You couldn't have said it better. PSB takes chances, and is always ahead of the curve. Their album "Very" is the definitive dance album of all time. That said, they're not afraid to experiment with nearly every genre of music.

The U.S. knows PSB as a gay pop act with a few hits. A little research will show them as one of the most creative and productive duos around....and they're not afraid to take chances and have a bit of fun (e.g., their covers of U2's "Where the Streets..." and West Side Story's "Somewhere").

I guess that's a main difference with "rock" and "pop." Traditional rock bands have much less freedom than pop or alternative acts; adjust your sound a bit and feel the scorn of reviewers and "fans."

- Matt C.

Seriously? Beyond the fabulous "Crystal", I found the new album terribly boring and uninspired. It seemed to garner some critical acclaim, but frankly, while I agree that Republic is "hit and miss" - I feel it "hits" far more than Get Ready. But to each his/her own!

That being said, IMHO, both of their last albums are their weakest to date.

Quote:

Do you like Electronic or Monaco? The most recent Monaco album definitely has some catchy tunes.

I enjoy both bands, though I prefer Monaco as both of their albums seem to have a lot more hooks (pun intended!) than Electronic has. The latter released a terribly disappointing album in Twisted Tenderness (with the exception of the incredible title track).

Quote:

I sure miss Ian.

Have you seen the video for "Atmosphere"? Talk about depressing.

SubZero: Excellent post! The only thing I would add is that while Depeche Mode have been a defining force in the electronic genre, so to have Front 242. Albeit, the latter is sadly not well known to the masses - but they are certainly well known to the Industrial/EBM crowd where they are hailed as founders and have inspired countless bands.

Of course, both groups owe a debt to Kraftwerk (who I believe are the most important band of the 70s), but that goes without saying.

MatthewCho: I think the verdict is still out on whether Chris is gay (he is very reclusive) - but obviously, everyone suspects he is.

Cheers,

-matt

You contradicted yourself. You said that all the songs from all the albums were interchangeable but then noted that Pop marked a change.

And you're incorrect, anyway. Let's eliminate Pop from the mix. Please point out the Eighties U2 album on which "The Fly", "Mysterious Ways", "Lemon", "Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car", "Zoo Station" or MANY others would have fit. Please point out the NINETIES album on which "Stories For Boys", "11 O'Clock Tick Tock", "I Will Follow", "Sunday Bloody Sunday" or MANY others would have fit.

You can't.

U2 aren't my all-time favorite act, but I can't think of another band that emerged in the Eighties who has maintained such a high status. Of all the Eighties acts, only Madonna really stands on the same level after all these years. U2 are unquestionably the biggest BAND from the Eighties; they're the only band from that decade who can still play stadium tours. (Really, other than the Stones, it's tough to think of ANYONE else who can do the stadium route. Yes, U2 hit arenas this last year, but that doesn't mean they couldn't sell enough for bigger venues. Hmmm... McCartney still might be able to play stadia, but I guess we won't find out this year...)

The idea that Aerosmith were more successful in the Eighties and Nineties is way off-base. They've had a nice run, but they've not achieved nearly the same level as U2.

"Best" remains very subjective. But U2 are definitely the BIGGEST band the span the Eighties and Nineties, and they're the only ones to remain on top even after they redefined themselves. Despite the ludicrous comments about how their music remains the same, they really turned into a rather different band in 1991.

(As an aside, they also hold the longevity record for a major band. They've maintained the same line-up with no changes - even temporary - for 25 years! Sure, bands like Aerosmith still have the original members after 30 years, but that wasn't ALWAYS the case - some left and then returned. I can't think of another band who matches U2's mark in this area...)

U2 has managed to stay relevant and popular at the same time, for more than 20 years. What other band of 40 year-olds is invited to perform at the Grammys, VH1 and MTV? I'm sure I'm missing a few other award shows.

There are very few acts like U2 out there today. Try to argue the merits of calling any three albums of any other group masterpieces (along with being commercially successful). Most people would agree that the Joshua Tree, Actung Baby and ATYCLB qualify. Some people add even more of their albums to that list. IMHO, outside of maybe REM and Pearl Jam, I can't think of too many over the past 20 years.

Yeah, it is a little strange to call U2's music interchangeable. That's not really the case. ATYCLB was touted as a "return to form" or whatever. I really don't believe that. I dislike this CD only because I find it bland. I was hoping U2 would continue to evolve and CHANGE in a different direction. After "Pop", a CD I love very much, I was disappointed.

