Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous123456789Next
Current Page: 8 of 9
Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: BowieStone ()
Date: December 17, 2014 22:24

Yeah, I think sales are slower than they anticipated.
Still tickets for three O2-Arena shows, they must have anticipated more shows in Antwerp... there's a gap now in the tour schedule,...

Anyhow... I'm looking forward to this tour.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: belld ()
Date: December 17, 2014 22:27

Quote
bobo
Guess the point is that they sell extremely well:-) The point with Abba was not very relevantsmiling smiley
The point is Abba would sell many times more than U2 so the relevance of the U2 numbers is what? What do numbers mean?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-17 22:36 by belld.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: drbryant ()
Date: December 17, 2014 22:47

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]

This is amazing. Don't believe everything you read, I guess.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: December 17, 2014 23:18

Quote
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...smoking smiley ).

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.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 17, 2014 23:38

Quote
dcba
Quote
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...smoking smiley ).

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.

Regardless of how I'd rate the music, INXS didn't sell a quarter of what U2 ever did, or sell out stadiums...don't think there is even a remote chance they'd be bigger than U2.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: alhavu1 ()
Date: December 17, 2014 23:54

Both bands were/are boring

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: bobo ()
Date: December 18, 2014 01:04

Quote
belld
Quote
bobo
Guess the point is that they sell extremely well:-) The point with Abba was not very relevantsmiling smiley
The point is Abba would sell many times more than U2 so the relevance of the U2 numbers is what? What do numbers mean?

Yeh, compare to a band that has been "dead" since 1982. Very good:-)

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 18, 2014 02:40

Quote
belld
Quote
bobo
Guess the point is that they sell extremely well:-) The point with Abba was not very relevantsmiling smiley
The point is Abba would sell many times more than U2 so the relevance of the U2 numbers is what? What do numbers mean?

a sh*tload more money, that's what.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: December 18, 2014 02:47

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?




Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 18, 2014 03:40

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?



and yet you still remember it all these years later...I'm no psychologist, but I'd say you were moved!

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: December 18, 2014 03:56

Quote
treaclefingers
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?

[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.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: December 18, 2014 04:43

Quote
belld
Quote
bobo
Guess the point is that they sell extremely well:-) The point with Abba was not very relevantsmiling smiley
The point is Abba would sell many times more than U2 so the relevance of the U2 numbers is what? What do numbers mean?

Abba has zero relevance to what U2 is doing. The same with Led Zeppelin. IF is nothing.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 18, 2014 06:56

Quote
stonehearted
Quote
treaclefingers
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?

[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

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: December 18, 2014 07:14

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stonehearted
Quote
treaclefingers
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?

[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.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: December 18, 2014 11:22

Quote
alhavu1
Both bands were/are boring

Agreed! Mediocre pop acts (at best). I like "Suicide Blondes" though...

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 18, 2014 16:27

Quote
stonehearted
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
stonehearted
Quote
treaclefingers
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?

[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.

well, if you do, let me know and I will follow.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: tatters ()
Date: December 19, 2014 12:47

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?


Not that it makes any more sense, but the line, according to lyrics posted on U2's own website, is "This bomb-blast lightning waltz."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-19 12:48 by tatters.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: OzHeavyThrobber ()
Date: December 21, 2014 02:47

"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.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: tatters ()
Date: December 21, 2014 03:07

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.

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.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: OzHeavyThrobber ()
Date: December 21, 2014 05:27

My God Tatters I can't get my head around that. Did you see the '81 tour anywhere in the end?

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 21, 2014 05:50

Quote
tatters
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.

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.

I remember reading about that in the day, in Rolling Stone magazine.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: tatters ()
Date: December 21, 2014 06:13

Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
My God Tatters I can't get my head around that. Did you see the '81 tour anywhere in the end?

Nope. Saw them in '78, though.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: Happy24 ()
Date: December 21, 2014 09:21

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.

The 118 000 fans were in the queue at one moment (if I understand it correctly), while the 2 mil. applications for the Stones tickets is a number of applications sent in total, so not numbers that couold be directly compared. To be honest, I think if the system was the same, U2 would not get even close to the the 2 mil. record of The Stones (for 2 shows), but we still can not compare those two numbers.

As for The Zeppelin and ABBA - I think you are right with the former, but doubt the first one, honestly, eventhough the demand would be huge of course. But the demand would be drasticaly different if those were regularry touring bands. Try to imagine if U2 were not touring since ZOO TV and now they would announce a tour. So again - we can not compare.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: birdie ()
Date: December 21, 2014 23:32

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!

Ticket prices are actually $48-$86-$118 and $312, which is actually pretty reasonable, unlike "other" bands. Not a huge fan but going for the first time in July at MSG!

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 21, 2014 23:33

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:

from
[www.salon.com]

Thursday, Sep 18, 2014 02:45 PM PDT

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

How U2 became the most hated band in America
Bono (Credit: Reuters/Suzanne Plunkett)

This article originally appeared on The Daily Dot.

The Daily Dot Last week, U2 broke the Internet, but not really in a good way. The Bono-led band’s Songs of Innocence, which U2 has hinted may be its last record, was released as part of Apple’s keynote event, dished out to iTunes subscribers for free. The album reportedly cost Apple $100 million, a figure the company is likely to eat. Rather than generating the kind of hype Apple is accustomed to, Songs of Innocencegenerated a huge Twitter backlash, with the company posting a guide on how to remove the album from your library on its support page. Most damningly, Wired’s Vijith Assar called the “devious giveaway” no better than “spam.”

This is quite a comedown for a band who, just over a decade ago, could still call itself the biggest band in the world. Their 2000 record, All That You Can’t Leave Behind, not only sold a staggering 12 million copies, but it gave the band a renewed relevance in the wake of 9/11, when songs like “Walk On” came to symbolize an America figuring out how to pick up the pieces. Songs like the anthemic “One” had always found a universal relevance, but this was a reminder of exactly why U2 was so popular: It united the types of people who would normally never agree on liking anything.

But in 2014, they seem to be disliked with the same intensity that they used to be patriotically beloved (despite their overt Irish heritage). The reason why depends on your perspective. According to a webpage helpfully titled “Why U2 Sucks,” the litany of reasons runs the gamut of “they are pretentious” to “they are derivative” and “they just plain suck.” The Guardian theorizes, however, that we hate U2 because we hate Bono, while the New York Observer thinks they’re the Guy Fieri of music, which one assumes means selling bombastic, tacky crap to as wide an audience as possible.

Hating U2 is something of a modern Rorschach test, and more than anything, it’s the same brand management issue that befalls just about any band that aspires to be the biggest in the world. The moment a group aims to be the one act everyone likes, they become the one “no one likes,” or at least the one the Internet most likes to dogpile on. In a roundup of songs that broke their respective bands, CBC rounds up all the usual suspects of wildly popular bands a bunch of people now hate for their own ink-blob reasons: Coldplay, Mumford and Sons, Dave Matthews Band, and Weezer.

Each of these groups started their careers either well-liked or beloved (especially in the case of Weezer), only to find themselves a punchline among the kinds of folks who want to differentiate their music taste from the rest of the pack. Coldplay is, even among its most fervent detractors, far from the worst by any measure, but there’s a performative aspect to disliking them, one that says more about you as a consumer than the band itself. Most people who hate Nickelback, widely considered the most hated band in music, can’t even name a single Nickelback song.

Although CBC cites “Discotheque” (from Pop, U2’s much-derided experiment in excess) as the moment the public turned on them, it was most likely Apple that did U2 in. The wide success of 1991’s Achtung Baby launched a decade-long experiment by the band into art rock, as Bono attempted to bring the avant garde into the mainstream. Although 1993’s Zooropa won the Grammy for Best Alternative Album, Bono never wanted U2 to be an “alternative” (read: niche) group, your vinyl-hoarding friend’s favorite band. They wanted to be everyone’s favorite band, which is one of the many reasons Pop was such a disaster; the band was so busy putting together the tour for the record, a comment on their global influence as much as it was its intended statement on the state of capitalism, that they were rushed into completing a record they didn’t like. It was an artist statement in search of an album.

Pop was, indeed, an album of excess, but it least had ambition. Their aforementioned follow-up record, All That You Can’t Leave Behind, settled for a more radio-friendly, mainstream sound, teaching the band the wrong lessons: The secret to success is to force everyone to like you. They mistook ubiquity for acclaim. When How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb came out, it featured more of the mom rock that made its predecessor a success, along with an iPod commercial that put Bono singing “Vertigo” on every screen in America. For a band who was so keen to bite corporate America’s hand just seven years prior, it looked suspiciously like selling out.

As someone who likes many U2 records and dislikes many others, their recent output isn’t so much an issue of selling your soul to the man as much as deciding to be a certain type of band, one that might not please the Achtung Baby faithful. If you liked the kind of music they were making with “Stuck in a Moment You Can’t Get Out Of,” you might like No Line on the Horizon, a 2009 album filled with middle-brow jams. This was a time when even their politics seemed repackaged to fit their new global mindset. Instead of their signature songs about Irish pride, Bono wrote hippy-dippy lyrics about world peace that could play while you browse the aisles at Hobby Lobby.

That shift particularly affected the public perception of Bono. As theGuardian notes, the singer often comes off as “holier than thou” to his detractors, “rich beyond his wildest dreams and hanging out with princes, presidents and preachers [but one who] nonetheless won’t shut up about poor people.” For some, he’s less the musical poet who wrote “One” than a celebrity blowhard who wants to browbeat them into caring, like Susan Sarandon or Sean Penn. There’s a general mistrust around celebrity activism, and when you throw in Bono’s penchant for religious imagery, it reeks of Kanye West.

However, the band’s over-the-top tendencies aren’t a new criticism. According to Yahoo’s Chris Willman, the band nearly jumped the shark back in 1988 with the release of Rattle and Hum, a blues-infused record that paid tribute to many of the band’s influences, from Elvis Presley to B.B. King, a tribute to their influences that represented a seemingly “back to roots move.” “But there seemed to be more hubris than humility in the footage of their arena shows,” Willman argues. “And the massive roll-out for both album and film didn’t shout ‘back to basics.’ With that mixed a message being sent out, was it any wonder that the reaction was also all over the place?”

Oddly enough, the band’s brand image had already been carved out by this point; Anton Corbijn’s “stony-faced” black-and-white imagery for The Joshua Tree became iconically associated with everything fans both loved and hated about the group. The difference is, though, that in 1988, their careers had time to recover through albums that did the necessary damage control; Achtung Baby is so undeniably, earth-shatteringly great that even the biggest Bono haters had to admit that the man knew what he was doing onstage. After a decade of releasing middling commercial jingles, it’s hard to make the same rationalization, or even what made U2 good to begin with.

This is a struggle that all aging bands face, where what was once cool starts to lose its luster as those who used to play your favorite songs start to wither before you, as in the case of Aerosmith or REO Speedwagon, the latter relegated to state fairs. You might be seeing The Rolling Stones at your local stadium, but you’re not going for the thrill of watching Mick Jagger in 2014. You’re going for a reminder of the performer he was in 1965, when “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” brought together people who might not even call themselves rock music fans.

U2 might have thought they were getting in on the surprise album bandwagon, as everyone from Beyoncé to Skrillex is doing it, but the biggest surprise is how little it mattered. Bono has spent the last three and a half decades trying to get everyone to like him, but the greatest PR coup he could ever pull is to finally stop caring.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: RipThisBone ()
Date: December 22, 2014 00:50

bv please remove this thread to the garbagecan. U2 is just too much OT. smiling smiley

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: Happy24 ()
Date: December 22, 2014 11:06

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:

...

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.

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: December 22, 2014 19:13

Quote
Happy24
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:

...

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.

don't get so touchy...I actually like U2, but I do see what everyone's complaining about. Not many people get their knickers in a twist if we slag jagger over "Let's Work"...so why do you care?

U2 does put out 'mom' music now, and Bono's self-righteousness is beyond irritating. We can't discuss that?

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: December 22, 2014 20:13

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

Thanks! There is a God after all! thumbs up

Re: OT: U2 officially announce world tour
Posted by: The Stones ()
Date: December 22, 2014 21:37





Oh my God!!! Bono would never pull a stunt like this.....shame on you Ronnie!!!
I wouldn't actually be surprised if One Direction were going to play in concert with the Rolling Stones in 2015....

Goto Page: Previous123456789Next
Current Page: 8 of 9


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 2002
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home