Worst BAND ever poll - CREED?

Well, "overrated" means a helluva lot of people like what they've accomplished. I'll admit Bono is pompous, but so what -- he's a rock star.

There are folks who think the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and the Stones were overrated. U2 is in pretty good company.

I'm still waiting for WDG to answer my original question about other bands that match U2's longevity, musicianship and body of work...

The question I asked originally was which band is the worst in the world. Why would I bother wasting my time answering your random questions.

"Musicianship" is a misnomer when it comes to U2, enough said.

I know you're a fan, and have a boner for bono, so lets just leave it there.

Id have to throw a vote for Nickelback... although when I heard the "Something in Your Mouth" song I had to LOL... but it's still mostly retarded.

You're not "bothering" because you can't name another group that matches U2's credentials. Your rebuttals are getting more lame by the minute.

The fact you would even include such an accomplished, respected band on your "worst" list erased your credibility from the start.

Carry on, my wayward son.

I'll do one: Red Hot Chili Peppers. Maybe not as commercially successful because they weren't doing love ballads or the like, but IMO a much more talented band, more innovative, better songwriting, and overall more important to music than U2 will ever be. I commend Bono on his philanthropy as he at least is doing very well right with that side of him, but I just seriously don't get what's been SO amazing about U2 to consider them among the BEST of all-time.

Another would arguably be Metallica, but given the 2nd half of their existence has been heavily scrutinized, that's debateable. But thereagain is another batch of assholes.

Certainly can't argue about RHCP. They're one of my favorites as well, though you're going overboard with saying they're far superior to U2.

In reality, RHCP has demonstrated very little growth. Where's the artistic reach, especially compared to U2's versatility? The majority of U2's albums have been daring and different; most RHCP albums sound alike (that's not necessarily a bad thing).

This ultimately boils down to our opinions. But anybody who lists U2 among the "worst ever" or hates them just because of Bono's arrogance can't be taken seriously. Like 'em or not, U2 has emerged with quality, diversified albums time and again -- receiving equal admiration from fans and critics alike.

Time of togetherness means shit btw. Korn has been together for 15+ years (losing only one of their most meaningless members) and they've been shit for the last 7. Likewise, in my opinion at least, U2 hasn't put out a good caliber song since Sweetest Thing in '98, which surprise surprise, was originally made in '87. Now they merely get hits because they're U2 and radio and uppity companies like Apple still have a boner for them.

U2 is versatile? Can you illustrate this? That kind of made me chuckle but maybe I just don't know them well enough.

Wow, I'm starting to suspect you and WMG are smoking from the same bong.

Your second-to-last post about U2's last good song being Sweetest Thing seems a clear sign that you don't know them well enough. Then again, maybe you hated Walk On, Beautiful Day and Vertigo. (Opinions, opinions...)

Overall versatility: Anybody who truly pays attention to rock music, whether devoted fans or critics, speaks of U2's range and ambition. The Joshua Tree sounds nothing like War; Achtung Baby is like nothing they've done; Rattle & Hum was their homage to American legends; Pop was experimental as well (but their least-successful, no coincidence); How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb was a solid shakeup after the mellow All That You Can't Leave Behind.

Hey, I love your Chili Peppers -- but they simply can't match that diversity. Where's their artistic growth after all these years? Better yet, it's your turn to explain how in the hell RHCP is more important than U2's music. This ought to be interesting...

Beautiful Day and Vertigo IMO weren't that great of songs, and certainly not among U2's best. Walk On I had to listen to since I hadn't heard it, but I just did and while it's better than Beautiful Day and Vertigo, it's still typical U2 and they did songs like that better in the 80s and early 90s.

Well all the U2 that's fresh in my head is pop rock, pretty similar beat, chord changes, etc...for the most part straightforward songs. You mentioned the Beatles earlier as a band many consider overrated, and while I do too and don't think they should be outright WORSHIPPED like many people do to them, listen to a song like Tomorrow Never Knows and it's evident how revolutionary they were at times, how much they shaped future music, how non-straightforward they could be at times. I get absolutely NOTHING of that from the U2 I've heard. Beautiful Day may have a different beat for instance, but IMO it's just not a GOOD song compared to their others. Just because they might experiment doesn't mean they're not simply good at one type of song, and that's how I view them personally. Like Vertigo and Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me pop out in my head as attempts by them to be more contemporary and "cool" but just not that good.

I dunno, I realize music is very subjective and one man's trash is another man's treasure, and I'm not saying they're trash, but I just don't think they're worthy of being considered among the greatest bands of all time. They were good in the 80s and early 90s - even if they had a similar sound to most of their hits back then, they were GOOD at that kind of music, and I just don't think they've really done anything good since Sweetest Thing...Walk On was okay, the other 2 IMO just not. Perhaps it's Bono's ego coming through the music, which is what I'd say is happening to Chris Martin with Coldplay. In fact Coldplay is very much a similar band to U2 IMO - even less versatile than U2 however but smart given they do 1 type of song well and they stick to it.

Heh, well I'm at a disadvantage here since I'm not that heavily into RHCP...of their stuff prior to Californication, I know only their radio hits - that said, they helped shape a lot of alternative rock, along with Nirvana, Alice In Chains etc. A ton of alt rock bands owe a lot to RHCP IMO. They're not all that versatile in their style, but the themes and feel of their songs are a pretty wide variety and they are pretty musically talented too (Flea arguably one of the greatest bassists in modern times). U2 on the other hand has 2 main notable offspring, Radiohead and Coldplay, near carbon copies in the characteristic lead singer with ego department but Radiohead is actually innovative and IMO better than U2. Other bands that may have had influence from them suck balls IMO...I was going to use Jet as an example for some reason (I guess thinking of Apple-featured songs) but probably not a good example...yea, not sure what to say. Radiohead maybe wasn't even influenced by U2 - they just seem very similar in their commercial presence and ego. Anyways, to me, if U2 were the sole influence of all bands in existence today, music would be pretty boring. Just like if early straightforward Beatles were the sole influence of all bands in existence today, music would be pretty boring.

My personal all-time favorite band I have left out of the discussion because they were very short lived, but wtf I'll mention them - Sublime. Their prominent radio hits alone (Date Rape, What I Got, Santeria, Wrong Way, Doin Time) show some range but the rest of their albums had a ton more and there was just very little they didn't do extremely well (hell, Doin Time alone has about 4 or 5 different sounding versions, all GREAT). They were limited to only 3 studio albums, all very good in their own right, but even their first posthumous album, Second Hand Smoke, showed Bradley was just a freakin genius songwriter - filled with songs that didn't make their LPs and it's arguably better than at least one of their LPs. He's basically the lesser-known Cobain only with a shitload more range. He died in '96 but there's no doubt in my mind they'd still be together today and easily would still be commercially successful, largely because of Bradley's prolific and diverse songwriting talents.

I would not enter them into the discussion of greatest of all time because of their short longevity, just like I would not enter Nirvana into that same discussion even though a lot of people do. Still, the little bit they were able to contribute to the world of music while they existed is a lot more interesting than the 30 years that U2 has contributed, but AGAIN that's just IMO and I don't know THAT much U2...I'm not about to go sit down and listen to their 3421032899 albums as I haven't heard anything to really make me want to.

Bleh, I always think of something to say after the period is up when I can edit.

You commented on the "growth" of RHCP. I agree, they haven't grown. But with that statement you're saying that after the early great U2 songs, Beautiful Day and Vertigo signify "growth" for them? I repeat my opinion - there was a time when they were a good band and had nice songs, and the last one of them to hit the radio was Sweetest Thing, which was an '87 song anyways. Honestly after the early 90s most of their stuff that's been on the radio has been forgettable IMO - I actually have to look on AllMusic and listen via YouTube to figure out their last radio hit before Sweetest Thing that I think is okay (and I'd probably say Mysterious Ways from way back in '91). Media had to beat me over the head with the likes of Discotheque, Beautiful Day and Vertigo or else they'd be similarly forgettable, but as it is, I remember them and didn't like them much the first time I heard them let alone the millionth. The only "growth" U2 has had since the early 90s is Bono's ego.

Anything with Sammy Hagar sucks in my opinion..

We could go on all day about how bands have shown growth and versatility, or how they haven't. As we've mentioned, it's mostly subjective. (At least you're making an effort to support your points, unlike others in this thread.)

I'm not suggesting Beautiful Day and Vertigo are among U2's best, though Walk On is a keeper. Just surprised you included Sweetest Thing up there. Since you brought up Discotheque, I'll say that I found that song to be brutally underpraised (you want growth and something different -- well, Discotheque fit the bill). Although my favorite U2 songs are older -- New Year's Day, Where The Streets Have No Name and the brilliant Bad -- some of their later stuff is worthy: Don't forget the ballad One, which many consider to be their finest moment. At any rate, there should be a distinction between best "singles" and best "songs" because U2, like many bands, have gems that weren't released as singles. Or they were B sides and on EPs. (Spanish Eyes, Electrical Storm, etc.)

As for impact on music overall, we'll have to agree to disagree. It's amazing that people can talk about the likes of Sublime -- wildly OVERRATED in my book -- as being more transcendent than U2. There's damn good reason U2 have more Grammys (25?) than any other band in history; there's a reason legends such as Bob Dylan, B.B. King, Pavarotti and Johnny Cash collaborated with U2; there's a reason they're already in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame yet still creating acclaimed albums (the harshest critics from the likes of SPIN, Rolling Stone and Q magazines rated No Line On The Horizon with 5 stars).
Naysayers can nitpick U2 and laugh at Bono all they want, but the proof's in the pudding.

Longevity matters, in all walks of life. Anybody or anything can seem great for a few years, 5 to 10 years, then disappear. But it's being determined and skilled, and healthy enough, to stick around and keep producing that really matters. Red Hot Chili Peppers are in that rarified air; perhaps Metallica, though I think they're sputtering. I've seen folks actually keep a straight face while saying, "So and so would've been the all-time best if they had stayed together or lived longer." LOL. If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.