Over = the band is overrated by today's standards, for whatever reason you want to argue/defend.
Under = the band is underrated by today's standard, for whatever reason you want to argue/defend.
Okay, moving onwards....
Unos, dos, tres, catorce!
Many people may know U2 for this:
So okay, Bono is a douche bag. He is an international douche bag. And he is full of shit. Or he is shit. Either way, Bono is not good. But aside from Bono's environmental posturing, he actually is able to sing. At least in my opinion.
One day, many many years ago, U2 made albums like The Joshua Tree, Boy, and October. Like a lot of 80s bands, U2 kind of fell off during the 90s.
U2 is known for their live shows and they are definitely a stadium rock band. They've influenced bands like Muse, The Killers, Coldplay and Radiohead. There is no denying that Bono's shit...or wait, isn't he a shit?...is contagious.
Now Playing: The Legend of Zelda : Twilight Princess
Posts: 6,031
Re: Over/Under: U2
I'd generally say overrated. I appreciate that some of their older songs are pretty good, but everything I've heard from them lately has been pretty lame.
On a Bono note, I actually was able to meet him and the Edge backstage at a show once. Surprisingly, Bono wasn't actually a douche and talked to people in our band just like we were normal dudes even if we're kind of chumps compared to his level. The Edge seemed fine too. They both danced like goofballs. For that reason, I can't personally slam Bono much even though he does seem like a wiener some times.
It depends of which U2 we're talking about. New or old? Old U2, up through Zooropa was brilliant. They've kind of been "bleh" ever since. I neither like or hate.
I think they are where they are. Neither over or under.
Over/Under: U2
Linear Mode
