On Foo Fighting and You Too

A couple weeks ago, Greg Weeser* emailed me a long, rambling (but well-thought-out) email about Foo Fighters and U2. I have been working on a response since then. Here it is. Greg's email will be in yellow. My responses will be in non-yellow.

Have we done a Foo Fighters / U2 blog chat? (I think Foo last year...)

No.

Watching the Foo Fighters live at Wembley on HD...they have to count as a rather under-the-radar Rock Legend band, no?

Absolutely.

They've been going for about 15 years now...they're the kind of band that has many more awesome hits than you'd assume at first...then you hear them live, and realize they kick ass (much like when I took my brothers to Van Halen in the 90s, and they were shocked they knew every song).

True. I have actually said that I think Foo Fighters are one of the best hard rock bands of the past 15 years.

I'd say they'd certainly qualify as the "Frasier" of Rock Bands....basically, the most successful "spinoff band" ever. I.E, a direct descendant of a successful band whose achievements as a new group can stand alone (and above) it's predecessor (though not necessarily as historically memorable as the initial band). Cheers was a legendary show, aired for 10 years or so...but then Frasier comes along, airs longer with better ratings, eventually to the point where people watched Frasier without any thought of Cheers.

Okay. I like that analogy. It's definitely apt. I don't really think of Nirvana when I listen to Foo Fighters.

As groundbreaking as Nirvana was, Foo Fighters has sold many more albums for many more years (though, for obvious reasons, I suppose).

Yes. Kurt Cobain's death effectively put an end to Nirvana's ability to make more albums.

I'm not sure there's any precedence for this....usually when there's a 'spinoff' of an Ultra-successful band, it's either a joke (Wings, Chickenfoot (!!)), or just a solo spinoff (Peter Gabriel from Genesis, Eric Clapton from Cream, etc). Am I right, or am I missing anything?

The Yardbirds, who were successful in their own right, spun off Cream, The Jeff Beck Group, Blind Faith, Derek & The Dominos, and Led Zeppelin. Santana spun off Journey. Free spun off Bad Company. Deep Purple spun off Rainbow and Whitesnake. I suppose if Nirvana spun off Foo Fighters, then James Gang spun off The Eagles and Buffalo Springfield, The Byrds, and The Hollies spun off Crosby Stills & Nash/Crosby Stills Nash & Young. Jefferson Airplane spun off Starship. Without them, we'd have no cities built on rock and roll. Wings, although I'm not a huge fan, was a pretty successful spin-off band. I don't mind Chickenfoot. And let's not forget Velvet Revolver, which I think put out two pretty good hard rock albums.

Also, I caught the live YouTube broadcast of U2's Rose Bowl show last week, and aside from 1) It being a huge slap in my face for not buying tickets and 2) An insane technological achievement...the quality of the live internet stream was near-Hi Def quality - it sort of drove home the fact that U2 probably belongs in the running for "Best Rock Band Ever", only next to the Beatles.

No. The Stones, Zeppelin, The Doors, The Who, to name a few, are above U2. I'm sorry, but longevity alone does not get you in the upper echelon. I would put the top 5 albums from any of the aforementioned bands up against U2's top 5 albums, and I think the other bands blow the doors off of U2. But that's just, you know, my opinion, man.

Sure, there's the Doors, Stones, Zeppelin, etc.... but there's a lot of myth to those bands. They all went through dark, lame and embarrassing periods. And all of them fell apart (or in the case of the Stones, *almost* fell apart many times). U2 never hit such a slump. The Pop album was sort of a disappointment, but it was sort of a blip and sold millions anyway. The accompanying Pop Mart tour was still huge, and it's served as a successful template for their succeeding tours.

I disagree about The Doors and Zeppelin. The Doors disbanded because Jim Morrison – you know, their lead singer – died. Only one Doors album (Soft Parade) was arguably "bad" (and it went platinum anyway). Zeppelin only disbanded because John Bonham died. I can't think of one Zeppelin album that I would consider "bad." As for the Stones, yes, many of their albums after 1981's Tattoo You are not great (although every one of them has gone platinum). But I can't think of a U2 album that is better than Sticky Fingers, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, or Exile on Main St. (which, by the way, were all released within a 3 1/2 year period).

These days, bands aren't as prolific as bands in the '60s and '70s, often going two years (sometimes more) between albums. The Beatles released 12 1/2 (I'm counting Yellow Submarine as a half, since half of the album is Beatles songs, while the other half is movie score) in 7 years. The Doors made 6 albums in 4 years. Zeppelin put out 9 albums in 13 years, with 1982's Coda – a collection of outtakes and previously unreleased songs – being released two years after John Bonham's death, so their first 8 albums were done in 10 years.

On the other hand, U2 has put out 12 studio albums in 29 years. (The Stones's 12th album was Sticky Fingers, which was released in 1971, 7 years after their first album was released.) If you spend 5 years between albums, you sure as hell better be able to put out something good. You are correct that Pop was terrible. Since Pop was released in 1997, U2 has put out only 3 albums. In contrast, in that same time span, the aforementioned Foo Fighters have put out 5 albums, and The White Stripes have put out 6 albums (and Jack White has put out another 2 with The Raconteurs and another one with Dead Weather).

So, while U2 has never hit a slump, as you say, it's because they have managed to stretch things out a little more than last generation's bands did. Yes, U2 is thrust into the spotlight every time they release an album, but then you don't really hear much from or about them for a couple years, unless they happen to come through your town on their tour. (This is not to take anything away from their tours – obviously those have been very innovative and successful over the years.)

More importantly, the band has a queer knack to emerge from potentially arrogant/career-ending flights of hubris (cheesiness of Joshua Tree fashion, failure of Rattle & Hum film, cockiness of Zoo TV tour) to be even more popular than ever. They have been a political band all their existence, but have always kept credibility...and yet retained a huge amount of global influence. I can't really picture any other pop band meeting with Clinton *and* Bush to equal effect.... Ironically, Bono has blurted out "God Bless George Bush" without a hint of sarcasm on the current tour when he talks about the efforts of debt relief to Africa. Almost every other rock band crashes and burns when they enter the political arena in recent times (Dixie Chicks, Kanye West, etc).

I completely agree with this one. Bono is a very credible ambassador. Bob Geldof is about the only other rock personality I can think of who has been able to be as political and socially conscious as Bono while still maintaining credibility. Eddie Vedder has tried and, I think, been successful at being political without hurting his career or his credibility. Springsteen, Neil Young, and Mellencamp come to mind too.

Which is to say nothing of the longevity of their hipness. They've been a 'cool' band since before we (or at least me, old man) were born, yet they can still pull off doing an ipod (or Blackberry, sadly) ad without seeming insincere, pathetic or 'reaching' for their youth. Bands like Aerosmith, the Stones, Paul McCartney, Don Henley....fall far short of this standard...

They have not been a cool band since before either of us were born. Their first album was released in 1980, a little more than a week shy of my third birthday. And you're only three months younger than me. Facts aside, you are correct that they are cool enough to pull off an iPod commercial without seeming insincere, although one could argue that it has an air of selling out. (I'm not saying I think they're necessarily selling out.)

Don't ever bring up Don Henley in the same sentence as Aerosmith, The Stones, or Paul McCartney again. Ever.

The thing that made me think of all this blurbing (aside from the 6 pack of Tecate) was when I considered all of the bands that were 'contemporaries' of U2 back when they first got big ('84 ish). Bands that had a popular following, but also 'socially active': REM? The Clash? Peter Gabriel? Fucking Midnight Oil? They're all big jokes now...a decade or more past their prime. Yet U2 comes around every 3 years for the last 30 years, selling millions of albums, playing dozens of countries in every corner of the planet, collecting new 14-year-old fans and retaining the 50-year olds, getting the respect of teenage punkers and world leaders... I'm not sure any original band has done it as successfully, for as long.

Tecate – nice. I would hardly say The Clash is a big joke now. They're generally considered one of the most influential bands of the past 30 years, certainly on alternative rock. Plus, they broke up in 1986 and Joe Strummer died in 2002, so it's kind of an unfair statement to say they're past their prime. REM, even though I'm not a big fan, put out some pretty well-received albums for a long time. Granted, I can't remember the last time I heard a new REM song (and it's been even longer since I've liked one). As for Midnight Oil, it's probably been really hard to make music since they can't even sleep, on account of the fact that their beds are burning.

I think U2 has been so successful because they have become chameleons. And I don't mean that negatively. They have been able to adapt their sound so that they, for the most part, always sound fresh. That's something that, for instance, KISS had a big problem with. They kicked ass in the '70s. The struggled to find their place in the early '80s, then fit in pretty well sonically with '80s hair metal and hard rock, then fell off the map when grunge hit. With KISS, though, if they were to come out with a grunge album, it would have been seen as (1) them selling out, (2) them trying to be something they are obviously not, and (3) a kick in the pants to their fans.

On the other hand, U2 has not been afraid to change their sound at the risk of alienating fans. They started off rather punky. Surely their move to more a mainstream sound in the mid to late '80s lost them some fans. The same probably happened when they ill-fatedly dabbled with electronica and techno in the mid '90s. But whatever they've done has been well-received nonetheless because they never stray too far so that they no longer "sound like U2," gaining new fans and maintaining most of their fans along the way, which is certainly a testament to their ability to write good songs.

Which is not to say, of course, that U2 deserves to be anyone's "Favorite Band"...I think that's pretty gay and generic when people make that claim for themselves. As cool as they are, there's something emotionally unapproachable about them and their music. They're not flawed enough to be anyone's "all-time fav"... They never had the raw sex appeal or controversy to grab infamy or headlines like The Beatles, Jimi or Elvis... However...they also managed not to break up, overdose or get shot in the head like those guys either. Which is why U2 will probably have the most kick-ass, technologically and cool tour of 2021, for the better and for worse for their legacy.

U2 is not my favorite band and does not deserve to be. I agree that they're not as exciting as most bands. And I also agree that much of their success and reverence relates to their longevity. Frankly, though, had they broken up after Achtung Baby, they would probably be more highly regarded than they are now.

If Foo Fighters is the "Frasier" of Rock Bands, then U2 is the Hank Aaron, compared to The Beatles' Babe Ruth... U2 wasn't first, not as flashy or infamous...but not as overrated or as much of a disaster, either. And in the end, they will have played longer and more consistently great than the legend who set the benchmark...but will never be mentioned first when it comes to conversations about 'the best ever'.

No, no, no. This analogy doesn't work for several reasons:

First, Ruth and Aaron played approximately the same number of seasons (22 for Ruth; 23 for Aaron), whereas The Beatles were together for ten years and U2 has been together for 30 years. (Yes, I realize that Ruth was primarily a pitcher early in his career, but still.)

Second, it implies that U2 somehow had better numbers than The Beatles, which simply isn't true. The Beatles are heads and shoulders above U2 in pretty much every musical category:

Album sales: The Beatles are #1 worldwide with an estimated billion albums sold. U2 is somewhere between #15 and #20 with 150 million albums sold. The Beatles have sold more albums in the U.S. (over 190 million) than U2 has sold in the world.

RIAA platinum and diamond albums: Between studio albums, compilations, and live albums, the Beatles have 39 platinum albums, 24 multi-platinum albums, and 6 diamond albums. U2 has 15 platinum albums, 10 multi-platinum albums, and one diamond album.

Billboard Top 10 albums: The Beatles have had 30 top 10 albums and 18 #1 albums. U2 has had 10 top 10 albums and 7 #1 albums.

UK Top 10 albums: The Beatles have had 26 top 10 albums and 15 #1 albums. U2 has had 14 top 10 albums and 10 #1 albums.

Billboard Top 40 songs: The Beatles have had 50 top 40 songs, 34 top 10 songs, and 21 #1 songs. U2 has had 16 top 40 songs, 6 top 10 songs, and 2 #1 songs. (Since 1995, The Beatles have had as many Billboard top 20 (2) and top 10 (1) songs as U2.)

UK Top 40 songs: The Beatles have had 33 top 40 songs, 30 top 10 songs, and 19 #1 songs. U2 has had 42 top 40 songs, 32 top 10 songs, and 7 #1 songs.

Third, I disagree about the overrated comment, both for Ruth and The Beatles. Ruth was a career .342 hitter, to go along with his then-record 714 HRs and 2,217 RBI and his still-record slugging percentage .690 and OPS 1.164 (to go along with a 94-46 pitching record and a 2.28 ERA). Hardly overrated. The Beatles, well, it's impossible for them to be overrated. They single-handedly changed the course of rock and roll and have influenced every band since them (even the ones that don't want to sound like them).

Fourth, while U2 will have played longer than The Beatles, I disagree wholeheartedly that they are more consistently great. There are no bad Beatles albums, and very few bad Beatles songs. Bono and The Edge are no Lennon and McCartney. I can't name more than a few U2 songs off their past couple albums.

I do agree that U2 will never be mentioned first when it comes to conversations about "best ever." As I think I've made clear, nor should they. I'm not really sure there is an apt baseball analogy. I think a more appropriate analogy is that The Beatles are Jim Brown – a relatively short career with monumental achievement and no down points – while U2 is like a Franco Harris, a Thurman Thomas, or a Marcus Allen, who were all really good, made it to the Hall of Fame, and played longer than Jim Brown, but still didn't have as many rushing yards as Jim Brown and will (and should) never be considered to be in the same league as Jim Brown.

Whatever. Lepp rules.

No doubt.