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...
U2 can go home :-D
I'm a fan of both , too.
I must confess I've never thought about what band was more or less good than the other one...they're simply too different for making any sort of comparison, Bono and Robert have two different approaches to the music, to the success and especially to the live shows, but both of them can be great and emotional in their own way.
So I agree that The Cure don't have anything to envy to U2 (and viceversa! :)), but honestly I think that U2's new album will be more successful than The Cure's new one, not because of the quality, but just because they have a wider audience. ;)
Quote from: bluewater on September 10, 2008, 11:23:24
U2 can go home :-D
It's a Christian band you're rejecting there. So maybe, as poet William Blake once said about poet John Milton, you are actually "of the Devil's party without knowing it." :twisted:
Quote from: Lady on September 10, 2008, 11:24:10
I must confess I've never thought about what band was more or less good than the other one...they're simply too different for making any sort of comparison,
Yes, they are very different, but one can always try and compare them. At least Robert seems to agree with me in this respect. ;) But anyway, as regards the new albums from both bands, I was thinking mainly of comparing them with their previous albums, so that we could conclude if the bands were or not in good form. Will "4:13 Dream" make us forget "The Cure"? Will U2's new album make us forget those 2 albums with neverending titles? I hope so, in both cases.
Quote from: Lady on September 10, 2008, 11:24:10
but honestly I think that U2's new album will be more successful than The Cure's new one, not because of the quality, but just because they have a wider audience. ;)
Well, you're right there. But from reading Bono's comments on the forthcoming album, I also get the impression that for the first time in the 2000's U2 have been artistically ambitious, once again. So, at least until U2 release a single that sounds not-too-impressive to my ears, right now I actually have greater expectations for U2 than for The Cure. We'll have to wait and see.
Quote from: revolt on September 10, 2008, 11:55:14
Quote from: bluewater on September 10, 2008, 11:23:24
U2 can go home :-D
It's a Christian band you're rejecting there. So maybe, as poet William Blake once said about poet John Milton, you are actually "of the Devil's party without knowing it." :twisted:
Yeah I could go to that party, just as long as they keep the HELL out of my bedroom.
Quote from: bluewater on September 10, 2008, 14:48:49
Quote from: revolt on September 10, 2008, 11:55:14
Quote from: bluewater on September 10, 2008, 11:23:24
U2 can go home :-D
It's a Christian band you're rejecting there. So maybe, as poet William Blake once said about poet John Milton, you are actually "of the Devil's party without knowing it." :twisted:
Yeah I could go to that party, just as long as they keep the HELL out of my bedroom.
You know, some ambient electronic stuff (the kind of music you say you enjoy listening now) is known to have satanical or otherwise "occult" messages embedded in it. You could actually be receiving those on a subconscious level, without noticing it.
I would say you would probably be much safer with The Cure, but then that is your choice, not mine. :-D
Quote from: revolt on September 10, 2008, 11:55:14
Quote from: bluewater on September 10, 2008, 11:23:24
U2 can go home :-D
It's a Christian band you're rejecting there. So maybe, as poet William Blake once said about poet John Milton, you are actually "of the Devil's party without knowing it." :twisted:
They are not a Christian band at all, just a band with three Christian members!
And guess the odd one out;)
f*ck U2. f*ck boner and the edge. what kind of shit names are those anyway. and whats wrong with WMS!?! Jupiter crash is one of my favorites!
....I'm half joking but man i hate U2, really shouldn't be compared.....
Quote from: AdamClayton on September 10, 2008, 18:44:35
Quote from: revolt on September 10, 2008, 11:55:14
Quote from: bluewater on September 10, 2008, 11:23:24
U2 can go home :-D
It's a Christian band you're rejecting there. So maybe, as poet William Blake once said about poet John Milton, you are actually "of the Devil's party without knowing it." :twisted:
They are not a Christian band at all, just a band with three Christian members!
And guess the odd one out;)
Yeah, the odd one out is "you". But as for U2 not being a Christian band, I'll leave here a few lyrical examples that prove otherwise:
GLORIA (1981)
I try to sing this song
I...I try to stand up
But I can't find my feet
I try, I try to speak up
But only in you I'm complete
Gloria...in te domine
Gloria...exultate
Gloria...Gloria
Oh Lord, loosen my lips
I try to sing this song
I...I try to get in
But I can't find the door
The door is open
You're standing there
You let me in
Gloria...in te domine
Gloria...exultate
Oh Lord, if I had anything
Anything at all
I'd give it to you
I'd give it to you
Gloria...Gloria...
WITH A SHOUT (JERUSALEM) (1981)
Oh, and where do we go
Where do we go from here
Where to go
To the side of a hill
Blood was spilt
We were still looking
At each other
Oh, we're goin' back there
Jerusalem Jerusalem
Shout, shout
With a shout, shout it out
Shout...shout it out...
