as someone who used to enjoy U2's music. I have had a real problem with them since around 1993 because their records have become increasingly desperate attempts to make the band sound contemporary so that they will still be played on the radio. They seem more like a business venture than a group of musicians trying to create something worthwhile.

It's hard to explain my dislike... I suppose I have a problem with the fact that they're still absolutely huge when their music no longer merits that degree of success. I feel that if Bono took a dump in a paper bag and wrote 'U2' on it, people would buy it.

...the music has had many fine moments, but it's harder and harder to seperate those positive elements from the utter tit that is Bonio.

but they are still not worth hating (little is, I find, as I grow older and have less energy to waste). Every now and again they release a great song but the ratio has slipped.

Bono is more irritating now than ever before and I do find it difficult to accept that he's so for governments writing off third world debt whilst being as tax efficient as possible. But then that is what big corporations do.

They are slowly turning into the Rolling Stones I fear.

and apart from a few bits off 'All That You Can't leave Behind' they've totally lost me. I couldn't name a single song from that 'Atomic Bomb' thing. As good as Eno and Lanois are with the sprinkling of the magic dust in the past - isn't it time they shook that up a bit?

U2 are generally hated a) cos they're big and b) cos Bono won't just sing and is a cock. But he always has been with his white flag waving from the top of the PA stack. If everyone was could just be like Larry Mullen and give him the finger everytime he started up then maybe things would be different.

I was witness to the car crash when they linked up with Sarajevo during one of the Zooropa Wembley gigs and was told by someone getting the shit bombed out of them on a daily basis 'You say you care but we are being killed and you do nothing. You don't care.' Cheers for that. And now, a song!

This is a clip from that very night from MTV but unsurprisingly the 2nd speaker who said that is edited out

But agree they are becoming like The Stones in putting out more and more irrelevant albums in order to give them an excuse to tour where they can still be entertaining

when I was growing up, I quite liked all the bombast and the "Big Music" but can't stand it now. That and the fact that Bono is a cock.

and really nothing else. He's basically a git and nobody will tell him he's one and so he just gets gittier and gittier (new word created).
I hate being preached at by mega rich stars who tell us we're not doing anything and then climbing in their limo and fly off to their tax haven to relax on their fuel guzzling yacht.
Mind you the "everytime I clap my hands a child dies" story did make me laugh, so thanks for that Paul.

I object strongly to having some tax exile wag their finger at me because the world doesn't look the way they want it to. He can piss off.

The music's rubbish, too. All of it.

They can be very very good, but they can also be horrid. It IS the image that galls, overrun by Bonio and his emabarrassing tirades and shades. I do like their 2 greatest hits collections, never thinking I could like a whole album until, and I really like it, All You can't Leave Behind, but Atomic Bomb was shite and that guff on the Brits worse still. I suspect the private Bonio is maybe a better geezer than his acted out saviour of the world: some years back, he seemed genuinely keen to sign autographs and chat with the economy classes, on arrival at JFK on a trip from Dublin.
To me they represent the curse of Live Aid: groups embracing the opportunity of the enormous public stage with rather too much po faced enthusiasm, seeing their presence as proof of their potentacency, if that has ever been a word before.

on and off over these last few decades, I must say that I thoroughly resent the bloke with the daft woolly hat and the even dafter nickname being hailed as a guitar player, when as far as I can see all he does is act as a walking advertisement for having a rack of effects pedals with more computing power than CERN.

Add to that the fact that his buddy with the permanent shades and an unhealthy appetite for hanging out with politicians does rather go on a bit, and it's not surprising I haven't bought anything of theirs since 'Rattle And Hum', which I hugely liked.

I wouldn't say that I have any vicious dislike of them, it's just that their music hasn't really moved me for nearly twenty years.

The new abum is now on Spotify, but only through this link in association with The Guardian:

http://www.spotify.com/go/20090223-u2-excl-preview-guardian

Personally I thought they kept the ball in the air until the last album, Atomic Bomb, which clunked like the opening credits to Porridge, and the associated Vertigo tour was a hugely disappointing show (and it was the sixth time I'd seen them).

