Originally posted by BLANK:Why is it that whenever one of the popular groups with "mainstream" success out there (U2, REM, Nirvana, etc.) gets talked about in music snob circles, some know-it-all has to point out what a worthless, overrated band they are? Yet go check out the artists in *this* snob's catalogue and (if we could) actually talk to the supposedly cooler-than-thou bands – I'm sure many of *them* would modestly and genuinely point to U2, REM, etc. as some of their biggest influences.
U2 is really a bad 80s band that never should have become as popular as they did. But they were easy to market, after all they made poppy little diddies that sent college kids into a tizzy and gave pseudo-intellectuals a new hero to rave about.
Criticize their later music for not sounding like the early stuff or pass on phony and illogical tax rumors all you want… heck, even venture that you never liked them in the first place – fine with me. But it irks me to no end when people think they can get cool points with music snobs by revealing the "shocking truth" of a band's ever-present suckiness even though nearly everyone in the world of *actually playing rock music* cites that band as an influence or example of a good band.
Sorry for sounding off – I know I'm a lurker. If anyone cares, I actually think All That You Can't Leave Behind was maybe their best record, followed closely by Achtung Baby, War, October, and Joshua Tree.