 23, 2013, 12:40:06 PM »
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

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

The last sentence of my post was subjective yes. The rest of it was an objective commentary on the styles of music U2 produced pre and post 2000.



           Sorry it was all opinion and not objective, except the statement that it only takes an artist name to sell records is actually false. I can provide dozens of examples, the POP album and popmart tour being one.

Quote
But seeing as you're being purely subjective, my subjective opinion is that ATYCLB and HTDAAB and to a greater extent NLOTH are horrible U2 records. Populist, badly produced and so concerned with marketing and sales they barely know who they are. But seeing as the majority here are so obsessed with chart positions and how many units each record shifted I would have to admit by those standards they were a success. As artistic statements they were a failure. 

           Goood....., let the hate flow through you!
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 12:48:13 PM by edge245 »

Offline neilkap

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 173
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #94 on: October 23, 2013, 12:42:21 PM »
Personal opinions by very definition do not need a backup

It doesn't MATTER how many copies were sold or what OTHER people think.

HTDAAB is the worst U2 album of this or any other century.

That's my opinion and not subject to being changed because a bunch of other people may or may not disagree with me. 


Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #95 on: October 23, 2013, 12:46:33 PM »
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
Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

Edge, your passion for HTDAAB is awesome. But album sales and Grammy wins are facts which do not support whether or not an album is good. See Milli Vanilli for one of many reference points.

              Correction, they are facts that CAN support or CAN indicate excellent quality in an album. Pointing out certain exceptions like you did does not change that.

             At the end of the day, I have something other than my own personal opinion to support the idea that HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century. What do the haters of HTDAAB have other than their own opinion? NOTHING!

No, we have every other album in the 21st century that sold more copies or won more awards than Bomb did. You can't appeal to your selected criteria to prove Bomb's greatness, and then dismiss counter-evidence as an exception to the rule. It's called arguing ad hoc, and first-year philosophy students can see through the fallacy.

        Can you name any album in the 21st century that won more Grammy awards than HTDAAB? I never dismissed any better selling albums than HTDAAB in the 21st century. There are not many of them.

        Also, I never said I proved anything. I only said that I had something other than my own personal opinion to support the idea that it was the best album so far this century! The U2 Haters have NOTHING!

                       

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #96 on: October 23, 2013, 12:47:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Personal opinions by very definition do not need a backup

It doesn't MATTER how many copies were sold or what OTHER people think.

HTDAAB is the worst U2 album of this or any other century.

That's my opinion and not subject to being changed because a bunch of other people may or may not disagree with me.

Gooood...., Let the hate flow through you!

Offline THRILLHO

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,361
  • The sun won't melt our wings tonight
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #97 on: October 23, 2013, 12:54:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Personal opinions by very definition do not need a backup

It doesn't MATTER how many copies were sold or what OTHER people think.

HTDAAB is the worst U2 album of this or any other century.

That's my opinion and not subject to being changed because a bunch of other people may or may not disagree with me.


i can get behind this. there are moments i like but im fairly certain its my least fav. or at least 2nd fav.

Offline parkman

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • His love is continually teaching me how to kneel.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #98 on: October 23, 2013, 01:24:07 PM »
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
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)

                 They played there on the ZOO TV tour back in 1992! Outside Broadcast in the fall. Did you live in Alabama back then?

 :o I'm gonna go get that bootleg! Right now! ..And sadly, I wasn't living anywhere. I wasn't born yet.  ;) Wish I could've been there.

Wow, I didn't realize you were only 17. My friends and I had seen U2 multiple times and met the band, and been to Dublin to see all the U2 sights 4 years before you were even born. Are your parents U2 fans?
Wow. You're lucky! I plan on going to see them in Dublin on their next tour  ;D
And yes, they are "fans". Not like me, but they appreciate the talent and they definitely think they're the best band there is. I'm constantly watching U2 concerts and listening to their music, so I think they've grown to appreciate and like them a lot more!
The reason I first heard U2, was because my dad had The Joshua Tree on CD, and ever since I was like 4, I couldn't get over that opening guitar. So I attribute some of the reason I started to like U2 to them. :)

Offline parkman

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • His love is continually teaching me how to kneel.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #99 on: October 23, 2013, 01:26:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

That's rough...^^^

Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #100 on: October 23, 2013, 01:35:27 PM »
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
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

That's rough...^^^

I know, right? But I'm just taking one for the team up in here. I mean, someone's gotta explain that a Whopper is inferior to a Ribeye.

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #101 on: October 23, 2013, 01:40:58 PM »
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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

           Ok, so we should say the Grammy's mean nothing because one of your hippie bands did not win won. I think not.

let the grasping at straws begin. seriously the very fact ur saying the grammys have any relation to quality or even keep track of them at all shows ur coming from a very different place to say .... anyone who's opinion on music should be taken seriously ...... imo.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 01:49:16 PM by soapit »

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #102 on: October 23, 2013, 01:43:55 PM »
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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)

                 They played there on the ZOO TV tour back in 1992! Outside Broadcast in the fall. Did you live in Alabama back then?

 :o I'm gonna go get that bootleg! Right now! ..And sadly, I wasn't living anywhere. I wasn't born yet.  ;) Wish I could've been there.

Wow, I didn't realize you were only 17. My friends and I had seen U2 multiple times and met the band, and been to Dublin to see all the U2 sights 4 years before you were even born. Are your parents U2 fans?
Wow. You're lucky! I plan on going to see them in Dublin on their next tour  ;D
And yes, they are "fans". Not like me, but they appreciate the talent and they definitely think they're the best band there is. I'm constantly watching U2 concerts and listening to their music, so I think they've grown to appreciate and like them a lot more!
The reason I first heard U2, was because my dad had The Joshua Tree on CD, and ever since I was like 4, I couldn't get over that opening guitar. So I attribute some of the reason I started to like U2 to them. :)

Awesome! Dublin is a great city! Lots of history and culture and very young and hip as well. Make sure to plan ahead. You might be able to get some great deals on lodging since Ireland's economy is doing poorly. Check out the the Temple Bar House/Barnacles in Temple Bar, best youth hostel with the most central location. Or if you are rich, you can book a room in Temple Bar at the Clarence Hotel which I think is still owned by Bono and The Edge.

               An interesting question though about where U2 will play in Dublin next year? They have always played stadiums in Dublin, except in 1989 when they played the point depot theater and back on the early tours for the first two albums 1978-1982.

              Guess it will either be the O2 Arena or Croke Park. If you don't have a U2.com membership, make sure you get one as it will be very difficult to get a ticket for the Dublin shows without one.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #103 on: October 23, 2013, 01:46:37 PM »
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
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

That's rough...^^^

I know, right? But I'm just taking one for the team up in here. I mean, someone's gotta explain that a Whopper is inferior to a Ribeye.

          Yep, trashing the bands work is definitely what a fan forum is for.

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #104 on: October 23, 2013, 01:50:17 PM »
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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

That's rough...^^^

I know, right? But I'm just taking one for the team up in here. I mean, someone's gotta explain that a Whopper is inferior to a Ribeye.

          Yep, trashing the bands work is definitely what a fan forum is for.

perhaps you should stop telling others what the forum is for