U2

[yTib]

Yes, 'Bohemian Rhapsody' in the same box as Coldplays 'Yellow' for me - same overplayed crap. I liked them when I first heard them though

then you sir are an idiot.

yes, an idiot!

[claptrappers_union]

yTib, your missing my point. Musically you are probably right, but because I hear them all the time it all gets thrown into one box.

Take Foo Fighters’ ‘Times Like These’ and ‘Heroes’ by Bowie... good songs, yes? To me, it’s ‘bleugh’, every ******* week I hear those songs. Dreary crap. When I hear them come on the radio, I have to turn them off because Burnley Football Club have ruined them, for me.

I can’t inagine doing to a Coldplay, Killers, U2 concert and watching people sing along to the same songs they have heard over and over again. why?!

It’s totally me. Its not an attack on an artist or how people listen to music, but as soon as I feel the song is overplayed and attached to something broad, I just don’t enjoy listening to it anymore - it’s weird I know.

Songs like Blurred Lines, Happy, that Smashmouth song, Mr Brightside, especially Mr Brightside - why is that song played all the time?!

[cricketfieldclarets]

yTib, your missing my point. Musically you are probably right, but because I hear them all the time it all gets thrown into one box.

Take Foo Fighters’ ‘Times Like These’ and ‘Heroes’ by Bowie... good songs, yes? To me, it’s ‘bleugh’, every ******* week I hear those songs. Dreary crap. When I hear them come on the radio, I have to turn them off because Burnley Football Club have ruined them, for me.

I can’t inagine doing to a Coldplay, Killers, U2 concert and watching people sing along to the same songs they have heard over and over again. why?!

It’s totally me. Its not an attack on an artist or how people listen to music, but as soon as I feel the song is overplayed and attached to something broad, I just don’t enjoy listening to it anymore - it’s weird I know.

Songs like Blurred Lines, Happy, that Smashmouth song, Mr Brightside, especially Mr Brightside - why is that song played all the time?!

On the contrary - times like these, heroes and wakeup (arcade fire) make the hairs stand up. A it makes me think of good times following Burnley.

[Dejavu]

U2 have been turning out quality music for nearly 40 years. They have lost none of their song writing prowess in that time. Go away listen to a song like "sometimes you can't make it on your own" with an open mind.
If you still don't like that song fair enough. Go buy Ed Sheeran's new album and convince yourself it's not cheesy sh1te.

[hampsteadclaret]

I have seen them three times...Wembley stadium twice and Twickenham last Summer.

Excellent value for money every time...great live shows, full houses about 75,000 there each time...same line-up for 35+ years.

As usual we slag off success stories.

'The Joshua Tree' album...it starts with..


'Where the Streets have no name.

i still haven't found what I'm looking for.

With or without you..'


I think that's a pretty strong start to an album.
- any suggestions for a rock music album, with a better first three than that?

[BabylonClaret]

'The Joshua Tree' album...it starts with..


'Where the Streets have no name.

i still haven't found what I'm looking for.

With or without you..'


I think that's a pretty strong start to an album.
- any suggestions for a rock music album, with a better first three than that?

Seriously???

Dont get me wrong, I think U2 are great. The Joshua Tree is a classic and there isnt a bad track on it. But I could pull a dozen albums off the top of my head to make an argument with that!!

Looking forward to manchester in October though.

[Damo]

Even forgetting that bono is a massive prick, U2 are the most over rated band in the history of music (in my opinion)
They have made a hand full of decent songs, and countless, terrible, meh tracks.
Everyone has different tastes in music, but I just don't get what niche they cater for. Lyrically they are garbage. They don't do anything spectacular with instruments. The stuff they churn out isn't edgy or ground-breaking. I just don't get them at all.
Oh, and the one time I saw them live (Glastonbury 2011) I had to queue up to leave the prymid stage half way through their set because they were so dreadful

[BabylonClaret]

Fair enough - its all about opinion i suppose but Id disagree that theyre not edgy. Theyve moved their sound a number of times and taken risks throughout their career. Recently theyve been more nostalgic - kind of full circle where there are nods to earlier sounds and elements.

[houseboy]

You clearly aren't. Where have I ever said he should give all his money away. Maybe you should look to answer whats actually being said rather than your pathetic attempts to score points. Anyway I'm more than a little bored with you pettiness, so lets leave it and I'll find someone who can hold a proper conversation and you can get back to putting pop posters on your bedroom wall.

So what are you saying exactly? Because it does APPEAR that you are saying that either because he is rich he shouldn't be saying or doing what he does or he should give huge amounts of his money away. As I said in an earlier post there is a difference between raising awareness and throwing money around. People do seem to think that a rich individual shouldn't make comments on or do anything about the world's poor unless they are prepared to 'put their money where their mouth is'. Firstly why should they, just because they care they shouldn't be expected to try to solve all the world's ills just because they are rich. Secondly how do you know Bono (or anyone else) doesn't give large amounts of money to causes, he probably does.
Even though I am politically a socialist I have got to an age where I do not have a problem with someone being wealthy provided that wealth has been gained honestly and without causing harm and suffering or walking all over people and therefore I do not expect those wealthy individuals to step in and do what governments should be doing. And that is the point, Bono aims his anger more at governments and what he does is raise awareness in showing that the West is rich and as such should be doing more in general, he has even pointed the finger at the extremely wealthy Catholic church for not doing enough (and he is himself a Catholic). Whatever his personal finances are like is not the issue, it is what he does to try to make the world a better place that matters.

[elwaclaret]

So what are you saying exactly? Because it does APPEAR that you are saying that either because he is rich he shouldn't be saying or doing what he does or he should give huge amounts of his money away. As I said in an earlier post there is a difference between raising awareness and throwing money around. People do seem to think that a rich individual shouldn't make comments on or do anything about the world's poor unless they are prepared to 'put their money where their mouth is'. Firstly why should they, just because they care they shouldn't be expected to try to solve all the world's ills just because they are rich. Secondly how do you know Bono (or anyone else) doesn't give large amounts of money to causes, he probably does.
Even though I am politically a socialist I have got to an age where I do not have a problem with someone being wealthy provided that wealth has been gained honestly and without causing harm and suffering or walking all over people and therefore I do not expect those wealthy individuals to step in and do what governments should be doing. And that is the point, Bono aims his anger more at governments and what he does is raise awareness in showing that the West is rich and as such should be doing more in general, he has even pointed the finger at the extremely wealthy Catholic church for not doing enough (and he is himself a Catholic). Whatever his personal finances are like is not the issue, it is what he does to try to make the world a better place that matters.

Do you not think there is as least as much about keeping himself in the public eye? Anyway nothing personal Houseboy but I think I've wasted enough of my time discussing this. It really not something I do or want to waste my time thinking about too much. I do my bit for my firms chosen charities, much better use of my down time than talking about U2

[boiledclaret]

Even forgetting that bono is a massive prick, U2 are the most over rated band in the history of music (in my opinion)
They have made a hand full of decent songs, and countless, terrible, meh tracks.
Everyone has different tastes in music, but I just don't get what niche they cater for. Lyrically they are garbage. They don't do anything spectacular with instruments. The stuff they churn out isn't edgy or ground-breaking. I just don't get them at all.
Oh, and the one time I saw them live (Glastonbury 2011) I had to queue up to leave the prymid stage half way through their set because they were so dreadful

Very well put Damo. Oh, and this dumb conditioned automaton argument of 'we hate them because we're soooo jealous' really needs to go. It's inane and it ruins debate.

U2 are a brand, they have owners. Albeit a very successful, universally recognized brand, recognized to the point were the singer has to hang out with the likes of George Bush.

Talk about entrapment. Anybody still jealous?

[Lord Beamish]

I liked their output when Steve Lilywhite was producing their music. They were earnest, sometimes a little too much so. I think their early '90s re-invention was pretty spectacular. Not many bands would have the hutzpah to do what they did. It didn't always suit me musically, but I don't think any Band I like has ever had a 100% hit rate with me.

[houseboy]

All Bono's work apart, as far as the band are concerned I've always kind of liked them but I have only ever owned one album (I didn't quite like them enough to buy their albums I suppose). Musically they are okay but have never been quite experimental enough for me. The only thing I have ever found slightly odd is the fact that The Edge is considered something of a fine guitarist. Dave Gilmour, Steve Howe, Slash and John McLaughlan are fine guitarists (among many others) and alas I don't see The Edge breathing the same air. However it is all down to taste.

[BabylonClaret]

that is the point, Bono aims his anger more at governments and what he does is raise awareness in showing that the West is rich and as such should be doing more in general, he has even pointed the finger at the extremely wealthy Catholic church for not doing enough (and he is himself a Catholic). Whatever his personal finances are like is not the issue, it is what he does to try to make the world a better place that matters.

I agree with what youre sayimg houseboy, but actually he isnt Catholic. His dad was and his mum was Protestant so was brought up Protestant- early days all thw band ezcept Adam were very Christian but a small non conformist group. I expect thats where Bono's political and social belief stems from. He can be a massive nob sometimes (his ego is pretty huge but them he is a band front man) but a lot of what he says is bob on the money

[houseboy]

I agree with what youre sayimg houseboy, but actually he isnt Catholic. His dad was and his mum was Protestant so was brought up Protestant- early days all thw band ezcept Adam were very Christian but a small non conformist group. I expect thats where Bono's political and social belief stems from. He can be a massive nob sometimes (his ego is pretty huge but them he is a band front man) but a lot of what he says is bob on the money

I didn't know he wasn't Catholic. I knew they professed to be a Christian band so I suppose I just assumed he was because he was Irish. Thanks for putting me right on that. He is mates with the Pope though isn't he?

I know what you mean about being the front man with a band, I was one, and with not one millionth of their success, if we'd made the big time I dread to think what I would have become.