The Cure vs. U2

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 47 Guests are viewing this topic.

rubcure

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.
[center][size=10pt][font=arial][color=black]"...and the way the rain comes down hard is how i feel inside..."[/color][/font][/size][/center]

AdamClayton




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.

japanesebaby

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

revolt

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).

japanesebaby

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

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

KingOfSomeIsland

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.

strange_day

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


japanesebaby

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

revolt

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.

Lady

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".
[color=red][b]I BELONG TO THE CURE!♥[/b][/color]
[color=black]Lost forever in a happy crowd![/color]
[color=purple][i]I will kiss you forever on nights like this, I will kiss you, I will kiss you...and we shall be together...[/i][/color]
[color=green]CUREFANS.COM RULEZ!:D[/color]

japanesebaby

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

revolt

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...

Lady

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! ;)
[color=red][b]I BELONG TO THE CURE!♥[/b][/color]
[color=black]Lost forever in a happy crowd![/color]
[color=purple][i]I will kiss you forever on nights like this, I will kiss you, I will kiss you...and we shall be together...[/i][/color]
[color=green]CUREFANS.COM RULEZ!:D[/color]

revolt

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.


revolt

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.