Songs of Ascent: the lost album

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yup, I was like the only one standing around in the Red Zone freaking out because of YBR at Gillette (COME ON PEOPLE! SAVE THOSE TICKETS FOR THE REAL FANS!!).
 
Yup, I was like the only one standing around in the Red Zone freaking out because of YBR at Gillette (COME ON PEOPLE! SAVE THOSE TICKETS FOR THE REAL FANS!!).

I was in seats when I saw it in Houston... I was singing along, while most people just stared at the graphics on screen, and a few gawked at me for being the only person who knew the song.
 
Heh, where were all you naysayers when I was trying to convince people 3-4 weeks ago that we weren't getting a new album this year? :wink:

Right there with you.

November 2013. Maybe March 2014, but I don't seem them making the mistake of pushing it into the next year and missing the holiday sales again.
 
It's really a good time to be a fan.

Umm, compared to when? The 80's, when you only had to wait a couple years between albums?

Or the 90's, when you also had new music every two years, and the band was using technology in a way that no musical artist had done before (or since), most notably on two mind-blowing tours?

I guess it's good to be a fan now compared to 2001-2004 or even post-2004 when we were wondering if they were ever going get their brains and balls back.
 
Umm, compared to when? The 80's, when you only had to wait a couple years between albums?

Or the 90's, when you also had new music every two years, and the band was using technology in a way that no musical artist had done before (or since), most notably on two mind-blowing tours?

I guess it's good to be a fan now compared to 2001-2004 or even post-2004 when we were wondering if they were ever going get their brains and balls back.
:(
 
I only meant that it's a good time to be a fan FOR ME. Although I do my fair share of bitching about U2, sometimes I do look on the bright side. I got to see them last year, AND I get to see them again this year. Like somebody else said, anything U2 does from this point on is just gravy. Wether or not U2 releases an album in 2010 doesn't take away from the fact that we already have 12 great albums, countess great b-sides/unreleased songs, countless live DVD's to disect, many informative books to read about the band. Now with youtube we can watch videos we've never seen before, like Rattle & Hum outtakes, great bootlegs of old concerts, and within a few days we can watch an entire concert after it happens.

We could be Led Zeppelin fans and be disecting things that happened 40 years ago, with nothing new to talk about. We're all pretty lucky to be U2 fans. Some people are Nickelback fans... think about that!
 
I only meant that it's a good time to be a fan FOR ME. Although I do my fair share of bitching about U2, sometimes I do look on the bright side. I got to see them last year, AND I get to see them again this year. Like somebody else said, anything U2 does from this point on is just gravy. Wether or not U2 releases an album in 2010 doesn't take away from the fact that we already have 12 great albums, countess great b-sides/unreleased songs, countless live DVD's to disect, many informative books to read about the band. Now with youtube we can watch videos we've never seen before, like Rattle & Hum outtakes, great bootlegs of old concerts, and within a few days we can watch an entire concert after it happens.

We could be Led Zeppelin fans and be disecting things that happened 40 years ago, with nothing new to talk about. We're all pretty lucky to be U2 fans. Some people are Nickelback fans... think about that!

Or we could be Bowie fans, praying for some hope of material some time in the future. :pray:
 
E-mailed carter alan boston dj

Well, I am now getting desperate and getting ready to join the pessimists! April 12 and not a peep about this supposed promo gig. No more word after the March 29 rumor that an announcement with the DVD was imminent.

So I just took the plunge and e-mailed Boston DJ Carter Alan. For those not in the know, Carter started with the now defunct WBCN 104.1 in Boston in 1979 and one of his first acts as a DJ was to play and heavily promote a demo of "A Day Without Me" that had been sent to him by Island records at the behest of U2. As I am sure a lot of you know much better than me, they were desperate for a breakthrough and a better record deal, especially in America, so they just started sending demos out like hell. Jamming the system. Just like when you send out your resume to 80 employers in hopes one gets back to you.

Many believe that Alan's playing and promoting of U2 in 1980 was what led so many to show up on a brutal, icy, stormy night for U2 at the Paradise in Boston. The rest is literally history, as this almost singlehandedly broke U2 in Boston and America!

