Author Topic: U2 are for Teenagers  (Read 22298 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #135 on: December 04, 2009, 09:03:38 AM »
If Ian really believed his album was that good he would ignore U2 and Bono. Unfortunately for him he let one of his Bonojealous personalities take over.

Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #136 on: December 04, 2009, 09:12:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Ian really believed his album was that good he would ignore U2 and Bono. Unfortunately for him he let one of his Bonojealous personalities take over.

Agreed. Ian thinks U2 are better than Echo.

Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #137 on: December 04, 2009, 09:35:02 AM »
Anyway. When U2 were taking their first baby steps in music Echo were already on a roll. Echo's brilliant legendary band who deserve all the credit they get. U2 is actually very influenced by Echo just as a couple of other bands were at the time. Nothing to be ashamed of since Echo were really that good.

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 #138 on: December 04, 2009, 11:50:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anyway. When U2 were taking their first baby steps in music Echo were already on a roll. Echo's brilliant legendary band who deserve all the credit they get. U2 is actually very influenced by Echo just as a couple of other bands were at the time. Nothing to be ashamed of since Echo were really that good.

Then---Echo was better.

Now--U2 is much better.

Totally agree.  :)

Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #139 on: December 04, 2009, 01:13:16 PM »
Well, they both released their debut albums in 1980.

Boy is better than Crocodiles

They both released the sophomore albums in 1981.

October is better than Heaven Up Here.

They both released their third albums in 1983.

War is better than Porcupine.

They both released their fourth albums in 1984.

The Unforgettable Fire is better than Ocean Rain.

They both released their fifth albums in 1987.

The Joshua Tree is better than Echo & The Bunnymen.

Then things get really lopsided:

1988 U2 release Rattle & Hum. Echo release nothing.

1990 Echo release Reverberation. An album WITHOUT Ian.

1991 U2 release Achtung Baby. Echo release nothing.

1993 U2 release Zooropa. Echo release nothing.

1995 U2 release Passengers: OS1. Echo release nothing.

So, the notion that Echo was some powerful, elder musical force while U2 were
upstarts is simply false.

It's not true.

It's not based on reality.

It's a made up fairy tale.

They were peers. And, as their records came out in parallel with one another, U2's work
consistently beat Echo's like a rented mule. One of these bands is great. One of these bands
was good.

The singer of the "good" band now makes racist and fat jokes about the singer in the "great" band.

The singer in the "great" band makes great rock & roll music.

Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #140 on: December 04, 2009, 01:14:23 PM »
Anyway. u2 had a great run in the late 80's and 90's but the last decade was pretty lame and now people are moving away from them. Instead of playing festivals in order to try to get new fans they should make a better album than the last three. Go full trance or full Rick Rubin Johnny Cash style or just give it up. Nobody's waiting for another safe predictable U2 album. People won't buy into that any more. If they were planning another No line bomb or leave behind sounding album for SOA I would skip the whole album and come up with something else

Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #141 on: December 04, 2009, 01:15:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, they both released their debut albums in 1980.

Boy is better than Crocodiles

They both released the sophomore albums in 1981.

October is better than Heaven Up Here.

They both released their third albums in 1983.

War is better than Porcupine.

They both released their fourth albums in 1984.

The Unforgettable Fire is better than Ocean Rain.

They both released their fifth albums in 1987.

The Joshua Tree is better than Echo & The Bunnymen.

Then things get really lopsided:

1988 U2 release Rattle & Hum. Echo release nothing.

1990 Echo release Reverberation. An album WITHOUT Ian.

1991 U2 release Achtung Baby. Echo release nothing.

1993 U2 release Zooropa. Echo release nothing.

1995 U2 release Passengers: OS1. Echo release nothing.

So, the notion that Echo was some powerful, elder musical force while U2 were
upstarts is simply false.

It's not true.

It's not based on reality.

It's a made up fairy tale.

They were peers. And, as their records came out in parallel with one another, U2's work
consistently beat Echo's like a rented mule. One of these bands is great. One of these bands
was good.

The singer of the "good" band now makes racist and fat jokes about the singer in the "great" band.

The singer in the "great" band makes great rock & roll music.
Can i ask how old you are Mr T?

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 #142 on: December 04, 2009, 01:40:55 PM »
Even though I disagree with the first three albums head to head with Mr. T's list, when it comes to anything from 1987 on its almost painfully obvious that when Echo crafted their big hit single "Lips Like Sugar" and it got dwarfed by the Joshua Tree, then Ian became a little bitter. Pretty ironic and hypocritical for a guy who bemoans success and all its trappings.  :D

Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #143 on: December 04, 2009, 01:51:11 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anyway. u2 had a great run in the late 80's and 90's but the last decade was pretty lame and now people are moving away from them. Instead of playing festivals in order to try to get new fans they should make a better album than the last three. Go full trance or full Rick Rubin Johnny Cash style or just give it up. Nobody's waiting for another safe predictable U2 album. People won't buy into that any more. If they were planning another No line bomb or leave behind sounding album for SOA I would skip the whole album and come up with something else

"go trance or full Rick Rubin Johnny Cash style" WTF?

What really needs to happen is fans who only like one "phase" of U2 need to learn to move on.  Pining for U2 to return to
some style from 15 years ago can't be good for one's soul.  It's no different than disgruntled fans in 1993 waxing poetic about how good 1983 was and how trendy they are now.

U2 are sitting pretty. NLOTH is one of the bands best efforts, outmatched only by AB, TJT, and Boy.

Only one release on the planet has outsold NLOTH this year and the tour will wind up setting all time attendance records.

So, the notion that people are "moving away from them" is another fairy tale.


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 #144 on: December 04, 2009, 01:54:24 PM »
I love how if bands like Echo came out with so-called atmospheric shoegazing over and over again then people would be happy, but it's U2 who can't be U2.  They have to always come out with different styles.

Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #145 on: December 04, 2009, 02:01:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I love how if bands like Echo came out with so-called atmospheric shoegazing over and over again then people would be happy, but it's U2 who can't be U2.  They have to always come out with different styles.

It's a hysterical double standard.  :D

Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #146 on: December 04, 2009, 02:04:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I love how if bands like Echo came out with so-called atmospheric shoegazing over and over again then people would be happy, but it's U2 who can't be U2.  They have to always come out with different styles.

It's a hysterical double standard.  :D
Mr T how old are you?

Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #147 on: December 04, 2009, 02:05:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anyway. u2 had a great run in the late 80's and 90's but the last decade was pretty lame and now people are moving away from them. Instead of playing festivals in order to try to get new fans they should make a better album than the last three. Go full trance or full Rick Rubin Johnny Cash style or just give it up. Nobody's waiting for another safe predictable U2 album. People won't buy into that any more. If they were planning another No line bomb or leave behind sounding album for SOA I would skip the whole album and come up with something else

"go trance or full Rick Rubin Johnny Cash style" WTF?

What really needs to happen is fans who only like one "phase" of U2 need to learn to move on.  Pining for U2 to return to
some style from 15 years ago can't be good for one's soul.  It's no different than disgruntled fans in 1993 waxing poetic about how good 1983 was and how trendy they are now.

U2 are sitting pretty. NLOTH is one of the bands best efforts, outmatched only by AB, TJT, and Boy.

Only one release on the planet has outsold NLOTH this year and the tour will wind up setting all time attendance records.

So, the notion that people are "moving away from them" is another fairy tale.


Michael Jackson outsold them.

Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #148 on: December 04, 2009, 02:08:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Michael Jackson outsold them.

He released new music this year?

I wasn't aware of that.

Is it any good?


Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #149 on: December 04, 2009, 02:08:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Michael Jackson outsold them.

He released new music this year?

I wasn't aware of that.

Is it any good?


Yep was brilliant. Any way how old are you?