The Cure vs. U2

Started by revolt, September 10, 2008, 11:04:35

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

japanesebaby

back to the cure vs. u2 issue:

at least the cure deluxe releases with their bonus discs offered something new and interesting to old fans, so the cure does deserve  credit for that, at least so far.
u2 on the other hand seems to have pulled a con on their fanbase with their remaster series(?):

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/news/u2-rereleases-spark-ripoff-claims-13912931.html

Ay, in the very temple of Delight
Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine

mahood

Quote from: japanesebaby on October 31, 2008, 21:31:57
at least the cure deluxe releases with their bonus discs offered something new and interesting to old fans, so the cure does deserve  credit for that.


i never liked U2, so won't comment on this, but since we're talking about remastered editions, i was so glad to read robin guthrie's comments on the latest "ultra limited gatefold sleeve remastered from master tapes with extra blah and coloured vinyl you won't believe it even if you have this record in 20 different formats already" editions of some of cocteau twins catalogue :
http://www.cocteautwins.com/html/news.html (scroll down a bit to the august news).

2 quotes that say it all : "Once again, it's nice to see the label treating the legacy of my band with sooo much respect... Gotta squeeze that last little bit of toothpaste out of the tube, huh?" --- "I would seriously doubt the authenticity of any claim that these have been mastered from the 'original analogue masters'... I would find that remarkable given my knowledge of the current whereabouts and condition of the masters...whatever"

while i think the remastered cure & related CDs have been real treats, even the greatest fake of all (blue sunshine, not to name it), i really find their vinyl counterparts to be pure bargains : they are for sure mastered after the remastered CDs, not the tapes (no need to listen to them to know that), and i won't even mention the inclusion of the cult hero single in the middle of 17 seconds (that says it all too). the only versions to look for are the original pressings, since they were the ones the band & the producer would spend time on, and agree.
i just can't understand the "concept" of a remastered vinyl anyway, since the music was produced for this medium, and carefully enough --- until the head on the door, i personnally think nothing can be superior to the first vinyl editions (listen to the bass on the holy hour !).
i do however perfectly understand the process for CDs, since the first ones were not greatly made, insisting on what made digital sound different from analogue, and not in a good way (i mean, when vinyl was still the main format).

another absurd example, while i think of it : the remastered versions of joy division LPs : the sleeves are exact replicas of the originals, with textured papers, round edges etc.
& the sticker says it proudly, with good reason ; but then what were they thinking when they decided to remaster the music itself ? it's so wrong. OK, the man is dead now, but try to imagine telling martin hannett that his production needs to fit today's standards, while peter saville's artwork won't be transformed at all, because hey, it's art, you don't touch it. so wrong.
signs, flowers, weapons and balloons

alt.end

Quote from: revolt on September 10, 2008, 11:04:35
Robert has posted a couple of messages on the official site, concerning all this MTV show business. First he posted the following:


HEY! WE COULD BE 'BEST HEADLINER' SAYS MTV! WORTH A VOTE?

IF NOT PERHAPS CAST ONE FOR JONAS BROTHERS OR LIL WAYNE AS 'BEST ACT EVER'? OR MAYBE THE PUSSYCAT DOLLS OR U2?


And then, as a comment to the above, he wrote:

NOT SURE WHY I PICKED ON THESE 4...
NOT ENOUGH TIME TO TYPE IN THE REST OF THE LIST MAYBE?!!



Well, I don't know about the other 3, but U2 have always been a sort of "obsession" of Robert's, in a way, in that across the years he has frequently mentioned them as sort of example of successfull rock band that would be the opposite of what The Cure means. He has never liked U2 but apparently he doesn't seem to be able to forget them altogether.

Now, as a fan of both bands, I have to say that in the 90's U2 were actually fairly better than The Cure, because they managed to renew their music and at the same time release albums that in quality terms could be considered among their best. I think The Cure have failed on both these accounts, so maybe there is something of an envy feeling in Robert...

Anyway, since in the 2000's U2 really went downhill from an artistical point of view, nowadays The Cure probably have nothing to be envious about. Because, even if the band has not been able to release any great record in this millenium, at least, on general terms, it can be said that they have been somewhat improving since "Wild Mood Swings".

With both bands having new albums to be released soon (U2's was once supposed to be released this year, I think, but it seems to have been delayed), it will be interesting to check which band is in better form right now...



i don't agree that U2 went downhill since the 2000's, i always thought the same but you know why ? because everybody says so. it's complete bollocks. I listened to All That You Can Leave Behind album and their songrwriting is powerful as before. Perhaps sound is a bit too ''clear'' for me. And then again, i listen to their latest album How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb, and again, there are at least 6 great tunes, nice arrangment ideas etc. Bono's voice is still awesome, too.

I personaly think the only mistake they do is they only do big things now. E.g. they should occasionaly come down from Olymp and do smaller thing like REM or RADIOHEAD do, like going to Later with Jools Holland, playing intimate gigs here and there, communicate with their fans, having website like Green Plastic Trees realy is helpful.

You know what i mean? Forgive if i'm wrong.

Dillinger

I can't believe people are saying U2 are a God Rock band, when The Cure wrote The Blood (amongst others)

SueC

Haha, should have been here 12 years ago and don't have a TARDIS!  :angel

U2 were one of my favourite bands as a teenager - along with The Waterboys, and a few other Celtic outfits.  I still love love love their first five albums.  They sounded like nobody else, wrote intelligent and increasingly poetic lyrics and cared about stuff that it wasn't fashionable to care about in the 80s - they were a welcome relief from the dumb synth-pop of the time.  They grew up in a war zone, and Bono also in a domestic war zone, which made them very relatable to other people from such circumstances.

Then two things happened:  They got too big, and they stopped sounding original.  It doesn't mean they weren't very competent, or that they made bad music, but the magic was just gone for me.  They went from original to imitating others (Rattle & Hum) and then to postmodern and started sounding like everyone else, or like a hotchpotch of U2 and everyone else.  Also around that time Bono started grating on me in filmed interviews, just something about his manner, though he does also still come up with intelligent things; just also with a lot of stuff I find pretentious.  It's like he's not lived in the same universe as us for a long time now.  His wife said he's "unencumbered by reality."

Of the more recent albums, I really loved Songs Of Innocence for its lyrical content - it's my favourite since their early albums.  The Troubles is a gem of a track.  But even on that album, the music is just a bit overly shiny.  There's no musical rawness anymore.  They sort of sound like their own cover band a lot of the time.

The Cure has been a later-in-life thing for me; my entry point was Bloodflowers, 14 years after its release, because my husband was lending me his iPod and it was on there.  That album has exactly what I think is missing from U2 for the last three decades:  Rawness and originality.  Neither of us think Bloodflowers sounds like anything else we've ever heard.  The Cure doesn't sound like its own jukebox on it.  Same with Burn, which was my husband's entry point, when he saw The Crow in the cinema.  It was the reason he bought the soundtrack, Paris, Show and Bloodflowers.  And we've just gone on from there, discovering that The Cure is a whole lot more than their popular radio songs would suggest.  I could list several dozen songs we've discovered since that are both raw and original; and we've still got five studio albums to go.  The Cure isn't always raw, sometimes they're very shiny; but we love their ability to be raw, even after all this time.

SueC is time travelling