Why all of the negativity????

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I highly doubt that it would have generated as much noise. Negativity drives noise.


A lie can travel half way around the work before the truth gets it's shoes on(Earnest Hemmingway?)




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
It's just that U2 have now been together 38 years. That's roughly around the time in the Stones' history where they released a turd of an album called Bridges to Babylon and followed it with a huge world tour.

U2 has dropped the deuce and it will soon be touring time.
 
It's just that U2 have now been together 38 years. That's roughly around the time in the Stones' history where they released a turd of an album called Bridges to Babylon and followed it with a huge world tour.

U2 has dropped the deuce and it will soon be touring time.


Still trying to hard I see


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Then you don't listen to most rock albums of recent times.


Yup. That dude is clueless. The most recent great rock album was Walking On Water by Katrina and The Waves. That's a real album. It puts everything U2 has done to shame. If KATW pulled this stunt, the whole world would rejoice.
 
I'd take the self-titled Katrina & The Waves over any Stones album post-Tattoo You. It has some great songs on there and a guy from The Soft Boys.

But really, with so many great albums coming out every year, it's kind of an insult to say Bridges to Babylon holds up with the rest of modern music. It just shows how ignorant the poster is and how little new music they listen to.

Which is kind of my point around here...a lot of the regulars over in the music discussion forum on here might like the new U2 album but don't love as much as a lot of other new stuff while the posters on here that have heard about three new albums from 2014 are declaring it to be the second coming.
 
Which is kind of my point around here...a lot of the regulars over in the music discussion forum on here might like the new U2 album but don't love as much as a lot of other new stuff while the posters on here that have heard about three new albums from 2014 are declaring it to be the second coming.


So you've been in my iTunes account too?

Larry, is that you?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Then you don't listen to most rock albums of recent times.

As a matter of fact I don't. I stopped listening to new music since nothing new that was around caught my interest. Now, if you want, name the 30 best albums of the last 10 years I will be glad to listen to them.
 
As a matter of fact I don't. I stopped listening to new music since nothing new that was around caught my interest. Now, if you want, name the 30 best albums of the last 10 years I will be glad to listen to them.


Same here. Very few bands that I'd buy their album right when it comes out. I'd say U2, The Killers, and maybe the Foo Fighters. Not much good music currently. Oh, and of course Katrina and The Waves.
 
I'd take the self-titled Katrina & The Waves over any Stones album post-Tattoo You. It has some great songs on there and a guy from The Soft Boys.

But really, with so many great albums coming out every year, it's kind of an insult to say Bridges to Babylon holds up with the rest of modern music. It just shows how ignorant the poster is and how little new music they listen to.

Which is kind of my point around here...a lot of the regulars over in the music discussion forum on here might like the new U2 album but don't love as much as a lot of other new stuff while the posters on here that have heard about three new albums from 2014 are declaring it to be the second coming.

Don't you agree that this comment was a bit arrogant?

I probably listen to music long before you had your first kiss, and be sure, the best music rest in the past. Its not just me who says that by the way...
So please, show some respect for other's people opinion.
 
Which is kind of my point around here...a lot of the regulars over in the music discussion forum on here might like the new U2 album but don't love as much as a lot of other new stuff while the posters on here that have heard about three new albums from 2014 are declaring it to be the second coming.



i'm all for everyone having an opinion, and also understanding that some opinions are more informed than others, and i've also been more critical than most about the album release strategy, but this is really, really patronizing.
 
I've never heard about this Katrina... I will look into it right now I will get back to you soon! I love discovering new music(since its good of course).
 
Yup. That dude is clueless. The most recent great rock album was Walking On Water by Katrina and The Waves. That's a real album. It puts everything U2 has done to shame. If KATW pulled this stunt, the whole world would rejoice.

Thanks to make look like a fool to think Katrina and the Waves was a new, hot, rock band! :doh::angry:

And this in front of all Interference. :shifty:
 
I feel much less bummed by all the negativity after hearing Bono's and the Edge's interviews today. Links to several are available in thread "New U2 interviews: Schedules and discussion". They definitely haven't let it get them down. Edge says they wouldn't have done anything differently.
 
Last edited:
i'm all for everyone having an opinion, and also understanding that some opinions are more informed than others, and i've also been more critical than most about the album release strategy, but this is really, really patronizing.

Yes, I guess what I said is more patronizing than when middle aged people say the music of today sucks without actually listening to any of it. :hmm:
 
Yes, I guess what I said is more patronizing than when middle aged people say the music of today sucks without actually listening to any of it. :hmm:

Ok, so music today is better than the music made by?
80's U2, REM, The Police, Michael Jackson, The Smiths, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Queen, Joy Division, New Order, Led Zeppelin, Guns n' roses, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Phil Collins and the Genesis, Peter Gabriel, The Cure, Dire Straits, Metallica, Jesus and Mary Chain? Maybe i am not that ignorant...

Well, I know in the end its all a matter of a taste, but, and this is not a simple opinion of mine, people in general put those legends way above today's artists in terms of musical quality.
So, when I say that I think an album by the great Rolling Stones is better than many of the current albums, i believe i'm not a complete ignorant as you said. Think twice before calling somebody ignorant.
 
Ok, so music today is better than the music made by?
80's U2, REM, The Police, Michael Jackson, The Smiths, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Queen, Joy Division, New Order, Led Zeppelin, Guns n' roses, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Phil Collins and the Genesis, Peter Gabriel, The Cure, Dire Straits, Metallica, Jesus and Mary Chain? Maybe i am not that ignorant...

First, you would have to define "today" as a specific time period. If we're just saying 2014, then you can only compare a single previous year like 1986 or whatever.

My argument is that there's more great music coming out today than in years past. It certainly doesn't mean that the top albums are on par with the top from a certain year three decades ago, but it means there's more branches coming out of the tree if you will, they just might not be as sturdy as the ones in the past. I'd rather be in an era where I can add 50 or 75 great albums a year to my library than, say, 25 from 1984 or whatever. Granted, the top five choices from 1984 probably will slay the top five favorites of mine from 2014, but I'd rather have more than less because great music is great music. Not everything is going to be Pet Sounds.

If you look at this way (and something a lot of listeners of modern music can agree with me on), look at the top 100 albums from 1965 on RateYourMusic and compare them to 2010 or whatever (remembering to take out all the metal recordings since they're overrated to an extreme on there). Obviously, you won't like every title since this is a combined list of thousands of other people, but you'll find that the lists tend to run a little deeper/stronger the further you go down in 2010 whereas 1965 starts with wall-to-wall classics and then enters "meh" territory a lot faster.

But my argument in the first place wasn't that I personally think music is better now than before. My argument is that there's certainly a ton of great music coming out nowadays and to think Bridges to Babylon would even to deserve to be ranked in the Top 1000 of recordings from 1997-onward is an absolutely ludicrous statement. I'm just so sick and tired of people saying modern music sucks when they don't actually go out there and listen to it and only hear a sampling at best of awful modern rock and album rock radio - which now has the most static play lists it has ever had, full of dinosaur acts repeating themselves (Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters) and a lot of untalented newbies. The mainstream music scene is worse than ever before, that's unquestionably true both from a rock perspective and in general, but that doesn't mean there isn't a ton of great stuff bubbling under the radar of those who aren't looking much further than in front of their own noses.

Anyway, my main point is that it's a lot easier to impress people that listen to five albums a year and are now hearing a free record from one of their favorite bands than it is to impress some of us that listen to hundreds of albums of year and have admitted somewhere on Interference that there are dozens (or 50 or 100) that we find better from 2014. Doesn't mean you can't think what you want about the album or absolutely love it (I'm glad for all of you, if not also jealous), but it does mean some of us aren't being needlessly critical when we just find it boring compared to the overload of intriguing ideas we're hearing in the modern day all of the time. To call the new U2 record risk taking in 2014 shows that a lot of people aren't listening to the music of 2014.
 
Back
Top Bottom