Sam O Sullivan: album in 2008

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
im sorry but the world's biggest band is the rolling stones and the best is radiohead.
 
The Rolling Stones are boring as hell. How they got to be the biggest band is beyond me.

Radiohead are awesome but they cannot be the best because they're too depressing. :p
 
Also, why're you guys in such a hurry for a new U2 album??? It will arrive and we will all analyze the fuck out of it and tear it to pieces. I'm glad that U2 has slipped into hibernation mode right now. I hope I don't hear anything about them for another 2 years, preferably till 2009. :drool:

ok ok i'm half facetious!
 
when the beatles quit, rolling stones was next in line.

can't a depressing band be the best?
 
ok. fair point.





but they are definitely the best depressing band around then :p
 
U2Man said:
but they are definitely the best depressing band around then :p

pink_floyd_lyrics.jpg
 
The Beatles will remain the biggest band in the world until there's no one left who remembers them properly.

Until then, every other band is just trying to step into their giant boots.

Seriously....sure, the music of bands like U2 and others may be more prevalent than the Beatles' was at the time, but that's in large part due to modern media. In terms of worldwide hysteria, no one's come close to matching the Beatles. The same probably goes for appeal, too---I doubt there's anyone who is as universally liked across generations and boundaries as the Beatles still continue to be.

As for this thread....

Zootlesque said:
Also, why're you guys in such a hurry for a new U2 album??? It will arrive and we will all analyze the fuck out of it and tear it to pieces. I'm glad that U2 has slipped into hibernation mode right now. I hope I don't hear anything about them for another 2 years, preferably till 2009. :drool:

ok ok i'm half facetious!

I agree with your non-facetious part. :wink: While I don't want to wait until 2009, I do like the fact that the band aren't uber-present at the moment. They started off by playing McGonagles only on rare occasions so as to keep people wanting more. They did the same thing on early tours by booking few shows in various locations---keep it so every show's a sellout. When demand is higher than supply, you've got a phenomenon. After the U2-saturation of 2004-2006, a few months off is good for the band (and for us!).

Of course, we only have until this summer for the IMAX.......:wink:
 
U2Man said:
but i thought we were talking about existing bands.

Meh, the Stones no longer "exist" in terms of original members or quality, so...:shrug:

Don't the Beatles still exist in you? :wink:
 
they do :wink:

anyway, the stones don't make as good music as they used to, but they still have quite an impressive back catalogue :drool:
 
xaviMF22 said:

.

yes :wink:


and U2Man don't alter people's quotes before the mods get on your ass :rolleyes:
maybe you can start a thread about your problems with how this forum is run in "Don't expect, suggest"
 
^ :madwife:

Bonochick said:
Maybe if you learned the rules and followed them, you wouldn't have any problems.

Well... most of us come here I'm sure to have fun and have a good time, unwind after a hard day of work whatever. So I doubt if people really read the FAQs thoroughly before posting. I don't. But I still follow the rules I think. It's not hard to follow basic stuff like don't alter quotes or don't roll your eyes and be rude etc. I don't think you have to necessarily read the rules from top to bottom to know this stuff. :shrug:
 
Zootlesque said:
The Rolling Stones are boring as hell. How they got to be the biggest band is beyond me.

Radiohead are awesome but they cannot be the best because they're too depressing. :p

Agreed on both counts :D

you've gotta have range to be te best...Radiohead emotionally are too one-sided. They have very few, if any, truly upbeat or uplifting songs.

Also I know no one has mentioned it here but people will argue for Coldplay...I say they don't rock enough. They make U2, who are far from any sort of hard rock, look like System of a Down.

maybe the best "band" in the world isn't a band anymore. maybe it's Outkast. Idlewild was kinda mediocre though.

I'll put my money on U2 for now. But there are bands on the rise.
 
come on atomicbono, these nuts were saying that pink floyd is better than radiohead. :tsk:
 
Zootlesque said:
^ :madwife:



Well... most of us come here I'm sure to have fun and have a good time, unwind after a hard day of work whatever. So I doubt if people really read the FAQs thoroughly before posting. I don't. But I still follow the rules I think. It's not hard to follow basic stuff like don't alter quotes or don't roll your eyes and be rude etc. I don't think you have to necessarily read the rules from top to bottom to know this stuff. :shrug:

Seeing as how xaviMF22 has had to be reprimanded a handful of times recently, maybe thoroughly reading the rules wouldn't be a bad idea. That's why I said what I said. I wasn't just referring to this one post of his.
 
AtomicBono said:
U2 is on their own schedule. They don't need to make any more albums or tour. They're set for life. So making the new album isn't as pressing as it once was for them. If they'd rather take more vacations to spend time with family and whatnot, then they can.

So tell me... does U2 have anything left to prove? What's their motivation now? Is the music purely for fun, or do they really feel like they have to reclaim the title of World's Biggest Band every four years? What about World's Best Band?

just things to ponder.

I think that they still have a bit to prove.I'm sure they would love to go down in history as the greatest band of all time and to do that they would need to release at least one more absolute masterpiece, at the moment they have two, but to be considered greater than The Beatles for example they would need another truly great album, they have it in them to do it.
 
I seriously doubt U2 will ever be considered greater than The Beatles. They'd have to make some literally amazing, completely groundbreaking, totally innovative album for that to happen. Even so, people would still probably favor The Beatles!

doesn't mean I don't want U2 to try... :wink: I don't think they should try to be better than The Beatles necessarily though, I think they should just try to make the best album possible for them now. which is what I assume they do everytime.

U2Man said:
come on atomicbono, these nuts were saying that pink floyd is better than radiohead. :tsk:

well you know how I feel about Pink Floyd... :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom