norbertslimeball said:

Ingela said:

I think this thread perfectly differentiates today's hard core fans vs the early prince fans. Back in the day, prince fans were open and adventurous music fans that loved U2 and Talking Heads, New Order and Bruce. The way it looks like is I agree very childish tastes. And it does like prince has catered too much to this dumbed down demographic who find U2 boring a little too much.

some of us have been fans for all of this time and find the fact that U2's hasn't really covered any new ground since they started boring. I would be bored with Prince if every album he released was a rehash of Purple Rain even though I still love Purple Rain itself.

Ingela said:

I think this thread perfectly differentiates today's hard core fans vs the early prince fans. Back in the day, prince fans were open and adventurous music fans that loved U2 and Talking Heads, New Order and Bruce. The way it looks like is I agree very childish tastes. And it does like prince has catered too much to this dumbed down demographic who find U2 boring a little too much.

This post doesn't make much sense. U2 has not been adventurous in decades, plus now too many of their classics sound like close cousins of each others. I'm not surprised that fans of an artist noted for his wide choice of musical idioms are bored with U2 (and since they are, they can be as bored as they want).

So I would say the level of boredom is more about what U2 has to offer today, not much to do with anything else.

Does U2 play recent material live?

Does U2 do nice remasters of old stuff?

Does U2 communicate with their fans in clear ways?

U2 is great

Prince is still the baddest motherfucker on the planet - hands down

One thing about U2 that stands out to me, above all else, is that they're still U2. The same four guys throughout their history.

Bono didn't someday have a temper, or an epiphany, or just a bad day and replace them all. Or, didn't keep the Edge only and try to continue the "U2" name with new drummer and bassist. And they didn't expand their lineup to almost a dozen people and still call themselves U2.

I can't compare Prince to U2, but might to Rolling Stones, similarity?

U2 is cool but a bit wise

whereas Prince is wicked and wild, above all Funky in his attitude and Music

Maybe they rock both

[Edited 1/2/16 12:52pm]

Aerogram said:

Ingela said:

I think this thread perfectly differentiates today's hard core fans vs the early prince fans. Back in the day, prince fans were open and adventurous music fans that loved U2 and Talking Heads, New Order and Bruce. The way it looks like is I agree very childish tastes. And it does like prince has catered too much to this dumbed down demographic who find U2 boring a little too much.

This post doesn't make much sense. U2 has not been adventurous in decades, plus now too many of their classics sound like close cousins of each others. I'm not surprised that fans of an artist noted for his wide choice of musical idioms are bored with U2 (and since they are, they can be as bored as they want).

So I would say the level of boredom is more about what U2 has to offer today, not much to do with anything else.

Oh, because the same cannot be said about Prince?

Aerogram said:

This post doesn't make much sense. U2 has not been adventurous in decades, plus now too many of their classics sound like close cousins of each others. I'm not surprised that fans of an artist noted for his wide choice of musical idioms are bored with U2 (and since they are, they can be as bored as they want).

So I would say the level of boredom is more about what U2 has to offer today, not much to do with anything else.

the idea that an artist or band is "boring" just because they don't play a bunch of different styles is ridiculous.Most rock bands simply play rock....would you say that those bands are all "boring" too?

Bono is a wanker

Prince is a wanker

U2 havent released anything decent since the 90s, but still sell out shows in minutes

Prince hasnt released anything decent since the 90s, but still sells out shows in minutes

U2 looks after their followers by releasing gorgeous boxsets full of re-mastered lp's and demos etc

Prince couldn't give a fark about his followers

U2's unreleased material isn't worth the money you spend on the re-released boxsets.

Prince's unreleased material would be worth every cent (and more) if it was ever released in boxsets.

So..... I call a tie.

callimnate said:

So..... I call a tie.

.

Great arguments!

udo said:

callimnate said:

So..... I call a tie.

.

Great arguments!

u cant compare prince to anyone...hes just so odd

bonatoc said:

Aerogram said:

This post doesn't make much sense. U2 has not been adventurous in decades, plus now too many of their classics sound like close cousins of each others. I'm not surprised that fans of an artist noted for his wide choice of musical idioms are bored with U2 (and since they are, they can be as bored as they want).

So I would say the level of boredom is more about what U2 has to offer today, not much to do with anything else.

Oh, because the same cannot be said about Prince?

you can't even remotely call Prince's best albums close cousins of each other.

I'm a huge fan of both Prince and U2... and in my opinion they can't be compared. They're 2 completely different types of artists. They have both provided me with music I love and still listen to today. However, unless I was making a mix by year, I can't see putting them both on the same compilation. To my ears, their music is completely different. They both have made amazing music and have so much to be proud of, but they're so different from one another I personally don't think they can be compared.

Scooch87 said:

U2 and Prince... two of my most favorite artists for 30+ years.

I can only assume the three or four posters accusing U2 of never changing styles are under-25s, or they've never listened to more than one album or something.

U2 made a rather huge shift in style in 1984 on The Unforgettable Fire (with help from Eno and Lanois), to the point that the album received quite mixed reviews and was briefly considered a minor misfire (today it's considered an all-time classic).

Then, in 1991 they re-emerged after time-off with a totally new sound and look. Achtung Baby (and the ZooTV tour) played with industrial rock, Eurotrash, Manchester... and used the word "baby" about 100 times after they'd intentionally never used it in a song before. In 1993, Zooropa took them even further into digital music.

It's true that U2 have somewhat rested on their laurels (stylistically, anyway) since about 2000...

Also, the argument that Prince has been more commercially durable by quoting gold singles or whatever is just silly. Singles are not really the medium of importance for a band like U2. Since the 1980s, U2's album sales trump Prince's by a huge margin. Diamonds & Pearls was Prince's last really big album, commercially, and that was 1991. Since 1987, every single U2 album (plus two compilations) has hit either #1 or #2 on the US charts... with the exception of the recent 2014 album, which they gave away free to about 200 million people before it was physically issued (and it still hit the top-10 in every country).

Now, of course sales don't tell us anything about who is 'better', but let's stop the nonsense about Prince being a bigger artist commercially. He simply isn't, since about 1987.

In my mind, Prince and U2 are the two most important ("greatest", if you like) popular music artists of the 1980s (in the English-speaking world). Prince's peak is roughly 1979 to 1988, while U2's is about 1982 to 1993, but close enough. [Prince is about 2-3 years older than the U2 guys, so actually their periods of best work are at almost exactly the same ages.]

I think everyone on here knows what Prince did -- he did so many new things, broke down so many barriers, merged so many disparate threads in a popular whole, created new worlds and performer personaes, wrote an incredible number of incredible songs, staged exciting tours (though not enough in the US after 1985)... you can go on and on.

U2, I think, don't get enough credit for the trailblazing they did in their youth. They reinvented spiritual or 'Christian rock' and made it a great thing instead of an embarrassment. They removed macho, sex-God posturing (a leftover relic of the sexist 60s/70s) from stadium rock. They proved that a massive audience needn't be an impediment to intimate performance. U2 was the most 'punk' big band of the 80s, in a sense, because they were anti-corporations, anti-MTV, anti-cheesy pop songs/videos, anti-rock-cliches, etc. (Sadly, this has largely changed in recent years.) U2 in the 80s made the 80s look good, which can't have been easy (well, except for Bono's mullet).

Prince is certainly a better musician in terms of instrumental ability (on various instruments) than any member of U2 (though Bono circa 1984 to 1993 might have been the better singer). That's not even close. Prince can do things, musically, that U2 know they can't even attempt, and wouldn't try to. But what U2 are better than Prince at is submerging their egos for the better of the end-product. In fairness, Prince has always traded as "Prince" (solo artist, man in charge), so I suppose the buck stopped with him and he had to make the hard decisions alone from a young age, but he certainly has let his ego get the better of his career far too many times.

Both of these definitive 80s' artists have maintained large-scale commercial success in the 90s and 2000s (though U2 have been much smarter and more consistent than Prince about it). Both have also struggled at times to catch the zeitgeist, even when their fanbases probably didn't want them to.

Since the 80s, they've each followed exactly opposite trends in terms of releases: U2 have released far too little new music (studio recordings). They issued only 3 new albums in the 1990s, and 4 since 2000. That's it. Their fans (me, for one) complain that they take far too long to complete recording sessions, working and reworking songs to death until the song loses its original spark. U2 are far better craftsmen today, and far better at writing pop hits, than they were in 1984... and their music is far worse.

Prince, on the other hand, has released too much music for the good of his career. It's debatable whether that's a good thing for him and his fanbase. During U2's last 7 albums, Prince has released something like 23 (!), some of them triple-sets. All but the most devoted Prince fans (and I was one) lost interest and/or got frustrated trying to follow his name changes and releases.

Anyway, they're both great and I'm glad they're both still around making decent music. (Check out U2's 'Every Breaking Wave', which for me is their best single since the early-90s.)

(P.S. I don't get how to make paragraphs in my post...)

[Edited 1/18/16 3:57am]

^ That sums it up pretty well.

It would be an error to overlook the importance of "Achtung Baby", "Zooropa" and the "Zoo TV" tour. Even "Pop" has a strange quality to it.

As for paragraphs, SHIFT + ENTER is what you're looking for.

U2 have NEVER won an Oscar.... Prince has...

U2's has never received a Diamond certification (over 10 million albums sold).... Prince has... (Purple Rain)

U2 has NEVER been voted best Super Bowl halftime show.... Prince has....

I have taken better then U2's last few albums! wait... ,,,ok I am good now...

avasdad said:

I have taken better then U2's last few albums! wait... ,,,ok I am good now...

How different is that to P??

Achtung Baby (U2, 1991)...


This album is a classic... wonderful music.....

U2 can't do Housequake.

EroticDreamer said:

U2 can't do Housequake.

haha that was true..

But what a disaster it was to see Sign O The Times loosing the Grammy for album of the year to The Joshua Tree....

Oh noooooooooo! a disaster and a crime..... SOTT is a soooo much better album (but it just did not sell as much)..........

bonatoc said:

As for paragraphs, SHIFT + ENTER is what you're looking for.

Didn't work for me...

thedance said:

EroticDreamer said:

U2 can't do Housequake.

haha that was true..

But what a disaster it was to see Sign O The Times loosing the Grammy for album of the year to The Joshua Tree....

Oh noooooooooo! a disaster and a crime..... SOTT is a soooo much better album (but it just did not sell as much)..........

I looked up the clip on youtube and someone gives Prince's chair a playful kick from behind as the nomination is announced.

Too bad the camera doesn't show his reaction when the winner is read.

-

TOPIC- I like Phase 2 more than that last free album by U2.

Why is there so much focus on who treats their fans better?

Prince is by far the superior artist and that's all that will really matter 100 years from now.