I wanna go
To the foot of the messiah
To the foot of he who made me see
To the side of a hill
Where we were still
We were filled
With our love
We're gonna be there again
Jerusalem Jerusalem
Shout, shout
With a shout
Shout...
With a shout
"40" (1983)
(I waited patiently for the Lord
He inclined and heard my cry.
He brought me right out of the pit,
out of my miry clay.)
I will sing a new song,
How long to sing this song?
He set my feet upon a rock,
and made my footsteps heard.
Many will see,
Many will see and fear.
I will sing, sing a new song.
How long to sing this song?
(Note: the first 4 verses are not usually included in U2's lyrics, but could be said to be implicit, since all the lyrics in this song are taken from a psalm the bible).
M.L.K. (1984)
Sleep
Sleep tonight
And may your dreams
Be realized
If the thunder cloud
Passes rain
So let it rain
Rain down him
So let it be
So let it be
Sleep
Sleep tonight
And may your dreams
Be realized
If the thundercloud
Passes rain
So let it rain
Let it rain
Rain on him
(Note: this a subtle one, but since M.L.K. stands for reverend Martin Luther King, to whom the song is dedicated, you could take your conclusions from the line "And may your dreams Be realized"... After all, in his famous "I have a dream" speech, Luther King said: "I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.")
I STILL HAVEN'T FOUND WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR (1987)
I have climbed highest mountain
I have run through the fields
Only to be with you
Only to be with you
I have run
I have crawled
I have scaled these city walls
These city walls
Only to be with you
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
I have kissed honey lips
Felt the healing in her fingertips
It burned like fire
This burning desire
I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
I believe in the kingdom come
Then all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
Well yes I'm still running
You broke the bonds and you
Loosed the chains
Carried the cross
Of my shame
Of my shame
You know I believed it
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for...
THE WANDERER (1993)
I went out walking
Through streets paved with gold
Lifted some stones
Saw the skin and bones
Of a city without a soul
I went out walking
Under an atomic sky
Where the ground won't turn
And the rain it burns
Like the tears when I said goodbye
Yeah I went with nothing
Nothing but the thought of you
I went wandering
I went drifting
Through the capitals of tin
Where men can't walk
Or freely talk
And sons turn their fathers in
I stopped outside a church house
Where the citizens like to sit
They say they want the kingdom
But they don't want God in it
I went out riding
Down that old eight lane
I passed by a thousand signs
Looking for my own name
I went with nothing
But the thought you'd be there too
Looking for you
I went out there
In search of experience
To taste and to touch
And to feel as much
As a man can
Before he repents
I went out searching
Looking for one good man
A spirit who would not bend or break
Who would sit at his father's right hand
I went out walking
With a bible and a gun
The word of God lay heavy on my heart
I was sure I was the one
Now Jesus, don't you wait up
Jesus, I'll be home soon
Yeah I went out for the papers
Told her I'd be back by noon
Yeah I left with nothing
But the thought you'd be there too
Looking for you
Yeah I left with nothing
Nothing but the thought of you
I went wandering
IF GOD WILL SEND HIS ANGELS (1997)
Nobody else here baby
No one here to blame
No one to point the finger
It's just you and me and the rain
Nobody made you do it
No one put words in your mouth
Nobody here taking orders
When love took a train heading south
It's the blind leading the blond
It's the stuff, it's the stuff of country songs
Hey if God will send his angels
And if God will send a sign
And if God will send his angels
Would everything be alright
God has got his phone off the hook, babe
Would he even pick up if he could
It's been a while since we saw that child
Hanging 'round this neighbourhood
You see his mother dealing in a doorway
See Father Christmas with a begging bowl
Jesus sister's eyes are a blister
The High Street never looked so low
It's the blind leading the blond
It's the cops collecting for the cons
So where is the hope and where is the faith
And the love...what's that you say to me
Does love...light up your Christmas Tree
The next minute you're blowing a fuse
And the cartoon network turns into the news
If God will send his angels
And if God will send a sign
And if God will send his angels
Where do we go
Where do we go
Jesus never let me down
You know Jesus used to show me the score
Then they put Jesus in show business
Now it's hard to get in the door
It's the stuff, it's the stuff of country songs
But I guess it was something to go on
If God will send his angels
I sure could use them here right now
Well if God would send his angels
Where do we go
I don't want to lie
(Where do we go)
I don't want to have a feel for the song
And I want to love, and I...
(Where do we go)
And I want to feel alone
WAKE UP DEAD MAN (1987)
Jesus, Jesus help me
I'm alone in this world
And a fucked up world it is too
Tell me, tell me the story
The one about eternity
And the way it's all gonna be
Wake up, wake up dead man
Wake up, wake up dead man
Jesus, I'm waiting here boss
I know you're looking out for us
But maybe your hands aren't free
Your father, He made the world in seven
He's in charge of heaven
Will you put in a word in for me
Wake up, wake up dead man
Wake up, wake up dead man
Listen to your words they'll tell you what to do
Listen over the rhythm that's confusing you
Listen to the reed in the saxophone
Listen over the hum of the radio
Listen over sounds of blades in rotation
Listen through the traffic and circulation
Listen as hope and peace try to rhyme
Listen over marching bands playing out their time
Wake up, wake up dead man
Wake up, wake up dead man
Jesus, were you just around the corner
Did You think to try and warn her
Or are you working on something new
If there's an order in all of this disorder
Is it like a tape recorder
Can we rewind it just once more
Wake up, wake up dead man
Wake up, wake up dead man
Wake up, wake up dead man
YAHWEH (2004)
Take these shoes
Click clacking down some dead end street
Take these shoes
And make them fit
Take this shirt
Polyester white trash made in nowhere
Take this shirt
And make it clean, clean
Take this soul
Stranded in some skin and bones
Take this soul
And make it sing
Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Still I'm waiting for the dawn
Take these hands
Teach them what to carry
Take these hands
Don't make a fist
Take this mouth
So quick to criticise
Take this mouth
Give it a kiss
Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Still I'm waiting for the dawn
Still waiting for the dawn, the sun is coming up
The sun is coming up on the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean
Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, tell me now
Why the dark before the dawn?
Take this city
A city should be shining on a hill
Take this city
If it be your will
What no man can own, no man can take
Take this heart
Take this heart
Take this heart
And make it break
I rest my case.
I don't understand it why people talk about it so much: christian band, not a christian band, yes, no, yes...
Why not anybody to discuss u2 music instead? :?:
to prove it U2 is chritian band is not same to prove it is good music or it is bad music. So what is there to prove it because after to prove it you still win nothing and we still learn nothing about u2's music?
i think People talk about this christian and non-christian bla-bla so much only because it is easy to debating this kind of thing, easy to say yes and no, this is right and this wrong. is easy to make a list of it. But is not very interesting debating it. personally I think is complet boring debating because nobody say anything about music.
like song 'Gloria': is a great song musicaly. early version they play in live shows is very good and has great power in the music.
Even if people not like it it's some christian aspect in lyrics, people cannot say it is bad song.
i was big fan of u2's music but all this christian things I don't really share. but it not bother me because I listen to music and not care is it is christian or not-christian.
thanks.
Quote from: slit-the-cats-like-cheese on September 11, 2008, 11:45:19
I don't understand it why people talk about it so much: christian band, not a christian band, yes, no, yes...
Why not anybody to discuss u2 music instead? :?:
to prove it U2 is chritian band is not same to prove it is good music or it is bad music.
i think People talk about this christian and non-christian bla-bla so much only because it is easy to debating this kind of thing, easy to say yes and no, this is right and this wrong. is easy to make a list of it. But is not very interesting debating it. personally I think is complet boring debating because nobody say anything about music.
like song 'Gloria': is a great song musicaly. early version they play in live shows is very good and has great power in the music.
Even if people not like it it's some christian aspect in lyrics, people cannot say it is bad song.
i was big fan of u2's music but all this christian things I don't really share. but it not bother me because I listen to music and not care is it is christian or not-christian.
thanks.
Well, we could discuss anything really, U2's music has a lot that we could get into on many levels, but since this is the CURE NEWS part of the forum, we're already going off-topic, I think...
I only mentioned U2 are a Christian band as a sort of a joke directed at Bluewater, since he/she has declared somewhere else on this forum that he/she is a Christian. Then AdamClayton contested my claim and I thought that it would be a good idea to post here some proof of what I was talking about. That's just it, nothing more.
Quote from: punx_chix on September 10, 2008, 21:41:53
and whats wrong with WMS!?!
Ha ha, no way you'll get me started on that one... :-D
Quote from: punx_chix on September 10, 2008, 21:41:53
Jupiter crash is one of my favorites!
Also mine. But one song doesn't make an album, does it?
Anyway U2 seem to be "inspired" by The Cure's behaviour in these days...they have postponed the new album again!!!! :-D
Quote from: Lady on September 11, 2008, 15:55:46
Anyway U2 seem to be "inspired" by The Cure's behaviour in these days...they have postponed the new album again!!!! :-D
I hope The Cure will forgive me for promoting U2 on this forum, but let me say this: while we wait for the next postponement, we can always listen to something like this (one of the most beautiful things ever sang by Bono, this one almost has me crying when I hear it):
http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=-fQGQWTlzmw
The Cure Always has been my favourite band ever; U2 used to be one of my favourites (past tense) I only likes the oldies U2 songs ;) but i think they are very different in music and feeling... nothing to compare.
Well, we could discuss anything really, U2's music has a lot that we could get into on many levels, but since this is the CURE NEWS part of the forum, we're already going off-topic, I think...
I only mentioned U2 are a Christian band as a sort of a joke directed at Bluewater, since he/she has declared somewhere else on this forum that he/she is a Christian. Then AdamClayton contested my claim and I thought that it would be a good idea to post here some proof of what I was talking about. That's just it, nothing more.
