Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Look Park Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Rock forum

U2: "Overrated"?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 644 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 20, 2006 9:42:18 PM PST
Doug Johnson says:
Am I alone in my opinion that U2 is the most overrated band in rock music? Just curious if anyone out there thinks that they are as big of a bore as I do. Maybe their catalog is okay listening for...I don't elevator ride? I understand the mass appeal because their music is so safe and predictable, but I don't understand the praise that this band is continually showered with.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2006 10:07:34 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 20, 2006 10:09:52 PM PST
Wayne Klein says:
That's been said about everyone from The Beatles, Stones, Who to Bruce Springsteen. I wouldn't say they are overrated--perhaps overpraised and overexposed. The result seems to be that people sour on their music just as they did other groups from other generations.

Are they the best band in rock'n'roll?--it all depends on you and your taste. My favorite comment about that silly "mine is bigger" discussion comes from Keith Richard--he said the greatest rock 'n' roll band is playing in a bar in your town every night.

Vs. charging in and stating that they are overrated--give us an example as to why you think they are. Also, come up with a band that merits that reputation (if you feel there is one). There are lots of great bands that produce great albums and have their fair share of dross.

I wouldn't call their music safe and predictable. I would argue that any band that tries to experiment with their sound from album to album (and risk alienating their fan base) is far from safe and predictable.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 21, 2006 10:26:10 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 21, 2006 10:28:11 AM PST
Gerard L. says:
Unforgettable fire, Joshua Tree, and Achtung Baby are great albums. Lots of good stuff before and after but, for me, more hit and miss. But they have never been "safe and predictable" in my opinion. Also, at the time of their first few albums, they were quite unique and powerful given the popular music of the day. At a time when synthesizers and goofy hair got you on MTV, they were a solid guitar, drums and bass band. That certainly wasn't playing it safe.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2006 1:36:04 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 17, 2010 1:30:45 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2006 2:30:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2006 2:34:16 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2006 5:20:39 PM PST
Wayne Klein says:
I'd suggest listening to any early album by The Pretty Things or even The Monks. You'll see that punk rock was around a long time before the Pistols. You'll also see it in its "greatest form".

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2006 5:24:08 AM PST
RegF says:
I agree with you.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2006 5:25:03 AM PST
RegF says:
Yes and it stared with very early STONES and very early WHO.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2006 1:25:49 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2006 2:59:22 PM PST
I find it difficult to find anything positive to say about Bono and U2. As a long time rocker, I find U2's music pretentious and without merit.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 25, 2006 10:21:48 AM PST
Eszpresszo says:
You're not alone. You are among the legions of people who quietly grimace at the sound of U2's later contrivances, anmd the sight of Bono's ugly mug as he touts some socially concious issue.
U2 is a grossly overrated ban, that needed to hang it up after the first two albums, because they simply haven't done anything notable since then. I did really enjoy their early work, and I am not denying their appeal. However, their musical talents run far behind their ability to keep themselves in the public eye, and martketing themselves as an intelligent, socially-concious group of "artists". In a career that has spanned 26 (?) years, the group has little to show for itself in terms of innovation, and their last album was just a reaffirmation of them doing what they always been doing all along. True, the Rolling Stones haven't done jack in 30 years, but what they accomplished in the first ten years of their career is mind-boggling.
Personally, I think they are mostly interested in their financial success, and Bono's posturing as a messiah is pure, shameless self-promotion.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 25, 2006 10:39:54 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 17, 2010 1:30:45 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2006 9:24:14 AM PST
music fan says:
To me, U2 is a very good band with a lot of good songs. They are overrated in that they receive way too many accolades for being a good band with good songs. They weren't innovative and in terms of the length of their career, not all that productive.
They're just not in the same league with the Stones, Beatles or Zeppelin.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2006 9:41:40 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2007 10:37:33 AM PST
Wayne Klein says:
I would agree with you about the classification for U2--they are far from punk rock. Then again, I've always felt that Elvis Costello wasn't "new wave" but someone will always misclassify something based on their definitions.

As to Paul Falk's post I would disagree that U2 were spent after only their first two albums. Does it offend you that they try to be socially conscious and try to actually do something besides be "rock stars"?

I personally still that they are still viable. As to being overrated...someone is always overrated but that doesn't mean their music is without merit. No one claims that U2 are the messiahs of rock music.

As to musicfan's point about them not being in the same league as "the Stones, Beatles or Zeppelin" I don't think that the Stones are in that league anymore. They've spent the last 36 years remaking the same album again and again without moving forward. Sure there have been some albums that are better than others but when a band's day is done they should hang it up. The Stones should have hung it up over 20 years ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2007 12:40:37 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 17, 2010 1:30:44 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2007 4:16:11 PM PST
Wayne Klein says:
I would agree that U2 belongs up there with the other big guys but would disagree about the Stones. I've heard every album they've made (including "A Bigger Bang" which admittedly is better than most of the other dreck they've recorded since "Exile"). Every album has a couple of good songs but really they've been treading the same ground since "Exile" their last great album. Even "Tatoo You" is a pleasant experience but nothing Earth shattering.

"Voodoo Lounge" I felt was pretty pathetic overall--an attempt to recapture past glories. In their favor it's hard to live up to what you've done in the past particularly when you've created some great stuff but otherwise they should have split up some time in the 70's.

It's not that I can't listen to their other stuff I just don't find anything interesting in it at this stage.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2007 7:29:16 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 17, 2010 1:30:44 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2007 2:50:46 PM PST
I don't think anyone can argue that U2 in its prime was a remarkably solid band that put out great albums. By their prime I mean over a decade ago. Now everything since then I believe is up for debate and rightfuly so.

Have they become a safe band? I believe so. The inclusion of recent U2 hits into the NOW compilations is altogether ironic considering the sub-standered talent those discs seem to encompass. However, it does point to the decline this band has been in for quite some time. Does this have anything to do with Bono's convoluted one man messiah attitude hes been donning these past few years? I think so. Is there anything wrong with a band trying to do something positive outside of their musical careers? Of course not. Has Bono become completely pretentious and any good message he might have comes off as contrived? Absolutely. Somewhere down the line U2 has become the soundtrack to soccer moms and other relatively bland people. Maybe if they got down from their high horse and became relavant again they could put out another good album. Until then, do I think U2 is overrated? Unquestionably.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2007 3:01:18 PM PST
Gerard L. says:
I think U2 finds themselves in the same situation the Stones and the Who did in the late 70s early 80s. They could sell out any size venue without even trying. People will go see them no matter what their new album sounds like because they want to hear their favorite songs.

This is not to take anything away from them - they put out some great albums. In order to be overrated, I believe you had to have been good, if not great, at some point. And they have the potential to still put out more great music, though I believe everything after Achtung has been hit or miss. While Zooropa and Pop get points for doing something different, their last two albums sound pretty safe to me.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2007 5:02:50 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 17, 2010 1:30:43 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2007 5:20:09 PM PST
Gerard L. says:
Never said I hate U2 or their stuff sucks. I don't like their last two albums very much. Neither album sucks. "Give me something more" than this "messiahs" of rock stuff. In fact, "you" can take home the grammy by making a safe album. It has been done plenty of times.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 5, 2007 9:36:07 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 17, 2010 1:30:42 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 6, 2007 12:28:43 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 6, 2007 2:27:19 PM PST
RegF says:
Many bland bands have won album of the year at the Grammy's.

If the Grammys is your test for great music , then you should find another source.

Lets see , where do I begin?

JETHRO TULL [not bland or main stream] , once won for "heavy metal" CD of the year...loll

Steely Dan , won CD of the year recently [About 15 years to late.They should have won for their earlier work]

Celine Dion , has won CD of the Year , so has Whitney Huston , Mariah and the list is endless.

Sting , has won many Grammys.He is pretty safe.

If fact both U2 and Sting have won more Grammy's than The BEATLES have. They have only won 4 of them.

Sorry , but U2 are not THE BEATLES. Not even close.

Of all music awards shows THE GRAMMYS choose the most safe and main stream music going to win it's major awards.It one of music press' biggest complaints about it.

NEIL YOUNG [maybe he will win for rock CD this year], GENESIS , BLACK SABBETH , THE DOORS , The WHO , RUSH , DEEP PURPLE , LED ZEPPLIN , ect...Have never won any major Grammys. Does this mean that they were not great bands?

The only , " not so safe " , CD to win CD of the year was recently was Alanis' , Jadded Little Pill.

Just look at the noms. for this years CD of the year.
The only CD that I would consider , not bland or not mainstream is , TALKING THE LONG WAY , because of the lyrics.

In my opinion , U2 had 4 great CDs at the beginning and really went down hill after , A.Baby.

If you think that that their CD , POP , and songs like , " it's a beautiful day " , ect , are classic U2 , then all the power to you.

They went from writing " Sunday Bloody Sunday " to , " The Sweetest Thing "

U2 / Sting / Phil Collins along with THE EAGLES before them helped invent modern A.O.R.

No band/artists can write great songs forever.Just ask , RUSH and/or THE STONES.

I do like BONO's political work!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 6, 2007 9:36:23 AM PST
And the crowd goes wild!!!!!!!!!!The GRAMMY'S were always a "POP" kinda thing, I tip my cap to you!HERE,HERE! U2 is a great band up to about A.Tung and Zoo...;and will probably be most remembered for The Unforgetable Fire & The Joshua Tree (I prefer the Unforgetable Fire).They will always sell-out, and make the Hall of Fame,so it has been written so let it be done.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 6, 2007 2:17:32 PM PST
This is a quote from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from February 9, 2006

" U2 was the evening's biggest winner, with five awards, including song and album of the year, but its victory for 2004's "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" felt anti-climactic the album is universally seen as less than the Irish band's best.

Even U2 front man Bono seemed to acknowledge the mood of the evening, choosing to turn his acceptance speech for album of the year into a near-apology to the other contenders."

I think this and other great points others on here have brought up should really spawn its own discussion about the Grammys.

To add to the discussion and all our personal opinions aside I think no band is deserving of being considered impossible to overrate.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Rock forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Rock forum
Participants:  166
Total posts:  644
Initial post:  Dec 20, 2006
Latest post:  Dec 14, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions