go to yahoo.com! right now!

[Reggie Thee Dog]

I want to say a few things to say here in regards to Mr. Harrison:

1. While George was definitely not the most proficient songwriter in the Beatles, he may have made a niche in music either way. He was a very good guitarist and a decent songwriter in the end.

2. It was all sour grapes with U2 and the Beatles in George's case. I think he had heard too many times how U2 was the Beatles of its time and that rubbed him the wrong way. Sad that he had to spit in U2 face, but obviously it bothered him.

3. God rest his soul.

 

[Zoorock Girl!]

Did you see the yahoo reply thread?

Looks like the music war Bono talked about in 2000 is still going on. U2 are the last of a dying breed. Good musicians who write their own songs and know how to play.

Get real. There's lots of amazing bands out there, there always have been, and there always will be. Enough with the dramatics.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I think what hes saying is that there arent enough 'amazing bands' in the charts and mainstream. Look at the top 20 and get a bucket ready. Real talent is starting to be overshadowed to an extent where they cant even get their music out. The situation was so much better during the 50s to early 90's. There will always be real talent out there, I just can't hear them

 

[RademR]

i think theres some great bands out there, you just dont see them on the mainstream and MTV because their target audience is for 13 year olds. All they play is bubblegum pop and rap music. Even huge bands like Radiohead and the White Stripes rarely get airtime on MYV, and their big..

 

[ylimeU2]

It is amazing to read the hatred in the messages posted there at Yahoo, it is sad to see how many people out there who hate U2.

One person took the time to add this,

Asked whether he enjoys groups such as Oasis, U2 and TEXAS, George Harrison snorts, "Rubbish! They aren't very interesting. It's OK if you're 14 years old. I prefer to listen to BOB DYLAN." He adds, "You know what irritates me about modern music, it's all based on ego. Look at a group like U2. BONO and his band are so egocentric... The more you jump around, the bigger your hat is, the more people listen to your music... The only important thing is to sell, and make money. It's nothing to do with talent." The Beatles, he claims "had a value which will last forever." Harrison explains, "Today there are groups who sell a lot of records and then disappear immediately. Will we remember U2 in 30 years? Or the Spice Girls? I doubt it."

You can't really blame him for being upset. As Reggie Thee Dog said, U2 has been compaired to the Beatles so much that it probably hits him the wrong way. Take comfort in the fact that he will most likely be wrong.

As far as the Beatles being "bigger then Jesus Christ", that has always been taken out of context. He meant that in that time people where looking away from God, Christianity and religion in general, and towards other things. Nothing egotistical, IMHO. It was just a hyperbole.

And actually on topic, no new stuff in the article, and McCormick has said a lot of it's wrong. However, it is great that people are talking about it. Whenever a U2 song comes on the radio, the DJ talks about how many days until new album, rumors, etc.

 

[Rachel D.]

Bono said that George Harrison never liked U2 and was the "grumpy Beatle," not the "quiet Beatle" like people always said he was. Didn't Paul McCartney also say something bad about U2 not too long ago?

 

[BostonAnne]

I like how we return Harrison's hate with hate...

Well U2 certainly didn't. They were at the end of the Elevation tour when George passed away and they played "My Sweet Lord" as a tribute.

 

[RademR]

Didn't Paul McCartney also say something bad about U2 not too long ago?

I never heard anything. I know he was at the Super Bowl in 2002 when they performed and he said it was a great performance.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Getting back to amazing bands in the charts today....let's see who we can find......hmmm...anyone???

But I don't think that they're aren't some really good bands with the chance to become amazing. There is a lot of good guitar based music on the radio and getting airplay, however there are no "Rock Stars". The stars in music today tend to be on the Hip Hop, and or Pop side. "Pop Stars" if you will.

Eddie Vedder started this crazy thing of not allowing the lead singer to be bigger than the band. Hell every "great" band has had one, maybe two "Rock Stars". The Beatles had John and Paul, the Stones had Mick and Keef, Zep had Page and Plant. Bands like Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, and yes Pearl Jam had charismatic, and troubled front men, with great musicians behind them. Hell even Axl Rose made Guns n' Roses a band worth seeing and hearing.

No bands today have that great frontman (bar U2) that can come out and capture the audience and make them a part of the show. It seems that no one is willing to be the "Star" anymore. Maybe say Justin Hawkins, but his band is sadly seen as parody of a genre gone by (which by the way I think is a bad rap). But until some one in a band can capture the music buying public's imagination bands will come and bands will go. People want substance and great songs....which is exactly what they get from Bono and U2.

 

[mofo82]

The Hives frontman is pretty amazing...they did the Late Show with David Letterman a few weeks back and were REALLY good on stage. they definitely have presence, but their music (like their whole album as opposed to a catchy single) takes some getting used to because its so damn fast.