[/quote]
He he I see, nice bunch of songs you picked though, especially Wanderer. But as you say, this is a Cure forum so thats it on this discussion for me.
talking about the cure vs. U2 and remixes:
at most times U2 seems to have had decent eye for choosing people to remix them. something that the cure can't seem to accomplish.
for instance, on 'vertigo' they asked people like trent:
http://www.discogs.com/release/394518
beats some fall out kids 6-0.
Quote from: japanesebaby on September 13, 2008, 16:50:27
talking about the cure vs. U2 and remixes:
at most times U2 seems to have had decent eye for choosing people to remix them. something that the cure can't seem to accomplish.
for instance, on 'vertigo' they asked people like trent:
http://www.discogs.com/release/394518
beats some fall out kids 6-0.
Well, that Trent remix seems to have been released only as a limited 12" promo - stuff only for DJs... It can't be found on YouTube, for instance. What can be found there is a so called Jacknife Lee remix, which I suppose isn't bad - it's the sort of thing you get when you do some techno-ish "messing around" with a song while at the same time sticking fairly close to the original - which was not BAD but was not very good either (actually, that "Uno Dos Tres" intro by Bono completely s***s, the guitar line is U2-ish in a good but also somewhat predictable way, and overall the song simply failed to be the impressive rock come-back that was massively hyped).
Quote from: revolt on September 15, 2008, 14:05:38
Well, that Trent remix seems to have been released only as a limited 12" promo - stuff only for DJs...
it's nothing that exclusive. it can be found on the regular dvd single for 'sometimes you can't make it on your own':
http://www.u2wanderer.org/disco/sing055.html
U2 and The Cure cant be compared. Its entirely subjective. Before The Cure and Radiohead became my favorite bands U2 was my favorite and I dont think theyre alike enough to compare. IMO Both are great.
I think everyone is right, you cant compare the two, U2 have been and always will be terribly awful, bland, empire building, self rightoueus and pompous.... there i said it.
Bono - cant stand him, the souless whining git.. hmm :roll:
Now, wheres Wild Mood Swings :smth020
hmm i've always liked the music of u2 much more than i'd probably wanted to admit. i still do.
all in all, at their best times they were a very innovative and original band - musically.
they themselves has made it all too easy for people to slag them off simply because of bono's ego - you either love him or you hate him. i try to ignore him and just focus on the music because a lot of their music IS good. ok one must leave out some stuff (like 'rattle and hum' period) but for instance looking at their much better than most of the stuff in the 80s - musically speaking.
so in a way, i suppose there was nothing wrong with u2, other than their egos, or should i say their "mission"... but just forget all that and you have some great music there, no question about it. 'war' and 'the unforgettable fire' are a great album. ' so is 'achtung baby'.
by the way i remember reading anton corbijn saying somewhere how when he originally was asked to photograph u2 he wasn't too overwhelmed by the idea because he actually used to dislike them then quite a bit. but he admitted that there was probably no other band "that strong". i suppose he meant the look of them, the strength that translated via photography/images. i actually understand his point there very well and to a certain extent i agree with him. there's certain kind of strength in u2 that is pretty rare. and whenever they managed to make that strenght translate through their music, then they were really powerful band indeed, really hard to compete with on their own territory.
there was a time when i was bothering myself with the comparisons between them and the cure. i even almost kind of felt that one couldn't really like both of them... which of course was a completely silly. the comparison is useless because they are so different in so many aspects. of course, most of what comes out of bono's mouth is crap - but that doesn't mean their music is crap.
Quote from: japanesebaby on October 04, 2008, 17:12:03
hmm i've always liked the music of u2 much more than i'd probably wanted to admit. i still do.
all in all, at their best times they were a very innovative and original band - musically.
they themselves has made it all too easy for people to slag them off simply because of bono's ego - you either love him or you hate him. i try to ignore him and just focus on the music because a lot of their music IS good. ok one must leave out some stuff (like 'rattle and hum' period) but for instance looking at their much better than most of the stuff in the 80s - musically speaking.
so in a way, i suppose there was nothing wrong with u2, other than their egos, or should i say their "mission"... but just forget all that and you have some great music there, no question about it. 'war' and 'the unforgettable fire' are a great album. ' so is 'achtung baby'.
by the way i remember reading anton corbijn saying somewhere how when he originally was asked to photograph u2 he wasn't too overwhelmed by the idea because he actually used to dislike them then quite a bit. but he admitted that there was probably no other band "that strong". i suppose he meant the look of them, the strength that translated via photography/images. i actually understand his point there very well and to a certain extent i agree with him. there's certain kind of strength in u2 that is pretty rare. and whenever they managed to make that strenght translate through their music, then they were really powerful band indeed, really hard to compete with on their own territory.
there was a time when i was bothering myself with the comparisons between them and the cure. i even almost kind of felt that one couldn't really like both of them... which of course was a completely silly. the comparison is useless because they are so different in so many aspects. of course, most of what comes out of bono's mouth is crap - but that doesn't mean their music is crap.
When you say "musically" you only mean the music-strictly-speaking, ignoring the lyrics? Because I think many U2 lyrics are specially good. There's a strenght and poetic feeling in them that are somewhat unusual in the rock world. Even with the more or less frequent christian allusions... the thing is, as far as albums go, U2 very rarely commit the mistake of preaching, and I think that's one of the main reasons for their wide artistic and commercial success.
Quote from: revolt on October 06, 2008, 16:59:19
When you say "musically" you only mean the music-strictly-speaking, ignoring the lyrics? Because I think many U2 lyrics are specially good. There's a strenght and poetic feeling in them that are somewhat unusual in the rock world. Even with the more or less frequent christian allusions... the thing is, as far as albums go, U2 very rarely commit the mistake of preaching, and I think that's one of the main reasons for their wide artistic and commercial success.
I have to agree. It's hard to find good and high-level lyrics as in u2's songs. I've always thought Bono was more "poet" than "singer".
Quote from: revolt on October 06, 2008, 16:59:19
When you say "musically" you only mean the music-strictly-speaking, ignoring the lyrics? Because I think many U2 lyrics are specially good. There's a strenght and poetic feeling in them that are somewhat unusual in the rock world. Even with the more or less frequent christian allusions... the thing is, as far as albums go, U2 very rarely commit the mistake of preaching, and I think that's one of the main reasons for their wide artistic and commercial success.
no, actually i didn't mean lyrics this time. i'd actually include lyrics within the musical aspects here - so perhaps i should have said non-artistic or soemthing. anyway, i meant trying to look past all those truly non-musical things that seem to annoy many people so much, like bono's ego, the way he makes all those speeches on stage, the way he acts in public, the way they've always put so much non-musical focus on "making the world a better place" and so on and so on. of course i'm not saying it's the case with everyone (who dislikes them) but i do dare to say that among all those people many are mostly annoyed by all that - up to the point that they can't even stand their music anymore, can't try to listen to them "just as music", can't give them a chance
purely from the musical point of view. like said, i'm not saying that's the case with everyone. but it IS quite common.
i think u2 is one of the bands which is most easy to slag off that way - and one could say they can blame themselves for it, they've made it quite easy.
i do understand perfectly if someone tells me he/she truly doesn't like their music, that's fine. but i don't think anyone can say they are a crap band. something doesn't become crap just because one doesn't personally like it.
u2 IS a very good band - musically speaking.
Quote from: Lady on October 06, 2008, 17:08:28
I've always thought Bono was more "poet" than "singer".
But he is and has always been a great singer! Maybe he has been losing a bit of his voice in recent years (he hasn't been so lucky as Robert), but I still think he is one of the best...
Quote from: revolt on October 06, 2008, 18:11:55
Quote from: Lady on October 06, 2008, 17:08:28
I've always thought Bono was more "poet" than "singer".
But he is and has always been a great singer! Maybe he has been losing a bit of his voice in recent years (he hasn't been so lucky as Robert), but I still think he is one of the best...
Of course his voice was very good until zooropa, then he started to have some problems, even it carries on being special! Anyway I think he expresses better himself through his lyrics and being poet is his best quality! ;)
I've been thinking about this "The Cure and U2 are very different bands, they can't be compared" argument, and actually I have come to the conclusion that these bands have quite a few things IN COMMON.
Both of them:
- are post-punk / new wave bands;
- share musical influences, Joy Division being perhaps the most relevant;
- have guitarists with a personal and distinctive style;
- have always favoured ensemble playing and "atmosphere" instead of individual showing-off;
- started as "alternative" bands and later achieved great mainstream success;
- issued live albums relatively early in their career, before the phase of huge success;
- have careers that in musical terms can clearly be divided in "80's era" and "post-80's era";
- have never been very good at playing versions of other band's music;
- have supported social and political causes, such as Amnesty International.
Quote from: revolt on October 09, 2008, 16:20:06
I've been thinking about this "The Cure and U2 are very different bands, they can't be compared" argument, and actually I have come to the conclusion that these bands have quite a few things IN COMMON.
Both of them:
- are post-punk / new wave bands;
- share musical influences, Joy Division being perhaps the most relevant;
- have guitarists with a personal and distinctive style;
- have always favoured ensemble playing and "atmosphere" instead of individual showing-off;
- started as "alternative" bands and later achieved great mainstream success;
- issued live albums relatively early in their career, before the phase of huge success;
- have careers that in musical terms can clearly be divided in "80's era" and "post-80's era";
- have never been very good at playing versions of other band's music;
- have supported social and political causes, such as Amnesty International.
Just rembered a couple more:
- both have songs called "Numb", "Gone", "(The) Drowning Man", "(The) Ocean" and "(Until) the End of the World";
- both flirted with dance music in the early 90's.
Revolt;
I think you make some really valid points and I would like to add some comments on a few of them.
You say that they both started out as 'alternative' bands and later achieved mainstream success. This is offcourse correct, however I believe that a lot of people think that Cure stayed an alternative band and U2 became a mainstream band around Live Aid in the mid 80's. I always disagreed with this as I believe U2 never been a mainstream band despite achieving mainstream success. I mean look at the Boy/October/War releases. This was the period of new wave....were these records typical of this era? Not at all IMHO...they were limited musicians at that time and played the only way they could, but it sure didn't sound like anything else in this period.
Then in the mid/late 80's the typical mainstream popscene was Pat Sharp, Sam Fox, Bros etc....cheesy pop (some of which I love though, Pet Shop Boys is by far the best popgroup ever:). Then U2 released Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum which was again different from late 80's mainstream, I mean...just look at the sleeves, were was the screaming colours and pink sweaters....you won't find any more depressing images than that!
Then its the 90's and popular culture changed quite a lot. You got MTV Unplugged, roots music....people started looking back to find inspiration, the grunge scene was about something 'real' as opposed to the superficial 80. U2 had already done this with Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum, the latter slated at the time its was released. So we got Achtung Baby which sounded different than most mainstream music in the beginning of the 90'....ready for the laughing gas and all that.
So in my in my opinion U2 and Cure are also similar in that they've always been independent and alternative throughout their career as they done exactly what they want despite (or maybe because?) of their mainstream success. There are so many people that don't think these things can exists together; having mainstream success and being alternative/independent but I think both Cure and U2 are very similar in that respect and prove that this is indeed possible.
Another point you bring up is the inability to play coversongs. Man, I've heard some proper crap coversongs by U2...and they managed to release possibly the worst of them all on Rattle and Hum, 'All Along The Watchtower'. However, as a curiosity, check out some of the boots from the Lovetown Tour of 89 and you find that they improved immensely and those versions really should have been released instead of that crap Rattle and Hum version.
Quote from: AdamClayton on October 11, 2008, 11:38:58
Another point you bring up is the inability to play coversongs. Man, I've heard some proper crap coversongs by U2...and they managed to release possibly the worst of them all on Rattle and Hum, 'All Along The Watchtower'. However, as a curiosity, check out some of the boots from the Lovetown Tour of 89 and you find that they improved immensely and those versions really should have been released instead of that crap Rattle and Hum version.
Actually, after I posted that message it came to my mind that I know ONE particular cover by U2 that is not merely good, but wonderful. It's "Springhill Mining Disaster", a song originally sung by Luke Kelly (with the Dubliners).
Here is the You Tube link:
http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=mWzYSJ3-Cjw#18
Quote from: AdamClayton on October 11, 2008, 11:38:58
I believe that a lot of people think that Cure stayed an alternative band and U2 became a mainstream band around Live Aid in the mid 80's. I always disagreed with this as I believe U2 never been a mainstream band despite achieving mainstream success.
Quote from: AdamClayton on October 11, 2008, 11:38:58
So in my in my opinion U2 and Cure are also similar in that they've always been independent and alternative throughout their career as they done exactly what they want despite (or maybe because?) of their mainstream success. There are so many people that don't think these things can exists together; having mainstream success and being alternative/independent but I think both Cure and U2 are very similar in that respect and prove that this is indeed possible.
i agree with this quite a bit. i've always thought that U2 didn't go mainstream but the mainstream came to them (talking about the mountain coming to muhammed hehe now isn't that quite approriate? :P)
for instance, if i'm completely honest, i was pretty much expecting the mainstream to finally turn its back on them when 'achtung baby' and especially 'zooropa' were released... but no! so it's always kind of baffled me, how they've managed to make all kinds of non-mainstream albums (and actually several different types of them, like AdamClayton pointed out) but still stayed in mainstream spotlight. and how at the same time the cure always
needed to stay out of the spotlight, in a way.
i also think that when some people say the cure and u2 are exact opposites of each other, so very different: they mostly base that opinion on looking at their public appearances, judging them for being a mainstream band (which they really even aren't, like just said).
it's the same thing what i was talking about a bit earlier, how some people always need to slag off u2 because of bono's ego, because of their appearances - that does not mean their music was bad - or even non-alternative. but sometimes that mainstream spotlight blinds one's eye and we can't really see the thing itself, all we see is that spotlight. and then it's easy to say "i don't see anything interesting". but that's necessarily not the band's/music's fault.
and coversongs - indeed! U2 used to be shamefully bad, just embarrassingly bad... as did the cure...
what comes to u2 i would have also mentioned one exception, the very same 'springhill mining disaster' that already got mentioned. that one is really really good, always liked it a lot.
but take something - anything - else, for instance some of the stuff they did on the '86 'a conspiracy of hope' tour. 'come on everybody' or 'help' etc. - that's just quite terrible. :oops:
Quote from: japanesebaby on October 15, 2008, 20:06:38
what comes to u2 i would have also mentioned one exception, the very same 'springhill mining disaster' that already got mentioned. that one is really really good, always liked it a lot.
Glad to see we agree on that! :)
Quote from: japanesebaby on October 15, 2008, 20:06:38
but take something - anything - else, for instance some of the stuff they did on the '86 'a conspiracy of hope' tour. 'come on everybody' or 'help' etc. - that's just quite terrible. :oops:
You know, I just happened to remember another cover by them which I also find really good, Cole Porter's "Night and Day":
http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=orSBHem9e3s#18
'night and day' isn't too bad. actually i think they can make ok covers just as long as they don't try "to play rock'n'roll". they are a terrific band when they do things their own way but they are a terrible rock'n'roll band, always were. some other bands were really good at playing other people's songs before starting to make their own songs, but like already pointed out above u2 sstarted to make their own songs because their abilities to play "existing music" were too limited.
so they never learned to "play rock'n'roll", so to speak. they can do a cole porter song (which is a musical song in a style of old jazz standard) and they can do a folk song and come up with something good and original. but the moment they try to play "come on everybody" and they take an instant nosedive.
(i suppose someone could argue that 'all along the watchtower' should also qualify as a folk and therefore they shouldn't have stumbled with that one. but i think they tried to make a rock'n'roll song out of it instead of doing it in their own way/in a folk'sih way and that's why it pretty much sucks. or at least will remain quite uninteresting and unnecessary.)
Quote from: japanesebaby on October 16, 2008, 12:58:11
'night and day' isn't too bad. actually i think they can make ok covers just as long as they don't try "to play rock'n'roll". they are a terrific band when they do things their own way but they are a terrible rock'n'roll band, always were. some other bands were really good at playing other people's songs before starting to make their own songs, but like already pointed out above u2 sstarted to make their own songs because their abilities to play "existing music" were too limited.
so they never learned to "play rock'n'roll", so to speak. they can do a cole porter song (which is a musical song in a style of old jazz standard) and they can do a folk song and come up with something good and original. but the moment they try to play "come on everybody" and they take an instant nosedive.
(i suppose someone could argue that 'all along the watchtower' should also qualify as a folk and therefore they shouldn't have stumbled with that one. but i think they tried to make a rock'n'roll song out of it instead of doing it in their own way/in a folk'sih way and that's why it pretty much sucks. or at least will remain quite uninteresting and unnecessary.)
Well, but 'All along the watchtower", as Dylan played it, was more of a rock song than folk (it's from 1968's "John Wesley Harding", when Dylan was already past his folk phase for some time). And the definitive version of it (even Dylan agrees) is by Jimi Hendrix - I think it was with Hendrix in mind that U2 gave it a try. It was bound to be a failure, of course.
I have to agree that U2 can't rock out in the old rock & roll way. It's just not made for them- But at their best, when they decide to rock out in the U2-way, no one can beat them. :)
Quote from: revolt on October 16, 2008, 13:21:59
Well, but 'All along the watchtower", as Dylan played it, was more of a rock song than folk (it's from 1968's "John Wesley Harding", when Dylan was already past his folk phase for some time). And the definitive version of it (even Dylan agrees) is by Jimi Hendrix - I think it was with Hendrix in mind that U2 gave it a try. It was bound to be a failure, of course.
ok you've got a point there. but still i'd say dylan is different than trying to cover eddie cochran or the beatles or elvis or etc..
talking about hendrix, surprisingly the cure managed covering 'purple haze' quite well, imo. then again, 'hello i love you' by the doors was not their thing at all - the psychedelic mix is a million times better than the version included on rubaiyat.
i've always thought that one can actually directly hear which artist motivated robert more. everyone knows he's a hendrix fan yet never really was too much into the doors. i think he said somehting on the join the dots sleeve notes about choosing 'hello i love you' because it's a nice kinks rip-off or something like it.
Quote from: revolt on October 16, 2008, 13:21:59
But at their best, when they decide to rock out in the U2-way, no one can beat them. :)
very true. i'd even dare to say it's hard to argue that even if one didn't really like their music.
people have tried topping 'where the streets...' for years but i never saw anyone coming even close.
Quote from: japanesebaby on October 16, 2008, 14:04:29
talking about hendrix, surprisingly the cure managed covering 'purple haze' quite well, imo. then again, 'hello i love you' by the doors was not their thing at all - the psychedelic mix is a million times better than the version included on rubaiyat.
i've always thought that one can actually directly hear which artist motivated robert more. everyone knows he's a hendrix fan yet never really was too much into the doors. i think he said somehting on the join the dots sleeve notes about choosing 'hello i love you' because it's a nice kinks rip-off or something like it.
The Kinks song ripped-off on that one is "All day and all of the night"(http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=F4DV-5d6a5g#18)... A mid 60's classic, in my opinion. But the Doors song is already too poppy for them and that Cure cover was not a good idea at all.
PS: I suppose I'll have to listen to the psychedelic mix of "Purple Haze" again, I don't recall it exactly now. I suppose it's one of those included in "Join the Dots"...
Quote from: revolt on October 16, 2008, 14:46:44
the psychedelic mix of "Purple Haze"
the psychedelic mix is a mix of 'hello i love you', not 'purple haze'.
although the version of 'purple haze' cover included on 'stone free:...' compilation could just as well be called a psychedelic one, i suppose.
Quote from: japanesebaby on October 16, 2008, 15:16:17
Quote from: revolt on October 16, 2008, 14:46:44
the psychedelic mix of "Purple Haze"
the psychedelic mix is a mix of 'hello i love you', not 'purple haze'.
although the version of 'purple haze' cover included on 'stone free:...' compilation could just as well be called a psychedelic one, i suppose.
Of course, my bad there... I was in a hurry and didn't bother to check.
Check this out, at least they improved on that horrible Rattle and Hum version of Watchtower :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3lv5gbMSSY
Another cover that I appreciate is Paint It Black from one of the Whos Gonna Ride Horses singles. As Japanesebaby pointed out, U2 arn't too bad when they play them their own way, not as 'rock n roll' which this proves imho.
This is also in interesting recording as it done in late 1989 and released in 1992. Even at that point you can feel that change that came later with Achtung Baby....its sort of a mix between God pt 2 and Acrobat, a feeling I also believe is present in that Night and Day cover.
Quote from: AdamClayton on October 16, 2008, 21:13:18
Check this out, at least they improved on that horrible Rattle and Hum version of Watchtower :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3lv5gbMSSY
Another cover that I appreciate is Paint It Black from one of the Whos Gonna Ride Horses singles. As Japanesebaby pointed out, U2 arn't too bad when they play them their own way, not as 'rock n roll' which this proves imho.
This is also in interesting recording as it done in late 1989 and released in 1992. Even at that point you can feel that change that came later with Achtung Baby....its sort of a mix between God pt 2 and Acrobat, a feeling I also believe is present in that Night and Day cover.
I have to agree that the version you post here improves on the Rattle & Hum one. It's more fiery and dynamic (and it's curious to hear BONO go all-Robert-Plant for a moment there). I took the chance to re-listen to the R&H version, by the way, and to be completely fair I cannot call it really BAD. It's just sort of useless, because U2 don't add anything to the song. They play it competently but just about any competent rock band could do much the same.
Quote from: AdamClayton on October 11, 2008, 11:38:58
and they managed to release possibly the worst of them all on Rattle and Hum, 'All Along The Watchtower'. However, as a curiosity, check out some of the boots from the Lovetown Tour of 89 and you find that they improved immensely and those versions really should have been released instead of that crap Rattle and Hum version.
i suppose it's quite obvious that the version they chose on 'rattle & hum' was chosen because it makes sense in the movie (it's the famous "rock'n'roll stops the traffic" version from the free
ex tempore live show that the band played in san francisco - not even having with they own gear but they were borrowing grateful dead's gear if i recall correctly). so, it makes sense in the movie even if the performance is not (nearly) the best they pulled. but it becomes somewhat useless when one listens to the album alone, they just sound annoyingly sloppy there then.
i always thought 'rattle & hum' was really "just" a soundtrack album, not a "real" u2 album.
i was never really fond of that lovetown stuff, neither as studio versions or live. to me 'heartland' is the best bit of 'rattle & hum', i've always been really fond of that track. it's u2 being u2 and not trying to be a (mediocre) blues band or something.
Quote from: japanesebaby on October 17, 2008, 14:40:13
[. to me 'heartland' is the best bit of 'rattle & hum', i've always been really fond of that track. it's u2 being u2 and not trying to be a (mediocre) blues band or something.
"Heartland" is kind of beautiful, I agree. But I even prefer "All I Want is You", which is not only a beautiful melody but with all those strings it becomes something different from all other U2 ballads until then. I also like "Van Diemen's Land" (a sort of folksy ballad and the only time I've ever liked hearing The Edge sing) and "Hawkmoon 269", which has the kind of crescendo that completely pulls me in. Come to think of it, all these are ballads... Coincidence?
edit: I'd just like to add this: "When Love Comes to Town" is the worst U2 song from the pre-2000's days. Only the quality of a few of the words there save it from being a 100% bummer.
When Love Comes To Town is indeed atrocious, i cringe whenever i hear that indulgent piece of not niceness. Its comparable to when i hear Wrong Number....but thats another debate. All I Want Is You and Heartland are the only tracks on Rattle & Hum I have any time for, who would have thought Achtung Baby was next!
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
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.
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.
I can't believe people are saying U2 are a God Rock band, when The Cure wrote The Blood (amongst others)
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.