@U2 Forum

U2 => News and Rumors => Topic started by: Jono on November 25, 2009, 12:14:44 PM

Title: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Jono on November 25, 2009, 12:14:44 PM
Man!
Frontman envy must be a painful disease...
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mcculloch-u2-are-for-teenagers_1123563 (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mcculloch-u2-are-for-teenagers_1123563)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: U2Pride on November 25, 2009, 12:49:09 PM
Wow. All I have to say about that is - That was harsh.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on November 25, 2009, 12:51:38 PM
It's funny how Mcculloch criticizes Bono and U2 for wanting to be famous and successful. I'm pretty sure Ian knows everytime he brings up U2's name it brings him attention, especially since "The Fountain" is tanking faster than the Exxon Valdez. Sounds like he's afraid to let his music speak for itself.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: U2Pride on November 25, 2009, 12:59:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's funny how Mcculloch criticizes Bono and U2 for wanting to be famous and successful. I'm pretty sure Ian knows everytime he brings up U2's name it brings him attention, especially since "The Fountain" is tanking faster than the Exxon Valdez. Sounds like he's afraid to let his music speak for itself.

 :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: shockdocta22 on November 25, 2009, 01:24:36 PM
"U2 is for 14 year olds"

Correction: U2 is for THIS 14 year old

too bad they are not as good, or as big as U2, or ever will be ::)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: U2Pride on November 25, 2009, 01:26:17 PM
I'm pretty sure all the teens I know think U2 are old and they hate their music. Just throwin' that out there.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: shockdocta22 on November 25, 2009, 01:26:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm pretty sure all the teens I know think U2 are old and they hate their music. Just throwin' that out there.

x500
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: trlica on November 25, 2009, 01:38:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm pretty sure all the teens I know think U2 are old and they hate their music. Just throwin' that out there.

x500

I agree.
Who said such a thing? >:(
U2 is for everybody who are older then 14.
U2 is for US on this forum, for US who are obssesed with them ;D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: jfp612 on November 25, 2009, 01:48:15 PM
I think he's got a case of U2 Derangement Syndrome (U2DS).  Usually I associate this with politicians.  Such as Bush or Clinton Derangement Syndrome.  Very dangerous indeed if you let it get the better of you.

Seriously though, I like some Echo & The Bunnymen songs, but it's not as though they've revealed the meaning of life.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: The Unknown Caller on November 25, 2009, 02:26:24 PM
Well, I suppose it's not as though McCulloch knows anything about getting young OR old fans, so it's probably not wise to listen to him.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: u2matters on November 25, 2009, 02:36:09 PM
really? this is not a story from The Onion?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 25, 2009, 03:06:24 PM
Now there's a Band. Echo and the Bunny men are great. legends
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Dream Out Loud on November 25, 2009, 03:34:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now there's a Band. Echo and the Bunny men are great. legends

but they don't have any mutant punks at their shows.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: boom boom on November 25, 2009, 03:50:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Man!
Frontman envy must be a painful disease...
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mcculloch-u2-are-for-teenagers_1123563 (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mcculloch-u2-are-for-teenagers_1123563)

What a loser.  He is probably just upset that even Bugs Bunny is more famous than the Bunnymen.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Rob of the leads york on November 25, 2009, 04:08:13 PM
IAN MCCULLOCH = FAILS AT LIFE
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Boom Cha! on November 25, 2009, 04:15:51 PM
I like Echo & The Bunnymen, but he's kind of an a-hole. He not only insulted U2, but he insulted us fans.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aiden on November 25, 2009, 04:18:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, I suppose it's not as though McCulloch knows anything about getting young OR old fans, so it's probably not wise to listen to him.

HARSH! But true. :)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: dudette on November 25, 2009, 04:22:02 PM
It's never a good idea to insult fans... they can havea lot of revenge...  ;D I never really thought U2 was a teenagery type of band, I mean, I'm 14 and NONE and I repeat NONE of my friends had heard of them. Let me repeat NONE. Most thought I was saying Youtube. Yeah... I mean, c'mon, 14 year olds only like Taylor Swift and the Jonas Brothers... it's sad. I'm sorry to be 14.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: rattleandhum24 on November 25, 2009, 04:31:24 PM
I had no idea that I was flag-waving, immature, 14-years old and shallow.  ::)  Thank you Ian McCulloch for helping me see the light.

*COUGH**COUGH*
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: dudette on November 25, 2009, 04:35:51 PM
HA HA HA HA! Loved that! Still wished I wasn't 14... then I could help go against him but darn my age cuz now I can't be like "no teenagers listen to him." Oh well... But I'm not flag-waving, immature or shallow so I'm in the clear.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on November 25, 2009, 06:24:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I like Echo & The Bunnymen, but he's kind of an a-hole. He not only insulted U2, but he insulted us fans.

I wonder if he has an Hootie complex.  You know, people come up to Darius Rucker from Hootie and the Blowfish all the time and say "Hootie!", so I'm sure Ian has people coming up to him and saying "Echo!"

His comments also show how clearly out of touch he is with U2's music. Other than my child, I don't know of any teenage U2 fans. Sounds like he is just regurgitating his old party line. I remember when U2 released POP, he actually said that Bono's voice was "too breathy", whatever that means. Something tells me Ian's wife or girlfriend really loves Bono so it drives him up the wall.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Boom Cha! on November 25, 2009, 06:27:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I like Echo & The Bunnymen, but he's kind of an a-hole. He not only insulted U2, but he insulted us fans.

I wonder if he has an Hootie complex.  You know, people come up to Darius Rucker from Hootie and the Blowfish all the time and say "Hootie!", so I'm sure Ian has people coming up to him and saying "Echo!"

I'd call him The Bunnyman.  :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: RunningtoStandstill (The League of Extraordinary BonoPeople) on November 25, 2009, 07:24:33 PM
...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.  wow.  people like this i don't even bother listening to because they're just complete idiots.  i'm quite surprised he says nobody says they're influenced by U2...i guess he's never heard of coldplay...or basically every other band that got started in the 90s. 
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T on November 25, 2009, 07:36:24 PM
I don't think he's done a single interview over the past 15 years where he doesn't mention U2.

And he can't even rip on them propper. If anything, U2 are a geezer band.

And Coldplay, The Killers, & Kings Of Leon, three of the biggest bands in the world right now, all cite U2 as an influence. And obviously so.

I will add that "Think I Need It Too" rips.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: StrongGirl on November 25, 2009, 08:07:38 PM
Do you believe I won a ticket to see Ian in the small acoustic gig he is doing at the record store in NYC?  >:(
I love the Bunnymen but I think I may have to boycott that thing!!! 
Or maybe I should go and give him a piece of my U2 mind  :P :P :P :P   What do you think forum friends....should StrongGirl go and show him what U2 fans are made of!!!! :D  ;)

Seriously, I do like them very much but those comments were very mean and uncalled for. You could say you don't care for a band in a classier way than that in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T on November 25, 2009, 08:11:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you believe I won a ticket to see Ian in the small acoustic gig he is doing at the record store in NYC?  >:(
I love the Bunnymen but I think I may have to boycott that thing!!! 
Or maybe I should go and give him a piece of my U2 mind  :P :P :P :P   What do you think forum friends....should StrongGirl go and show him what U2 fans are made of!!!! :D  ;)

Seriously, I do like them very much but those comments were very mean and uncalled for. You could say you don't care for a band in a classier way than that in my humble opinion.

Go. Wear your most obvious U2 shirt. Find the front row. If he gives you sh**, give him the bird. Enjoy his music.

He rags on Weller all the time as well. Ian must have a thing for superior creators.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: halljoh2 on November 25, 2009, 08:16:36 PM
U2 are a band for teenagers... just look at all of us here...  Vertigo brought in a ton of new fans, when i sneakily check peoples ipod to see if i can trust them, there are often 1 or 2 U2 songs and they're usually from HTDAAB or ATYCLB.  (or Mysterious Ways, i find that a lot)  So i wouldn't necessarily say they are a geezer band, there are plenty of fans at all age levels.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: EdgeFest [Zenmaster360] on November 25, 2009, 10:14:21 PM
Well... the teen thread is almost as big as the OLC now... :D

Seriously why were most people my age or older than me at the shows then?  (I'm 35, folks)

I don't know of a band that has a WIDER appeal than U2.  That's really saying a LOT.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He rags on Weller all the time as well. Ian must have a thing for superior creators.

It's a bit of Northern English cheek from Ian too, in the Noel Gallagher style... ;)

But, as much as you may say Oasis is just like that, they totally pay homage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVNO10Bm8lk
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: RunningtoStandstill (The League of Extraordinary BonoPeople) on November 25, 2009, 10:42:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Or maybe I should go and give him a piece of my U2 mind  :P :P :P :P   What do you think forum friends....should StrongGirl go and show him what U2 fans are made of!!!! :D  ;)


give him a good whallopping from me strongirl!!  :D :D ;)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on November 25, 2009, 11:25:57 PM
This guy is a complete idiot.
Firstly, U2 is about as cool as Star Trek nerds to teenagers. Because most don't know the first thing about them, they assume they make old, crap music. The key word is OLD.
Just a few hours ago, someone at school said to me,  "what music do you listen to?". I told him U2. He replied "THEY ARE SO OLD!" I asked him if he knew what type of music U2 made. He replied "They just make love songs". He was also under the impression that U2 were in their prime during the mid 70's.
The ignorance annoyed me, but it is what I get every time I mention U2.
OLD.
Now this guy is obviously a U2 hater. I simply can't grasp why U2 should be hated. It's a bandwagon that is extremely fun to jump on, because there are a lot of things you can assume... like "Bono is arrogant" (because of all the accolades the band has received) or "Bono is a hypocrite" (because he is charitable) and "they make boring music" (because they shyed away from the traditional rock sound and aren't emo either).
If this guy uses his time in interviews to insult U2 he has serious issues. What is more likely is he's using their name for publicity.
U2's appeal is to a wide, wide, audience. They get a few teens, who bother to LISTEN to their music, like me, and they have fans from way back as well. There is no merit in any of his statements.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: bachor on November 26, 2009, 02:58:38 AM
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...
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mcculloch-u2-are-for-teenagers_1123563 (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mcculloch-u2-are-for-teenagers_1123563)

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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 26, 2009, 03:46:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on November 26, 2009, 04:03:36 AM
Now time to point and laugh at our favourite 'soddin' mountain goat' McCullouch.

 :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Jono on November 26, 2009, 07:52:27 AM
not sure if Ian is ever 'tongue in cheek' as he is a bit of a drama Q!
Also props to Bugs Bunny for his longevity but i think if you polled anyone under 25 they know the brand U2 (whether labeled 'old' or not) more than the BB brand!
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Jono on November 26, 2009, 07:53:38 AM
one  more...
LOVE Simple Minds, but NO WAY are they better musically than U2!! Let's keep it real!
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: LMbVOXedgeAC [aka LMB] on November 26, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
He is so envious... No band ever lists U2 as an influence?  I think that's an outright lie!

Makes me think of when Arcade Fire dissed U2... The band that was playing them over the PA before their shows on the Vertigo tour...  ::)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: shockdocta22 on November 26, 2009, 08:07:05 AM
LOL how can he say they dont influence ::)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 26, 2009, 08:14:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
one  more...
LOVE Simple Minds, but NO WAY are they better musically than U2!! Let's keep it real!
They were far better than U2 in the 80's and i mean the first halve the 80's simple minds Kicked their butt. U2 was just gearing up But Simple released brilliant music one after the other. sons of fascination/sister feelings call, empire and dance and their masterpiece new gold dream. they were far better musicians u2 in those days.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 26, 2009, 08:15:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL how can he say they dont influence ::)
Echo and the Bunnymen influenced U2 in the 80's Just like Simple minds and Joy division influenced U2 in the 80's
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: shockdocta22 on November 26, 2009, 08:31:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL how can he say they dont influence ::)
Echo and the Bunnymen influenced U2 in the 80's Just like Simple minds and Joy division influenced U2 in the 80's

just like U2 influenced almost every big band today ::)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 26, 2009, 08:40:49 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
LOL how can he say they dont influence ::)
Echo and the Bunnymen influenced U2 in the 80's Just like Simple minds and Joy division influenced U2 in the 80's

just like U2 influenced almost every big band today ::)
except Radiohead. Their a league of their own. Anyway not al bands are influenced by U2 and worst even u2 where influenced by great band and artists, and came up with great albums themselves for a while. But these new bands they've influenced are mostly mediocre to horrible to utterly unlistenable.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: eddyjedi on November 26, 2009, 09:04:30 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
LOL how can he say they dont influence ::)
Echo and the Bunnymen influenced U2 in the 80's Just like Simple minds and Joy division influenced U2 in the 80's

just like U2 influenced almost every big band today ::)
except Radiohead. Their a league of their own. Anyway not al bands are influenced by U2 and worst even u2 where influenced by great band and artists, and came up with great albums themselves for a while. But these new bands they've influenced are mostly mediocre to horrible to utterly unlistenable.

Listen to Zooropa and then listen to Kid A, their influence is all over it. They can have that league of their own anyway, dreary, downbeat, drony rubbish as far as i'm concerned. They have a handful of good songs, one of them being high and dry.

If you listen to U2 haters today the first thing they will say is bono is an idiot, nothing to do with the music of the band. They have heard the odd single (which inherently do not represent the tone of their albums anymore) and slate them. That's all it comes down to. I really think glasto has the potential to either make or break this band and usually when they have their backs against the wall, they nail it, every time.

Roll on June 25th
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: ayajedi on November 26, 2009, 10:39:30 AM
Ian has been griping about Bono/U2 for years and years. I think it is partly jealousy/envy and frustration.
I don't pay him any mind, I like 1 Echo song in the  80s but i like countless U2 songs, so........
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: zooey on November 26, 2009, 10:40:07 AM
about the article: lol
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 26, 2009, 12:46:07 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
LOL how can he say they dont influence ::)
Echo and the Bunnymen influenced U2 in the 80's Just like Simple minds and Joy division influenced U2 in the 80's

just like U2 influenced almost every big band today ::)
except Radiohead. Their a league of their own. Anyway not al bands are influenced by U2 and worst even u2 where influenced by great band and artists, and came up with great albums themselves for a while. But these new bands they've influenced are mostly mediocre to horrible to utterly unlistenable.

Listen to Zooropa and then listen to Kid A, their influence is all over it. They can have that league of their own anyway, dreary, downbeat, drony rubbish as far as i'm concerned. They have a handful of good songs, one of them being high and dry.

If you listen to U2 haters today the first thing they will say is bono is an idiot, nothing to do with the music of the band. They have heard the odd single (which inherently do not represent the tone of their albums anymore) and slate them. That's all it comes down to. I really think glasto has the potential to either make or break this band and usually when they have their backs against the wall, they nail it, every time.

Roll on June 25th
well listen to new gold dream and listen to Zooropa. New gold dream's influence can be heard all over it.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on November 26, 2009, 01:50:06 PM
Simple Minds' Once Upon a Time is directly influenced by the Unforgettable Fire
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Northern Soul 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...
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mcculloch-u2-are-for-teenagers_1123563 (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mcculloch-u2-are-for-teenagers_1123563)

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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: mattyk 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).
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: boom boom 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...
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mcculloch-u2-are-for-teenagers_1123563 (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mcculloch-u2-are-for-teenagers_1123563)

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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe90usa 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?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: mtl_11 on November 27, 2009, 02:19:31 AM
ian mcwhat now?  you can smell the jealousy off this nobody from miles away.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Codex 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: miami 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: robert on November 27, 2009, 01:40:39 PM
thats bo****ks.

the only immature songs I can think of our vertigo (and its a bit of fun the the older people) i will follow (which should be taken seriously) elevation, i'll go crazy if I dont go crazy...
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: uplate6674 on November 27, 2009, 01:58:16 PM
Dude clearly hasn't looked at the results of the atu2.com reader surveys.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: robert on November 27, 2009, 02:46:48 PM
some songs even relate to literature! thats why no one cares about echo because there ignorant and stubborn. Listening to echo is like running blind.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: StrongGirl on November 27, 2009, 03:24:18 PM
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 mentioned in the other thread that a younger salesperson in the record store where Ian is doing his acoustic set told my friend on the phone that they were a small but good indie band.  ;D  He hung up on her when she told him how influencial they really were back in the 80's !   ;)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: StrongGirl on November 27, 2009, 03:26:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.

Wow, very interesting story, al! 
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Miami66 on November 27, 2009, 06:46:52 PM
U2 is for Teenagers... I wish  ;)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on November 27, 2009, 11:23:22 PM
If U2 were for teenagers then it'd be as big a phenomenon as Twilight, Miley Cyrus etc. So no thank you.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: j2736 (i'm not a boy ! ) on November 28, 2009, 12:50:01 AM
Ian is old but thinks like a 14 year old.  :D and it's a thing he cannot accept because he LOVES U2 which he cannot also accept and admit. would he be jealous if he doesn't find U2 actually very good?? IAN is a great example of a Hypocrite!  >:(
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 28, 2009, 01:43:01 AM
U2 actually want the teenagers.  They want them so bad is a sad sight to see.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: beau99 on November 28, 2009, 01:57:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 actually want the teenagers.  They want them so bad is a sad sight to see.
Oh, hush.

If you hate U2 now, why are you still here?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on November 28, 2009, 02:26:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 actually want the teenagers.  They want them so bad is a sad sight to see.
Oh, hush.

If you hate U2 now, why are you still here?

That's something many of us have wanted to know for quite a while.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: morph on November 28, 2009, 02:27:07 AM
I think Ian's quite a funny bloke. Part of me finds it entertaining when people like him and (former Bunnymen manager and KLF member) Bill Drummond slag the band off - at least they do it with wit!
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 28, 2009, 04:04:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 actually want the teenagers.  They want them so bad is a sad sight to see.
Oh, hush.

If you hate U2 now, why are you still here?
I don't hate U2 dude. But how many time shave we heard from u2 that they want to resonate to the younger crowd. Why do you think they released Boots?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on November 28, 2009, 04:48:31 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
U2 actually want the teenagers.  They want them so bad is a sad sight to see.
Oh, hush.

If you hate U2 now, why are you still here?
I don't hate U2 dude. But how many time shave we heard from u2 that they want to resonate to the younger crowd. Why do you think they released Boots?
U2 want to appeal to a younger demographic because they don't want to be the Stones. One of your favorite bands is trying to be relevant- they aren't giving up and becoming a heritage act. I for one am proud of that.
IMO, Boots was the only song the initially thought would appeal to a younger audience. That song is not for young people. It is not a Pop song, nor is it easy to digest. It's gritty U2. I will say it again. U2 are not for teens.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 28, 2009, 04:55:47 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
U2 actually want the teenagers.  They want them so bad is a sad sight to see.
Oh, hush.

If you hate U2 now, why are you still here?
I don't hate U2 dude. But how many time shave we heard from u2 that they want to resonate to the younger crowd. Why do you think they released Boots?
U2 want to appeal to a younger demographic because they don't want to be the Stones. One of your favorite bands is trying to be relevant- they aren't giving up and becoming a heritage act. I for one am proud of that.
IMO, Boots was the only song the initially thought would appeal to a younger audience. That song is not for young people. It is not a Pop song, nor is it easy to digest. It's gritty U2. I will say it again. U2 are not for teens.

Well U2 are not for teens? then why did I liked them when I was a teen? My older brothers and sisters liked them too and they weren't teens any more. because their music was good in the 80's (the latter half even better) and damn good in the 90's When I wasn't a teen anymore and they weren't even trying to connect to the teens but to the world in general. But this focus on teens is killing their creativity. it used to come naturally because trying to connect with teens wasn't in their vocabulary. Now that it is it feels waaaay to forced. and It gave Us Boots.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 28, 2009, 05:00:06 AM
Funny thing: I have the track flying form the E.T movie by spielberg playing on my Itunes. And what I remember of that movie that Spielberg wanted to make  childrens movie which actually resonated also to the adult moviegoers This was cause the movie itself was so damn good. same happend with star wars which was intended to be a childrens movie but adult liked it too.

But U2 are going the wrong way with this thinking children actually like get on your boots while there are better songs for teens to listen to these days most of these bands when tehy are serious are very dark and brooding. Just like us used to be.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on November 28, 2009, 05:26:43 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
U2 actually want the teenagers.  They want them so bad is a sad sight to see.
Oh, hush.

If you hate U2 now, why are you still here?
I don't hate U2 dude. But how many time shave we heard from u2 that they want to resonate to the younger crowd. Why do you think they released Boots?
U2 want to appeal to a younger demographic because they don't want to be the Stones. One of your favorite bands is trying to be relevant- they aren't giving up and becoming a heritage act. I for one am proud of that.
IMO, Boots was the only song the initially thought would appeal to a younger audience. That song is not for young people. It is not a Pop song, nor is it easy to digest. It's gritty U2. I will say it again. U2 are not for teens.

Well U2 are not for teens? then why did I liked them when I was a teen? My older brothers and sisters liked them too and they weren't teens any more. because their music was good in the 80's (the latter half even better) and damn good in the 90's When I wasn't a teen anymore and they weren't even trying to connect to the teens but to the world in general. But this focus on teens is killing their creativity. it used to come naturally because trying to connect with teens wasn't in their vocabulary. Now that it is it feels waaaay to forced. and It gave Us Boots.
I think you're on to something in that it is killing their creativity and they are forcing it. I LOVE the past three albums, ATYCLB the most, but they did force the issue in Bomb and ATYCLB. I am a teen. But I look for different things than most in a song. U2 were never for teens, whether they tried to be or didn't.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 28, 2009, 05:30:10 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
U2 actually want the teenagers.  They want them so bad is a sad sight to see.
Oh, hush.

If you hate U2 now, why are you still here?
I don't hate U2 dude. But how many time shave we heard from u2 that they want to resonate to the younger crowd. Why do you think they released Boots?
U2 want to appeal to a younger demographic because they don't want to be the Stones. One of your favorite bands is trying to be relevant- they aren't giving up and becoming a heritage act. I for one am proud of that.
IMO, Boots was the only song the initially thought would appeal to a younger audience. That song is not for young people. It is not a Pop song, nor is it easy to digest. It's gritty U2. I will say it again. U2 are not for teens.

Well U2 are not for teens? then why did I liked them when I was a teen? My older brothers and sisters liked them too and they weren't teens any more. because their music was good in the 80's (the latter half even better) and damn good in the 90's When I wasn't a teen anymore and they weren't even trying to connect to the teens but to the world in general. But this focus on teens is killing their creativity. it used to come naturally because trying to connect with teens wasn't in their vocabulary. Now that it is it feels waaaay to forced. and It gave Us Boots.
I think you're on to something in that it is killing their creativity and they are forcing it. I LOVE the past three albums, ATYCLB the most, but they did force the issue in Bomb and ATYCLB. I am a teen. But I look for different things than most in a song. U2 were never for teens, whether they tried to be or didn't.
When i was teen like 12 a lot of teens liked them but also an older generation loved them. So you're very right if you say that were never for teens They were making music for everybody. And It work very well. Till they tried to force connecting to teens.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on November 28, 2009, 05:38:48 AM
They need to try harder to be popular amongst teens now because they are old. Back in the days of ZooTv U2 were young and as cool as they ever were. Teens were more attracted by that type of dynamic U2. U2 today is a lot less groundbreaking and a lot more old, and therefore teens that stray from straight out Pop won't find U2 like they did in the 90's.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Trillian on November 28, 2009, 07:16:18 AM
Quote
"But I can't see mature people or kids, who are looking for something, something deep -- something that you just know it's art and it's going to change your life -- caring.

Is that Ian calling U2 fans immature? He needs to take a look in the mirror some time. I got into U2 as a teenager about 6 years ago - in between ATYCLB and HTDAAB - but not because I was looking for throwaway pop songs, I was looking for the opposite. Of course there were songs on those albums that were universally liked, but I think that's where the mistake is made that well-liked = lowest common denominator music = immature = teenagers. Among Beautiful Day and Elevation you have songs like Kite, When I Look At The World, Peace on Earth; songs that in no way pander to the more 'immature' audiences Ian is suggesting. They still make music that all age groups can associate with, which is why they're still relevant among teenagers, those in their twenties, thirties and all across the board. You can see it when you attend a concert, seeing people from all walks of life and age groups in attendance. It's not difficult to see that Ian's jealous of this, and, as a result, their continued relevance in pop culture. I do agree Boots was a mis-step in terms of releasing it first, but I wouldn't call its existence a mistake. It, Crazy and Stand Up Comedy fit nicely to counterbalance the bleakness of White As Snow and Cedars of Lebanon with a joy that Bono has himself said can put people off their music. Whether it's Where The Streets Have No Name or I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight, though, to me it's as cherished a part of their music as the unflinching honesty of One or Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own and the grit of Acrobat or Gone. 
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 28, 2009, 12:27:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They need to try harder to be popular amongst teens now because they are old. Back in the days of ZooTv U2 were young and as cool as they ever were. Teens were more attracted by that type of dynamic U2. U2 today is a lot less groundbreaking and a lot more old, and therefore teens that stray from straight out Pop won't find U2 like they did in the 90's.
They can be groundbreaking if they want. They just need to make good music and go really deep again and don't worry so much about selling records. the moment they stop doing that they'll suddenly come of with something and by surprise sell a lot of records because it's good not because it sound commercially safe.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on November 28, 2009, 12:57:15 PM
U2 doesn't have to play one more note of music ever and their legacy is secure. U2 could make an album with William Hung and the Jonas Brothers and their legacy is secure. U2 could stick up both middle fingers while mooning the crowd at Glastonbury and their legacy is secure. In other words, U2 doesn't have to, or need to, do a damn thing.  Even with a completely secure legacy, NLOTH and 360 challenged their audience to expand their perception of what U2 could accomplish both musically and theatrically. Some liked it, some hated it. Either way, U2 has earned their spot in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. U2 has earned all of their awards. U2 has broken concert attendance records time after time. Like Ian Mcculloch, the haters can find a way to deal with it. They always do.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 28, 2009, 01:11:45 PM
U2 needs to play the better songs from the 90's and before that if they want to kick butt at this festival. It's a great chance to show how good they can be. Bono should not preach a word cause that's what puts people off. And Adam should turn the volume of his base up to eleven.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on November 28, 2009, 06:27:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 needs to play the better songs from the 90's and before that if they want to kick butt at this festival. It's a great chance to show how good they can be. Bono should not preach a word cause that's what puts people off. And Adam should turn the volume of his base up to eleven.
I agree.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T on November 28, 2009, 08:05:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
echo are musically better that U2.

No. That's simply wrong.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on November 28, 2009, 10:58:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
"But I can't see mature people or kids, who are looking for something, something deep -- something that you just know it's art and it's going to change your life -- caring.

Is that Ian calling U2 fans immature? He needs to take a look in the mirror some time. I got into U2 as a teenager about 6 years ago - in between ATYCLB and HTDAAB - but not because I was looking for throwaway pop songs, I was looking for the opposite. Of course there were songs on those albums that were universally liked, but I think that's where the mistake is made that well-liked = lowest common denominator music = immature = teenagers. Among Beautiful Day and Elevation you have songs like Kite, When I Look At The World, Peace on Earth; songs that in no way pander to the more 'immature' audiences Ian is suggesting. They still make music that all age groups can associate with, which is why they're still relevant among teenagers, those in their twenties, thirties and all across the board. You can see it when you attend a concert, seeing people from all walks of life and age groups in attendance. It's not difficult to see that Ian's jealous of this, and, as a result, their continued relevance in pop culture. I do agree Boots was a mis-step in terms of releasing it first, but I wouldn't call its existence a mistake. It, Crazy and Stand Up Comedy fit nicely to counterbalance the bleakness of White As Snow and Cedars of Lebanon with a joy that Bono has himself said can put people off their music. Whether it's Where The Streets Have No Name or I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight, though, to me it's as cherished a part of their music as the unflinching honesty of One or Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own and the grit of Acrobat or Gone. 

Great post.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 29, 2009, 03:06:45 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.

No. That's simply wrong.
No that's the truth. Just listen to the stuff Echo did in the 80's Ocean rain beats any of U2's 80's albums. It's that good.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: deco20 on November 29, 2009, 07:20:40 AM
Ian, Ian, Ian...as much as I adore Echo, I really think you are a closet U2 fan.

To diss U2 that much means you listen to them that much and think of the witty remarks to discuss U2.

"u2 are for teenagers" Ian says while secretly humming Lemon...lol
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Dream Out Loud on November 29, 2009, 08:31:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 doesn't have to play one more note of music ever and their legacy is secure. U2 could make an album with William Hung and the Jonas Brothers and their legacy is secure. U2 could stick up both middle fingers while mooning the crowd at Glastonbury and their legacy is secure. In other words, U2 doesn't have to, or need to, do a damn thing.  Even with a completely secure legacy, NLOTH and 360 challenged their audience to expand their perception of what U2 could accomplish both musically and theatrically. Some liked it, some hated it. Either way, U2 has earned their spot in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. U2 has earned all of their awards. U2 has broken concert attendance records time after time. Like Ian Mcculloch, the haters can find a way to deal with it. They always do.


i totally agree.  I also believe that Teenagers = Pop Music; and Pop Music = fleeting attention; pop music from 5 years ago is already out of fashion.  They day they even strive for the teen audience, let alone reel in the teen audience, is the day they put their interest in album sales over their interest in making good music. 
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: dudette on November 29, 2009, 10:51:26 AM
Quote
U2 doesn't have to play one more note of music ever and their legacy is secure. U2 could make an album with William Hung and the Jonas Brothers and their legacy is secure. U2 could stick up both middle fingers while mooning the crowd at Glastonbury and their legacy is secure. In other words, U2 doesn't have to, or need to, do a damn thing.  Even with a completely secure legacy, NLOTH and 360 challenged their audience to expand their perception of what U2 could accomplish both musically and theatrically. Some liked it, some hated it. Either way, U2 has earned their spot in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. U2 has earned all of their awards. U2 has broken concert attendance records time after time. Like Ian Mcculloch, the haters can find a way to deal with it. They always do.

That is put so well. I am in awe.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on November 30, 2009, 09:04:37 AM
Simple Minds WAS great. Graffiti Soul is quite mediocre. One of those bands, like Echo and the Bunnymen, that peaked around 1981.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 30, 2009, 09:17:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Simple Minds WAS great. Graffiti Soul is quite mediocre. One of those bands, like Echo and the Bunnymen, that peaked around 1981.
Really Simple minds peaked around 81?
I always though they peaked with New Gold Dream? Graffiti soul is actually a better album than No line. Simple Minds were really lacking since the end of the 80's but Graffiti Soul is a great comeback.  Their opening song Moscow underground Crushes U2's opening song No line on the horizon. Not their best album but actually surprisingly good. At least The Minds Sound Like they're trying. U2 sound like they a margaritas on a French beach too many.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on November 30, 2009, 09:22:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Simple Minds WAS great. Graffiti Soul is quite mediocre. One of those bands, like Echo and the Bunnymen, that peaked around 1981.
Really Simple minds peaked around 81?
I always though they peaked with New Gold Dream? Graffiti soul is actually a better album than No line. Simple Minds were really lacking since the end of the 80's but Graffiti Soul is a great comeback.  Their opening song Moscow underground Crushes U2's opening song No line on the horizon. Not their best album but actually surprisingly good. At least The Minds Sound Like they're trying. U2 sound like they a margaritas on a French beach too many.


Yep. Simple Minds peaked around 1981. NLOTH is "infinitely" better than GS. Moscow Underground is a decent enough song but NLOTH blows it away.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on November 30, 2009, 09:25:13 AM
U2 peaked in 1993. After Zooropa it's been downhill. Pop's good but not great. Kinda like a blib on the radar after that the star went dead.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on November 30, 2009, 09:38:19 AM
POP is a great album.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on November 30, 2009, 09:48:39 AM
Ya know, ironically enough, I can't think of one song that U2 has done specifically designed for teenagers. "The Cutter", on the other hand, could be interpreted as identifying with teens with "cut" themselves.  :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Jono on November 30, 2009, 05:53:34 PM
funny if you google 'teenagers love U2', the top of the search results goes to this-
http://www.dibbleinstitute.org/love_u2_phi.htm (http://www.dibbleinstitute.org/love_u2_phi.htm)
and then some really politically incorrect sites or just incorrect period!!
...so don't do the search~
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Jono on November 30, 2009, 06:07:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 peaked in 1993. After Zooropa it's been downhill. Pop's good but not great. Kinda like a blib on the radar after that the star went dead.
it's all just humble opinions right JA?
mine are almost polar opposite to yours usually and all I can say, there are plenty of nuggets to be found between '93 and '09 and quite simply stated a lyric comes to mind...
"i did not notice the passersby and they did not notice me..."

So without U2 2009 we would have never heard that wonderful line, so shame on the thought that there was or will ever be a peak!!
U2 forever!!
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: shockdocta22 on November 30, 2009, 06:09:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 peaked in 1993. After Zooropa it's been downhill. Pop's good but not great. Kinda like a blib on the radar after that the star went dead.

Pop was better than Zooropa

and NLOTH was better than Pop
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: tsakhuja [Desert Sky] on November 30, 2009, 06:59:56 PM
In my experience the majority of the people at a U2 concert are not teenagers.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 01, 2009, 02:01:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In my experience the majority of the people at a U2 concert are not teenagers.
Or even hardcore fans. A lot of people come to see the brand U2 play.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 01, 2009, 03:25:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 peaked in 1993. After Zooropa it's been downhill. Pop's good but not great. Kinda like a blib on the radar after that the star went dead.

Pop was better than Zooropa

and NLOTH was better than Pop
Pop better than Zooropa.... you don't really mean that... do you? do you? :'( :'(

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
Simple Minds WAS great. Graffiti Soul is quite mediocre. One of those bands, like Echo and the Bunnymen, that peaked around 1981.
Really Simple minds peaked around 81?
I always though they peaked with New Gold Dream? Graffiti soul is actually a better album than No line. Simple Minds were really lacking since the end of the 80's but Graffiti Soul is a great comeback.  Their opening song Moscow underground Crushes U2's opening song No line on the horizon. Not their best album but actually surprisingly good. At least The Minds Sound Like they're trying. U2 sound like they a margaritas on a French beach too many.


Yep. Simple Minds peaked around 1981. NLOTH is "infinitely" better than GS. Moscow Underground is a decent enough song but NLOTH blows it away.
I've been listening to Graffiti Soul and I sent Moscow Underground to a number of friends. Each one has said NLOTH is a better song than Moscow.(BTW I sent it only once to a teen the rest to adults).
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 01, 2009, 04:09:30 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
U2 peaked in 1993. After Zooropa it's been downhill. Pop's good but not great. Kinda like a blib on the radar after that the star went dead.

Pop was better than Zooropa

and NLOTH was better than Pop
Pop better than Zooropa.... you don't really mean that... do you? do you? :'( :'(

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
Simple Minds WAS great. Graffiti Soul is quite mediocre. One of those bands, like Echo and the Bunnymen, that peaked around 1981.
Really Simple minds peaked around 81?
I always though they peaked with New Gold Dream? Graffiti soul is actually a better album than No line. Simple Minds were really lacking since the end of the 80's but Graffiti Soul is a great comeback.  Their opening song Moscow underground Crushes U2's opening song No line on the horizon. Not their best album but actually surprisingly good. At least The Minds Sound Like they're trying. U2 sound like they a margaritas on a French beach too many.


Yep. Simple Minds peaked around 1981. NLOTH is "infinitely" better than GS. Moscow Underground is a decent enough song but NLOTH blows it away.
I've been listening to Graffiti Soul and I sent Moscow Underground to a number of friends. Each one has said NLOTH is a better song than Moscow.(BTW I sent it only once to a teen the rest to adults).
Anyway I love Moscow underground. It's the best opening song I've heard on and Album this year. No line is kinda meeeeh from a band trying to hard to sound cool.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 01, 2009, 04:17:46 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
U2 peaked in 1993. After Zooropa it's been downhill. Pop's good but not great. Kinda like a blib on the radar after that the star went dead.

Pop was better than Zooropa

and NLOTH was better than Pop
Pop better than Zooropa.... you don't really mean that... do you? do you? :'( :'(

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
Simple Minds WAS great. Graffiti Soul is quite mediocre. One of those bands, like Echo and the Bunnymen, that peaked around 1981.
Really Simple minds peaked around 81?
I always though they peaked with New Gold Dream? Graffiti soul is actually a better album than No line. Simple Minds were really lacking since the end of the 80's but Graffiti Soul is a great comeback.  Their opening song Moscow underground Crushes U2's opening song No line on the horizon. Not their best album but actually surprisingly good. At least The Minds Sound Like they're trying. U2 sound like they a margaritas on a French beach too many.


Yep. Simple Minds peaked around 1981. NLOTH is "infinitely" better than GS. Moscow Underground is a decent enough song but NLOTH blows it away.
I've been listening to Graffiti Soul and I sent Moscow Underground to a number of friends. Each one has said NLOTH is a better song than Moscow.(BTW I sent it only once to a teen the rest to adults).
Anyway I love Moscow underground. It's the best opening song I've heard on and Album this year. No line is kinda meeeeh from a band trying to hard to sound cool.
So you don't HATE No Line?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on December 01, 2009, 04:48:23 AM
Cool is overrated.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 01, 2009, 04:53:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Cool is overrated.
Very. Partly because it is so subjective.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 01, 2009, 04:54:03 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
U2 peaked in 1993. After Zooropa it's been downhill. Pop's good but not great. Kinda like a blib on the radar after that the star went dead.

Pop was better than Zooropa

and NLOTH was better than Pop
Pop better than Zooropa.... you don't really mean that... do you? do you? :'( :'(

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
Simple Minds WAS great. Graffiti Soul is quite mediocre. One of those bands, like Echo and the Bunnymen, that peaked around 1981.
Really Simple minds peaked around 81?
I always though they peaked with New Gold Dream? Graffiti soul is actually a better album than No line. Simple Minds were really lacking since the end of the 80's but Graffiti Soul is a great comeback.  Their opening song Moscow underground Crushes U2's opening song No line on the horizon. Not their best album but actually surprisingly good. At least The Minds Sound Like they're trying. U2 sound like they a margaritas on a French beach too many.


Yep. Simple Minds peaked around 1981. NLOTH is "infinitely" better than GS. Moscow Underground is a decent enough song but NLOTH blows it away.
I've been listening to Graffiti Soul and I sent Moscow Underground to a number of friends. Each one has said NLOTH is a better song than Moscow.(BTW I sent it only once to a teen the rest to adults).
Anyway I love Moscow underground. It's the best opening song I've heard on and Album this year. No line is kinda meeeeh from a band trying to hard to sound cool.
So you don't HATE No Line?
I don't hate it. I never said I hated it (and no I don't HATE u2, I just really find their last three album and this whole decade bland and lacking compared to the goods we got before that) but I don't like it no.  I find the whole album mediocre

My props go to Simple Minds this year who actually did a great job with graffiti soul and they've been lacking since sparkle in the rain. So yeah they deserve props for making such a great record (their best in years). U2 should've given us better stuff. cause in cotrast to the Simple minds made good to great records in the 90,s. Depeche Mode was great in that decade U2 was great in that decade Simple minds were absolutely horrible in the 90's

So my props go to them for making an album that at least sound like they're really trying to get it again. U2 was too busy with trying to be cool and trying to connect with teens. And failed at it
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 01, 2009, 05:01:18 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
U2 peaked in 1993. After Zooropa it's been downhill. Pop's good but not great. Kinda like a blib on the radar after that the star went dead.

Pop was better than Zooropa

and NLOTH was better than Pop
Pop better than Zooropa.... you don't really mean that... do you? do you? :'( :'(

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
Simple Minds WAS great. Graffiti Soul is quite mediocre. One of those bands, like Echo and the Bunnymen, that peaked around 1981.
Really Simple minds peaked around 81?
I always though they peaked with New Gold Dream? Graffiti soul is actually a better album than No line. Simple Minds were really lacking since the end of the 80's but Graffiti Soul is a great comeback.  Their opening song Moscow underground Crushes U2's opening song No line on the horizon. Not their best album but actually surprisingly good. At least The Minds Sound Like they're trying. U2 sound like they a margaritas on a French beach too many.


Yep. Simple Minds peaked around 1981. NLOTH is "infinitely" better than GS. Moscow Underground is a decent enough song but NLOTH blows it away.
I've been listening to Graffiti Soul and I sent Moscow Underground to a number of friends. Each one has said NLOTH is a better song than Moscow.(BTW I sent it only once to a teen the rest to adults).
Anyway I love Moscow underground. It's the best opening song I've heard on and Album this year. No line is kinda meeeeh from a band trying to hard to sound cool.
So you don't HATE No Line?
I don't hate it. I never said I hated it (and no I don't HATE u2, I just really find their last three album and this whole decade bland and lacking compared to the goods we got before that) but I don't like it no.  I find the whole album mediocre

My props go to Simple Minds this year who actually did a great job with graffiti soul and they've been lacking since sparkle in the rain. So yeah they deserve props for making such a great record (their best in years). U2 should've given us better stuff. cause in cotrast to the Simple minds made good to great records in the 90,s. Depeche Mode was great in that decade U2 was great in that decade Simple minds were absolutely horrible in the 90's

So my props go to them for making an album that at least sound like they're really trying to get it again. U2 was too busy with trying to be cool and trying to connect with teens. And failed at it
Do you think NLOTH is "experimental"?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: kowalski on December 01, 2009, 05:42:00 AM

This may explain his anti U2 stance, the guy may have serious mental health issues.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/category?blogid=7year=2009month=11day=19&cat=3586


but if you ask me he's just a bitter little t**t, who's band had a couple of good songs a long time ago, trying to be hip and young again, i mean look at at the state of him! he looks about 102 years old  >:( >:( >:(

hopefully they'll be playing Gladstonbury on some minor stage at around friday lunchtime......if they are and any U2 fans see him, go up to him and dont say a thing just point at him and laugh  :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 01, 2009, 06:34:39 AM
Do you think NLOTH is "experimental"?
[/quote]Nope It's another very safe album. But Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Passengers and POP absolutely were experimental. And they were very good at it. But No line Doesn't sound really that experimental at all.  It kinda sounds like stuff I've heard before this decade.  It's sounds predictable safe, bland, and a band who wants to go all the way but are waaay too concerned about what the public would think of them if they would go all the way. U2 have the feeling like they got burned with POP. So No they rather play it safe and make populistic music just to please the critics and "fans" It kinda sounds like stuff I've heard before this decade.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: deco20 on December 01, 2009, 08:31:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you think NLOTH is "experimental"?
Nope It's another very safe album. But Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Passengers and POP absolutely were experimental. And they were very good at it. But No line Doesn't sound really that experimental at all.  It kinda sounds like stuff I've heard before this decade.  It's sounds predictable safe, bland, and a band who wants to go all the way but are waaay too concerned about what the public would think of them if they would go all the way. U2 have the feeling like they got burned with POP. So No they rather play it safe and make populistic music just to please the critics and "fans" It kinda sounds like stuff I've heard before this decade.
[/quote]

NLOTH is experimental if you take into consideration the past 2 albums in the 2000s. I think U2 has been around far long and they have probably touched on everything that is experimental as much as they can afford it without losing the gist of their sound.

I would say NLOTH is experimental not in terms of sound but lyrics. Bono's lyrics verge on playfulness to a hauntingly solemn feeling on NLOTH. The experimental part can be found in songs like Breathe/Cedars of Lebanon/Stand Up Comedy. Sure, it may not be "experimental as in techno and stuff" but these songs are not the usual U2 songs.

On a side note, the only teenager song U2 has done would probably be NIL. The main reason I got into U2 was the how their songs seem so intelligent, mature and self-awared. Barely attributes one would associate songs for teens with.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 01, 2009, 11:33:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This may explain his anti U2 stance, the guy may have serious mental health issues.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/category?blogid=7year=2009month=11day=19&cat=3586


but if you ask me he's just a bitter little t**t, who's band had a couple of good songs a long time ago, trying to be hip and young again, i mean look at at the state of him! he looks about 102 years old  >:( >:( >:(

hopefully they'll be playing Gladstonbury on some minor stage at around friday lunchtime......if they are and any U2 fans see him, go up to him and dont say a thing just point at him and laugh  :D :D :D :D
Yeah that's something real nice and respectful to laugh about and put somebody down with cause he critizes U2. I know people who have mental health problems and It's far from funny.  So I really find your remarks extremly nasty unneedingly rude and totaly uncalled for to say the least.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 01, 2009, 12:52:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This may explain his anti U2 stance, the guy may have serious mental health issues.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/category?blogid=7year=2009month=11day=19&cat=3586


but if you ask me he's just a bitter little t**t, who's band had a couple of good songs a long time ago, trying to be hip and young again, i mean look at at the state of him! he looks about 102 years old  >:( >:( >:(

hopefully they'll be playing Gladstonbury on some minor stage at around friday lunchtime......if they are and any U2 fans see him, go up to him and dont say a thing just point at him and laugh  :D :D :D :D
Yeah that's something real nice and respectful to laugh about and put somebody down with cause he critizes U2. I know people who have mental health problems and It's far from funny.  So I really find your remarks extremly nasty unneedingly rude and totaly uncalled for to say the least.

And totally OK to make since this forum is all about freedom of speech and being able to criticize whichever artists you want for whatever reason you want. Some of the language may not make it past the filters, but there is nothing wrong with someone expressing their opinion about the speculated reasons that an artist may be criticizing another artist. And if mental health issues are the reason (excuse) that Ian Mcculloch says what he says in public, then I pity him and hope he gets the help he needs.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: kowalski on December 01, 2009, 02:05:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This may explain his anti U2 stance, the guy may have serious mental health issues.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/category?blogid=7year=2009month=11day=19&cat=3586


but if you ask me he's just a bitter little t**t, who's band had a couple of good songs a long time ago, trying to be hip and young again, i mean look at at the state of him! he looks about 102 years old  >:( >:( >:(

hopefully they'll be playing Gladstonbury on some minor stage at around friday lunchtime......if they are and any U2 fans see him, go up to him and dont say a thing just point at him and laugh  :D :D :D :D
Yeah that's something real nice and respectful to laugh about and put somebody down with cause he critizes U2. I know people who have mental health problems and It's far from funny.  So I really find your remarks extremly nasty unneedingly rude and totaly uncalled for to say the least.

Good for you johnny boy..........i know people with mental health issues too, and they still have a sense of humour, seems like you dont.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 01, 2009, 02:23:57 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

This may explain his anti U2 stance, the guy may have serious mental health issues.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/category?blogid=7year=2009month=11day=19&cat=3586


but if you ask me he's just a bitter little t**t, who's band had a couple of good songs a long time ago, trying to be hip and young again, i mean look at at the state of him! he looks about 102 years old  >:( >:( >:(

hopefully they'll be playing Gladstonbury on some minor stage at around friday lunchtime......if they are and any U2 fans see him, go up to him and dont say a thing just point at him and laugh  :D :D :D :D
Yeah that's something real nice and respectful to laugh about and put somebody down with cause he critizes U2. I know people who have mental health problems and It's far from funny.  So I really find your remarks extremly nasty unneedingly rude and totaly uncalled for to say the least.

Good for you johnny boy..........i know people with mental health issues too, and they still have a sense of humour, seems like you dont.

How many Bono's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 01, 2009, 02:43:36 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
U2 peaked in 1993. After Zooropa it's been downhill. Pop's good but not great. Kinda like a blib on the radar after that the star went dead.

Pop was better than Zooropa

and NLOTH was better than Pop
Pop better than Zooropa.... you don't really mean that... do you? do you? :'( :'(

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
Simple Minds WAS great. Graffiti Soul is quite mediocre. One of those bands, like Echo and the Bunnymen, that peaked around 1981.
Really Simple minds peaked around 81?
I always though they peaked with New Gold Dream? Graffiti soul is actually a better album than No line. Simple Minds were really lacking since the end of the 80's but Graffiti Soul is a great comeback.  Their opening song Moscow underground Crushes U2's opening song No line on the horizon. Not their best album but actually surprisingly good. At least The Minds Sound Like they're trying. U2 sound like they a margaritas on a French beach too many.


Yep. Simple Minds peaked around 1981. NLOTH is "infinitely" better than GS. Moscow Underground is a decent enough song but NLOTH blows it away.
I've been listening to Graffiti Soul and I sent Moscow Underground to a number of friends. Each one has said NLOTH is a better song than Moscow.(BTW I sent it only once to a teen the rest to adults).

LOL i do mean it ::)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 01, 2009, 02:59:25 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

This may explain his anti U2 stance, the guy may have serious mental health issues.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/category?blogid=7year=2009month=11day=19&cat=3586


but if you ask me he's just a bitter little t**t, who's band had a couple of good songs a long time ago, trying to be hip and young again, i mean look at at the state of him! he looks about 102 years old  >:( >:( >:(

hopefully they'll be playing Gladstonbury on some minor stage at around friday lunchtime......if they are and any U2 fans see him, go up to him and dont say a thing just point at him and laugh  :D :D :D :D
Yeah that's something real nice and respectful to laugh about and put somebody down with cause he critizes U2. I know people who have mental health problems and It's far from funny.  So I really find your remarks extremly nasty unneedingly rude and totaly uncalled for to say the least.

Good for you johnny boy..........i know people with mental health issues too, and they still have a sense of humour, seems like you dont.

How many Bono's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
No number of Bono's can screw in a light bulb. Am I right?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 01, 2009, 05:04:35 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

This may explain his anti U2 stance, the guy may have serious mental health issues.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/category?blogid=7year=2009month=11day=19&cat=3586


but if you ask me he's just a bitter little t**t, who's band had a couple of good songs a long time ago, trying to be hip and young again, i mean look at at the state of him! he looks about 102 years old  >:( >:( >:(

hopefully they'll be playing Gladstonbury on some minor stage at around friday lunchtime......if they are and any U2 fans see him, go up to him and dont say a thing just point at him and laugh  :D :D :D :D
Yeah that's something real nice and respectful to laugh about and put somebody down with cause he critizes U2. I know people who have mental health problems and It's far from funny.  So I really find your remarks extremly nasty unneedingly rude and totaly uncalled for to say the least.

Good for you johnny boy..........i know people with mental health issues too, and they still have a sense of humour, seems like you dont.

How many Bono's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

One Bono, and apparently 8 Ians.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 02, 2009, 04:30:36 AM
Ian might have some mental problems but he did a better job musically than U2 in the 80's Echo and the Bunnymen were really brilliant while u2 was still struggling to find their way. props to Ian. Love that song 'Lips like sugar.'
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Niterpi on December 02, 2009, 06:15:01 AM

front man envy:  definitely!

i love the last paragraph of the article...

"But I canít see mature people or kids, who are looking for something, something deep - something that you just know itís art and itís going to change your life - caring. For U2, itís always flag-waving and 'Yippee'".


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?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Thunder Peel 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?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Boom Cha! 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?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T 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.

Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: BeneathTheNoise 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Sue DeNym 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.  ::)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Northern Soul 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Northern Soul 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: satellitedog01 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T 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?

Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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.  :)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T 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.

Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T 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
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T 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?

Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T on December 04, 2009, 02:09:57 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
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?

What was the name of his new studio release?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 04, 2009, 02:11:15 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
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.

Michael Jackson outsold Echo's new album, so people are moving away from Echo at a much faster rate.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 04, 2009, 02:26:38 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
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?

What was the name of his new studio release?
It was Titled Somewhere over the rainbow. Any way how old are you?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Northern Soul on December 04, 2009, 02:27:37 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.

That's your opinion, really.  Mine looks a bit different.

Well, they both released their debut albums in 1980.
Crocodiles is better than Boy

They both released the sophomore albums in 1981.
Heaven Up Here is better than October

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 equal to Ocean Rain.

They both released their fifth albums in 1987.
The Joshua Tree is better than Echo & The Bunnymen.

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.


All of this is true, but why stop in 1995?

They both released albums in 1997
Pop is better than Evergreen

1999, the Bunnymen release What Are You Going To Do With Your Life?  U2 release nothing

In 2000, U2 release ATYCLB and in 2001, the Bunnymen release Flowers
ATYCLB is equal to Flowers

In 2004, U2 release HTDAAB, and in 2005 the Bunnymen release Siberia
Siberia is better than HTDAAB

And finally...in 2009, both bands released an album
NLOTH is better than The Fountain


I obviously like U2 more than the Bunnymen, but it isn't as one-sided for me as it seems to be for you.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 04, 2009, 02:39:57 PM
Another one of those threads that will spiral down onto itself creating a black hole.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T on December 04, 2009, 02:42:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It was Titled Somewhere over the rainbow. Any way how old are you?

Can't seem to find any info on AllMusic. Or ITunes. Or Amazon.

Which is odd since it's one of the year's biggest sellers.  

You've obviously heard it, you called it "brilliant."

Are you sure it's called "Somewhere over the rainbow"?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 04, 2009, 04:40:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It was Titled Somewhere over the rainbow. Any way how old are you?

Can't seem to find any info on AllMusic. Or ITunes. Or Amazon.

Which is odd since it's one of the year's biggest sellers.  

You've obviously heard it, you called it "brilliant."

Are you sure it's called "Somewhere over the rainbow"?
Nothing personal but I kinda have this feeling that you're too young to have been around the first half of the 80's and really know what impact a band like Echo had. Let alone all the other great bands that were around at the time. And too young to been around to see that U2 was just an emerging band at the time and far from as good as most other bands.

nothing personal but am I right or am i wrong?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 04, 2009, 04:51:50 PM
Their influence began with Crocodiles and ended with Ocean Rain. They laid down a blueprint for sure, but that's when U2 rightfully took what they learned from all their influences and claimed the crown of biggest band of the 80's.


And yes, I was there. It's sure different to say that they "had an impact in the first half of the 80's" than calling them the biggest band of the 80's, which you did in the appreciation thread.

Just to clarify.
 

If you really want to talk impact, from 1983 to 1987, there was no bigger band on the planet than Def Leppard.

Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on December 04, 2009, 06:37:02 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
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?

What was the name of his new studio release?
It was Titled Somewhere over the rainbow. Any way how old are you?

You just won't give up, will you?  ;D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Bundang Dave on December 04, 2009, 07:13:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
....

Just to clarify.
 

If you really want to talk impact, from 1983 to 1987, there was no bigger band on the planet than Def Leppard.



Good point. Def Leppard, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, etc. were all far more influential where I was from than either Echo or U2. In retrospect, I think U2 is (and was) far better than all those other bands, but who knows--maybe in another 20 years my tastes in music will have the metal bands back on top.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. T on December 04, 2009, 08:03:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yep was brilliant. Any way how old are you?

I'm 36-24-36. I have blond hair and green eyes. I like long walks on the beach and
a man who's not afraid to cry. Oh, I have a toy poodle named Mitzy. You must get
along with her or it's a no go...




























DUDE...I'm a friggin' baby. Can you not see my avatar? I've been outside the
womb for like 180 days...rocking and rolling the whole time. You should probably
stop coming on to me, it really can't end well...for you.   
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 04, 2009, 09:19:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
....

Just to clarify.
 

If you really want to talk impact, from 1983 to 1987, there was no bigger band on the planet than Def Leppard.



Good point. Def Leppard, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, etc. were all far more influential where I was from than either Echo or U2. In retrospect, I think U2 is (and was) far better than all those other bands, but who knows--maybe in another 20 years my tastes in music will have the metal bands back on top.

The ratio of metal-band sleeveless shirts to post-punk new wave-band shirts at the schools I attended was about 50 to 1.  :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 05, 2009, 03:20:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yep was brilliant. Any way how old are you?

I'm 36-24-36. I have blond hair and green eyes. I like long walks on the beach and
a man who's not afraid to cry. Oh, I have a toy poodle named Mitzy. You must get
along with her or it's a no go...




























DUDE...I'm a friggin' baby. Can you not see my avatar? I've been outside the
womb for like 180 days...rocking and rolling the whole time. You should probably
stop coming on to me, it really can't end well...for you.   
Is that a binary threat? hey that's a great title for U2 next album and the follow up to Achtung Baby: Binary Tread Baby

Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: beau99 on December 07, 2009, 10:18:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 needs to play the better songs from the 90's and before that if they want to kick butt at this festival. It's a great chance to show how good they can be. Bono should not preach a word cause that's what puts people off. And Adam should turn the volume of his base up to eleven.
Actually, Bono should preach more  ;D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 08, 2009, 05:03:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 needs to play the better songs from the 90's and before that if they want to kick butt at this festival. It's a great chance to show how good they can be. Bono should not preach a word cause that's what puts people off. And Adam should turn the volume of his base up to eleven.
Actually, Bono should preach more  ;D
yeah and really put the nail in U2's coffin?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on December 08, 2009, 05:04:27 AM
U2 have a coffin?  ???

Blasphemy.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 08, 2009, 05:20:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 have a coffin?  ???

Blasphemy.
most of us will end up in a coffin yes.
(not me by the way cause I'll live forever)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 08, 2009, 05:40:03 AM
I don't think they have a coffin yet.  :)

Would you LIKE to live forever? U2's only gonna get worse  ::)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 08, 2009, 05:56:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think they have a coffin yet.  :)

Would you LIKE to live forever? U2's only gonna get worse  ::)
That's true or they'll do teh Johnny Cash and create their last two really great albums (not being called great and and far from being it) and then stop.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on December 08, 2009, 04:27:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Would you LIKE to live forever?

I'm sure Liam and Noel Gallagher certainly would.  :)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 09, 2009, 04:40:15 AM
I , for one, hope Noel Gallagher doesn't live forever. I hope he lives a slightly shorter than average life, even.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on December 09, 2009, 04:44:50 AM
Be careful, you might get EdgeFest upset!  :D

(But I still agree with you)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 09, 2009, 06:32:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Be careful, you might get EdgeFest upset!  :D

(But I still agree with you)
:D.  :o She's a Noel Gallagher fan? I better watch my back...






*watches back*
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on December 09, 2009, 04:24:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Be careful, you might get EdgeFest upset!  :D

(But I still agree with you)
:D.  :o She's a Noel Gallagher fan? I better watch my back...






*watches back*

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Be careful, you might get EdgeFest upset!  :D

(But I still agree with you)
:D.  :o She's a Noel Gallagher fan? I better watch my back...






*watches back*

She likes Oasis more than U2.  >:(
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: oopski on December 12, 2009, 11:41:13 AM
This Ian fella doesn't think U2 is DEEP??? Huh??? off to youtube to check out his idea of deep......
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: oopski on December 12, 2009, 11:43:27 AM
ooh, as my husband calls it "bridge jumping music"..................U2 inspires me to go on, not jump off a bridge
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 12, 2009, 12:05:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This Ian fella doesn't think U2 is DEEP??? Huh??? off to youtube to check out his idea of deep......

Ian's idea of deep: songs with lyrics about vegetables.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd on December 14, 2009, 06:05:29 PM
LOL, the guy is an idiot. I like EATBM but they cant hold a candle to the depth of U2...so what on earth is he ranting about? someone needs to take away his magic mushrooms.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Miami66 on December 15, 2009, 05:50:37 PM
U2 are for teenagers:

http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,1452.55485.html ;)
 :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on December 15, 2009, 06:00:45 PM
*sniggers*
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Miami66 on December 15, 2009, 06:31:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
*sniggers*  :o      :o      :o

snickers
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Inishfree on December 17, 2009, 10:35:52 AM
I'm no teenager and love U2!
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: theocean on December 18, 2009, 06:11:01 AM
One word: Jealous!
And at least U2's name is cool. Who wants to be in a band called the bunnymen. Have a carrot and chill. :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 18, 2009, 06:12:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One word: Jealous!
And at least U2's name is cool. Who wants to be in a band called the bunnymen. Have a carrot and chill. :D
Here Here. U2's name is awesome. The Bunnymen sound like a kids band like the Wiggles.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on December 19, 2009, 06:05:20 AM
If their name sounds like a kids band then many children will be in for a rude awakening when they attend the concert and see Ian McCullouch spilling beer and unleashing profanity. Oh the horror!
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Northern Soul on December 23, 2009, 08:32:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Be careful, you might get EdgeFest upset!  :D

(But I still agree with you)
:D.  :o She's a Noel Gallagher fan? I better watch my back...






*watches back*

That's right....she is.....
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 23, 2009, 08:34:37 AM
Ian said pooh about U2. Somebody call the Weeeeeeeeembulance
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Miami66 on December 23, 2009, 08:35:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ian said pooh about U2. Somebody call the Weeeeeeeeembulance

I think its Waaaaaaaaaaaammbulance but regardless its still funny :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 23, 2009, 08:42:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ian said pooh about U2. Somebody call the Weeeeeeeeembulance

I think its Waaaaaaaaaaaammbulance but regardless its still funny :D
I'm Dutch. A en E sound the same, (but don't look it)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Miami66 on December 23, 2009, 08:44:07 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
Ian said pooh about U2. Somebody call the Weeeeeeeeembulance

I think its Waaaaaaaaaaaammbulance but regardless its still funny :D
I'm Dutch. A en E sound the same, (but don't look it)
ahh interesting :)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 23, 2009, 09:05:18 AM
I agree what Ian says is pooh.  Full of sound and fury signifying nothing
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 23, 2009, 09:08:44 AM
Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 23, 2009, 09:12:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE

I agree with this totally. Ian should be carted away for all those multiple personalities, none of which are interesting
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 23, 2009, 10:04:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE

I agree with this totally. Ian should be carted away for all those multiple personalities, none of which are interesting
well it was interesting enough to fill 13 pages on this thread. (probably many more to come)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 23, 2009, 10:23:34 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
Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE

I agree with this totally. Ian should be carted away for all those multiple personalities, none of which are interesting
well it was interesting enough to fill 13 pages on this thread. (probably many more to come)

I agree the thread is interesting.  Ian's not.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 23, 2009, 10:36:18 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
Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE

I agree with this totally. Ian should be carted away for all those multiple personalities, none of which are interesting
well it was interesting enough to fill 13 pages on this thread. (probably many more to come)

I agree the thread is interesting.  Ian's not.
We'll If Ian wasn't we would not have 13 pages dedicated to this great man. Ian is great. A damn fine artist.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 23, 2009, 10:36:46 AM
You See here we are at page 14. GOOOO IAN!!
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 23, 2009, 10:38:03 AM
Go Harvard!
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Jono on December 23, 2009, 11:47:20 AM

I agree the thread is interesting.  Ian's not.
[/quote]We'll If Ian wasn't we would not have 13 pages dedicated to this great man. Ian is great. A damn fine artist.
[/quote]
yes, the thread is interesting...Ian is too, but he does seem rather psycho and envious
8) who posted this anyway??
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) on December 23, 2009, 11:49:28 AM
Actually, now that I think about it, I think it's quite interesting that Ian would hide his hypocrisy behind mental illness.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: EdgeFest [Zenmaster360] on December 23, 2009, 01:07:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Be careful, you might get EdgeFest upset!  :D

(But I still agree with you)
:D.  :o She's a Noel Gallagher fan? I better watch my back...






*watches back*

You can say I'm a bit more than a fan.  Considering I actually know the guy, I think that's a little bit of a rude thing to say, but I'll forgive you.  You can say that you don't like him, but to wish him to die early is a bit of a low blow, dear.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Miami66 on December 23, 2009, 01:08:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE

there you go JA :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 23, 2009, 04:54:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE

there you go JA :D
Yep
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on December 23, 2009, 09:58:02 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
Be careful, you might get EdgeFest upset!  :D

(But I still agree with you)
:D.  :o She's a Noel Gallagher fan? I better watch my back...






*watches back*

You can say I'm a bit more than a fan.  Considering I actually know the guy, I think that's a little bit of a rude thing to say, but I'll forgive you.  You can say that you don't like him, but to wish him to die early is a bit of a low blow, dear.

I'm sure Aquaguy has learnt his lesson.
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: EdgeFest [Zenmaster360] on December 24, 2009, 07:57:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm sure Aquaguy has learnt his lesson.

All good, no hard feelings, we just need to remember sometimes that these awesome rock stars are people too ;)

But Ian McCullough is still WRONG.  :D
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 24, 2009, 08:02:47 AM
I wasn't being serious in wishing him to die early.
How do you know him?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: EdgeFest [Zenmaster360] on December 24, 2009, 08:18:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I wasn't being serious in wishing him to die early.
How do you know him?

Was in England in 1992 meeting a friend who worked at the Inspiral Carpets record company and he was the "Dallas Schoo" of the Inspirals.

The rest is history!

I have a copy of Oasis' original demo tape and have seen them 13x live ;)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on December 24, 2009, 08:23:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I wasn't being serious in wishing him to die early.
How do you know him?

Was in England in 1992 meeting a friend who worked at the Inspiral Carpets record company and he was the "Dallas Schoo" of the Inspirals.

The rest is history!

I have a copy of Oasis' original demo tape and have seen them 13x live ;)
Cool :)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: thetak111 on April 07, 2010, 10:51:37 PM
Who the heck is Ian Mcculloch?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on April 07, 2010, 10:54:18 PM
Reviving old threads eh?

 ;)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on April 07, 2010, 11:29:12 PM
aand you picked this one. good one mr lemon.  ::)
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on April 07, 2010, 11:33:49 PM
What? Did you expect JA to come flying in through the window?
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: Aqua on April 07, 2010, 11:39:11 PM
*looks down*
so what if I did ?  :-[
Title: Re: U2 are for Teenagers
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on April 07, 2010, 11:42:47 PM
Well he's not here *yet* so you've nothing to worry about.  :)