Author Topic: U2 are for Teenagers  (Read 22319 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thunder Peel

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,549
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #120 on: December 02, 2009, 11:01:01 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


something deep and caring that changes your life - if that doesn't describe u2 i don't know what does!  -  has this guy ever listened to any u2 songs?

My thoughts exactly! Has he ever been to a U2 concert or actually listened to one of their albums?

Offline Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine)

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,777
  • 2 souls 2 cool 2 B in the realm of certainty
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #121 on: December 02, 2009, 11:19:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


something deep and caring that changes your life - if that doesn't describe u2 i don't know what does!  -  has this guy ever listened to any u2 songs?

My thoughts exactly! Has he ever been to a U2 concert or actually listened to one of their albums?

One of his personalities may have. Not this one.  :D

Boom Cha!

  • Guest
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #122 on: December 02, 2009, 12:46:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
echo are musically better that U2.

No. That's simply wrong.

Actually, neither of you are right or wrong.

Ever heard of opinions?

Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #123 on: December 02, 2009, 01:32:23 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
echo are musically better that U2.

No. That's simply wrong.

Actually, neither of you are right or wrong.

Ever heard of opinions?

Of course. And, in my opinion, JA is wrong about this and most other things regarding music.


Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #124 on: December 02, 2009, 02:33:56 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
echo are musically better that U2.

No. That's simply wrong.

Actually, neither of you are right or wrong.

Ever heard of opinions?

Of course. And, in my opinion, JA is wrong about this and most other things regarding music.


Like what? That Echo was a better band in the 80's than U2 and that there were musically far better bands in that period that U2? we'll that's rock history for ya. U2 emerged as a good band and a band to keep your eyes out for. But they were pretty far from the best in those days. the Smiths, joy Division, The cure, Echo and the Bunny, the simple minds were creatively already beyond anything U2 had produced in those days.

U2 as a band really started to find their mojo when TUF was released and really hit gold when the made the Joshua Tree. before that they were a good band But the all others kicked their butt and were musically far superior that U2

Offline Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine)

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,777
  • 2 souls 2 cool 2 B in the realm of certainty
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #125 on: December 02, 2009, 02:40:43 PM »
One of the things I love about U2 is their constant musical evolution and growth.  Aside from ATYCLB, this band has constantly staked out new ground for themselves rather than standing still or regressing, unlike many other bands who came out hot for one album or two in the 80's and then ran out of gas in a big way, i.e., Echo, Simple Minds, the Alarm, Flock of Seagulls, etc etc etc

Offline BeneathTheNoise

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 445
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #126 on: December 03, 2009, 12:09:27 AM »
Johnny is kind of right.. I was a teenager in the 80s, and well.. Echo and the Bunnymen was kinda the stuff at one point back then. You didn't dare mention liking U2 back then unless you wanted everyone rolling their eyes at you; pretty much you didn't admit to liking U2 unless you were a preppy rich kid.. :-\ I think it's because they had such a wholesome, earnest, good guy appeal then. Everyone was redefining the definition of post punk.. most of them were having fun singing about debauchery and being kooky with synthesizers!.. then here came U2 with their good guy melodies. You know, it was like.. U2 didn't fit in anywhere, but they didn't exactly NOT fit in. They really were. They were a total paradox to us back then.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 12:34:13 AM by BeneathTheNoise »

Offline Sue DeNym

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #127 on: December 03, 2009, 10:32:26 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...awwww do i sense some jealousy?? ickle rocker didn't get to be the biggest band in the world, so he's going to call U2 immature and silly.
:D No kidding.  Enjoying your nice heaping helping of sour grapes, Ian?  Talk about immature.  That kind of "slag the other guy to make myself look better" nonsense may have worked in grade school, but not in adulthood.  ::)

Offline Northern Soul

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,185
  • I'm not coming down...
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #128 on: December 03, 2009, 01:27:30 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One of the things I love about U2 is their constant musical evolution and growth.  Aside from ATYCLB, this band has constantly staked out new ground for themselves rather than standing still or regressing, unlike many other bands who came out hot for one album or two in the 80's and then ran out of gas in a big way, i.e., Echo, Simple Minds, the Alarm, Flock of Seagulls, etc etc etc

To be fair, the Bunnymen broke up for about 10 years before reforming for Evergreen, which is a good album.  And actually, most of their albums since then have been quite good.  If you're not a fan, fine, but saying they ran out of gas is simply untrue.

Offline Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine)

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,777
  • 2 souls 2 cool 2 B in the realm of certainty
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #129 on: December 03, 2009, 01:36:22 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One of the things I love about U2 is their constant musical evolution and growth.  Aside from ATYCLB, this band has constantly staked out new ground for themselves rather than standing still or regressing, unlike many other bands who came out hot for one album or two in the 80's and then ran out of gas in a big way, i.e., Echo, Simple Minds, the Alarm, Flock of Seagulls, etc etc etc

To be fair, the Bunnymen broke up for about 10 years before reforming for Evergreen, which is a good album.  And actually, most of their albums since then have been quite good.  If you're not a fan, fine, but saying they ran out of gas is simply untrue.

If I'm gonna hold up their output to Ocean Rain, Heaven Up Here,  and Porcupine, then that's how I feel about it.  I could rephrase it and say they peaked way too early. Evergreen was decent enough, but Reverberation, What are You Going to Do With Your Life and their self-titled one (aside from Lips Like Sugar) were average. The Fountain does nothing for me.

Offline Northern Soul

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,185
  • I'm not coming down...
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #130 on: December 03, 2009, 02:19:23 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
One of the things I love about U2 is their constant musical evolution and growth.  Aside from ATYCLB, this band has constantly staked out new ground for themselves rather than standing still or regressing, unlike many other bands who came out hot for one album or two in the 80's and then ran out of gas in a big way, i.e., Echo, Simple Minds, the Alarm, Flock of Seagulls, etc etc etc

To be fair, the Bunnymen broke up for about 10 years before reforming for Evergreen, which is a good album.  And actually, most of their albums since then have been quite good.  If you're not a fan, fine, but saying they ran out of gas is simply untrue.

If I'm gonna hold up their output to Ocean Rain, Heaven Up Here,  and Porcupine, then that's how I feel about it.  I could rephrase it and say they peaked way too early. Evergreen was decent enough, but Reverberation, What are You Going to Do With Your Life and their self-titled one (aside from Lips Like Sugar) were average. The Fountain does nothing for me.

Fair enough, but Reverberation didn't even include Ian McCulloch.  And they've also released Flowers and Siberia, which both have some good tunes on it.  I quite like The Fountain.

Offline Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine)

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,777
  • 2 souls 2 cool 2 B in the realm of certainty
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #131 on: December 03, 2009, 02:27:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Reverberation didn't even include Ian McCulloch. 

true that is. I'll give Flowers and Siberia a listen when I get to it, as admittedly those are the two I haven't heard.

satellitedog01

  • Guest
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #132 on: December 03, 2009, 04:25:34 PM »
Well, I only got in on the Bunnymen in the last five years, but have only listened to their classic line-up, and since Ian's voice so badly deteriorated through his lifestyle, I don't think I'm interested in their new music. Anyway, without de Freitas' drumming, nothing could be the same.

Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #133 on: December 03, 2009, 07:47:05 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
echo are musically better that U2.

No. That's simply wrong.

Actually, neither of you are right or wrong.

Ever heard of opinions?

Of course. And, in my opinion, JA is wrong about this and most other things regarding music.


Like what? That Echo was a better band in the 80's than U2 and that there were musically far better bands in that period that U2? we'll that's rock history for ya. U2 emerged as a good band and a band to keep your eyes out for. But they were pretty far from the best in those days. the Smiths, joy Division, The cure, Echo and the Bunny, the simple minds were creatively already beyond anything U2 had produced in those days.

U2 as a band really started to find their mojo when TUF was released and really hit gold when the made the Joshua Tree. before that they were a good band But the all others kicked their butt and were musically far superior that U2

You keep switching verb tenses.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
echo are musically better that U2.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That Echo was a better band in the 80's than U2

So, which is is?

Echo ARE better than U2?

or Echo WERE better than U2?


Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #134 on: December 04, 2009, 03:27:16 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
echo are musically better that U2.

No. That's simply wrong.

Actually, neither of you are right or wrong.

Ever heard of opinions?

Of course. And, in my opinion, JA is wrong about this and most other things regarding music.


Like what? That Echo was a better band in the 80's than U2 and that there were musically far better bands in that period that U2? we'll that's rock history for ya. U2 emerged as a good band and a band to keep your eyes out for. But they were pretty far from the best in those days. the Smiths, joy Division, The cure, Echo and the Bunny, the simple minds were creatively already beyond anything U2 had produced in those days.

U2 as a band really started to find their mojo when TUF was released and really hit gold when the made the Joshua Tree. before that they were a good band But the all others kicked their butt and were musically far superior that U2

You keep switching verb tenses.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
echo are musically better that U2.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That Echo was a better band in the 80's than U2

So, which is is?

Echo ARE better than U2?

or Echo WERE better than U2?


The were. Then they broke up  Than they made a comeback and now are doing a better job than U2. Go ECHO!! Ian rules. great voice great artist. I just listened to the fountain and it beats No Line easely.