Just read an interview with Bono
janegosford
Posts: 179
where he says that his songs occupy "an emotional terrain that didn't exist before our group did." Is my dislike for Bono causing me to nitpick or does this comment sound a little more than arrogant to anyone else? I really am curious. I'm trying to think how I'd feel if Eddie said it & I honestly think I'd cringe then too.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
so what groups/artists, after Vietnam, covered the emotional terrain that Bono is referring to, that teenagers and young adults listened to?
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
i don't even understand what that means...but didn't the beatles and john lennon take care of all the emotional terrains in the sixties and seventies.
come on buddy, you guys are a good band lets let the critics put you where they want to put you in history.
And those misguided, There was a plan for them to be
Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently
What goes on?
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
in rock n roll - his mixture of compassion, love, religion, pain, awareness, and honesty...yeah, i think it was missing before them!
from my window to yours
Sure do...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051121/ap_en_mu/bono_2
- Mr. Edward Vedder 7/11/03
Why does it have to be after Vietnam? Bono doesn't put a time stamp on his comment. In that case yeah I'd think a lot of people would say Dylan covered that terrain before U2.
True - this could be what he means. I just don't know for sure.
Well put......
No, you are not nitpicking. Even if I agreed with Bono, its not his place to give himself such a compliment. He is basically stating that he took human existance to a level never before reached. What a crock.
-- U2's music, is probably some of the best "Christian" music. they are so much better than the easy listening Christian stuff on the radio. they dont say Jesus this and Jesus that, but i feel like they are pretty spiritual, but they are also good musicians..they are some of the best.
He's saying he's a different person than he was at 16. He understands his emotions he has gracefully accepted growing up. Listen to Boy those are songs of youth, Now & for many years the man writes more personable songs. That's what he's saying.EX: He could not have written a song for his dead father years ago, he now can.
Eat your pork and beans
I eat more chicken
Than any man ever seen
Do you know I *almost* asked if U2 fans could refrain from name calling cuz I knew someone would resort to that?
For the record, I'm not certain how you came to your conclusion. It's one thing to try & interpret what he's saying, it's another thing to put words in his mouth. Oh well. I guess if it makes you feel better...
in my opinion, u2 is the only band since the 70s to have the kind of impact the beatles did. bob dylan had a huge impact, but was never as universally appealing as the beatles. the rolling stones were up there too... but they were more restricted to the rock'n'roll set.
the beatles transcended that. they make top notch rock and roll, but also made it fun and appealing for the masses. u2 does this as well. people that don't care for rock'n'roll don't give a damn about the stones or pearl jam. but EVERYONE loves "hey jude" or "one." these are songs with universal appeal and they hit a cord that most other groups will never get, certainly not on a regular basis.
u2 rolls it all up. they like to fool around and take chances, even if it doesn't work (think pop). they sing about unversal issues of love and loss as well as political issues and world peace. they're deeply personal while also being aware of the world around them. they combine this all with their spirituality in a way that is inspiring more than preaching or converting. even the beatles were afraid to talk about christianity for fear of getting pegged into a niceh u2 has somehow managed to escape.
there is no one like u2. no one sounds like them (though many imitate them, coldplay comes to mind), no one writes like them, no one lives the rock star life with the self-deprecation of them, and no one is as successful as them. in 100 years, people WILL remember u2. i doubt pearl jam will be more than a footnote in history.
Here's the full text:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/17/60minutes/main1053542.shtml
In other news, Bono is an arrogant asshole, but I'm sure we didn't need that particular quote to realise that.
Thanks for the full text. Unfortunately I don't agree that it was taken out of context. This didn't give me any "added insight". The quote is in tact & means exactly how it's meant to sound I believe. If anything I'm more convinced of his arrogance now more than ever! LOL But thanks for posting it.
It's a nice sentiment but I don't agree at all. I'm sure I could find thousands upon thousands of peple who don't agree either - who find no connection to U2's music and who don't find them to be particularly creative, original or inspiring. No band/artist, no matter how big or influential they may be, are ever going to be universal.
And let's not confuse longevity with the idea of "covering emotional terrain" that supposedly didn't exist before U2 (that's a whole other argument in itself - while I don't even personally agree that U2 is the first band to do that since the 70s that's not even what we're debating here - it's the idea that U2 was the first band to do it...EVER!)
I guess its all in your interpretation.
sure no band or artist is going to be universal. but name one that has stayed as relevant and popular as u2 for as long as they have? that has gone to the extent of putting themselves out there and enduring much criticism and ridicule from people like you for wearing their hearts on their sleeve?
would you call john lennon a pompous asshole? cos u2's activism hasn't done anything he didnt do first.
musically, i think u2 is very unique. maybe not in terms of scales or chord progressions (i know nothing of music) but they have a unique sound. i can hear a song on the radio and know it's u2. i can tell this before bono gets singing and whether or not i've heard it before.
and their best songs rank with the best out there. maybe YOU dont like them personally, but that doesn't change the fact that a whole shitload of people do... more people than like any other single rock band today.
I didn't ridicule U2 for wearing their heart on their sleeves. For God's sake, I'm one of the biggest Eddie Vedder fans in the world - I have to defend the guy against this claim all the time! I also have to defend him, not surprisingly, for his activism which I'll gladly do. In turn, never ONCE did I attack Bono for his activism so please don't imply that I did.
Finally you keep pointing to their popularity & longevity but what does that have to do with anything? Bono didn't claim to be in the most popular band in the world. If he did I probably couldn't argue it. If he said they share a connection with their audience, I wouldn't argue that either. They do, as do a lot of bands. I'm talking about his statement that U2 has covered emotional terrain like no one else before. It's simply not true &, the more that I think about it, it's also incredibly arrogant AND dismissive.