Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
I was waiting for someone else to go after that one....
Canadiens1160 said:
I was waiting for someone else to go after that one....
U2_Guy said:
Bowie's career is a footnote in any musical encyclopedia if compared to U2's carrer.
U2_Guy said:
Bowie's career is a footnote in any musical encyclopedia if compared to U2's carrer.
U2_Guy said:
I'm puzzled. What does it have to do with the discussion?
And no, Flea is technically better.
But Adam is just better. Like The Edge is better than the Satriani's and Steve Vai's of this world...
LemonMacPhisto said:I know music is subjective and whatever, but to say Low is worse than Passengers is like saying a Coldplay album is better than a U2 album.
It's the influenced against the influencer.
Lancemc said:Wow. This is the most lopsided vs. thread I've ever seen. Low is an all-time masterpiece. I can't even begin to explain why Low is an infinitely better than Passengers. So just take my word for it for now.
xaviMF22 said:coldplays first two albums are better that U2's last two albums
IMO bitches
LemonMelon said:
I think I've just found the reason for your HTTT love.
xaviMF22 said:your blue room
LemonMelon said:
And now we have to wait patiently for the response.
This is why arguing in real life is better, because you can see the look of the person's face when they've been owned and dump beer on their head.
Zootlesque said:But this thread is making me want to give Low another chance.
Aaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...U2_Guy said:Bowie's career is a footnote in any musical encyclopedia if compared to U2's carrer.
xaviMF22 said:
....
U2_Guy said:
What's your U2 bad album?
xaviMF22 said:
HTDAAB....worst piece of music my "elite" ears have heard .....
U2_Guy said:Now seriously, it's obvious Bowie is not a footnote like i said (that was so obvious it didn't need a wink) but U2 is more relevant than Bowie, yes. U2 competes with The Beatles as the greatest band ever. Bowie is in a second category...
Sometimes he just jumps on the bandwagon and he has done many bad albums during his career. U2 never made a truly bad album.
Of course, U2 and many 80's acts were influenced by Bowie but some of them surpassed the master. Dave Gahan, for example, would not exist without Bowie, but Depeche Mode (in my opinion) is much greater than the Chameleon.
And i still think Heroes is miles better than Low.
Aygo said:
There is no U2 - as we know it - without David Bowie.
Don't say that Bowie is less relevant than U2, that's not true. Today... yeah, he's less talked and visible, but not in the past and in general.
xaviMF22 said:coldplays first two albums are better that U2's last two albums |
U2_Guy said:
I disagree.
It's not about being talked and visible. It's about making quality music. Bowie's last great album was in the... the... early 80's...
U2 was/is relevant for 30 years now.
Bowie was relevant for 15 years...
Aygo said:
WTF???
Have you been paying attention to music industry (mainly in the UK) and to Bowie's work? Surely not!!!
Okay, keep the wheels, I'll take the bicycle with me...