Not emotional at all, but I do like the debate.
Collin Cowherd's Rock Band Bracket
- Thread starter The-Joker
- Start date
Not emotional at all, but I do like the debate.
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
Madonna's still filling stadiums worldwide. Lady Gaga's filling stadiums world wide. It's just to me you bring 3 of the classicist of the classics and then try and throw U2 up with them.... I don't know what U2 is but it sure ain't classic rock. It's like Bono-music. A genre in-of-itself that has slowly but surely derivated into the worst of the worst. For U2 to represent the pinnacle would be... I dunno... discouraging to say the least
We're talking about the greatest bands here. Not the greatest artists. There's a difference. To you, maybe, there isn't, but you can throw any pack of players up with Madonna or Gaga, and it's the same. The bands we're discussing are as much about chemistry as anything. Paul McCartney and 3 session guys isn't The Beatles.
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
All I'm trying to say is filling up stadiums - to me, mind you - isn't always an indicator of so-called "greatness". Thats all I'm saying by that
Edit: Ok true that I guess there's the whole "romantic mystic of the band and its chemistry" angle going on here too... that's fully valid. But shouldn't hold greater consideration than the actual music I would say
I'm not bringing Madonna into this because we're discussing bands, not individual artists. Same with Lady GaGa, but if she's still around in 30 years and filling stadiums, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
I'm not sure I would agree that U2 is not classic rock. They did come out of the post-punk ashes that started "new wave", but they were never "new wave". Their sound has morphed through the years, but I think "Sunday Bloody Sunday", "Pride", and "With or Without You", to mention a few, sound good on the classic rock stations. I also don't know if Pink Floyd is any more rock than U2. Both play well to the planetarium crowd, with the swirling music. The thing that U2 has going against it is that they are still making music and with each album, they get further away from where they started, but that's just what the Beatles did. I don't think it's a bad thing.
I didnt mean it as a pejorative Greggy. It's good to bat for things in life.
My use of the stadium example is that U2 still fills the stadiums. Green Day had a difficult time selling the ESA last time they were here. They resorted to heavily discounted ticket prices. Do the Killers fill stadiums? I honestly don't know. If Coldplay is still filling them in twenty years, then they can be in the discussion, too. If the three survivors of Zeppelin or Floyd got together and toured, they could print their own money from the stadium ticket sales. People want to see them.
Last edited:
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
I mean, I'm not going to lie - I'm not the worlds biggest Pink Floyd fan, kinda because a lot of their music is kinda slow,long, drifting, etc. Of course I know there's great tunes by them I have not heard, and there's no way I would ever dismiss Floyd if I wanted my opinion to be even remotely credible - they're established, they're canon. However, I don't feel U2 has reached that "untouchable" zone, nor will they ever. I mean its all just truly a matter of opinion. Maybe calling U2 the greatest band of the last 20-30 years would be more agreeable.
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
Also - its obvious to me that U2 made some sort of massive cultural imprint before I was born and in the early years of my life... so that's a force that I know I cannot reckon with. I'll have to defer to you more... "venerable" gents with respect to that. That won't stop me from my own revisionism when I get up there, however
How old are you? I don't mean that in a condescending way, I'm just wondering what your memory of 1987-92 is. That is where U2 made their name. If all you knew was U2 of today, I would completely understand your disagreement with my including them in the discussion.