Is this the worst comment ever......?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
mo786 said:
Ehh, I had a long reply written out but my net disconencted when I pressed send...


I ain't writing it all out again, but I have to get this little bit in..

As it happens I have Sgt Peppers on my PC right now and frankly some of the songs would be totally disregarded today if they were released as new single (i.e from a new band)

sgt. peppers, with a little help, lucy in the sky, getting better, and one of the best freakin songs ever written....a day in the life if you think this songs are not worth hearing and defending then I am speechless:|
 
Ehh, I probably should have written my reply out again coz I missed a few bits...but in particular

When I'm 64 and With a little help from my friends are 2 songs that I think would not cut it in this day and age.

Do you, and why?
 
try to rea.. lize it's all within yourself no one else can make you change.... and to see you're really only very small and life flows on within you and without you... :drool:
 
mo786 said:
Ehh, I probably should have written my reply out again coz I missed a few bits...but in particular

When I'm 64 and With a little help from my friends are 2 songs that I think would not cut it in this day and age.

Do you, and why?


well I can't defend when I'm 64 it's just a silly pop song, but with a little help it's actually one of my personal favorites might it work now? I don't know IMO I think it would, but I believe you are still missing the point, that album still has great songs and it works better as a whole, try magical mystery tour...
 
mo786 said:
Ehh, I probably should have written my reply out again coz I missed a few bits...but in particular

When I'm 64 and With a little help from my friends are 2 songs that I think would not cut it in this day and age.

Do you, and why?

Well since both songs are known by everyone who is just remotely interested in music, and still loved by millions of people today, I would say that they have pretty much proved their worth.
 
U2Man said:


Well since both songs are known by everyone who is just remotely interested in music, and still loved by millions of people today, I would say that they have pretty much proved their worth.

I agree
 
mo786 said:
(Finally, I haven't heard all the Beatles' albums because I have heard most of the 'best' songs and I didn;t think it was worth seeking all the albums out to hear the 'lesser' songs!)

That's the problem with judging any band based on the radio hits you hear. My Beatles collection is very laking, I never had to buy a vinyl album growing up because my brother had them all and I never bothered to get the cd's (I think Sgt Pepper is the only CD I have)

I just picked up Revolver because I wanted to learn to play a couple of songs on my guitar and my god, it is fucking brilliant. To think that this album was made in 1966 is just incredible, blows away Sgt Pepper IMO. Possibly the best studio album ever made.

Can we agree to leave anything off of Pop or Magical Mystery Tour off of a list of "timeless classics"?

No? I didn't think so. :wink:
 
Nasty little Beatleses....

My Beatles collection is very laking

Laking? You mean you thought they were so bad you threw them in a lake??!

Ignore that - I'm just being silly. ;D

I love both bands...

One Beatley thing I DEFINITELY would not miss is Octopus' Garden, from Abbey Road - talk about ruining an amazing album.

Okay, okay, the song's not that bad... it's quite a cute little ditty, I guess, but I could kind of do without. The same applies to the inane Maxwell's Silver Hammer. Yeah, Macca, we all knew you were great at writing songs that tell stories... but that one was thoroughly pointless. in my opinion.

Moving awayfrom Abbey Road... Let It Be is one of the most simple, but also the most beautiful, touching and emotive songs I have ever heard.
 
Last edited:
U2Man said:


Well since both songs are known by everyone who is just remotely interested in music, and still loved by millions of people today, I would say that they have pretty much proved their worth.


That means nothing because the point was a lot of their songs (that i have heard) would be disregarded TODAY (i.e discounting the whole history of the Beatles)
 
mo786 said:



That means nothing because the point was a lot of their songs (that i have heard) would be disregarded TODAY (i.e discounting the whole history of the Beatles)

That may be true. I am sure if a lot of U2 songs were released in 40 years, they would be disregarded as well. That is the nature of music. What is popular one year, would not be the next. That doesn't make the Beatles any less great. Just as U2 will still be considered great in 40 years.
 
bsp77 said:


That may be true. I am sure if a lot of U2 songs were released in 40 years, they would be disregarded as well. That is the nature of music. What is popular one year, would not be the next. That doesn't make the Beatles any less great. Just as U2 will still be considered great in 40 years.

I dunno, some of U2's songs sound as fresh as anything today. I heard "2 hearts beat as 1", the other day on the radio. I'm listening thinking, this song was released more than 20 years ago.

Does make Kelly Clarkson sound even more annoying too.
 
thrillme said:


I dunno, some of U2's songs sound as fresh as anything today. I heard "2 hearts beat as 1", the other day on the radio. I'm listening thinking, this song was released more than 20 years ago.


Well, I think that is because that post-punk sound is in fashion again. But would it have been successful in the early 90's? Not sure. And in 20 more years (once it has been about 40 years since it was released), who knows what kind of music will be successful on the radio.

I still think most of the Beatles songs sound fresh, but I could see some of them not being as successful with radio play today. Just a different landscape.

That said, I don't understand how anyone can knock the Beatles.
 
There's plenty of crappy Beatle songs: Your Mother Should Know, Martha My Dear, Polythene Pam, etc.

These are crappy songs. Not to mention some of their earlier stuff from their first couple of albums.

I'm not going to take too much away from the Beatles. They've been my 2nd or 3rd favorite band behind U2 and the Stones.

U2 writes, records and performs some GREAT songs.

Jeeez, I thought everybody knew that.

Even George Harrison.

Didn't he sing "I'm Happy Just to Dance With You" ?

Good one, George.
 
I Like Bono's response to George Harrison's comment. He said it at a Popmart concert;
'George Harrison should go back to his Holiday home for the bewildered'

Bono shared a stage with McCartney this year, I think the beatles know U2's worth now and more so Lennon would be a huge fan of BONO.

Cheers
 
davisharvey said:
"If somebody tries to take my place
Let's pretend we just can't see his face"


Indeed.

What does that mean - has U2 suddenly become the greatest band of all time, or did I miss something? :scratch:
 
LuvandPeace1980 said:
I Like Bono's response to George Harrison's comment. He said it at a Popmart concert;
'George Harrison should go back to his Holiday home for the bewildered'.

Heheheh! Nice one, B.
 
Last edited:
hcbiggs2002 said:
I don't like to speak ill of the dead but...! How dare he compare U2 to the Spice Girls!! U2 are by far a superior band in everyway!

I must admit... you have a point there. Don't forget though, that George pretty much shunned commercial pop/rock after his 1987 comeback, and subsequent rejection of the record industry (for the 2nd or 3rd time at least). With the exception of the odd set of Beatles stuff ... which had a hell of a lot more to do with a certain Mr McCartney than it did with Harrison anyway.

As I seem to have become George's biographer and apologist, to whoever said he didn't get cancer until 2001: he was diagnosed with throat cancer and had a piece of his lung removed in 1997. His diagnosis of brain cancer followed in 2001.

I can't say I'd be in the best of moods under any of those circumstances and would probably moan about any bugger who irritated me. It was probably something of a generalisation on George's part. Who knows? maybe we should have a seance and ask him. He'd probably tell us to bog off and go talk about something more important than a throwaway comment about U2.

blueeyedgirl said:
DIE, THREAD, DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:lock::lock::lock:
:lmao: Oh dear! Go take your medication, sweetie, you'll soon feel better. :wink:

That said, this is geting boooooooooooooooooooooooooring. George (of whom I personally was very fond) was as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. What he said wasn't some sort of fact, it was his prediction based on his opinion. He predicted wrongly. Shock horror! So f***ing what? Cope. :rolleyes:

Whatever the case - the Beatles vs U2 nonsense is plain dumb.

Just to change tack a little.... I thought George's comment about Oasis was bang on the mark. good band, but overrated.

Anyway as it doesn't matter, I'm giving this silly thread up!

Max_theHitman said:
Will humankind still remenber the "Beatles" and "U2" in the year 2500??
That is the question.
:lol:

We'll have blown up the planet long before then, so it won't be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom