Quote:
Originally Posted by bounce442
My thoughts on U2:
AB is one of the best albums of time.
80s U2 is better than 80s Bon Jovi's. U2's 80s material is timeless and though Bon Jovi had some hits that have lasted 25+ years, they are certainly dated... they are 80s, hair metal, pop, butt rock, even though it is the best 80s, hair metal, pop, butt rock. With or Without You and Streets, ISHFWILF, etc would be just as big of hit today as they were nearly 30 years ago. Can you imagine Bad Name released today?
90s Bon Jovi is better than 90s U2.... especially mid-late 90s. I appreciate that U2 experimented when rock took a left, but doesn't mean it is as solid These Days, Faith or even DA or US. U2 has always stayed true to themselves, for good or bad. U2 has never borrowed anyone's sound to get on the radio, and despite what JBJ brags about, they have.
U2 provides a live experience vs BJ's live party. Both are excellent shows, but I do understand why U2 is taken more seriously, even though it kind of pisses me off.
Richie Sambora is far better than the Edge. The Edge is an fx architect, but that is his only defining talent.
Can you think of a time U2 has borrowed a sound from Bon Jovi? Would you agree that (at very least) production techniques were borrowed from U2 for a Bon Jovi song? Save a Prayer? When We Were Beautiful? Happy now?
I don't visit U2's forums but I can't imagine how much we'd complain about U2's set lists. They make Bon Jovi look like Pearl Jam. The good thing about U2's method is that you can to one show a tour and your pretty much guaranteed 3 or 4 old songs you haven't seen on the last 3 or 4 tours.
I can guarantee that Bon Jovi could cover U2 far better than U2 could cover Bon jovi. I thought their cover of Vertigo was excellent.
|
I agree somewhat with many of your points, but you cant use the 80s Jovi sound and the fact that it may sound dated as a negative.. I can stick on any number of records which exploded during a certain musical phad and/or defined a musical genre which has since decreased in popularity and so would by definition sound 'dated' - so what? Its not 'cool' or hip but the quality is still the same. Even grungey albums sound very dated these days, as does alot of the 90s britpop we had over here for example. Its only critics and hipsters who care about 'what' it sounds like rather than 'how' i think.
Yes, I do agree that it is very hard to touch the holy trinity of Streets, Still havnt found and Without you of JT...but the rest of that album is pretty medicore in my opinion. Actung Baby is indeed their better album, and I applaud their change in musical direction, as I do with Jovis KTF record, and I rate the song-writing on KTF better than AB though, because as great lyrics Bono and co write, alot of the stuff on AB is a bitfluff/abstract.
I have seen U2 4 times and Bon Jovi 14, and the best of the times ive seen Jovi have surpassed the overall U2 experience, although I do admit that U2 definitely have that, for want of a better word, spiritual experience at some points of their shows. 'Where the streets have no Name' live is untouchable, One, Without you, Kite... I have seen performances of these songs which have sent shivers down my spine.
There are only a handful of bands who people can tell me that they are their favourite band and think they are are the greatest ever etc and I won't argue with, U2 being one. I can see what the fuss is about. But my favourite band is still Bon Jovi.
And yes, Richie wipes the floor with Edge, even on a bad day.
Andi