Monday, April 28, 2008

Why U2 Sucks

As will appear in tomorrow's issue of the New School Free Press



Last week, Daniel Lanois, producer-extraordinaire, told a Canadian radio station that U2 is working on a new album that'll be out for the fall, with production credit going to him and Brian Eno.

Is it wrong that I'm more excited about Lanois and Eno together than about the actual album they're producing?

Well, no, because U2 is, simply put, the most overrated band of all-time.

There are certain artists and bands that get way too much credit, critically or commercially (I'm looking at you, Elton John). But to be overrated, both of those criteria must be met, meaning critics need to rave about them and they've also got to sell millions of albums.

U2's songs revolve around Bono's howling and his emphasizing every word he sings, Adam Clayton's boring bass lines, Larry Mullen, Jr.'s non-descript drumming, and The Edge's chiming guitar work that sounds good in a arena, but has very little substance or emotion.

In 2004, Rolling Stone called them the 22nd greatest band of all-time (ahead of bands like the Band), and they've sold over 170 million albums worldwide, resulting in higher sales than Bob Dylan by well over 50 million.

But that doesn't mean they don't suck.

Where does this near-universal success come from? I'll admit that I like War but that's because it’s easy to digest. Tracks like "Elevation" and "One" don't require much thought, and sound catchy on the radio. Those songs, and many others in their catalogue, are horribly derivative and haven't introduced any new ideas to rock.

Universal messages of love, peace, and freedom help U2's overrated cause. There are very few instances where something Bono writes makes you stop and think because most of his lyrics are like this: "I threw the dice when they pierced his side/But I've seen love conquer the great divide." Bono is, of course, referring to Jesus, a common theme in his lyrics.

U2 also lucked out and formed at exactly the right time. Their first album, Boy, was released in 1980, a time when good rock 'n' roll was becoming increasingly hard to find on the radio. But just because they filled a void doesn't mean they should be listened to nearly three decades later.

A band also should be measured by whom they’ve inspired, and the bands they’ve inspired include the Killers and Coldplay, who are essentially U2, Part Deux. And terrible.

The next time you hear someone call U2 the "most important and influential band of the post-punk era," as MSNBC.com did, punch them in the face. Or just say to them, as Stan Marsh tells Bono on South Park, "At some point, can't you just kinda…fuck off?"

15 comments:

mirrorballman said...

uhhh does the fact that they're ranked 22nd all time mean they're overrated? not really. and I mean if you look at the bands ahead of them, how many of them were self glorifying money grabbing egomaniacs? now I'm not gonna be ignorant and say that U2 gives all their money to charity and the poor because they certainly don't. but they've been very good at finding a balance between rock stars and humanitarians. even if you don't like the band you have to respect that.

Bono said...

The fact that you think U2 sucks or is overrated makes you sound very ignorant. I don't have the hours it would take to defend their music.

babymorris said...
This post has been removed by the author.
John Garratt said...

This blog entry is great. Stumbled on it accidentally. U2 are just too much. Too much of everything. Fucking off would be great on their part. But they won't fuck off until people stop paying attention. And people continue to slobber on U2, no matter what they do.

Rebeca said...

I totally agree with you

steve said...

I totally agree. my GF is one of those U2 worshipers that you can't convince otherwise. I bought her the new cd and when i listened to it not only was i bored but i could pin point the exact songs they were duplicating from their previous cd's! the same lyrical format, the same drum beats, the same guitar ....wow. and my GF says U2 is better than pearl jam..lol.pearl jams worse song is better than anything from U2

Taylor said...

I don't agree I think that people like U2 not only for their music, but for the meaning behind the lyrics, and what they stand for as humanitarians.

BonoSucks said...
This post has been removed by the author.
BonoSucks said...

Let me break it down "Bert and Ernie style" for all you Bono knob-polishers out there....

The concept is called "Group Think" and it means you agree with the masses, no matter what they say, with no independent thought whatsoever. This is what U2 fans are infected with.

The concept is simple, if the music is something you have heard (or might hear) in an elevator, or while on hold with one of those annoying automated phone systems...ITS NOT ROCK!!!! U2 sucks, plain and simple. To even say "U2" and "ROCK" in the same sentence is blasphemous, and a fan of REAL ROCK would know that and be very ashamed!!!

BonoSucks said...
This post has been removed by the author.
BonoSucks said...
This post has been removed by the author.
londonafter said...

"most important and influential band of the post-punk era," WHAT THE FUCK!??? i swear i wanted to cry when i read that...

Troy Tempest said...

I don't mind U2. They're better than a lot of bands, but not as good as a LOT of other bands.

I look at the parts. Bono? The guy has pipes. He might be the biggest douchebag this side of Arthur Kade, but he has a really remarkable instrument. He's "that loud irish singer"... Impressive voice. Not as impressive as say, Peter Hammill or David Bowie, but pretty damn good.

Edge: A VERY good guitar player. He doesn't play stuff that's terribly difficult, but he plays it very well, and he knows how to take 3 chords and voice them in an interesting way. He is Very Good. he is not Robert Fripp. He is nt John McLaughlin. He isn't even Peter Townsend. But he IS very good.

Mullin: He's really... average. He can keep time, but he has a habit of rushing his beats - he's always just a little bit ahead. This gives his drumming that "urgentness" so key to the U2 sound. But after a while you wonder if he'll ever be on time. He's an OK drummer. Not great, barely "good". Reminds me of Ringo, if ringo did crank.

Then there's Clayton.

Clayton SUCKS. He is everything I detest in contemporary bass playing. He had a few moments of not-suckage on "War" but otherwise, he is simply unlistenable and unbearable. he will never read this, but I will post as if he is:

Clayton: (caps for emphasis, yes, I am shouting)

EIGHTH NOTES ON THE ROOT SUCK ASS. WOULD YOU KINDLY LEARN TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN EIGHTH NOTES ON THE ROOT.

I swear to freaking Jesus on a pogostick, that's all this clown knows how to do, and he gets paid MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to play rock's most suck ass bass lines. Yo: Clayton: YOU SUCK. I played better bass when I was in high school. Had I known then I could make an easy career of suck ass bass playing like you, I never would have gone into more meaningful life choices.

you blow and suck at the same time.

So, you have an A singer, an A- guitarist, a C level drummer, and a failure as a bass player. That averages out to 2.875, or, a C+.

And I think that is exactly fair. U@ is, in actuality, a C+ band. Better than mediocre, but not a lot.

partyoffour said...

Woo Hoo U2 is ...adequate. You're absolutely right...they make great filler and are nice as background music. They'l be on Muzak for anither 30 years but what kind of a tool says, lets listen to a an entire U2 album, it's great music.

mihai said...

U2 totally sucks. Their music is overrated, their lyrics are complete crap, etc.
But I still don't understand how they got the nerve to use the name "ONE" for their stupid song.
The only song who deserves to be named "ONE" is written by Metallica, for the "...And Justice For All" album, 1989.