Sorry to ramble, lol but to the point finally: I sent Carter Alan an e mail to ask if he knows anything, and I will let everyone know the reply. I really do trust him not to bullshit, Bono has mentioned his presence at every U2 show I have been to. He is a huge fan and his show will often feature songs like Gloria, A Sort of Homecoming, Another Time, Another Place, Seconds, 2 Hearts, Bad, One Tree Hill, God Part II, Love is Blindness, Ultraviolet and Stay. Hell, I even heard Gone and Do You Feel Loved on his show once!!

With all the talk of an innovative release method being possible this time around, who the hell even knows if radio DJ's are the best source of this kind of information, but it's worth a try. I know someone twittered Cross up there in Toronto, and that was what gave me the idea to try Carter Alan.

Maybe other people should do the same with U2 friendly DJ's in their own cities?

I am sure other people are doing this anyway, but please, everyone, work your contacts no matter how small or insignificant they may seem and lets try and find something out. I think it is this week or never to hear about even 1 new song for June.
 
I just finished listening to a radio programme from BBC 4 entitled "Front Row" which was broadcasted on April 2nd. Brian Eno was being interviewed, but apparently no one has discussed it here yet?

Here's a summary of the topics he talked about over a period of roughly 30 minutes.

  • Brian mentions that "I don't have released stuff" and "bits and pieces of new stuff" on his iPod. Most likely his own solo work though.
  • Eno has been experimenting with "Generative music" - pieces that make themselves by having portable CD players playing on random shuffle set up in his studio.
  • Cassettes versus modern day sampling
  • Roxy Music
  • My Life in the Bush of Ghost - Inspired by American radio stations
  • Discusses how he's alert and aware of sounds in different situations
  • His role in the 2010 Brighton Festival
  • Briefly mentions the birth of ambient music and how it influenced his approach to painting
  • Discusses his role as a producer, how he "puts stamina behind his opinion" which either gives his clients "a lot of energy to do something" or "make them defend something". Producers/record companies generally want more of the same, but Eno gets excited by new ideas.
  • Achtung Baby - "There was so much stuff and pieces going on and the deadline was coming up, not a single piece was finished." Eno suggested a 2 week holiday away from the music, leaving only a week to finish the record on time.
  • More about his involvement in the 2010 Brighton Festival. "Reasons for Optimism" - Creating a good future, comments the communication failure of the COP15 Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009.
  • Breaking rules, ignoring conventions. The term "Eno-esque" being an adjective for "wimpy and pathetic", more on ambient music and its influence today. How ambient music came out of the idea that people put on music in the background whilst doing other things (cooking, washing up, reading their paper etc) since that was how music was experienced at the time.
  • Technology always brings something new to music, to create new forms of music.
  • Music in the future:
    • Seeds for a piece of a music - You won't buy a finished record, but instead something that doesn't repeat but yet maintains their identity, similar to the idea of "generative music".
    • Mixed media: Music combined with some kind of "visual life".
    • Music will cease to be the center of the cultural conversation

Here's a link to the programme in case anyone would like to have a listen: BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Front Row, 02/04/2010
I could listen even though I was outside the United Kingdom, so hopefully others can do it as well.

Sadly, he didn't really mention anything about what he is up to but I thought I'd share this find anyway for those who would like to listen.
 
I don't agree with this Stones-bashing. Their sets are not complete hit parades. On their most recent tour, they did Sway, She's So Cold, Little T and A, She Was Hot, All Down The Line etc In fact they may well offer as much variety as U2 over a tour. Moreover, I think A Bigger Bang was a very good album, probably better than HTDAAB.

it's a very common theme here on interference... people don't want to admit the truth because the fans do not want to admit that u2 is an aging rock dinosaur... and more importantlty, they don't want to admit that there is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with that.

for example...

-$$$$. Stones prices are out of control. $250 is quite a bit for U2 but seeing the Stones for $30, $50, even less than $100 is next to impossible.

-Back in the early 80's & before Stones had 5 guys on stage and horn players (2) come out when needed. They would add piano/keyboard arrangements to some songs or the songs that required them. Starting with with the Steel Wheels tour (guys were in their 40's) they had 5 guys, horn players, keyboard player (every song), 3 backup singers, and other people. There would be nearly 10 people or more on stage singing "Jumping Jack Flash"??? Can you imagine if U2 did something like this???

stones prices aren't that off from U2's... i paid 100 bucks to sit side stage at bigger bang at giants stadium. you'd pay the same for u2.

the difference is the floor seats... where the front sections on the floor went for $450 a pop. this of course is a greedy, money grab by the stones.

where as the reason why u2 got rid of seats on the floor is to fit more people on the floor... and the reason for 360 was to be able to sell an entire stadium's worth of seats, opening up an additional 10,000 or so seats.

this, of course, has nothing to do with money and it's just u2 being nice 'cause they love their fans so much.

right...


The Stones comparison are weak at best. U2 play more new songs on a regular basis, and they (and the audience) still care about the new stuff.


ya think so, huh?

see that's a wacky myth that's thrown out there... yes, die hard fans care about the new songs. the majority of the venue doesn't, and often bails for the bathroom during new songs... which is why u2 are smart and load the top of the set with new songs. nobody's bailing on the first 5-6 songs.

if you're gonna tell me that there wasn't a mass bathroom break during unknown caller, then i don't know what shows you were at.

me? i pee durring war horses, because i've seen them a million times and would rather see the new material. but the majority of the crowd are not die hards like us... they want to see the hits and don't give a crap about the new songs.
 
it's a very common theme here on interference... people don't want to admit the truth because the fans do not want to admit that u2 is an aging rock dinosaur... and more importantlty, they don't want to admit that there is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with that.

So you call putting 3 relevant, commercially and critically successful albums out in the 2000s a "rock dinosaur?" What Stones albums are you comparing these to, and more importantly, are you joking? No, there is nothing wrong with an aging rock dinosaur, I love AC/DC for example. However, U2 may be aging, but they go out of their way in writing, promoting and playing new material to ensure that they are not a dinosaur act. The Stones, AC/DC, Aerosmith- none of them make too many bones about being dinosaur acts. U2 fears this.

for example...



stones prices aren't that off from U2's... i paid 100 bucks to sit side stage at bigger bang at giants stadium. you'd pay the same for u2.

the difference is the floor seats... where the front sections on the floor went for $450 a pop. this of course is a greedy, money grab by the stones.

where as the reason why u2 got rid of seats on the floor is to fit more people on the floor... and the reason for 360 was to be able to sell an entire stadium's worth of seats, opening up an additional 10,000 or so seats.

this, of course, has nothing to do with money and it's just u2 being nice 'cause they love their fans so much.

right...

Sitting stage side as in right down beside the stage? For U2, that would be GA and run around $55, not $100. You buy from a scalper? The Stones, both on the highest end tickets and on the overall average, beat the hell out of U2 in ticket prices.

360 is only the 3rd tour that they have ditched the seats and had the GA at the lowest or close to the lowest tier of ticket prices. You do realize this, right? This started on Elevation, it was not some greedy, sell more seats for the dinosaur 360 invention! U2 really broke even with this pricing system when compared with another on Elevation and Vertigo. All it did was shift the burden around a little. Seats in the lodge of the arena for another act may be $65, but U2 charged around $95 on Vertigo and were very open about the reason why: they wanted the "best spots in the house," closest to the stage and the band, to be occupied by real fans and not just fat cats who are there to say they were there.

So of course, U2 still makes the money, the distribution is just different. I am not trying to say "look at those wonderful, caring guys they just took a financial hit so their fans could pay less."

While it is true they did not take a financial hit, it is just as true that they made a conscious decision to try and make great, close to the action tickets available to fans. This was a risk as no other acts I am aware of do this with their pricing. The Stones certainly do not.

Of course, the 360 set up was done for money. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise. You can sell more seats. They are still less than the Stones on average, and the front is a flat out bargain compared to the Stones.

I'll take the band who is still hungry and would rather have enthusiastic fans, undoubtedly many newer and younger like myself, down at the front than in the nosebleeds while the fat mid life crisis loser from the taxpayer owned bank yaps away on his cellphone at the stage front!





ya think so, huh?

see that's a wacky myth that's thrown out there... yes, die hard fans care about the new songs. the majority of the venue doesn't, and often bails for the bathroom during new songs... which is why u2 are smart and load the top of the set with new songs. nobody's bailing on the first 5-6 songs.

if you're gonna tell me that there wasn't a mass bathroom break during unknown caller, then i don't know what shows you were at.

me? i pee durring war horses, because i've seen them a million times and would rather see the new material. but the majority of the crowd are not die hards like us... they want to see the hits and don't give a crap about the new songs.

There is a whole lot of sense in what U2girl and others say. A whole lot of whacky in what you are saying! As has been said before, the casual fan hit parade now includes Beautiful Day, Elevation, Walk On, Stuck, City of Blinding Lights and Vertigo. They may not all be my favorites, but people know and love these songs. How many Stones songs from 2000-2009 are like this?

I would say the general public could easily name all of those songs and they are extremely well liked. Who the hell on the street could name a song from the Stones last album?

As for front loading the set with new songs, U2 has done that to some extent since JT and especially did it on Zoo TV and Popmart, which, surprise, surprise, were the other 2 stadium tours! I think for U2 it is always a matter of what works, or what they feel works whether you or I like it or not. By the end of the 2nd leg of 360, the NLOTH opening barrage had been broken up a bit.

People take bathroom breaks. Not me. Not my friends, not the people I go to shows with, but others do it of course. This happens at every concert everywhere. It will happen more so in a stadium. I have honestly never seen a sizable group of people noticeably timing their bathroom breaks to a song. That is just crazy. Maybe a few diehards don't want to hear Pride and know they have a few minutes until Streets and Ultraviolet, and will go to the bathroom then, but how the hell is a casual fan who is dying to hear Beautiful Day going to be sure that they wont start it as soon as they get in the bathroom line?

The reaction to the new songs was great at both Foxboro shows. Not as good as on the Vertigo tour, but people (generally speaking, there are exceptions like Electric co) react best to what they know. Could the average non blue crack fan who does not spend all of their time on U2 be expected to even know anything more than Boots and Magnificent from NLOTH? It has been almost ignored by the mainstream. Unknown Caller, I understand if the reaction was tepid in some places(wasn't in Boston), it is a bit strange and takes some getting used to. Most of the experiences I read about from other fans say that NLOTH, Magnificent, Breathe and Crazy remix all come off extremely well, regardless of the city.

Either way, the reaction matters not. It is U2 constantly working to make the best album they can every single time out, not resting on their past success and having the courage to play 6 or 7 songs from an album not as well known as others to an attendance record setting stadium that counts. Again, when is the last time the Stones cared about actually coming up with something new that they were enthusiastic about and wanted to promote on tour?

No way, no how are the Stones and U2 even comparable in this area. That is not my opinion or anyone else's, it is an undeniable fact!

I am sorry, but the only thing whacky is your post.
 
so on Wednesday, do you think we should start a Setlist Party for the secret concert that probably won't happen?
 
^^^
Stones Pricing for Bigger Bang
$350
$175
$100
$50

Pricing for 360
$250
$95
$55
$30

That's a pretty significant difference. Especially when buying in pairs.

Finally, until U2 does something like this I would put them ahead of the Stones in terms of new music being relevant:

Rolling Stones helps Days of Our Lives celebrate 40 years | More entertainment news | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Thank you for restoring my faith in the sanity of interference! Great post, numbers say it all. Also: Although we have not had anything near an inflationary spiral since 2005, it is worth mentioning in passing that there was a 4 year gap between these tours! Even without the little bit of inflation helping U2 out a bit more, lets also remember that 360 costs a lot more than Bigger Bang yet U2 is charging less than the Stones. Maybe because the Stones don't sell albums on the side :)

I have no particular problem with the Stones. In fact, I like the hit parade as much or a little more than the next person, but it proves our point, zoopop! That is all they have to offer! Just saying.... It's not like I wouldn't see them and enjoy the show should the opportunity present itself!

The Stones I would imagine have very few diehards who like a Bigger Bang as much as the old stuff. You can find many U2 fans just on here who rank ATYCLB, JT and War with each other, or UF, AB and NLOTH with each other, etc. I have talked to plenty of fans since Boy that love HTDAAB and NLOTH, the list goes on. People like the new material as much as the classics and even come to view it in the same light(BD for example) as time goes on.
 
absolutely! they may not even show up for it!

haha yes I think u will be right on this. Really wondering what will happen wednesday. A secret gig is impossible (since this secret gigshould have been announced by now...), but maybe they are going to make a video for their 1st SOA-single? :lol::lol::lol:
 
Is that the concert where they wont play any new songs?

It depends. There'll be three ways you can log in to the broadcast:

1) Free Entry: Vertigo, Beautiful Day and Get on Your Boots live. LIVE!

2) U2.com Members: Vertigo, Beautiful Day and Get on Your Boots LIVE, but at the end you'll get an EXCLUSIVE NEW VIDEO (insider source: it's for the Get on Your Boots Fish Out of Water Remix.)

3) For $20: Vertigo & Boots LIVE, The Fly from the Boston Elevation DVD, Breathe from Letterman, Get On Your Boots Remix Clip, NEW SONG THAT YOU WILL ONLY GET IF YOU PAY (insider source: in the end it's just NLOTH2, first release was a clerical error, correcting it here.)
 
so who/where is the poster that said they were able to confirm that U2 may be doing something on the 14th?

He/she had access to the station/buildings itinerary for the next few months, but no details.

i think it was nothing.
 
so who/where is the poster that said they were able to confirm that U2 may be doing something on the 14th?

He/she had access to the station/buildings itinerary for the next few months, but no details.

i think it was nothing.

it was a u2start member who worked for a production company in Sweden. the post was up at u2start for about 4 days, and then it was taken down because the original poster got in trouble at work for posting details.
 
^^^
Stones Pricing for Bigger Bang
$350
$175
$100
$50

Pricing for 360
$250
$95
$55
$30

That's a pretty significant difference. Especially when buying in pairs.

Finally, until U2 does something like this I would put them ahead of the Stones in terms of new music being relevant:

Rolling Stones helps Days of Our Lives celebrate 40 years | More entertainment news | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

relevancy is in the eye, or rather ear of the beholder... i'm sure there are many die hard stones fans who still love their new albums.

as far as the pricing... there were also approximately 30,000 fewer tickets available per show for the Bigger Bang tour. That has a lot to do with the setting of the ticket price.


So you call putting 3 relevant, commercially and critically successful albums out in the 2000s a "rock dinosaur?" What Stones albums are you comparing these to, and more importantly, are you joking? No, there is nothing wrong with an aging rock dinosaur, I love AC/DC for example. However, U2 may be aging, but they go out of their way in writing, promoting and playing new material to ensure that they are not a dinosaur act. The Stones, AC/DC, Aerosmith- none of them make too many bones about being dinosaur acts. U2 fears this.

see, this is why i always defend the stones when dilusional u2 fans go all nutso about how they're such a joke.

Rolling Stone gave "A Bigger Bang" 4 1/2 stars, more than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb got, and only half a star less than what No Line got... on top of that the record sold 2.4 million coppies in it's first 8 months of release worldwide.

"A Bigger Bang" was a commercial and critical success. for a band nearly 50 years into their existance, that's pretty amazing.


Sitting stage side as in right down beside the stage? For U2, that would be GA and run around $55, not $100. You buy from a scalper? The Stones, both on the highest end tickets and on the overall average, beat the hell out of U2 in ticket prices.

no, i meant sitting side stage in the third row of the actual stands... not on the field. and i purchased the tickets on ticketmaster the day of the show. alanis morrisette opened... i missed ironic 'cause i was stuck in traffic. very disapointing...

the stones were phenomenal, however...

360 is only the 3rd tour that they have ditched the seats and had the GA at the lowest or close to the lowest tier of ticket prices. You do realize this, right? This started on Elevation, it was not some greedy, sell more seats for the dinosaur 360 invention! U2 really broke even with this pricing system when compared with another on Elevation and Vertigo. All it did was shift the burden around a little. Seats in the lodge of the arena for another act may be $65, but U2 charged around $95 on Vertigo and were very open about the reason why: they wanted the "best spots in the house," closest to the stage and the band, to be occupied by real fans and not just fat cats who are there to say they were there.

So of course, U2 still makes the money, the distribution is just different. I am not trying to say "look at those wonderful, caring guys they just took a financial hit so their fans could pay less."

While it is true they did not take a financial hit, it is just as true that they made a conscious decision to try and make great, close to the action tickets available to fans. This was a risk as no other acts I am aware of do this with their pricing. The Stones certainly do not.

