Author Topic: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE  (Read 19394 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iehomecoming

  • Guest
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #135 on: March 01, 2016, 05:46:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

Yes but all those bands are comprised of full time musicians not part time musicians/activists/celebs like U2 are.  So you are really being unfair to our lads.   Can Geddy Lee call up popes and presidents?  I dont think so.  So there.

Oh I thought we were talking about music. My bad.

Offline dirtdrybonesandstone

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 759
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #136 on: March 01, 2016, 06:20:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Offline Achtung_Dublin

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • There's many lost, but tell me who has won
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #137 on: March 01, 2016, 06:25:39 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Here we go again with their balls.

Offline Daniel94

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 274
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #138 on: March 01, 2016, 06:41:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Why don't you consider AB a great album? How would EBTTRT have benefited from being longer than 4 minutes?

Offline dirtdrybonesandstone

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 759
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #139 on: March 01, 2016, 07:07:36 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Why don't you consider AB a great album? How would EBTTRT have benefited from being longer than 4 minutes?

The only ones that think U2 had more than one GREAT album are us townies from this fan site.  There was a lot going with that song; non-typical subject matter, Edge was actually on fire, etc.   The Perfecto Mix is an example of its potential in expanded length.    There is much to be said of the individual cuts from AB but it's the only one from that era that I still listen to.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 07:15:39 PM by dirtdrybonesandstone »

iehomecoming

  • Guest
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #140 on: March 01, 2016, 08:46:19 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Here we go again with their balls.

It's not about their balls. It's about their LACK of them at times.

ATYCLB, HTDAAB, the evil 3 of NLOTH, SFS, etc.


Offline SlyDanner

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,520
  • A white dope on punk staring into the flash.
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #141 on: March 01, 2016, 09:08:51 PM »
SFS... I was told that I would feel nothing the first time, and the second time, and the 500th time...

Offline The Edges Cat

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,101
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #142 on: March 01, 2016, 11:24:36 PM »
Balls? I'm pretty sure Bono and Edge have had the snip. I know the signs, after what Edge made the vet do to me...

Offline Pocket Merlin

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 701
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #143 on: March 01, 2016, 11:56:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

Yeah, I guess Rush is a good example of a prolific rock band (although I don't really care for most of their music).

I also didn't realize what workhorses Led Zeppelin were until I just went back and looked at their discography.

I guess I am biased because U2 are the only older band I see today trying to still exist in the forum of the general public, popular music audience, and still trying to create vital music that steps outside of things they've done before and seeks new fans rather than just resting on their laurels. In other words, striving for relevance (that word that seems to be a curse word around here). As Bono says, it's easier to be successful than it is to be relevant. Don't see Springsteen doing what they're doing, don't see Rush doing it or anyone at their age and level except maybe RHCP.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 08:39:21 PM by Pocket Merlin »

iehomecoming

  • Guest
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #144 on: March 02, 2016, 08:48:34 AM »
Well, "relevance" is a curse word because it can't be defined in the context of comparing musical artists.

By bringing in relevance to the discussion you effectively move the goalposts so that only U2 can then be the band that fit the revised criteria (longevity, acceptance, output, and now "relevance").

Who is more relevant, Chvrches or Iron Maiden ? Well by the measure of how many people actually buy the records or go to the concerts, it's Iron Maiden, but I'd venture that most people here would say Chvrches. Why ? No idea.

I like SOI, more so than any U2 album since Pop, but mostly it's hardly new territory with the exception of The Troubles and maybe SLABT. Especially side 1 which is a lot weaker than Side 2. The release method also is something I have no issue with, but it was almost a "we give up" message, "we know you won't buy it so we're going to give it to you". U2 is more like Springsteen or Rush than people want to admit, they have their fans, they have a canon of greatness, and people will go to concerts no matter what or how bad or good their latest efforts may be. No one is going because they heard The Miracle or SFS and thought "who's that ? , gotta go check them out".

I used Rush and Springsteen and Maiden as comparisons because they are all old timers still putting out new music that they as artists believe in and that fans want to hear. All absolutely "relevant" in my mind because they are still pushing themselves as artists. It's not like say ZZ Top who have also been around as long but rarely play any new material live, but just go out, mail in the classics and collect a paycheck. Rush's final album was a universally acclaimed concept album, one of the strongest of their career and they toured behind it with a String section on tour with them (much of the new material had strings) but they also incorporated them into their older material too, not afraid to try something new even as they approach 60. I'm sure Springsteen is playing his mew stuff and he still mixes it up every night. Iron Maiden just released a double album for the first time in their career, with some of their longest songs and  is giving the fans heavy doses of the new stuff and the fans are loving it and actually clamoring for more new material (Empire of the Clouds being on everyone's "please play it live" list, an 18-minute epic)

So as far as not resting on laurels, others are doing it too, and being artistically relevant, I'd personally love to see U2 STOP trying to be all things to all people and just make music they believe in rather than music they think might get on the radio (talk about anachronisms) and gain mass acceptance. They HAVE mass acceptance already, they can tour WITHOUT a new album if they want, just give us more Troubles and SLABT and less SFS !

Sorry for my long winded rant. Back to regularly scheduled programming.




Offline SlyDanner

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,520
  • A white dope on punk staring into the flash.
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #145 on: March 02, 2016, 09:53:53 AM »
I saw Foreigner on TV over the weekend, a show broadcast from a small theater near New York City.

It was very, very sad.  And I loved Foreigner when I was a kid.  It was the very definition of Heritage Act.  That is what U2 do not want to become.

Offline Daniel94

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 274
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #146 on: March 02, 2016, 11:24:03 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Why don't you consider AB a great album? How would EBTTRT have benefited from being longer than 4 minutes?

The only ones that think U2 had more than one GREAT album are us townies from this fan site.  There was a lot going with that song; non-typical subject matter, Edge was actually on fire, etc.   The Perfecto Mix is an example of its potential in expanded length.    There is much to be said of the individual cuts from AB but it's the only one from that era that I still listen to.

Hold on. That is simply untrue. I think it's safe to say that most older music fans think AB is a great album, and music review sites clearly do so as well.

The perfecto mix is so cringeworthy, especially the women singing "take me higher." The beat is generic and weak, and larry and adam aren't even on it. Edge's guitar is also pretty much absent. The original song is far more interesting. One of the greatest things about U2 is they're genuine. This remix just sucks the life out of the song. 

Offline bass slap

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,146
  • Hot as a hair dryer.. In your face!
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #147 on: March 02, 2016, 02:58:28 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Why don't you consider AB a great album? How would EBTTRT have benefited from being longer than 4 minutes?

The only ones that think U2 had more than one GREAT album are us townies from this fan site.  There was a lot going with that song; non-typical subject matter, Edge was actually on fire, etc.   The Perfecto Mix is an example of its potential in expanded length.    There is much to be said of the individual cuts from AB but it's the only one from that era that I still listen to.

Hold on. That is simply untrue. I think it's safe to say that most older music fans think AB is a great album, and music review sites clearly do so as well.

The perfecto mix is so cringeworthy, especially the women singing "take me higher." The beat is generic and weak, and larry and adam aren't even on it. Edge's guitar is also pretty much absent. The original song is far more interesting. One of the greatest things about U2 is they're genuine. This remix just sucks the life out of the song.

Pretty widely recognised in and out side of u2 camps that they have 2 classic albums. Perfecto mix being the only salvageable item from AB? not such a common belief....
Although perfecto was great back in the day, aged quickly like most club sounds.
They got their 3rd one out with zooropa and pop, then had it surgically removed before proceeding with the next 4 albums. Speaking of which, news is slow on soe.

Offline The Edges Cat

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,101
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #148 on: March 04, 2016, 03:40:06 AM »
It's March already. U2 have been quiet this year.

Offline boom boom

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,195
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #149 on: March 04, 2016, 05:39:35 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's March already. U2 have been quiet this year.
My guess, they are on a vast search of producers who's careers they can ruin.