Brandon Flowers takes credit for U2 album delay

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm a killers fan and I just got the new album and on first listen it sounds pretty good. But if we were going to go on not releasing an album do to another one, I would have maybe said because of the GNR album. Just because it was so long in the making that maybe they wanted the spotlight to themselves. I think even that would be a stretch if we were looking for delays do to another album being released. Plus I don't think the bands EGO would allow them to have there album not released during the christmas season do to another bands hype.
 
The Killers are fun pop. Like Weezer. All the bashing of musicians on this forum is bullshit. Go fucking write and record a better, catchier song yourselves, sell a million copies of it, and get back to me with your fucking bashing.
 
I don't really understand this. I mean, just because the Killers album is good, why would that make U2 not release their album? It makes no difference, U2 fans will still buy the U2 album. Besides we have heard now that U2 were short a couple of songs and that's why they delayed. But then, who knows?

both bands are on the same label - Vertigo. Unlikely that a label would pit its two marque acts against each other in the run up to Xmas. The Killers won out. Listen to the record - its fantastic.

Point of the thread is its different than the B Flowers one.
 
I personally thought the new Killers album blows, along with Sawdust. They're turning into a watered down version of Coldplay.

I wish I had more hands, so I could give this thread 4 thumbs down! :down::down::down::down:
 
I personally thought the new Killers album blows, along with Sawdust. They're turning into a watered down version of Coldplay.

.... because fun, catchy, dancy pop-rock is what I'd consider Coldplay's music to be, too.




Oh wait.
 
This has to be one of the most ridiculous theories I've seen on Interference - and there is some competition, believe me.
 
I don't really understand this. I mean, just because the Killers album is good, why would that make U2 not release their album? It makes no difference, U2 fans will still buy the U2 album. Besides we have heard now that U2 were short a couple of songs and that's why they delayed. But then, who knows?

Sure...one track's called "Flowers...you suck" and the other's "Here's hoping Coldplay really quit".
 
I haven't heard the new album yet, but human is one of the worst- most over the top- unlistenable worst tracks i have heard in a long time. absolutely awful. i really like their first album, sam's town sucked really bad, and from the new single i probably won't bother with the new album.

if u2 are scared of the killers, that should just not bother and hang it up now.
 
I don't see the logic
am I to believe that the killers are stealing the limelight from every other band?
that somehow U2 wouldn't sell concert tickets cause of the killers having an album with a first single that's mediocre compared to previous killers songs?
if the band is lacking faith in their own music so much that this is the reason there's no new u2 yet i'd think it would be better for the band to just quit
 
Before this is merged, I'd just like to say once again that the Killers suck and their new album sounds like a My Little Pony soundtrack.
 
The Killers are a mainstream rock band.

Rihanna and Katy Perry are mainstream pop female solo acts.

For the type of music they do, I'd say Rihanna at the very least does a better job than the Killers. This is objective!

Listening to a Rihanna or Katy Perry album would make me kill myself

Music that makes me want to kill myself = Bad Pop
 
This forum is pathetic sometimes. I hate the bashing of other bands. There are plenty of bands I don't like, but I don't bash them.

By the way, Day & Age is great, and so is Viva la Vida. U2 needs the challenge since they have been so complacent. Hot Fuss was only released a few months before Atomic Bomb, and the Killers are already on their third album (fourth if you count Sawdust), and I believe that the quality has been just as high as Atomic Bomb, if not higher.
 
This forum is pathetic sometimes. I hate the bashing of other bands. There are plenty of bands I don't like, but I don't bash them.

By the way, Day & Age is great, and so is Viva la Vida. U2 needs the challenge since they have been so complacent. Hot Fuss was only released a few months before Atomic Bomb, and the Killers are already on their third album (fourth if you count Sawdust), and I believe that the quality has been just as high as Atomic Bomb, if not higher.

I agree with your initial sentiment. But I must say: very few people who listen to 50+ albums a year would consider these great or memorable albums from 2008. These are just bands that have "won" the popularity contest (at some point a few years back--and perhaps deservedly) for this genre of music and therefore their albums are heard by waaay more people. But neither of these albums will be remembered as great in a decade. Even U2 have only 2 albums that are widely considered "great", and they are arguably one of the 10 biggest/best/most influential bands in rock history.

And most importantly, you need to use your comparisons fairly: U2 accomplished much more (and better) than the Killers in their first 4 years and infinitely more than Coldplay in their first 8 years. We'll see where either of these bands are at in their 3rd decade. And I still believe U2 is going to put out what will widely be considered the best of the bunch with their new album.
 
This forum is pathetic sometimes. I hate the bashing of other bands. There are plenty of bands I don't like, but I don't bash them.

By the way, Day & Age is great, and so is Viva la Vida. U2 needs the challenge since they have been so complacent. Hot Fuss was only released a few months before Atomic Bomb, and the Killers are already on their third album (fourth if you count Sawdust), and I believe that the quality has been just as high as Atomic Bomb, if not higher.

the only reason i bashed them is because of the rediculous thought that U2 delayed their album because The Killers released theirs around the same time.

Plus, The Killers do suck.
 
And most importantly, you need to use your comparisons fairly: U2 accomplished much more (and better) than the Killers in their first 4 years and infinitely more than Coldplay in their first 8 years. We'll see where either of these bands are at in their 3rd decade. And I still believe U2 is going to put out what will widely be considered the best of the bunch with their new album.

I agree, I just don't like the bashing, especially considering they are currently doing much more for music, whether people like them personally or not.

That said, I actually believe that Hot Fuss, Sam's Town and Day & Age are just as strong overall as Boy, October and War. Maybe even more so because October pulls U2 down a little. Of course, are The Killers going to release albums as good as Unforgettable Fire and Joshua Tree in the next few years? Probably not, but anything is possible.
 
the only reason i bashed them is because of the rediculous thought that U2 delayed their album because The Killers released theirs around the same time.

Plus, The Killers do suck.

I really think that was a joke by Brandon Flowers and only God knows why anyone would take that seriously.

I will ignore your second statement because it is almost Thanksgiving. :)
 
the only reason i bashed them is because of the rediculous thought that U2 delayed their album because The Killers released theirs around the same time.

I honestly think Brandon Flowers was joking when he said that.

Only because some fans insist on constantly bringing up wild theories, there is no reason to bash another band.

I'm not into the Killers, I don't care for them, their music doesn't give me much, so I'd never compare them to U2. And if I did, U2 would win.
 
I honestly think Brandon Flowers was joking when he said that.

Only because some fans insist on constantly bringing up wild theories, there is no reason to bash another band.

I'm not into the Killers, I don't care for them, their music doesn't give me much, so I'd never compare them to U2. And if I did, U2 would win.

well, ok. then i bashed them for two reasons:

1. The wild theories
2. The Killers suck.

:wink:
 
That said, I actually believe that Hot Fuss, Sam's Town and Day & Age are just as strong overall as Boy, October and War. Maybe even more so because October pulls U2 down a little. Of course, are The Killers going to release albums as good as Unforgettable Fire and Joshua Tree in the next few years? Probably not, but anything is possible.

The Killers first three albums are way too inconsistent to ever compare to any of U2's albums at all. Although Day and Age was more consistent it was at the price of brilliant songs

And if The Killers can top TUF then it'll be the greatest moment in music ever; although I don't think the Killers could beat the best album ever
 
Way too much hyperbole in here.

Everything has to either be great or suck. I guess it's not fun to argue between a C and a C+
 
Did the killers produce an I Will Follow, Gloria, New Years Day or Sunday Bloody Sunday in their first 3 albums? Dont think so.
 
Back
Top Bottom