Bands you don't get.

[Yoda]

I will argue to the death that Appetite for Destruction is possibly the greatest rock album of all time, yet I don't understand why GNR (and Slash) is considered so huge.
They only had a handful of other good songs among Use Your Illusion I/II, then fizzled out to nothing. I get GNR musically, but considering their overall musical output since they began (or lack thereof), I don't understand their continued popularity. I guess Appetite is just that damn good.

Appetite is indeed just that good. They were ridiculously huge, then got tied in with the ridiculously huge Terminator 2, and then completely imploded. I wonder if they hadn't imploded, if they would be even more washed up. It helps that Axl and Slash are such distinct characters.

I hate lots and lots of bands. Yeah, I don't get Arcade Fire at all... boring, droning, pretentious... but that kind of sums up 'indie rock' as a whole for me.

I do like Geddy Lee's voice. Not sounding like everyone else can be a plus, I guess.

I do like metal. Screamy metal has been growing on me, growly metal less so. I don't like Metallica. They suck. Megadeth rocks though. Slayer is uhhh... I think they missed a couple of key components required to be considered music.

I don't need to be able to decipher lyrics to enjoy music. It doesn't even have to be in a language I understand. I'm more interested in the vocals as an instrument. If poetry is your thing then go read some Robert Frost ya beatniks!

 

[C.E. Evans]

I don't know if U2 takes themselves seriously as much as just Bono who takes himself seriously. Everyone else in the band admits they basically started as a shitty Irish punk band that started writing their own music because they were butchering the cover songs they were attempting. Adam Clayton is their bassist because he was the only person they knew with bass and Bono became their singer because nobody else felt like singing.

Actually, I wasn't referring to their attitude about their own music. I was really more referring to their attitude...well, about their own attitude. If you know what I mean.

Everything around this band is just so frakkin' SERIOUS. And maybe it's mainly Bono...but still, it's just no FUN to even think about U2 anymore. They have managed to just suck the joy out their own existence as a band.

I am okay with the concept of 'bands with a conscience' - as a huge fan of both Bruce Springsteen and PJ, I think that fact speaks for itself. But there is a huge difference between having a conscience (good) and sucking the fun out of everything you touch (bad).

I've watched many documentaries about U2--pretty much covering their entire career to date. One of the things Bono has talked about is how they're publicly perceived as being "a very serious" band, when they don't take themselves seriously at all. Pretty much every member of the band has a self-depreciating sense of humor, but there is a public perception problem that they're "miserable bastards" (a direct quote from Bono) that they've never been able to shake off...

 

[PKTrekGirl]

I've watched many documentaries about U2--pretty much covering their entire career to date. One of the things Bono has talked about is how they're publicly perceived as being "a very serious" band, when they don't take themselves seriously at all. Pretty much every member of the band has a self-depreciating sense of humor, but there is a public perception problem that they're "miserable bastards" (a direct quote from Bono) that they've never been able to shake off...

This is a really interesting comment. And it actually makes me feel a bit better about them that they at least recognize it as a problem and would like for things to change. Thanks so much for sharing that!

Of course, the frustration now has to be that, at this point, they have lost a lot of their more casual fans (myself being a good example), and so we wouldn't necessarily be watching documentaries about them anymore to discover this (figuring to ourselves that if the music is now this un-fun to listen to, we would rather chew a roll of tin foil than watch a documentary about these guys )

What you have here is an established musical juggernaut with a serious, and very odd, PR problem.

Because I don't think any of us who no longer listen to U2 will tell you it's because their musical sense has gone to crap. That was never the issue - they were, and remain, a very talented band.

Their problem - and it's sort of a serious one, IMO: how to make a bunch of middle-aged guys with a reputation as 'miserable bastards' suddenly appear to be more fun than a barrel of monkeys...without making them look like ridiculous stereotypes of 'rock stars in mid-life crisis' (AKA David Lee Roth, etc). Very tricky.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Their problem - and it's sort of a serious one, IMO: how to make a bunch of middle-aged guys with a reputation as 'miserable bastards' suddenly appear to be more fun than a barrel of monkeys...without making them look like ridiculous stereotypes of 'rock stars in mid-life crisis' (AKA David Lee Roth, etc). Very tricky.

On the other hand, they don't have to record one more song if they don't feel like it, and if they still enjoy the whole recording music thing, they can afford not to be successful, so it's only a PR problem if they're still interested in the "biggest band in the world" gig.

 

[Mistral]

Bah. I still cringe when I hear their live cover of Helter Skelter.
"Charles Manson stole this song and we're stealing it back." Whatever. Like, hey, we are the obvious successors to the Beatles and we can do this thing....because no one else who played this song could escape Manson's shadow. Jeez. I just want to bitch-slap Bono and ask him who he thinks he is.....

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Their problem - and it's sort of a serious one, IMO: how to make a bunch of middle-aged guys with a reputation as 'miserable bastards' suddenly appear to be more fun than a barrel of monkeys...without making them look like ridiculous stereotypes of 'rock stars in mid-life crisis' (AKA David Lee Roth, etc). Very tricky.

On the other hand, they don't have to record one more song if they don't feel like it, and if they still enjoy the whole recording music thing, they can afford not to be successful, so it's only a PR problem if they're still interested in the "biggest band in the world" gig.

Well, of course - at least in a way. I presumed that went without saying, given that at this point, they have More Money Than God.

But what I have discovered with a lot of these bands with a conscience (and U2 is at the very top of that list) is that they care very deeply about their legacy. At least that is the case with two of my favorite bands who also have places on that list - Springsteen and Pearl Jam.

When you have a conscience...and have sought to use your fame for good on the level that these kinds of bands have, it's no longer about money. Any of these guys could quit tomorrow and be set for 3 lifetimes. But it's not about that.

I can't speak for U2 since as I just stated, I have not watched any documentaries about them/interviews with them in a VERY long time. But I am pretty knowledgeable about Springsteen and Pearl Jam. And I can tell you that for both of them, it's now about 2 things:

1. Continuing to be creative is still fun for them personally (this is something you can do without being 'big', of course); and

2. They want to leave a legacy that will be respected. And this means both musically, and as Citizens Of The World. I think that in the case of all 3 bands, their body of work speaks for itself and the 'musically' part is take care of, but the Citizens Of The World bit? - continuing to do good and speak out for what is right on the level they have - that takes 'being big'...or at least 'being relevant to a lot of people'.

As I said, I don't follow U2 much any more (in fact, just yesterday I actually got annoyed when XM Radio station Lithium (supposedly devoted to grunge) played a U2 song when I was in the car - I remember grumbling "U2 isn't fucking grunge!", as I turned the dial in mild annoyance )...but one thing I have always taken away from Bono is that he wants to use his street cred for good. And it's VERY important to him - not just a 'hobby' when it's 'convenient'. I deeply admire him for that, because I know more fully what things like taking a stand against Dubya has cost Springsteen (and Pearl Jam, for that matter).

So I think that U2, while they could easily just 'not care' if they were big anymore, might struggle with the notion of 'just hanging out and playing a few clubs'. Not because they need the money....or even because they crave the fame for it's own sake (neither of which I believe to be the case)....but because they need that international platform to continue to spread their 'citizen of the world' message.

I think it means something to them. It certainly would mean something to me, if I were in their place.

That's why I think U2's situation is particularly tricky. Because their version & tone of the 'citizen of the world' message is part of the reason they have acquired that rep as 'miserable bastards'.

Just my take from a (now) U2 outsider who used to follow them a lot more seriously. Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[J.T.B.]

British and European bands often (maybe even usually) come across as serious, or distant, or aloof. I think part of it is because rock and roll didn't start there, so playing it casually and "just having a good time" could appear unnatural and phony. There are exceptions, of course.

U2 probably doesn't take themselves as seriously as their reputation suggests, but you can't really tell it by their work. I liked them way back when they were touring nightclubs (never caught them then, though) but by the late '80s they had an air of self-importance that was pretty insufferable. The Joshua Tree and the Rattle and Hum movie really turned me off, with the little lectures and all. "I didn't mean to bug ya...!" Then shut up and play! And despite working with B.B. King, when the Edge is told to "play the blues" it's some of the most joyless and uninspiring "blues" I've ever heard. But that's just me...

I have seen a lot of bands live, including some legendary punk bands of the "faster/shorter/no guitar solos" school, but Springsteen with the E-Street Band still rank as some of the funnest and highest-energy shows I've ever seen. U2 playing on a riser in a club with just their amps, no light shows and jumbo screens, wouldn't have a lot of presence, I don't think. The E-Street Band would blow you away.

--Justin

 

[indranee]

Coldplay and KOL.

fucking overrated. both of 'em.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

British and European bands often (maybe even usually) come across as serious, or distant, or aloof. I think part of it is because rock and roll didn't start there, so playing it casually and "just having a good time" could appear unnatural and phony. There are exceptions, of course.

Oh my...this comment might just open a wee can of worms.

But you sort of got me thinking, and although I not sure I agree with the underlying cause as stated (ie. 'rock and roll didn't start there'), I do find myself considering the possibility (for the first time, actually) that some of this might be a cultural thing.

I mean, I am old enough to have been in that group of people who were glued to MTV for the better part of the 80's - particularly the early to mid-80's. And I was all about that British New Wave thing (The Police are one of my favorite bands from that period...and I still play their albums, to this day).

But I have to say it - as much as I love(ed) The Police, I NEVER 'got' Sting from a personal point of view. I loved his quirky songs...and I loved that catchy sound that only The Police were capable of, and Stewart Copeland is like a god to me (and yes - I know he is American)...but Sting? Never was able to put a finger on what that guy was about at all. Other than 'Odd" and "Pretty Arrogant".

And so I'd like to put it to the folks from the UK here: do you guys 'get' Sting? And does he come off to you guys as odd and arrogant? Or is it just an American/British thing? In which case, it might be part of the reason I struggle with U2....

As I think about some of this...there is sort of something worth contemplating there. I mean, look at The Beatles. Massively successful in the US, of course. But that, almost in spite of John Lennon personally. I mean, even the hippies didn't 'get' John Lennon. To this day, there is this vibe around John Lennon that says "absolute genius...but jeez, that guy was fucking weird!"

Now granted, we have our own barrel of weird geniuses (Michael Jackson and Prince come immediately to mind...although in Michael Jackon's case, I think his 'weirdness' was more as a result of his family and the fact that he never had a normal childhood than an 'organic' weirdness).

But then, I actually sort of 'get' Prince too. He also had a pretty screwed up childhood (he came from an abusive and generally fucked up home) and so I understand his inherent distrust of people in general...although I think his weirdness is more than only that - part of it is that John Lennon brand of weirdness that I can't fully grasp.

So here I am...an American who is able to 'get' our version of the 'weird genius', at least in part...but not so much able to get the British versions of the same.

Interesting. Never thought about that before.

I wonder how the British feel about Michael Jackson and Prince.

 

[C.E. Evans]

British and European bands often (maybe even usually) come across as serious, or distant, or aloof. I think part of it is because rock and roll didn't start there, so playing it casually and "just having a good time" could appear unnatural and phony. There are exceptions, of course.

U2 probably doesn't take themselves as seriously as their reputation suggests, but you can't really tell it by their work. I liked them way back when they were touring nightclubs (never caught them then, though) but by the late '80s they had an air of self-importance that was pretty insufferable.

Bono: As a band, we have a giant collective ego. It picks us up...People say we take ourselves too seriously and I might have to plead guilty to that. But I really don't take myself seriously, we don't take ourselves seriously--but we do take the music seriously...
--From the book "Touch The Flame"

The Joshua Tree and the Rattle and Hum movie really turned me off, with the little lectures and all. "I didn't mean to bug ya...!" Then shut up and play!

Echoes of the Dixie Chicks' "Shut up and sing"...

To be fair, the "little lectures" in the Rattle and Hum movie were relevant to what what was going on in the world at the time. Not so much now, though.

And despite working with B.B. King, when the Edge is told to "play the blues" it's some of the most joyless and uninspiring "blues" I've ever heard. But that's just me...

I think it was quite neat, but we also might be talking about two entirely different and unrelated songs in the movie: "Silver & Gold" and "When Love Comes To Town."

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Bah. I still cringe when I hear their live cover of Helter Skelter.
"Charles Manson stole this song and we're stealing it back." Whatever. Like, hey, we are the obvious successors to the Beatles and we can do this thing....because no one else who played this song could escape Manson's shadow. Jeez. I just want to bitch-slap Bono and ask him who he thinks he is.....

Part of George Harrison's reason for agreeing to Anthology was to show U2 how big a band could really be. ("The Streets Have No Name" video, with the rooftop concert, pissed Harrison off.)

 

[marillion]

Come visit New Mexico.. I will sit you down and explain Rush to you.. If I can succeed in getting my country music-loving wife to get them and ultimately love them almost as much as I do, I can do that for you as well..

I dunno man, If you have to explain it...

Oh, you have no idea the effort I will put into getting people to like Rush..

 

[Owain Taggart]

^ Ditto -- beat me to it.

Also, I would add Dave Matthews Band... *yerch*

Cheers,
-CM-

Dave Matthews Band fans completely turned me off to the music. I know that's a horrible reason, but after dealing with a bunch of frat boys who used shows as an excuse to get drunk and girls who just wanted to see "Dave" because it was the thing to do or sleep with said frat boys and a lot of hardcore fans who are pretentiously mean to new fans, I realized I didn't want to be associated with that.

I do still like some of their music, but a combo of the fans and a burn out on their music over the course of summer '09, I'm not too hot on it. They are extremely talented and in my college band, we play some covers by them and I get a kick out of playing their songs.

Haha wow, I go away for two days and the thread's exploded

Anyhow, I definitely understand what you mean. I think that behaviour among fans might be common. Case in point, I hold no illusions that one of my favourite bands is Great Big Sea. I like them for what they are, but mostly due to their older material, not their more recent stuff. The fanbase can be a little... shall we say, crazy? A lot of fans, at least the ones who post on the official board, seem to hold the allusion that the band owes them something. Older fans also seem to have a "I've been a fan longer than you, so I'm better than you" attitude, and there has even been fights that erupted over that several times lol.

One fan in particular, I would think of as a stalker. Knows the lead singer is married, knows where he lives, ends up being in the same place as him all the time and goes to nearly every of the band's concerts and takes pictures of his crotch. The woman seems to be everywhere, it's insane, and at one time the official forum got closed because of her, yet the band won't do anything beyond that. She seems to think the guy she has a crush on owes her.

 

[1001001]

All of you who mentioned Rush:

Off My Planet! Now!







I think Lady Gaga is crap. Ridiculous crap at that.

Any kind of techno-dance-pop I don't get at all. Talentless manufactured super-crap. Sounds like you're listening to a pinball machine.

 

[IndyJones]

I think Lady Gaga is crap. Ridiculous crap at that.

I'll give her credit for writing all her own songs and not being afraid to play piano while singing (without any autotuning or voice changing effects) by herself. That's more than most of this current crop of popstars could do.

 

[Australis]

This is going to sound odd, but... Crowded House. I can kinda see why people like them, but tremendously overrated. And a pale, pale shadow of what came before, Split Enz. SE were truly amazing and creative, especially when the guitarist was Phil Judd instead of Nil Fun. Maybe that's what the difference is.

Check out their first albums up to Dizrythmia, you'll be surprised.

 

[C_Miller]

^ Ditto -- beat me to it.

Also, I would add Dave Matthews Band... *yerch*

Cheers,
-CM-

Dave Matthews Band fans completely turned me off to the music. I know that's a horrible reason, but after dealing with a bunch of frat boys who used shows as an excuse to get drunk and girls who just wanted to see "Dave" because it was the thing to do or sleep with said frat boys and a lot of hardcore fans who are pretentiously mean to new fans, I realized I didn't want to be associated with that.

I do still like some of their music, but a combo of the fans and a burn out on their music over the course of summer '09, I'm not too hot on it. They are extremely talented and in my college band, we play some covers by them and I get a kick out of playing their songs.

Haha wow, I go away for two days and the thread's exploded

Anyhow, I definitely understand what you mean. I think that behaviour among fans might be common. Case in point, I hold no illusions that one of my favourite bands is Great Big Sea. I like them for what they are, but mostly due to their older material, not their more recent stuff. The fanbase can be a little... shall we say, crazy? A lot of fans, at least the ones who post on the official board, seem to hold the allusion that the band owes them something. Older fans also seem to have a "I've been a fan longer than you, so I'm better than you" attitude, and there has even been fights that erupted over that several times lol.

One fan in particular, I would think of as a stalker. Knows the lead singer is married, knows where he lives, ends up being in the same place as him all the time and goes to nearly every of the band's concerts and takes pictures of his crotch. The woman seems to be everywhere, it's insane, and at one time the official forum got closed because of her, yet the band won't do anything beyond that. She seems to think the guy she has a crush on owes her.

Certainly. That part of the fandom is rather common, regardless of the fandom. But the fact that DMB's music has been delegated to "Bro Music," I have building desire to attend shows, which severely limits my ability to be a fan as seeing them live is a bit part of my experience as a music fan.