rate U2

Where do you think they rank among the all-time great bands?

Somewhere around Nickelback

In between Bros and Bieber

They are certainly up there for me.

Thanks for chipping in guys, seems the music forum is as quiet as other parts of the board.

incontinentia wrote:Where do you think they rank among the all-time great bands?

In terms of having a complete bell end as a front man they can compete with any band you'd care to mention. In terms of the quality of their output they don't quite do so great.

Interesting rowley, and thanks for your input. It seems opinion on this board re: U2 is in stark contrast to how they're received worldwide.

-150 million records sold
-no. 22 on Rolling Stone's top 100 artists of all time
- no. 19 on VH1's list
- Joshua Tree no. 26 on RS's 500 greatest albums of all time
- 22 Grammies won (more than any other group)
- 7 Brit awards (5 X Best International Group)
- Inducted into Rock n Roll hall of fame in 2005, the first year they were eligible

U2 always get a bad rap, simply because people despise Bono so much. Their development from beginning to now has been amazing, in my opinion.

Their first album was as raw as they would probably ever be, song like Electric Co, I Will Follow and Out of Control were full of passion, urgency and aggression. https://youtu.be/yaTPls-m3sk

Their second album was a let down but they redeemed themselves with their third and fourth album, War and The Unforgettable Fire. It showed they were serious and had the ability to write meaningful songs that not only struck a chord on an emotional level but that were radio friendly. They really upped their game and showed they had the capacity to change and develop. https://youtu.be/FgyVvoODWGA   https://youtu.be/aPyhYczii8I

The Joshua Tree was both a critical and commercial success. Like all great albums there is a continuity about it, like the songs all fit together and would feel out of place anywhere else. Lyrically Bono was at his peak and musically the band were constantly changing. Songs like With or Without You sounds unadventurous now after hearing it so many times, but when it was release there wasn't much in the charts that sounded like it, with it's eerie guitar slowing capturing people's interest and it was a brave choice as a single. The album as a hole is a classic. https://youtu.be/XmSdTa9kaiQ

Rattle and Hum never really caught the public's imagination and the band were at a crossroad. After a short break they released Achtung Baby, this is where I think they show their true greatness and their ability to change, other bands at the time never dared to take the chance and remained static. They moved with the times and their sound change to a more rock/dance/theatrical sound. Lyrically they were darker, more cutting and  more suggestive. They sealed this album with one of the best and innovative tours of all time with Zoo TV. Suddenly, just standing there playing your instruments wasn't enough. This is U2 at their peak. All you have to do is compare this song to the previous songs I've posted to see the difference. https://youtu.be/RfKqtXhF_eM

Zooropa soon followed and U2 were still in experimental code, more rock/dance/electronic songs broke through and the album was a success without reaching the heights of it's predecessor. https://youtu.be/0zDvUM4lWXA

POP was their next offering and while it had some good songs it had an unfinished feel about it.

U2 entered the 2000's with a more traditional style of rock and have continued in that vein. They released really good albums and some great songs without ever reaching the heights of the 80's and 90's.

Overall I think they are a fantastic band that suffer because of Bono's public profile. The songs speak for themselves and they had the guts to change, but also stay relevant. Many so called great bands never had they balls to do so and just churned out the same crap, album after album.

U2 were ok, nothing more than that...a couple of nice songs, that’s about it,