Of course, the 360 set up was done for money. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise. You can sell more seats. They are still less than the Stones on average, and the front is a flat out bargain compared to the Stones.

you really do believe that u2's "no seats" setup on the floor is done for joe schmo fan like you and i, don't you?

look... they're not dumb. they know how to market themselves and their tickets. but u2 taking seats off the stage was done so that they could fit a significanly larger number of people on the floor. so instead of charging $100 they charge half that, but fit three times as many people on the floor.

on top of that... u2 have made sure that all three of the last tours utilize every possible seat in the venue. that's not about money? come on...

when you open up more seats, you can charge less money per seat and make the same amount, if not more. the rolling stones use end stages... even for arena shows.

if it reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally was all about the fans... why not make the fan club ticketing policy much more fan friendly? why not reserver the heart, ellipse or circle for only fan club? other acts do.

and the last part of it is that i'm 100% fine with it being about the money... it's supposed to be. but to act like it doesn't matter is just silly and naive.




I'll take the band who is still hungry and would rather have enthusiastic fans, undoubtedly many newer and younger like myself, down at the front than in the nosebleeds while the fat mid life crisis loser from the taxpayer owned bank yaps away on his cellphone at the stage front!

have ya ever been in the red zone? just asking...

There is a whole lot of sense in what U2girl and others say. A whole lot of whacky in what you are saying! As has been said before, the casual fan hit parade now includes Beautiful Day, Elevation, Walk On, Stuck, City of Blinding Lights and Vertigo. They may not all be my favorites, but people know and love these songs. How many Stones songs from 2000-2009 are like this?

I would say the general public could easily name all of those songs and they are extremely well liked. Who the hell on the street could name a song from the Stones last album?

you do know that the stones have been around 20 years longer than u2, right? No Line is U2's 13th album... the Stones hadn't even written "Miss You" yet by the time they released their 13th album.

So to ask "how many stones songs from 2000-2009" would the general masses know would be like asking people in 20 years how many U2 songs from 2020 to 2029 do you know?

it's an impossible argument.

As for front loading the set with new songs, U2 has done that to some extent since JT and especially did it on Zoo TV and Popmart, which, surprise, surprise, were the other 2 stadium tours! I think for U2 it is always a matter of what works, or what they feel works whether you or I like it or not. By the end of the 2nd leg of 360, the NLOTH opening barrage had been broken up a bit.

People take bathroom breaks. Not me. Not my friends, not the people I go to shows with, but others do it of course. This happens at every concert everywhere. It will happen more so in a stadium. I have honestly never seen a sizable group of people noticeably timing their bathroom breaks to a song. That is just crazy. Maybe a few diehards don't want to hear Pride and know they have a few minutes until Streets and Ultraviolet, and will go to the bathroom then, but how the hell is a casual fan who is dying to hear Beautiful Day going to be sure that they wont start it as soon as they get in the bathroom line?

The reaction to the new songs was great at both Foxboro shows. Not as good as on the Vertigo tour, but people (generally speaking, there are exceptions like Electric co) react best to what they know. Could the average non blue crack fan who does not spend all of their time on U2 be expected to even know anything more than Boots and Magnificent from NLOTH? It has been almost ignored by the mainstream. Unknown Caller, I understand if the reaction was tepid in some places(wasn't in Boston), it is a bit strange and takes some getting used to. Most of the experiences I read about from other fans say that NLOTH, Magnificent, Breathe and Crazy remix all come off extremely well, regardless of the city.

Either way, the reaction matters not. It is U2 constantly working to make the best album they can every single time out, not resting on their past success and having the courage to play 6 or 7 songs from an album not as well known as others to an attendance record setting stadium that counts. Again, when is the last time the Stones cared about actually coming up with something new that they were enthusiastic about and wanted to promote on tour?

No way, no how are the Stones and U2 even comparable in this area. That is not my opinion or anyone else's, it is an undeniable fact!

I am sorry, but the only thing whacky is your post.

yes... i'm a wacky person.

there is really no point in arguing about pee breaks, so i'll skip that... and i've addressed most of what you said about "songs" elsewhere in this post.



the #1 reason why i get annoyed when people bring up the stones vs. u2 argument is because people act as if being compared to one of the greatest rock acts to ever walk the planet is an insult, and use really bad examples to make their point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom