Author Topic: U2 are for Teenagers  (Read 22456 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 #45 on: November 26, 2009, 01:50:06 PM »
Simple Minds' Once Upon a Time is directly influenced by the Unforgettable Fire

Offline Northern Soul

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,185
  • I'm not coming down...
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #46 on: November 26, 2009, 02:36:38 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
Man!
Frontman envy must be a painful disease...
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What a loser.  He is probably just upset that even Bugs Bunny is more famous than the Bunnymen.

bugs bunny is more famous than U2.

Ian McCulloch has always been tongue in cheek about these comments, some of them are actually quite hilarious. chill out, guys.


Exactly.  The Fountain is a good album, no matter how many it sells.  Ian McCulloch has been known to talk crap about other bands, and specifically U2.  Big deal...I dunno why people get so personally offended by this.

Offline mattyk

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 663
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #47 on: November 26, 2009, 03:47:54 PM »
Ian McCulloch hanging sh** on U2 - that's probably the only thing that's more predictable than whiney indie kids whinging about U2 playing Glastonbury. Just like Noel Gallagher, I tend to ignore anything that comes out of IM's mouth unless it's set to music. Not worth getting worked up over folks; although I think the reason people are getting worked up over these comments, Northern Soul, is that IM isn't just insulting the band, he's insulting the fans (i.e. us).

Offline boom boom

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,195
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #48 on: November 26, 2009, 04:03:22 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
Man!
Frontman envy must be a painful disease...
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What a loser.  He is probably just upset that even Bugs Bunny is more famous than the Bunnymen.

bugs bunny is more famous than U2.

Ian McCulloch has always been tongue in cheek about these comments, some of them are actually quite hilarious. chill out, guys.


Exactly.  The Fountain is a good album, no matter how many it sells.  Ian McCulloch has been known to talk crap about other bands, and specifically U2.  Big deal...I dunno why people get so personally offended by this.
It's not about being offended, it's about respect. U2 have always been a class act.  I don't think they ever criticized or made any bad remarks of bands that came before them, during their time of after them.  I know Bono had a spat with George Harrison(more like Harrison had something against U2) but never said anything against the Beatles.

Offline Joe90usa

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,570
  • Dragons Rule! Catfish Drool.
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #49 on: November 26, 2009, 08:32:01 PM »
I see some here don't really understand how important and influential Echo were back in the day. Johnnie Amsterdam mentioned a few bands that were musically superior to U2 back in the early and mid 80s. I would agree with that list in that time frame.

I do think the comments were ridiculous, but I don't see why people get worked up about it. It's an opinion and/or a sales tactic. Who cares?

Offline mtl_11

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • beaten and blown by the wind
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2009, 02:19:31 AM »
ian mcwhat now?  you can smell the jealousy off this nobody from miles away.

Offline Codex

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 92
  • Everything i thought i knew was wrong
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2009, 02:56:55 AM »
im a taxi driver in liverpool and i actually had mculloch as a customer back in 2001. we spoke about u2 and he called bono "a poisoned dwarf!" i judged the mood of the conversation we were having and then proceeded to systematically wipe the floor with any negative views he had of bono. he is a big liverpool fan so we had found common ground and we sat there talking for 20 minutes after we had arrived at his house. i even suggested to him that he was jealous of u2 and he looked at me smiled and said probably! he knows that talking about u2 makes his band and opinion appear relevant. which it ceased to become over 20 years ago.infact it wouldnt surprise me if he trawled the internet on a daily basis looking for sites like this one. because the more we mention echo and the bunnymen the better it  is for his"stuck in a time warp!" band. and i will tell you something else. this man is the biggest hypocrite to walk the planet. if anybody is an egotistical maniac its this man. at least bono can justify having a large ego. but i have to say that he was a really nice fella to talk to. down to earth but completley consumed with jealousy. u2 supported the bunnymen back in the 8o,s and he finds it hard to swallow.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 03:09:29 AM by al »

Offline miami

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,397
  • here comes the car chase!
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #52 on: November 27, 2009, 06:30:27 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
echo are musically better that U2. they were and still are one of my favourite bands form the 80's. man Ocean rain is still one of the best records from that era. Remember u2 wasn't that big or that good when Echo released Ocean rain. U2 was very influenced by them. So I understand that he's bitter that U2 became a bigger band. But in the end Bigger doesn't necessary means better. U2 was pretty good in the 80's but there wre bands who were far better then them, bands like souixie and the banshees, simple minds, talking heads, etc were musically far superior bands than U2 in those days. But then again the standard in the 80 were pretty high and damn good already. I remember when I heard New Years day for the first time and thought Damn that's pretty good and epic but then again so was How soon is now by the Smiths and New gold dream by the Simple minds or Rio by Duran Duran.


johnny, for somebody who prefers the 90's u2 (as i do), although i love no line on the horizon, i can't believe what i have just read at the end of your post above. "rio by duran duran is good and epic". now that's just horse sh*t! duran duran represent all that was bad about the 80's. i thought you had better musical taste.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 06:32:40 AM by miami »

Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #53 on: November 27, 2009, 08:19:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see some here don't really understand how important and influential Echo were back in the day. Johnnie Amsterdam mentioned a few bands that were musically superior to U2 back in the early and mid 80s. I would agree with that list in that time frame.

I do think the comments were ridiculous, but I don't see why people get worked up about it. It's an opinion and/or a sales tactic. Who cares?
i actually was a teen in those days so I really know what I'm talking about. u2 hit it really big with the Joshua tree. But the first halve were owned by bands like Echo and the bunny men (The Killing Moon is epic) The Killing Joke were one of those great bands, But man Oh man did the Simple Minds rule. Musically far more interesting than what U2 were doing. Even when I revisit both bands music from that timeframe I actually hear that simple minds were pushing boundaries while U2 were busy sounding like Echo, Banshees, Joy division, and even the simple minds, the minds were on a roll. Like Bono said, Simple Minds invented trance before it was called trance.

So for the first halve of the 80's Echo and the minds win over u2 who were trying to finding their way. And I'm not saying that they made bad music, they were actually pretty good but not as good as a lot of other bands who were musically far more interesting than U2 in those days.

Oh I almost forgot to name The Cure. Faith, Pornography, 17 second Kicked U2 butt in those days they were so good. That base player was really something. He himself was inspired by the work of the great peter hook. just as Adam Clayton and a lot of other baseplayers were.

Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #54 on: November 27, 2009, 08:20:42 AM »
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. they were and still are one of my favourite bands form the 80's. man Ocean rain is still one of the best records from that era. Remember u2 wasn't that big or that good when Echo released Ocean rain. U2 was very influenced by them. So I understand that he's bitter that U2 became a bigger band. But in the end Bigger doesn't necessary means better. U2 was pretty good in the 80's but there wre bands who were far better then them, bands like souixie and the banshees, simple minds, talking heads, etc were musically far superior bands than U2 in those days. But then again the standard in the 80 were pretty high and damn good already. I remember when I heard New Years day for the first time and thought Damn that's pretty good and epic but then again so was How soon is now by the Smiths and New gold dream by the Simple minds or Rio by Duran Duran.


johnny, for somebody who prefers the 90's u2 (as i do), although i love no line on the horizon, i can't believe what i have just read at the end of your post above. "rio by duran duran is good and epic". now that's just horse sh*t! duran duran represent all that was bad about the 80's. i thought you had better musical taste.
Oh I really love duran duran. Girls on films was a great track so was say a prayer, a view to a kill, hungry like a wolf and yes Rio

Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #55 on: November 27, 2009, 08:21:40 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Simple Minds' Once Upon a Time is directly influenced by the Unforgettable Fire
and TUF was directly influenced by  New Gold Dream

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 #56 on: November 27, 2009, 08:57:45 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see some here don't really understand how important and influential Echo were back in the day. Johnnie Amsterdam mentioned a few bands that were musically superior to U2 back in the early and mid 80s. I would agree with that list in that time frame.

I do think the comments were ridiculous, but I don't see why people get worked up about it. It's an opinion and/or a sales tactic. Who cares?

Oh, there's no doubt that from 1980-1984, Echo, Simple Minds and others had moments and albums that were superior to U2 musically. Whether or not Ian says what he says to get a rise out of people, sell his record, exhibit his musical knowledge, is irrelevant. What it looks like is someone who is mad because his band peaked at the wrong time. Ocean Rain is a stellar, vastly influential album which deserves all of its accolades. Fountain Rain is not. Even so, debating Echo's "importance and influence" on other bands doesn't really have much to do with the topic of this thread.

Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: U2 are for Teenagers
« Reply #57 on: November 27, 2009, 09:19:31 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see some here don't really understand how important and influential Echo were back in the day. Johnnie Amsterdam mentioned a few bands that were musically superior to U2 back in the early and mid 80s. I would agree with that list in that time frame.

I do think the comments were ridiculous, but I don't see why people get worked up about it. It's an opinion and/or a sales tactic. Who cares?

Oh, there's no doubt that from 1980-1984, Echo, Simple Minds and others had moments and albums that were superior to U2 musically. Whether or not Ian says what he says to get a rise out of people, sell his record, exhibit his musical knowledge, is irrelevant. What it looks like is someone who is mad because his band peaked at the wrong time. Ocean Rain is a stellar, vastly influential album which deserves all of its accolades. Fountain Rain is not. Even so, debating Echo's "importance and influence" on other bands doesn't really have much to do with the topic of this thread.
Not just moments. They were musically far better than U2. U2 were great but far from the best those days had to offer. What I love about that era is that everything seemed to be on a igh quality of art. Movies music art everything was really really Great. Damn it we had really great band and movies Like E.T, blade runner. Empire strikes back (1980) Indiana Jones and lots more. I love the creative energy that was in the air in those days. I sometimes really miss that part of it.

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 #58 on: November 27, 2009, 01:18:12 PM »
"Were" being the key word, absolutely. Couldn't agree more. The funny thing is, Bono and U2 agree with this as well and make no bones talking about being novices musically back in this era.

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 #59 on: November 27, 2009, 01:28:17 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. they were and still are one of my favourite bands form the 80's. man Ocean rain is still one of the best records from that era. Remember u2 wasn't that big or that good when Echo released Ocean rain. U2 was very influenced by them. So I understand that he's bitter that U2 became a bigger band. But in the end Bigger doesn't necessary means better. U2 was pretty good in the 80's but there wre bands who were far better then them, bands like souixie and the banshees, simple minds, talking heads, etc were musically far superior bands than U2 in those days. But then again the standard in the 80 were pretty high and damn good already. I remember when I heard New Years day for the first time and thought Damn that's pretty good and epic but then again so was How soon is now by the Smiths and New gold dream by the Simple minds or Rio by Duran Duran.


johnny, for somebody who prefers the 90's u2 (as i do), although i love no line on the horizon, i can't believe what i have just read at the end of your post above. "rio by duran duran is good and epic". now that's just horse sh*t! duran duran represent all that was bad about the 80's. i thought you had better musical taste.


I think Duran Duran have released better albums, but RIO is an album that is sorely underrated.