U2 are awfully limited...the guitar work sucks with a few exceptions. They get away with a handful of good songs. The Zooropa album was forced at that point.
A complete unoriginal band imo.
musicland munich
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Jimmy Dean
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
Song writing and arranging, they are also in the same league.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see Bono arranging the harmonies of 'Bohemian Rhapsody', The Edge arranging the guitar jazz band of 'Good Company', Larry arranging and playing guitar harmonies like the ones on 'A Kind of Magic' or Adam arranging something as clever and coherent as 'You're My Best Friend'.[/QUOTE]
great point. so yes, as you said same league. unless you mean you cannot see them arranging those? and you mean they are not in the same league.
in that case my rebuttal is that, and i think i mentioned this, while they may be in the same league Queen were always better (in my opinion).... you pointed out prime examples of Queen songs where the arranging made the song - ie. Good company.
Also, you mention Adam arranging something as clever and coherent as YMBF - are we sure John Deacon arranged that one? he is principal songwriter. Queen labeled the writer as the one that brought in the idea - so John may have come up with a verse and a chorus and Freddie could have finished it.
When i think of U2 and arranging, I look at post 80s. The songwriting was better pre-90s but the arranging became more interesting post 80s. Achtung, Baby and Zooropa are clearly the main examples I think of.
I'm a huge fan actually of the songs Zooropa & The Fly - epic tracks. And in all fairness, if it weren't for those two albums - i'd have very little to say about U2.
Queen definitely kept it more interesting over a longer period.
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
Song writing and arranging, they are also in the same league.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see Bono arranging the harmonies of 'Bohemian Rhapsody', The Edge arranging the guitar jazz band of 'Good Company', Larry arranging and playing guitar harmonies like the ones on 'A Kind of Magic' or Adam arranging something as clever and coherent as 'You're My Best Friend'.[/QUOTE]
great point. so yes, as you said same league. unless you mean you cannot see them arranging those? and you mean they are not in the same league.
in that case my rebuttal is that, and i think i mentioned this, while they may be in the same league Queen were always better (in my opinion).... you pointed out prime examples of Queen songs where the arranging made the song - ie. Good company.
Also, you mention Adam arranging something as clever and coherent as YMBF - are we sure John Deacon arranged that one? he is principal songwriter. Queen labeled the writer as the one that brought in the idea - so John may have come up with a verse and a chorus and Freddie could have finished it.
When i think of U2 and arranging, I look at post 80s. The songwriting was better pre-90s but the arranging became more interesting post 80s. Achtung, Baby and Zooropa are clearly the main examples I think of.
I'm a huge fan actually of the songs Zooropa & The Fly - epic tracks. And in all fairness, if it weren't for those two albums - i'd have very little to say about U2.
Queen definitely kept it more interesting over a longer period.
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
Queen labeled the writer as the one that brought in the idea - so John may have come up with a verse and a chorus and Freddie could have finished it.[/QUOTE]
According to witness testimonies by both Brian and Roger, John brought the song pretty well mapped-out and even took over the mixing and producing of it, so, yes, there were other clever songwriters in that band besides Brian and Frederick. But even if there weren't, I don't think anyone in U2 would be able to arrange those harmonies (guitar or vocals), or the form of that song, etc. They can/could write some nice material but not by any means in the same league.
And, again, when did Adam and/or Larry come up with such milestone pieces by themselves?
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
When i think of U2 and arranging, I look at post 80s. The songwriting was better pre-90s but the arranging became more interesting post 80s. Achtung, Baby and Zooropa are clearly the main examples I think of.[/QUOTE]
The Edge received help from Brian Eno to arrange the strings on 'So Cruel'. Both Eno and Daniel Lanois contributed some key arrangement ideas and even played some instruments for a few of the most interesting parts. Eno was also instrumental for 'Zooropa' and added a lot to it.
In terms of arrangements, evidence suggests Queen were far more independent in their golden days. It's not like Roy Baker played any key guitar or piano parts - he added some castanets and a stylophone and that was it. He did a great job producing, but he didn't co-arrange anything and he didn't play guitars or keys, they did it all by themselves. That changed a bit in the 80s when they started bringing more external arrangers (Lynton Naiff, Arif Mardin, Michael Kamen) but even the tracks they arranged entirely by themselves (Was It All Worth It comes to mind, and The Miracle) were light years from anything U2 did in terms of musicality (if you or anyone else prefers 'Dity Day' or 'Lemon' to any of those, there's nothing wrong with that).
Queen labeled the writer as the one that brought in the idea - so John may have come up with a verse and a chorus and Freddie could have finished it.[/QUOTE]
According to witness testimonies by both Brian and Roger, John brought the song pretty well mapped-out and even took over the mixing and producing of it, so, yes, there were other clever songwriters in that band besides Brian and Frederick. But even if there weren't, I don't think anyone in U2 would be able to arrange those harmonies (guitar or vocals), or the form of that song, etc. They can/could write some nice material but not by any means in the same league.
And, again, when did Adam and/or Larry come up with such milestone pieces by themselves?
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
When i think of U2 and arranging, I look at post 80s. The songwriting was better pre-90s but the arranging became more interesting post 80s. Achtung, Baby and Zooropa are clearly the main examples I think of.[/QUOTE]
The Edge received help from Brian Eno to arrange the strings on 'So Cruel'. Both Eno and Daniel Lanois contributed some key arrangement ideas and even played some instruments for a few of the most interesting parts. Eno was also instrumental for 'Zooropa' and added a lot to it.
In terms of arrangements, evidence suggests Queen were far more independent in their golden days. It's not like Roy Baker played any key guitar or piano parts - he added some castanets and a stylophone and that was it. He did a great job producing, but he didn't co-arrange anything and he didn't play guitars or keys, they did it all by themselves. That changed a bit in the 80s when they started bringing more external arrangers (Lynton Naiff, Arif Mardin, Michael Kamen) but even the tracks they arranged entirely by themselves (Was It All Worth It comes to mind, and The Miracle) were light years from anything U2 did in terms of musicality (if you or anyone else prefers 'Dity Day' or 'Lemon' to any of those, there's nothing wrong with that).
HelloDelilah
Getting back to the original question. Things that stand out about Queen that I love are:
• Best frontman in the history of music. Freddie is absolutely the best.
• All 4 members are intelligent, well educated and professional. They weren’t your typical band of high school drop outs.
• They’re down to earth and respectful to others and their fans.
• They’re not druggies. I know they experimented and partied but I don’t think they were druggies. They were more mature.
• Their music is unique and original. Beautiful harmonizing.
• They had synergy. Each member contributed to the greater whole.
That’s all for now. Good topic, Stick!
• Best frontman in the history of music. Freddie is absolutely the best.
• All 4 members are intelligent, well educated and professional. They weren’t your typical band of high school drop outs.
• They’re down to earth and respectful to others and their fans.
• They’re not druggies. I know they experimented and partied but I don’t think they were druggies. They were more mature.
• Their music is unique and original. Beautiful harmonizing.
• They had synergy. Each member contributed to the greater whole.
That’s all for now. Good topic, Stick!
Stick
Thanks!
Jimmy Dean
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
Queen labeled the writer as the one that brought in the idea - so John may have come up with a verse and a chorus and Freddie could have finished it.[/QUOTE]
According to witness testimonies by both Brian and Roger, John brought the song pretty well mapped-out and even took over the mixing and producing of it, so, yes, there were other clever songwriters in that band besides Brian and Frederick. But even if there weren't, I don't think anyone in U2 would be able to arrange those harmonies (guitar or vocals), or the form of that song, etc. They can/could write some nice material but not by any means in the same league.
And, again, when did Adam and/or Larry come up with such milestone pieces by themselves?
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
When i think of U2 and arranging, I look at post 80s. The songwriting was better pre-90s but the arranging became more interesting post 80s. Achtung, Baby and Zooropa are clearly the main examples I think of.[/QUOTE]
The Edge received help from Brian Eno to arrange the strings on 'So Cruel'. Both Eno and Daniel Lanois contributed some key arrangement ideas and even played some instruments for a few of the most interesting parts. Eno was also instrumental for 'Zooropa' and added a lot to it.
In terms of arrangements, evidence suggests Queen were far more independent in their golden days. It's not like Roy Baker played any key guitar or piano parts - he added some castanets and a stylophone and that was it. He did a great job producing, but he didn't co-arrange anything and he didn't play guitars or keys, they did it all by themselves. That changed a bit in the 80s when they started bringing more external arrangers (Lynton Naiff, Arif Mardin, Michael Kamen) but even the tracks they arranged entirely by themselves (Was It All Worth It comes to mind, and The Miracle) were light years from anything U2 did in terms of musicality (if you or anyone else prefers 'Dity Day' or 'Lemon' to any of those, there's nothing wrong with that).[/QUOTE]
I actually agree with everything you said and I think i mentioned in an earlier post that Eno & Lanois were responsible for a lot of what they they accomplished. I should explain my definition of league. There are 3 leagues. Bad, Good and Great. Queen and U2 in the Great League. U2 at the lowest end of the spectrum and Queen right at the high end. In that sense, I mean same league. U2's better songs were arranged - as opposed to Bob Dylan's that are simple and don't need to rely on arranging. Queen's music was successful primarily because of the arranging. U2 relied heavily on effects when Queen did not need to. Queen, of course, were better at it - so they didn't need to alter their sound to get their point across. I think the Miracle album is one of the rare occurrences where effects were used to give the songs some extra color (title track, Invisible Man come to mind) - but nothing too drastic.
Adam and Larry are backing band - I don't know why you mentioned them actually? If it's to highlight all 4 band members of Queen were active - yes I agree. This is exactly what made Queen better than almost every band. Their democratic approach to music and business decisions was their best attribute. Each member was worth 25%, no more no less.
And for the record, no, I don't count Dirty Day or Lemon as highlights of Zooropa. The title song on that album is one of my favorites of U2, however..
Anyways, the point of my post wasn't to say how U2 was better than Queen. It was to say that U2 isn't as bad as people think of them to be. Unfortunately, when you release nothing but shit albums over 2 decades,not to mention push one of them out for free to anyone with an iPhone, you start to lose credibility and you tarnish your legacy. The Rolling Stones have learned that, U2 has not.
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
Queen labeled the writer as the one that brought in the idea - so John may have come up with a verse and a chorus and Freddie could have finished it.[/QUOTE]
According to witness testimonies by both Brian and Roger, John brought the song pretty well mapped-out and even took over the mixing and producing of it, so, yes, there were other clever songwriters in that band besides Brian and Frederick. But even if there weren't, I don't think anyone in U2 would be able to arrange those harmonies (guitar or vocals), or the form of that song, etc. They can/could write some nice material but not by any means in the same league.
And, again, when did Adam and/or Larry come up with such milestone pieces by themselves?
[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]
When i think of U2 and arranging, I look at post 80s. The songwriting was better pre-90s but the arranging became more interesting post 80s. Achtung, Baby and Zooropa are clearly the main examples I think of.[/QUOTE]
The Edge received help from Brian Eno to arrange the strings on 'So Cruel'. Both Eno and Daniel Lanois contributed some key arrangement ideas and even played some instruments for a few of the most interesting parts. Eno was also instrumental for 'Zooropa' and added a lot to it.
In terms of arrangements, evidence suggests Queen were far more independent in their golden days. It's not like Roy Baker played any key guitar or piano parts - he added some castanets and a stylophone and that was it. He did a great job producing, but he didn't co-arrange anything and he didn't play guitars or keys, they did it all by themselves. That changed a bit in the 80s when they started bringing more external arrangers (Lynton Naiff, Arif Mardin, Michael Kamen) but even the tracks they arranged entirely by themselves (Was It All Worth It comes to mind, and The Miracle) were light years from anything U2 did in terms of musicality (if you or anyone else prefers 'Dity Day' or 'Lemon' to any of those, there's nothing wrong with that).[/QUOTE]
I actually agree with everything you said and I think i mentioned in an earlier post that Eno & Lanois were responsible for a lot of what they they accomplished. I should explain my definition of league. There are 3 leagues. Bad, Good and Great. Queen and U2 in the Great League. U2 at the lowest end of the spectrum and Queen right at the high end. In that sense, I mean same league. U2's better songs were arranged - as opposed to Bob Dylan's that are simple and don't need to rely on arranging. Queen's music was successful primarily because of the arranging. U2 relied heavily on effects when Queen did not need to. Queen, of course, were better at it - so they didn't need to alter their sound to get their point across. I think the Miracle album is one of the rare occurrences where effects were used to give the songs some extra color (title track, Invisible Man come to mind) - but nothing too drastic.
Adam and Larry are backing band - I don't know why you mentioned them actually? If it's to highlight all 4 band members of Queen were active - yes I agree. This is exactly what made Queen better than almost every band. Their democratic approach to music and business decisions was their best attribute. Each member was worth 25%, no more no less.
And for the record, no, I don't count Dirty Day or Lemon as highlights of Zooropa. The title song on that album is one of my favorites of U2, however..
Anyways, the point of my post wasn't to say how U2 was better than Queen. It was to say that U2 isn't as bad as people think of them to be. Unfortunately, when you release nothing but shit albums over 2 decades,not to mention push one of them out for free to anyone with an iPhone, you start to lose credibility and you tarnish your legacy. The Rolling Stones have learned that, U2 has not.
Holly2003
U2's fairly basic musical vocabulary limited what they were capable of doing. To be fair, they did make an effort to expand their horizons a bit, but it's hard to achieve when the Edge only knows about 8 chords. Queen, on the other hand ... they could play pretty much anything they could conceive of in their heads, which is why their albums are so eclectic.
dysan
I remember there was a point after I had exhausted Bowie and Queen (by about early 1992) where I genuinely considered getting into U2. I knew some stuff and they seemed a bit more appealing than, say, The Cure or any other of the previous generation of 'current' bands. I just couldn't do it. However at that time Suede and the Manics came along and pretty much opened up the door to my next 5 years of musical adventures so I dodged a bullet there. I also dodged a bullet because just before they became my sound of '92, I also got into L7 and Ugly Kid Joe. Happy memories.
Anyway, a couple of years later my pal played me a few then current U2 things (Zooropa etc) and I think I could probably make a good side of a C90 of my fav bits from their career. My U2 folder is of a healthy size (largely unplayed TBH) and am still yet to buy a record.
Anyway, a couple of years later my pal played me a few then current U2 things (Zooropa etc) and I think I could probably make a good side of a C90 of my fav bits from their career. My U2 folder is of a healthy size (largely unplayed TBH) and am still yet to buy a record.