 

[EvolutionMonkey]

Yeah what i don't understand is you have 6 billion people on this planet and there are almost no real front man like Bono out there that it just boggles the mind. Bands need to wake the F up and start becoming more passionate with the front man role. I remember U2 in the 80's when i wasn't a fan ( I was into Metallica who ruled in the 80's) and i would think to myself the front man of this U2 band is a little too overboard but when i became a fan when Achtung came out i realized he was like that for a reason, to play an important part in the band that actually keeps the audience hanging on his every move. It seems like it needs to come back in a big way.

 

[Bonobondage]

George is so George. When I stabbed him a few years ago, he showed pure fear and said he actually did't write My Sweet Lord. Paul had written it.

Bands of today are so awesome and blow the beatles out of the water.

The hives are like totally the go, man.

the are great music to smoke a big bong to, like Pick Floyd used to be with Waters as lead man, bro. Yeah.

 

[Lo-Fi]

I have nothing against Harrison and God rest his soul, but the comments he made came across as bitter and I find it such a shame that such a huge talent comes across as intimidated by other younger artisits.

I thought he of all people would have seen through U2's brovado and ego of the '90's and seen that it was all just a mask, and that the songs they were performing still had a heart beat and soul.

I mean is he trying to tell us that 'Sgt Peppers Lonely Heats Club Band' wasn't an egocentric record in it's time? The man was way off the mark with regards to U2, to me he just didn't 'get' it and that's fine, we're all entitled to our opinion.

Also, personally, I think we will remember U2 in 30 years time. Their legacy is too great to be ignored over the coming generations.

 

[EvolutionMonkey]

Not only that Lo-Fi but in 30 years I honestly believe U2 will be seen as the greatest band in rock and roll history. I felt that way for 10 years now and it just seems to becoming more of a reality every few years. So many people say it's the Beatles and yes they were the first to do a lot of things when it comes to studio stuff and arrangements and the band had the rock and roll charisma in spades. But which of these two bands have the better songs in terms of sheer numbers ? U2 has written around 200 songs i think (?) and have been around and at the top of rock (or close) for 25 years, the Beatles have how many total songs and how long were they around for ? My belief is because the Beatles were the first big rock and roll band with great songs people remember that for nostolgic reasons or because so many OTHER people feel that way. Of course it's all opinion who will be remembered as the biggest, baddest and best but i think our boys will be at the top of the heap with the Beatles a distant second.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

My hate comment was sarcastic...


I'm surprised no one has moderated the stabbing comment considering how moderated this board is, though its an interesting change of pace.


I believe Jack White is a great frontman type and he's got the fame, but is he still a frontman if the band only has two members? Dave Matthews comes off as interesting frontman type but he gets an equal amount of hate as he does respect.


I don't see U2 being considered the greates rock band ever or looked being at as the grestest rock band ever even with a genration or two was to pass. Rock is no longer the king of the hill and music is two fragmented for that to happen. Also there are just as many haters of U2 IMO as there are fans...

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Trust me more people love that band than hate it. However the haters are just very vocal.

Jack White falls into the late 90's early 21st Century, "I'm too cool to be famous so leave me be", to be a "real" rock star. No presence at all. Great guitarist, good singer, good songwriter, but a star....uh, no.

Where's the new Steven Tyler, David Lee Roth, Bono, Mick Jagger. Guys with style, charisma and talent? The greatest frontmen for the best bands weren't always the greatest singers either.

 

[ZigZag]

Whomever the lead singer of The Hives is.

I don't even like their music, but he's an excellent frontman.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Fred Durst....

 

[neutral]

Whomever the lead singer of The Hives is.

I don't even like their music, but he's an excellent frontman.

Pelle Almquist and yeah I agree. He's great on stage.

nevermind. I can't really think of anyone else.

 

[U2girl]

Eddie Vedder started this crazy thing of not allowing the lead singer to be bigger than the band. Hell every "great" band has had one, maybe two "Rock Stars". The Beatles had John and Paul, the Stones had Mick and Keef, Zep had Page and Plant. Bands like Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, and yes Pearl Jam had charismatic, and troubled front men, with great musicians behind them. Hell even Axl Rose made Guns n' Roses a band worth seeing and hearing.

Also, I think Thom Yorke does not want to be bigger than Radiohead.

I agree, there hasn't been a great frontman since Axl Rose.

 

[Lo-Fi]

Pelle Almquist is a lot of fun to watch, but he borrows too heavily from Mick Jagger to a truly great front man. That's all I see when I watch him perform. All those little peacock struts and pouts. Cool to see in the rock world again no doubt, but all done before. Where's the innovation?

 

[Salome]

My hate comment was sarcastic...


I'm surprised no one has moderated the stabbing comment considering how moderated this board is, though its an interesting change of pace.

yeah, the mods of these boards lack sarcasm and wit


*prays I won't get banned for that comment

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I hope you don't get banned Salome, those mods can be vicious though...