Growing up, I didn’t really question why this band would be played along side Nirvana, Bush, Soundgarden, Linkin Park, etc. because my radio station of choice was not just grunge, but also “adult alternative.” So it would play pop shit, too, sometimes.
But I still, to this day, often find U2 listed among grunge artists, or their songs get played on grunge playlists. The fuck? How is this shit grunge? It doesn’t fit in any way! It doesn’t have the sound, it doesn’t have the style, shit it doesn’t even have the same emotional resonance. It’s happy and hopeful.
You must log in or register to comment.
U2 is considered grunge for the same reason Black Sabbath is considered reggae.
Because whoever made the list is an idiot?
Most likely. But which list are you talking about?
I’ve never heard of or seen that.
Yeah, I cannot recall ever hearing U2 referred to under a specific subgenre of rock, especially not grunge. Personally, if I had to choose, I think classifying them as generic rock is more accurate.
It isn’t.
The only thing U2 has in common with grunge is that both were popular in roughly the same time period (give or take 5 years or so).
Yeah if U2 is grunge based on time period, then Motley Crue and Michael Jackson is grunge.
I would be more okay hearing Motley Crue on such a playlist than the other two, tbh.
Don’t forget about the grunge artists Dire Straights, Phil Collins, MC Hammer and Whitney Houston…
Michael Jackson is disco.
U2 began in the mid 1970s and grunge was a thing in the 1990s.
Early U2 was a bit like punk though.
Who the fuck considers U2 to be grunge? Kenny G?
Prob U2.
“Look at us kids, were cool grunge music just like that Nirvana band on the shirt you’re wearing!”
“How do you do, fellow grunge bands?”
They have never been considered grunge by anybody. They released the album Achtung Baby in 1991, which recieved much critical acclaim, but so did a lot of other non-grunge bands. Just because a band released popular music in the early 1990s, doesn’t mean they are grunge.
Achtung Baby was extremely polished and not grunge.
Joshua Tree and Boy were rougher but not grunge.
U2 has crossed between levels of rock (I’m only counting their good albums) but has never come close to grunge.
Whoever told you that I would consider “dumb”.
I have never heard of U2 being considered Grunge. If anything they were Pop.
They first broke during the New Wave era, and were considered one of the quintessential New Wave superstars, along with The Cars, Talking Heads, Duran Duran, Flock of Seagulls, etc.
Eh. I’d give them Alternative Rock. The thing that would likely classify them as pop is that they were so famous for a part of their career.
They are absolutely not and I find it sus you make this bizarre claim without providing a single example.
Link and shame them. I will fight every one of their authors in a 1v1 dual to the death
in Helldivers 2
I was listening to a satellite radio station that is supposed to be exclusively grunge. It’s usually fine, except when Tom Morello is guest DJing. It was just the normal programming tho, and suddenly Mysterious Ways starts playing. I was annoyed by this.
Is this post an attempt to disprove the title “no stupid questions”?
No. They are firmly commercial rock / pop.
They’re not. They’re basically the one band out of the Echo & The Bunnymen, Teardrop Explodes, Flock Of Seagulls mini-genre that really broke into the mainstream.
I call it non-progressive pop, or also corporate treadmill music. Because the harmony never gets anywhere or do anything interesting, but always feel like it’s moving
Narrator:
It’s not
First time I hear that, yeah that’s really weird
Genre identifiers are mostly nonsense anyway. U2 have been many things over the years. ‘Boy’ is a very different album from ‘Zootopia’.
I don’t think they are nonsense, but they better fit the work rather than the artist. Artists shift genres all the time.