U2 are huge because they're everyone's second favourite band.

had any self-awareness they would realise it's time to change after this:

No knee jerk reaction from me. I heard the first few singles and the firts album and didn't really understand what all the fuss was about, they seemed just so ordinary at a time when I was enjoying the heyday of bands like Talking Heads, XTC and The Waitresses.
I was pleased to get the opportunity to see them live as a support band and realised that they really were ordinary and they annoyed me by treating the audience as if we should be worshipping in their footprints.
When we accidentally saw them again the next night they were even worse.
Over the years Bono seems to have become the smuggest git in the world so even if there was a glimmer that I might like them it's not going to happne now.
Of course, the new single (I really don't want to hear any more of the album please) is just more of the same.

In Scotland in the eighties, when I were a lad, people liked cheesy pop, heavy metal or U2. Given that every person in school who I hated seemed to love U2 it stood to reason that for me they were immediately beyond the pale.

Fortunately their music is actually shite and their singer is an arse so they have happily remained so.

To my horror though, I find I know several of their songs all the way through. This serves merely to make me hate them more.

None of this is rational, but I don't care.

I like U2. But in a different way that I think many do. I've never really been into Beautiful Day, Elevation or Vertigo but there were album tracks on the last 2 albums that I really liked. And Achtung Baby was one of my favourite albums for a long while.

But as someone else said, tastes change and mine have changed a lot since the last U2 album. I'm more about Tom Waits and Nick Cave now I guess and am in no rush to hear the new U2 album.

Read "U2 by U2" and to be fair to Larry Mullen he did argue against the Sarajevo section of the show & points to the night mentioned above as the exact reason why it was a bad idea. I've gone off them now simply because I think they've lost the hunger & it shows in their music. Coldplay are in great danger of falling victim to the "bono factor" i.e. everyone hating your perfectly good band for no other reason than the lead singer behaves like a cock

I'm the right age and I grew up in the right place, first proper gig was by the '2 and probably the first album I bought that I still listen to was by them. They've never quite equaled Unforgettable Fire but I like almost all their work. I've heard the new album a few times and I think it's gonna be a hard sell as it seems a bit more mellow than usual, I firmly believe that the single is the worst thing on it and I can't wait for the summer gigs. The weekend when they play Dublin is always a great couple of nights, and days, out.

Not long after Ian Curtis' death when (according to AHW) Bono sat on Wilson's desk and pledged to "finish what Ian started" (or words to that effect).
If Ian Curtis were alive today, I think it's safe to say he would NOT be making music that bears any similarity to the candyfloss they peddle that purports to be about the "Big Issues".
Americans like them because they're an uncomplicated Irish that don't ask difficult questions. Not something you could ever say about the Pogues or (how I miss them) The Fatima Mansions.
Throughout the 80's they held Dominion over this land, were the Critic's Favourite and loved by the same generic idiots that now like (roll on the drums please..) Oasis! Coldplay! Stereophonics!
Their every musical move is a desperate coat-tails thing (almost as bad as Madonna) and really doesn't strike me as coming from anywhere near their heart(s).
The tax thing annoys the hell out of me too.

To me, they were always the band that sixth formers trying terribly hard to be cool and edgy really liked. I don't hate them, I'm just indifferent as they've never sounded anything other than average.

There was once a time when I would've listened if they were on the telly or radio to see if I could hear what the fuss was about but not now. Mostly because Bono is such a pompous tit.

I started to lose interest after The Unforgettable Fire. I always give them a listen to see what all the fuss is about but I'm afraid it all passes me by these days. Tastes change fortunately.

It's starts well, but by the 4th song, it just ends up being the same old show. They have fantastic moments, but those moments are getting harder & harder to find.

Why do they get such blanket coverage? Why do Radio stations play them when they won't touch any other artist over 35? It just seems like we are force fed certain artists and their music never seems to justify it. It always seems to me like they have some kind of hold over the media that us plebs don't know about.

I too had a U2 moment with Achtung Baby, but it was at that point I decided I didn't really like their music anymore.

Turning 40 a couple of years back I had the sudden urge to listen to all of the U2 LPs, all of which I'd largely ignored when they were released.
I found that I liked most of them more than I thought I would - but I'm not sure if that was because of their quality or whether I found them in some way reassuring.

Bono

the fact that Larry Mullen Jr has not aged at all in 20 years. It isn't fair on the rest of us.

Fact.

(edit: Bono is a hypercritical tax-avoiding cock)

it's part of the job description of being a multi millionaire rock star, is it not?

And I'm getting that same incredibly frustrating feeling I've had with every album since Achtung Baby - a genuinely fantastic record. Great songs, a truly experimental edge, great production. They even manged to look cool for about 5 minutes.

I think the problem for those of us who loved AB but have been bemused by everything since is that it was a complete aberation. U2 don't sound like that and only did that one time. It was a lucky confluence of events and influences never to be repeated.

Now they appear to have been listening to The White Stripes (but only since they went rubbish) with a bit of Eno by numbers "ambience" chucked in.

So thats it for me. I'm officially giving up on U2 following up Achtung Baby.

And so should you.

Have just heard a snippet from a new interview with Bono to be broadcast on BBC radio. He IS a cock! And I see they are taking over the Beeb this weekend as well. Who needs an advertising budget when the licence fee covers it!

I will NOT be buying the album because the single is rubbish and they don't need any more of my money.

Instead try the new ...and you shall know us by the trail of dead album. GREAT

I'm not a U2 fan. I'm also not not (if that makes sense) a U2 fan because they are an easy target. I suppose that double negative makes me a fan.

In the early days, I linked them in with Simple Minds etc when I too was listening to XTC, Talking Heads and others of their ilk.

I got interested in them at Achtung Baby which was a fine album.

What followed made me think that it was a fluke.

I dislike them now because of the ridiculous hype, a U2 album is not the event the marketing people would like us to believe. It's just dull dad rock.

I dislike them now because they are more ordinary than most other bands I compare them to.

But most of all, I dislike them because Bono is a preaching tosser who's made up because his wife calls him Bono.

The comparison to Joy Division and Ian Curtis further up this thread is absolutely right. It's also fair to say that if Ian Curtis were alive today, he wouldn't be making the music of New Order.

Whilst we are it, risking the wrath of Heppers, I've stuck with Springsteen since Born To Run, even through the iffy late eighties. Magic was an enjoyable summer feeling album, even if it bore remarkable similarities to an Ian McNabb album.

However, the new album is just plain boring. I believe it was written on the road, it shows. I'll give the great one the benefit of the doubt and believe he was tired after a long show.

I feel a bit guilty now because since writing my previous entry last night I have since heard the new album …and it’s actually quite good. Not their best but better than most other current stuff. Blimey!

And I heard more of Bono’s interview (on Radio 4 Front Row programme) and wouldn’t you know he comes across as a decent bloke and even says he has to “…come to terms with his own hypocrisy”. Therein lies the horns of this dilemma. You know you shouldn’t like the behemoth that U2 has become but somehow they just come out and prove us wrong.

Still don’t like the single though and the fact that the Beeb is effectively “advertising” the new album.

Unlike Bono, Alice Cooper is well aware of the role rock stars should play in politics:

“If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.”

Are they not the Beatles of their generation?
Bono is a twat tho'.

U2 started building up a head of steam in the early '80s when they were considered to be pretty hip by both fans and the UK rock press with albums like Boy, October and War - for the accuracy of this info, God bless Wikipedia ...

I think I puddled along to see them at the Edinburgh Playhouse round about 1984 or '85 perhaps when I found the flag waving sub-Bunnymen audience and sheer pomposity of the stage show utterly galling. ("This is not a rebel song," shouted Bono as they launched into Sunday Bloody Sunday.) I left in high dudgeon. Mind you, several years later when they were touring the Joshua Tree they played Murrayfield and I distinctly remember being in Edinburgh that night and regretting the fact that I didn't have a ticket - I liked the Joshua Tree, as did a lot of other people given that it sold more than 25 million copies worldwide. It still crops up on my iPod from time to time. Occasionally I even listen to the tracks.

Their 1985 appearance on Live Aid and the 1987 Joshua Tree album certainly put U2 up on a pedestal with the title "biggest band in the world"; if Rattle & Hum was a holding statement, Achtung Baby in 1991 consolidated U2's position as the hugest of the huge. According to Wikipedia, Q magazine had One - from Achtung Baby - as number 1 in the 1001 greatest songs of all time, at some point.

Now if you are the biggest band in the world you can split up (The Beatles) or become a cabaret act (The Rolling Stones). Instead, U2 seemed to try and stretch themselves through the '90s, being prepared to make utter fools of themselves in the process, particularly with Zooropa and Pop. A decade after the Joshua Tree, Pop actually made me pay attention to U2 again. They couldn't simply disinvent their history, they were huge, they could have simply given up - but they decided to have a go at something.

Despite a viewpoint at the time that could probably be summed as "Seventeen years in the business, two decent albums", subconsciously I was probably thinking, "Good on them." Much has been written about Pop being U2's terrible failure with its borrowed inspiration and klunky lyrics but, hell, credit to them for trying. I even did go and see them at Murrayfield in '97, when they were doing the "emerge from a lemon" thing. It was a stunning stadium show, powerful and funny in equal measure.

Now with another dozen years' hindsight, I still think songs like Gone or Please match up to anything else they've done. Dadrock? Yeah well, by the time Pop was released myself and my peers were moving into our mid 30s and many were actually dads.

Going off piste for a moment, personally, I feel that if there's one thing worse than a 'dadrocker' it's a bloke in his late 30s or 40s hanging out at the Sugarbeat Club at Cabaret Voltaire - an Edinburgh local - getting on down to "old-skool hip hop style blends funk with breaks, beats with soul, D&B with electro and warmth with a sense of humour" – a quote from their website. Being middle aged isn't necessarily what it used to be; the Word itself is testament to that fact. But some guy driving down the M8 in his family saloon, listening to Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own (from How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb), about losing your dad, seems a lot more identifiable to me than Peter Pan pretence.

Venturing back to the point, Pop also had a pop-rock stormer as an album's opening track with Discotheque, something U2 kept rolling with Beautiful Day off All That You Can't Leave Behind, and Vertigo from How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb. Sometimes I listen to the hype surrounding identikit Indie bands these days and think, "Jesus, half of them would give their right arm, or at least their drummer, to write something like that..."

One of the earlier correspondents above said something about U2 being "reassuring" ... to see a bunch of blokes in their 40s get up on stage and start hammering out the intro to Vertigo with a certain self conscious smirk when one of them says, "Turn it up, ah, captain" does convey a sense of the ridiculous, like they're saying, "Ah now, our job is to be the biggest band in the world but, well, we are really just a bunch of guys in our 40s..."

No doubt their ability to pull a tune out of the bag will deteriorate. And since the Observer and the BBC are now run by people of a certain age, it's no real surprise that U2's first album release in five years is accorded a mad amount of coverage.

So Bono is a cock and the Edge isn't a great guitar player - but since when did that ever matter? All power to a bunch of old blokes who are still willing to make utter dicks of themselves in pursuit of their job description. Isn't that the best any of us can manage? Unless we've given up of course.

LOL, as the youth say - I'm going to get pelters for that one.

And finally, financial affairs channelled through the Netherlands, preachiness and naff lyrics notwithstanding ... whether it's the adolescent breast-beating of the 1980s, the alleged art rock of the 1990s or the dadrock of recent years, ‘that cock Bono™’ is a strange hate figure to choose. He sings about his dad, his missus, his kids, relationships breaking up, the usual panoply of rock stuff.

Meanwhile, Sir Fred Goodwin of RBS brazened it through a Treasury Select Committee the other week, treating the failure of wholesale money markets as an act of God, taking no moral responsibility for repackaged financial instruments that were built around sub-prime mortgages (imagine selling dogshit mousse in a presentation box then claiming that you're a clean business because you don't sell actual dogshit) and still walked away with £12.5k a week in pension payments. "Sweet the sin, bitter the taste in my mouth," to borrow a phrase.

There are many more people out there on the planet to get upset with rather than some singer from Dublin.

What was the question again? Why are people anti-U2? Maybe because seeing them do their job and failing is too harsh a reflection to bear...

My U2 albums are now archived in the garage. However, I actually dug out Achtung Baby last week after hearing "Even Better Then the Real Thing" on a repeat of Sex and the City I was watching with with Mrs Longtonian. It's a great album, no doubt.
I've been bored with their music for for some time, but I think some of the criticism here is unwarranted and focused on the personality of Bono. Many musicians are up their own a****s, but that doesn't stop us listening to their music if it's good. It's irrelevant.
Not sure why I am defending them so much as I have gone off them nowadays, and find them annoying, but I must say that having watched them live they are undoubtedly very, very good musicians (despite the overblown stage shows) and Bono is a great live singer. I saw them about ten years ago and must say I enjoyed them much much than Bruce Springsteen, whom I saw soon after.

...The Edge DOES use an enourmous amount of guitar effectrickery (copyright, me) but why does that make him a terrible guitar player? I also 'struggle' with the guitar and usually when I listen to or see him play, I normally end up in awe has to how-does-he actually-do-that? rather than disgust. Edge is one of the few guitar players of the last twenty odd years that can truly be hailed as a genuine innovator and has taken the guitar to another place as an instrument. A lot of his playing is almost percussive, has elements of ensemble to it or just ball-breakingly exciting. The funny thing is that a lot of what he plays is relatively simple, but it's what he comes up with at certain places in certain songs that make him special. And he's one of the few guitarists around who actually sounds like no-one else. As for the new stuff, I agree that the last couple of albums have been slightly below par, but has anyone thought that they make music they like making these days, music that excites THEM? I really don't think they're trying to sound 'relevant' (ridiculous word when discussing music anyway) or a la mode. I just think they sound like U2. You don't have to listen, and you don't have to buy.

As for Larry, I am actually a drummist, and while he generally lays down a decent 4/4 when he has to, which is quite de rigeur in modern rock, what he does do (does do?) is stamp his authority over nearly everything he plays. Think of Sunday Bloody Sunday without that drum part and think of Pride without the brilliant buildups in the chorus. He's no genius, but he's a ruddy good player. Definitely not 'dire'.

I only own 2 U2 albums : "Achtung Baby", which I like, and "Zooropa", which I love - very European and experimental (with just that duffo Johnny Cash coda spoiling it for me). I understand that the riddim section of the band hated the Edgy (and presumably Bono-y) 'new direction' they were taken in and I've the impression that a lot of fans felt the same way, so back they went to the stadia-pleasing sounds of yore. Shame that. I also liked the Passengers side project too.

very rarely feature truly great musicians. In fact the opposite tends to be the case.

Ringo Starr? Steve Jones? The Edge? Anyone in the Arctic Monkeys? Andy Rourke? Bonehead? Peter Buck?

Or Yngie Malmstein, Joe Satriani, jazzers too numerous to mention, Emerson, Lake and/or Palmer, (lets be honest) all Jimi Hendrix bar the first album, that fretless bass twat Jaco something, any and all music that values technique over feel.

Bollox to musicianship unless its classical or Jazz - even then its no guarantee of excitement - Miles or Coltrane? Glenn Goulds mad humming recordings or the earlier dry versions - I'd go with the quirky performance with an identifiable personality rather than the technically great anyday.

Chaser's War on Everything from Australia: