For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
The point is Abba would sell many times more than U2 so the relevance of the U2 numbers is what? What do numbers mean?Quote
bobo
Guess the point is that they sell extremely well:-) The point with Abba was not very relevant
Quote
GasLightStreet
U2's tour expanded due to demand.
As expected, U2 blew out initial on-sales for the upcoming Innocence + Experience tour, selling out in every city that went on sale yesterday. A total of 44 shows went up yesterday, with approximately 660,000 tickets sold.
Among the box office triumphs were a record-setting 118,000 fans queuing online to purchase tickets for Madison Square Garden in New York, resulting in two additional shows going up; and two new shows each for Boston, Chicago, Montreal, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Berlin and Paris.
[www.billboard.com]
Quote
retired_dog
Enough. Just say that you don't like U2, their sound and their songs. That's ok. And enough.
Quote
dcbaQuote
retired_dog
Enough. Just say that you don't like U2, their sound and their songs. That's ok. And enough.
If Michael Hutchence was still here INXS would be a bigger band than U2.
They wrote the same empty silly pop songs U2 excels at but at last INXS had a genuinely charismatic frontman (Bono always looked phoney to me : "raise your arms to the sky!!!!" Yeah right... ).
Plus INXS never dabbled in that boring "help thy brother" preaching. They knew what they were : a silly lightweight pop band with good radio-friendly tunes. U2 is a silly lightweight pop band, but don't know it.
Quote
belldThe point is Abba would sell many times more than U2 so the relevance of the U2 numbers is what? What do numbers mean?Quote
bobo
Guess the point is that they sell extremely well:-) The point with Abba was not very relevant
Quote
belldThe point is Abba would sell many times more than U2 so the relevance of the U2 numbers is what? What do numbers mean?Quote
bobo
Guess the point is that they sell extremely well:-) The point with Abba was not very relevant
Quote
stonehearted
I liked U2 back in the day--meaning 1983, when I first heard them, to 1988 or so. In the beginning they sounded different from other, typically overproduced rock bands of the time. Their music had an energy and urgency that kind of reminded me in some ways of the early Who, especially in a track like Three Sunrises.
However, despite the fact that it always seemed like they were singing about some important causes and issues, song-wise, I didn't have a clue as to what they were actually on about, and Bono's lyrics were often laughably abstract.
"....these bomblast lightning walls..."
Now, just what is a "bomblast lightning wall"? I don't believe I've ever seen a "bomblast lightning wall", but perhaps the tens of thousands who flock to worship at their concert alter have, and perhaps even these Achtungians even own a "bomblast lightning wall" or two. Good, catchy choruses, though, in a lot of their early songs.
But I wouldn't be all that interested in a new U2 album even if they gave it away. "Bomblast lightning walls", I mean, really?
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stonehearted
I liked U2 back in the day--meaning 1983, when I first heard them, to 1988 or so. In the beginning they sounded different from other, typically overproduced rock bands of the time. Their music had an energy and urgency that kind of reminded me in some ways of the early Who, especially in a track like Three Sunrises.
However, despite the fact that it always seemed like they were singing about some important causes and issues, song-wise, I didn't have a clue as to what they were actually on about, and Bono's lyrics were often laughably abstract.
"....these bomblast lightning walls..."
Now, just what is a "bomblast lightning wall"? I don't believe I've ever seen a "bomblast lightning wall", but perhaps the tens of thousands who flock to worship at their concert alter have, and perhaps even these Achtungians even own a "bomblast lightning wall" or two. Good, catchy choruses, though, in a lot of their early songs.
But I wouldn't be all that interested in a new U2 album even if they gave it away. "Bomblast lightning walls", I mean, really?
[www.youtube.com]
and yet you still remember it all these years later...I'm no psychologist, but I'd say you were moved!
Quote
belldThe point is Abba would sell many times more than U2 so the relevance of the U2 numbers is what? What do numbers mean?Quote
bobo
Guess the point is that they sell extremely well:-) The point with Abba was not very relevant
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
treaclefingersQuote
stonehearted
I liked U2 back in the day--meaning 1983, when I first heard them, to 1988 or so. In the beginning they sounded different from other, typically overproduced rock bands of the time. Their music had an energy and urgency that kind of reminded me in some ways of the early Who, especially in a track like Three Sunrises.
However, despite the fact that it always seemed like they were singing about some important causes and issues, song-wise, I didn't have a clue as to what they were actually on about, and Bono's lyrics were often laughably abstract.
"....these bomblast lightning walls..."
Now, just what is a "bomblast lightning wall"? I don't believe I've ever seen a "bomblast lightning wall", but perhaps the tens of thousands who flock to worship at their concert alter have, and perhaps even these Achtungians even own a "bomblast lightning wall" or two. Good, catchy choruses, though, in a lot of their early songs.
But I wouldn't be all that interested in a new U2 album even if they gave it away. "Bomblast lightning walls", I mean, really?
[www.youtube.com]
and yet you still remember it all these years later...I'm no psychologist, but I'd say you were moved!
Yes, there was some movement involved--my head was shaking from side to side. I wish you were a psychologist, then I could find out what it means.
I liked them musically though, it was rather moving, a rawness of passion that few other acts breaking at the time through had, passion in the singing, intensity among the band, even if I had no clue what any of their songs were about, only that I would follow when I heard the opening of I Will Follow.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stoneheartedQuote
treaclefingersQuote
stonehearted
I liked U2 back in the day--meaning 1983, when I first heard them, to 1988 or so. In the beginning they sounded different from other, typically overproduced rock bands of the time. Their music had an energy and urgency that kind of reminded me in some ways of the early Who, especially in a track like Three Sunrises.
However, despite the fact that it always seemed like they were singing about some important causes and issues, song-wise, I didn't have a clue as to what they were actually on about, and Bono's lyrics were often laughably abstract.
"....these bomblast lightning walls..."
Now, just what is a "bomblast lightning wall"? I don't believe I've ever seen a "bomblast lightning wall", but perhaps the tens of thousands who flock to worship at their concert alter have, and perhaps even these Achtungians even own a "bomblast lightning wall" or two. Good, catchy choruses, though, in a lot of their early songs.
But I wouldn't be all that interested in a new U2 album even if they gave it away. "Bomblast lightning walls", I mean, really?
[www.youtube.com]
and yet you still remember it all these years later...I'm no psychologist, but I'd say you were moved!
Yes, there was some movement involved--my head was shaking from side to side. I wish you were a psychologist, then I could find out what it means.
I liked them musically though, it was rather moving, a rawness of passion that few other acts breaking at the time through had, passion in the singing, intensity among the band, even if I had no clue what any of their songs were about, only that I would follow when I heard the opening of I Will Follow.
ok fine but did you ever bullet the blue sky
Quote
alhavu1
Both bands were/are boring
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
treaclefingersQuote
stoneheartedQuote
treaclefingersQuote
stonehearted
I liked U2 back in the day--meaning 1983, when I first heard them, to 1988 or so. In the beginning they sounded different from other, typically overproduced rock bands of the time. Their music had an energy and urgency that kind of reminded me in some ways of the early Who, especially in a track like Three Sunrises.
However, despite the fact that it always seemed like they were singing about some important causes and issues, song-wise, I didn't have a clue as to what they were actually on about, and Bono's lyrics were often laughably abstract.
"....these bomblast lightning walls..."
Now, just what is a "bomblast lightning wall"? I don't believe I've ever seen a "bomblast lightning wall", but perhaps the tens of thousands who flock to worship at their concert alter have, and perhaps even these Achtungians even own a "bomblast lightning wall" or two. Good, catchy choruses, though, in a lot of their early songs.
But I wouldn't be all that interested in a new U2 album even if they gave it away. "Bomblast lightning walls", I mean, really?
[www.youtube.com]
and yet you still remember it all these years later...I'm no psychologist, but I'd say you were moved!
Yes, there was some movement involved--my head was shaking from side to side. I wish you were a psychologist, then I could find out what it means.
I liked them musically though, it was rather moving, a rawness of passion that few other acts breaking at the time through had, passion in the singing, intensity among the band, even if I had no clue what any of their songs were about, only that I would follow when I heard the opening of I Will Follow.
ok fine but did you ever bullet the blue sky
No, not yet--which means I still haven't found what I'm looking for.
Quote
stonehearted
"....these bomblast lightning walls..."
Now, just what is a "bomblast lightning wall"? I don't believe I've ever seen a "bomblast lightning wall", but perhaps the tens of thousands who flock to worship at their concert alter have, and perhaps even these Achtungians even own a "bomblast lightning wall" or two. Good, catchy choruses, though, in a lot of their early songs.
But I wouldn't be all that interested in a new U2 album even if they gave it away. "Bomblast lightning walls", I mean, really?
Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
I remember reading once the Stones had 2 million applications for 5 Garden shows in '81. If that's correct it kills what's mentioned above.
Quote
tattersQuote
OzHeavyThrobber
I remember reading once the Stones had 2 million applications for 5 Garden shows in '81. If that's correct it kills what's mentioned above.
Two shows. Nov 12 and 13, 1981. Two million people (myself included) mailed in a postcard. I got a postcard back, which said thanks for trying.
Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
My God Tatters I can't get my head around that. Did you see the '81 tour anywhere in the end?
Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
"Among the box office triumphs were a record-setting 118,000 fans queuing online to purchase tickets for Madison Square Garden in New York, resulting in two additional shows going up"
I remember reading once the Stones had 2 million applications for 5 Garden shows in '81. If that's correct it kills what's mentioned above.
I think the biggest selling acts on Earth if they could be bothered touring would be Abba and Led Zeppelin. Stones and U2 couldn't hold a candle to what they'd both respectively make on a cash n grab world tour.
INXS were and never would have been anywhere near as big as U2 and in fact were heavily declining in popularity from X onward. U2 around the same time became as big as they ever were with the monster Achtung, even going up against Jackson and Cobain at the same time. INXS were lost in their dust trail.
Quote
DGA35
Further to my first post, the tix are $302 plus ticketmaster fees/arena fees on top of that so that would probably put them closer to $340-350 a piece.
I"ll pass on these tickets in the hopes that the Stones come to town somewhere around the same time!
Quote
treaclefingers
I think U2 have finally jumped the shark. This article is a few months old, but it hits the issues I think right on the head:
...
Quote
Happy24Quote
treaclefingers
I think U2 have finally jumped the shark. This article is a few months old, but it hits the issues I think right on the head:
...
The article you posted has been posted an discussed here before. But I guess it is always good to recycle some old material to get some good U2 bashing. That they jumped the shark? In a way yes. But not now, that happend many years ago. And there is nothing really wrong with it. Can you name one "big" band that has lasted more than 35 years that hasn't jump the shark? I can't.
Eventhough it is not a popular view here, I think that U2 have put out and excellent record and are about to embark on a world tour, which no doubt will be a huge success. Big deal for those who like the band. And it would be nice if those who keep on shouting that they don't care really would not care. At least enough not to post the same old stuff again and again.
Quote
treaclefingers
How U2 became the most hated band in America
"All That You Can't Leave Behind" gave the group renewed relevance post-9/11. Now they're an Internet punchline
Nico Lang, The Daily Dot
The Bono-led band’s Songs of Innocence, which U2 has hinted may be its last record