I can understand why people rag on Bono so much. He sets himself up for a lot of criticism, but I find some of the things he says kind of refreshing.... probably because I have very similar beliefs.

New Order. This cracks me up. It's funny how some of us on this topic really love the same bands, but have very diff views on their recordings. I really loved "Republic" and "Get Ready". I have been a New Order fan since '83 and I think their new recording is amazing. While their 80's stuff was more influencial, I do think "Republic" sounds much less dated than their 80's work (and probably why I listen to that way more than "Brotherhood").

I never really think of Depeche Mode as being THE electronica band. Definitely Kraftwerk... and I prefer OMD's first couple of recordings for synth pop. But even Kraftwerk had people before them to shape some of their ideas (not putting them down... their albums sound MUCH better today than a lot of electronica recorded 15 years later).

Notice that I used the word "nearly." They have a huge catalogue. Of course they tampered with different sounds along the way. However, especially in terms of the singles they release, I still don't they have been the most innovative of bands. I think they're strong lyrically and somewhat stale musically. The Smashing Pumpkins, R.E.M., and even Duran Duran have evolved more musically and are much more adventurous.

Of course they're important, successful, political, etc. However, I still stand by my disagreement in the statement that they are the "best" band of the 80's and 90's. We probably should have defined "best." I have about 750 CDs from all genres. One is U2. Obviously they wouldn't be at the top of my list.

Also, U2 was virtually out of the music scene from 1993 - 2000. That's a seven year gap. REM's last big album, Monster, was in 1994. Therefore, to call REM, and other bands with recent flops totally out of the scene is ridiculous. In 1999 the public was asking "what ever happened to U2."

- Matt C.

I think you will find that most New Order fans rank Technique and Power, Corruption And Lies as their two best (perhaps Low-life might be in there?). Anyway, Brotherhood had a couple of great singles ("Bizarre Love Triangle" is a classic!), but it is comparitively weak to other albums from the Manchester boys (and girl!). The reason why I feel it is "stronger" than their last two albums is that I find it a far more consistant album on all levels (especially with regards to the flow!) - which doesn't say much when comparing them to their other releases (I even find Movement much more appealing).

One thing that always irritates me though is the term "dated". What exactly does "dated" mean? And why does it matter if a track sounds like it was produced in the 80s, 90s, or whatever? A good song is a good song is a good song...

I know you're not saying that "dated" means "weaker", but it's just a pet peeve of mine. Of course electronic music from the 80s will sound primitive than the 90s - the technology and devices to manipulate the electronic sound have advanced by leaps and bounds. But I fail to see how this "dated" quality equates to whether a word is "weak" or "strong". In 10 years, I'm sure people will be stating that Get Ready sounds dated.......

Hell, Beethoven and Mozart are "dated", aren't they?

Depeche Mode may not be the end all be all of electronic music today, but they are certainly one of the most influential and inspirational bands of the movement. That being said, they are certainly the paragpns of the synthpop genre. I like to equate them as the first electronic act to really push the genre into the popular spotlight. One could argue that Duran Duran are as influential (if not moreso), but I think we can all agree that they were more style than substance. They pioneered the wave of image conscious, media savvy music acts. I don't think DD did much for electronic music being taken "seriously", which is something that Depeche Mode were constantly at odds with (the media were not kind to them!).

As for Kraftwerk, they may have had their inspiration (who doesn't?), but they are certainly the first band to really make a significant impact. I'd rank Jean Michel Jarre as another pioneer. Their albums may sound "much" better than a lot of electronic acts today, but there are many bands who can hold their own to any other act, past or present (you could use this argument for any genre).

Anyway, back to the question of U2 being the "best" band of the past two decades. Perhaps we need to determine what elements a band needs to achieve to qualify them as the "best"? This is a completely subjective term, but perhaps we need to delve into all of the qualities we feel make a band "special".

Cheers,

-matt

I'll agree that dated doesn't mean something is bad. Maybe there are certain sounds that I'm not fond of anymore. Synth drums sounded very cool to me in the early 80's because it was a new sound. By the end of the decade EVERYONE was using them... and they showed up in some pretty bad Top 40 songs. I think that is how I use dated in a negative sense when mentioning "Brotherhood". The very fake sound of synth drums. This is, again, a subjective thingy. Kraftwerk still sounds great to me because the percussion doesn't remind me of tossaway pop songs.

As much as early New Order influenced my listening habits, I don't go back to "Power, Corruption and Lies" that much. Thank GOD they threw in guitars and harmonica in there. "Your Silent Face" still sounds great to me.

I guess when it comes down to it, I just like music that still sounds a bit fresh years down the road. I was just listening to Tom Waits and asked my wife what year she thought this music came out. She couldn't tell me. The stuff was from '75 all the way up to '99. It's got a timeless quality to it. Don't get me wrong! I love hearing the latest electronica stuff. But I think I stick with stuff that has a timeless sound like Air (they mix so much up in their music that it's going to still sound interesting WAY down the road). Then there is stuff like Joy Electric who TRY to sound older. That's kind of fun.

I also think "timeless" also depends on:

1) the era you grew up in
2) how an artist changes their sound

For example, is Aerosmith timeless or dated? I'm sure we would get strong arguments on both sides. They certainly have a VERY similar sound and feel to their music when compared to, let's say Madonna. One could say that they're terribly dated, while others (probably fans) would say that they're timeless.

- Matt C.

??? In 1993, they spent most of the year on the road and completed a massive world tour. They also produced an album (Zooropa). The band put out a single for 1995's Batman Forever and also collaborated "unofficially" on that year's "Passengers" album. In 1997, they produced Pop and went on a year-long world tour. In 2000, they created ATYCLB.

Yeah, they were pretty dormant during that time...

Uh...yeah. REM's biggest innovation was to introduce a mandolin. DD's biggest innovation was to have three bandmembers with the same last name. As for the Pumpkins, I'm a fan, but to comment on how "adventurous" they were - at least in comparison to U2 - is a joke. They produced one album that stood out from the others (Adore) and it wasn't very good.

Again, you stated that their music over the years was "nearly interchangeable". I challenged you to tell me on what albums from the other decades a number of songs would have fit; your only defense was to remind me of the "nearly" that I neglected to include.

The fact is that very few tunes from different albums would mesh on other ones. Clearly you don't know much about their music or you wouldn't claim otherwise. You don't have to LIKE U2 - I couldn't care less how you feel about them - but your attempts to call them a one-note band are bizarre...

This snipet of your argument (to what?) regarding U2 is
almost laughable. I'm afraid, very afraid. REM is a mandolin?
Duran Duran, well I'll give you that one. Smashing Pumpkins
only had one album that stood out? Are you joking? Or is
it that SP didn't put out crap albums trying to be different and
in the end went back to what they were. Wow, I got a buyer
for my 'bridge'.

You don't seem to understand any of the points I made. Argument "to what"? I responded to MatthewCho's points - y'know, the ones I QUOTED immediately above my statement.

But here are my points AGAIN:

1) REM were never an innovative band. They sounded like the Byrds with mushmouth singing until they got "artsy" on Out of Time. In truth, REM aren't a bad group, but they're insanely arrogant and they're badly overrated;

2) I never said the Pumpkins didn't do good work. I said they hadn't evolved musically or were very adventurous - in direct response to what Matthew said. Adore was the only album that tried to do something different, and it didn't do so well. I was HAPPY when they went back to what they did best - there's nothing wrong with knowing your niche and sticking with it.

If you read the entire post instead of choosing parts selectively, it'll make sense the first time...

Probably because "Your Silent Face" (one of my fave tracks too) borrows much from Kraftwerk - to put it mildly.

Speaking of Kraftwerk - beyond a few tracks (such as "T.E.E."), I find their body of work largely uninteresting - at least in a musical sense. Interesting in a pioneering sense, but I find it difficult to actually sit down and listen to an entire albums worth of material from them when I can pop in bands who really experimented and pushed the envelope such as Front 242, Skinny Puppy, Depeche Mode, et al.

But to each his/her own! Without Kraftwerk, many of the bands I listen to today might never have formed - or at least, would probably sound significantly different.

What you said about a certain "timeless" quality some bands have pretty much sums it all up I think. It's completely subjective - what one person believes to be "timeless" (me /w PC&L) another believes to be trash (Tom Waits = gahh!!!). As MatthewCho alluded to, what you feel is "timeless" may sound "dated" to me and vice versa.

If this thread has proved anything, it's that we'll never agree on which band was the "best" at anything - let alone during a decade!

-matt

Perhaps I was a bit strong in previous posts, particularly that "they have not grown much as a band" and that "nearly all their songs can be interchanged."

I likewise feel that the quotes above are much too strong. REM "insanely arrogant?" Were talking about U2 here. There is nobody in rock with a bigger head than Bono. At the Grammys..."I'm the lead singer, I do the talking" when The Edge attempted to get a word in. Please.

Likewise, "badly overrated" is no better than my subjective quotes above.

Your claim that Smashing Pumpkins were not adventurous is surprising. Have you listened to "Mellon Collie?" They tinkered successfully with numerous genres. "Tonight, Tonight," both musically and visually, pushed boundaries for mid-90's rock. In my ears Duran Duran (previously mentioned) has made even more drastic changes; "Ordinary World" and "Come Undone" sound absolutely nothing like their early new wave period ("Planet Earth" and "Girls On Film") or their "Notorious" days.

You respoded in a previous posting to my claim that U2 was virtually out of the music scene from 1993-2000 (prior to ATYCLB). Let me clarify. In previous posts U2 defenders claimed that U2 was the "best" band, often noting their successes. My point in the '93-'00 comment was that they were in a slump. The entire "Pop" project was considered a relative flop. Sorry, this was the public and critical perception. Therefore, there was a huge gap between "Zooropa" and ATYCLB. Of course they were somewhat active during these years. However, they were not nearly as "high profile" as the best band of the 80's and 90's should be.

Once again, I still don't see U2 as standing out among the pack regarding adventure and innovation when comparing bands of the same generation. This is my only argument here (apart from U2 not being the "best," which is not even worth discussing unless a definition is created). For example, "Beautiful Day" has the same feel to me as "Pride (In the Name Of Love)." At the very least they don't sound 15 years apart. If this thread were about the best live performers of the 80's and 90's I would certainly not argue that U2 is among the leaders. However, in the studio I disagree. Again, this is personal perception. I would suppose that many on the board would suggest that all rap sounds the same, while I would disagree.

Again, what's the "best?" Is it the group that sells the most, has the most hits, is around the longest, maintains the most consistent fan base, is the most political, is the most controversial, changes the most musically, has the best live performances, has the best videos, or the one that simply says the most to you personally?

- Matt C.

There's one major difference between REM and U2: the latter's comments often tend to be tongue-in-cheek. For example, with the statement you provided, it was CLEARLY a joke, and it all played off of last year's Grammys. Edge went off on a long (but funny) spiel when they won in 2001 - that's what he alluded to when he started to talk this year.

REM seem to have absolutely no sense of humor about themselves. I've read many interviews with them where they basically come across as though they invented rock music. My favorite example of their arrogance? A "Rolling Stone" interview before the start of the "Monster" tour. I think it was Mike Mills who criticized the Police as a group that once was a tight punk band but they turned into an "art project" when they stopped touring.

The problem: the Police NEVER stopped touring. They played behind every record they made, and Sting has done the same; he's never sat out an album. On the other hand, that statement PERFECTLY applies to REM, a band who became very self-consciously arty in 1991 and didn't tour for six years!

I won't deny that Bono can be full of himself - that whole "winning back the job as best band in the world" thing last year was silly - but most of his remarks in that vein tend to be self-effacing. U2 clearly have a sense of humor about themselves that REM seems to lack. There are MANY more egotistical performers than Bono...

As for the Pumpkins, I know all of their albums. Yeah, some of the songs - like "Tonight" - were different for them, but overall, I never regarded them as an "adventurous" band. Mellon Collie still stuck mainly with their bread and butter; Adore is the only album that consistently sounded different.

As for DD, I also know their material pretty well - at least through the second self-titled album - and don't see substantial differences in the material. There are some minor production changes but I don't think the songs themselves varied much. Just my opinion, of course...

Note that I'm not BASHING any of the acts you've mentioned - well, except for REM, who do produce some decent music but who bug me due to their attitudes. I'm a big Pumpkins fan and I also like DD to a modest degree. I just don't see them as being more - or as - daring as U2. Not claiming U2 reinvent themselves with every record and encompass a wide variety of styles ala Bowie, but I think they're a lot broader than most acts, especially given their status; they easily could have produced endless Joshua Tree reworkings...

Your original statement said they were "virtually out of the music scene" for that period - that's a lot stronger than saying they were in a slump!

And you are correct that they WERE in a popular slump in that period. Pop topped charts but didn't have very long legs, and the tour didn't sell as well as did the prior two stadium outings. BUT everything's relative. They DID still sell millions of copies of Pop, and "PopMart" DID still play before a couple of million people. A bad year for them is still a banner year for almost anyone else.

I agree that the public perception IS of Pop as a bomb. It's wrong, but that's what people seem to think. Nonetheless, it still kept them in the public eye, which is why I don't understand how you can argue they were out of the spotlight for seven years. How can there be a negative public perception of them if the public didn't know they were out there?

(And for the record, I won't even attempt to argue who's the BEST band - that remains too subjective. I just continue to disagree with some of these other points...)

Humor is relative. I get the joke here. However, Bono never seems to turn it off. What would have REALLY been funny is if Bono did not speak during any of the acceptance speeches; that the other band members "banned" him for last year's comments or something to that effect.

Bono reminds me of Jim Carrey and Robin Williams. Two hilarious guys. Two guys, however, who never get the hint and go too long to the point of annoyance.

I know Bono means well. However, there's no denying that the man likes himself, as evident when on stage. When I watch U2 I get the same feeling as when watching Michael Jackson. Both are stuck on themselves.

I'm not denying that REM is not a serious band with a lack of humor. However, their not so in my face about it.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. Like I said - the "Wedding Album" is a complete 180 for this band. Listen to their debut and then "Wedding." To me, it's a completely different sound, way beyond simple production. Coincidentally I heard U2's "One" on the radio today. To me, it's exactly the same vibe as "Walk On," yet 10 years part the two.

I think that "pop" and "alternative" acts have a bit more freedom from fans to experiment. Beck, Madonna, and Prince are examples of acts that I see as pushing the boundaries. I expect some fun to be made of Madonna and Prince, but these two artists take chances commercially and artistically (well beyond any of the rock acts we've mentioned), and I admire that.

True.

Perhaps I should have said their most unsuccessful and culturally insignificant period. They fell out of the limelight for awhile.

- Matt C.

Actually, Pop's "Staring at the Sun" is a much closer replica of "One". Every band has their remade songs - there's no question about that. I never said EVERY U2 song was a distinct and unique jewel, y'know...

NOW you've gone too far!

Seriously, I think you're WAY off base here. MJ has ABSOLUTELY no sense of humor about himself, and the man has very little touch with reality. I saw him at the local "United We Stand" show in October - his performance was a disgrace. (Incidentally, this was two days after U2 put on possibly the greatest performance I've ever seen from them.)

Did you see MJ's "Vibe" magazine interview? Nauseating. Here's the short version:

INTERVIEWER: Michael, why are you so great?
MJ: Yes, I'm great.
INTERVIEWER: No, you don't understand - you're GREAT!
MJ: Yes, I fully agree that I'm great.

MJ has become a caricature of a cartoon of a joke. U2 would never stage a celebrity concert celebration of themselves - I see absolutely NO similarities between the two...

OK, so perhaps we can at least agree that MJ is the most swollen-headed artists of them all. I vaguely remember an interview in which he responded to a question asking why he named the new CD "Invincible." He talked about himself being the best, etc.

Your also 100% correct in saying he has evolved into a caricature of himself. His 30th anniversary "tribute" was stunningly stale. He's been gone for so many years and this is the best he can come up with? (i.e., album, concert, the "Rock My World" video featuring that embarrassing shot of him slapping a girl's butt and that cringing conversation with Chris Tucker, his self-generated "awards," etc.). Remember all that pre-release talk about Michael generating "a completely new sound" for music? Please. I was a huge MJ fan and even have the new album. However, I'll be the first to say that he's completely out of touch. I now wonder if Quincy Jones was the mastermind behind his best work (Thriller, Off The Wall, and even The Wiz). Since then he's been anything but exciting. Perhaps he should have pulled a Janet and stayed with the same producer for every album. I honestly think he might be more successful if he did. Suprisingly, the U.S. is now his #1 market; it's the only territory where his album is charting so "high" (in the 40-50 range). This is the same country that turned its backs the quickest during his legal-plagued days.

However, I have seen U2 in concert and Bono is not 100% tongue in cheek. His open-armed, staring at the ceiling, eyes closed, baking in the cheers of fans during one of their more serious songs is not meant to be humorous. It's nothing more than him soaking it up. Rarely do I see other artists do this, even those more often perceived as having a huge ego, such as Madonna, Prince, Elton John, Cher, etc.

This was a good thread. Arguments sometimes generate more interesting discussion than total agreements.

- Matt C.

I never said ALL of Bono's stuff is tongue in cheek; like I mentioned earlier, even I got sick of the whole "winning back the job" stuff last year. However, I think the motions you mention here aren't Bono basking in the glory; it's more an attempt for him to be iconic...

The most egotistical folks don't NEED affirmation from fans. It's more insecure types who want that. If you want to see serious basking, check out Janet Jackson or John Mellencamp, who both ALWAYS set aside "spontaneous" time for the fans to cheer for minutes...

I am interested in hearing what John Mellencamp does, but am well aware of Janet's intentional pause (generally coupled with tears) she sets aside during every concert on every tour since the Janet. CD was released. Even hardcore fans generally find this a bit much.

- Matt C.