CKONE
Acrobat
Steve Villa wrote (about take that):
Utter garbage, brilliantly marketed and now raking it in off 20 & 30 somethings that still cling to youth.
Mr Cleary wrote:
Well, you think that U2 are the best band around, which casts doubt on your judgement I would suggest.
U2, used to be good, now raking it in FROM (rather than 'off') 30 and 40 somethings that cling to the idea that they are cool.
SteveVilla wrote:
you are absolutely correct in your first statment and my opinion counts for as much as yours as it is only that.
U2 are still raking it in and their longevity cannot be disputed. whether Take That will even be remembered in 10 years time remains to be seen.
i was never a fan of take that as they seemed sh*t, sang sh*t songs aimed at young girls and barring the writing skills of Barlow and the entertainment skills of Williams didnt appear to have a talent among them.
still each to their own
Mr Cleary wrote:
If sales are any sort of measure of quality, then the Eagles have made the best record of all time. Robson and Jerome probably made more money than Nick Drake, it means nowt.
U2 are a nuisance though and have been for a while, I'll grant you that. Like most of their fans in fact.
Dublin Villa wrote:
What kind of generalisation bull crap is this?
Take That are sh*t, SteveVilla doesn't like them, he is right for doing so!
U2 are brilliant, hence being around for so long, SteveVilla likes them, he is right for doing so!
I derive from this that SteveVilla talks much more sense than you
Steve Villa reply to Cleary:
its all opinion of course as my post alluded to. how any band and their fans can be a nuisance is a little bit of an odd statement though? do the fans play U2 too loud all night while you are trying to sleep or do Bono and Edge keep knocking on your door trying to sell you double glazing
Mr Cleary:
nuisance - ie affecting my life negatively over a protracted period of time.
This applies to the band, and increasingly, their fans as well.
Dr G:
How "good" a band are is, on the face of it, entirely subjective.
But I'm sure that there must be a number of objective methods of criticism. But I don't know what they are, and, assuming no-one on here is a professional music critic, nobody else does either.
So all our opinions are equally vaild (or should that be invalid?)
Therefore dismissing Take That as sh*t while promoting U2, or vice-versa is an entirely pointless exercise.
SteveVilla :
of course Dr G you are correct hence why my opinion is only my opinion. however to simply not discuss opinions means that there will be very little discussion about anything. although I accept the point you are about to make that some things are more measurable than others. music taste is of course entirely personal and objective.
"nuisance - ie affecting my life negatively over a protracted period of time.
This applies to the band, and increasingly, their fans as well."
it is a shame Mr Cleary that a bands musical output can impact negatively on your life, the volume or on/off control on your listening devise can help you with that. it has me with Take That
Mr Cleary:
Be good if we could turn the fans off aswell with their giving Bono all this demi God worship!
Irony is of course, a lot of U2 nuts in this country are actually quite xenophobic and racist
Remember that Afrikaaner on Louis Theroux who liked Lionel Richie? A bit like that.
SteveVilla:
i didnt know that Mr Cleary - I have been to a few concerts and met a few fans but never noticed them to be anything other than U2 music fans. certainly it didnt appear that lots of them were racist.
The above is an extract from a debate over the merits (or not of Take That) which turned into an attack on U2 and the suggestion that a lot of U2 fans are racist. I couldnt believe what I read and have complained to the site administrators on vbb.helpdesk@gmail.com particularly as it seems Mr Cleary is a site moderator!!
Feel free to complain if you feel strongly enough about being typecast as a rascist because of the band you like.
I cant post the url to the thread as i havent enough posts.
Utter garbage, brilliantly marketed and now raking it in off 20 & 30 somethings that still cling to youth.
Mr Cleary wrote:
Well, you think that U2 are the best band around, which casts doubt on your judgement I would suggest.
U2, used to be good, now raking it in FROM (rather than 'off') 30 and 40 somethings that cling to the idea that they are cool.
SteveVilla wrote:
you are absolutely correct in your first statment and my opinion counts for as much as yours as it is only that.
U2 are still raking it in and their longevity cannot be disputed. whether Take That will even be remembered in 10 years time remains to be seen.
i was never a fan of take that as they seemed sh*t, sang sh*t songs aimed at young girls and barring the writing skills of Barlow and the entertainment skills of Williams didnt appear to have a talent among them.
still each to their own
Mr Cleary wrote:
If sales are any sort of measure of quality, then the Eagles have made the best record of all time. Robson and Jerome probably made more money than Nick Drake, it means nowt.
U2 are a nuisance though and have been for a while, I'll grant you that. Like most of their fans in fact.
Dublin Villa wrote:
What kind of generalisation bull crap is this?
Take That are sh*t, SteveVilla doesn't like them, he is right for doing so!
U2 are brilliant, hence being around for so long, SteveVilla likes them, he is right for doing so!
I derive from this that SteveVilla talks much more sense than you
Steve Villa reply to Cleary:
its all opinion of course as my post alluded to. how any band and their fans can be a nuisance is a little bit of an odd statement though? do the fans play U2 too loud all night while you are trying to sleep or do Bono and Edge keep knocking on your door trying to sell you double glazing
Mr Cleary:
nuisance - ie affecting my life negatively over a protracted period of time.
This applies to the band, and increasingly, their fans as well.
Dr G:
How "good" a band are is, on the face of it, entirely subjective.
But I'm sure that there must be a number of objective methods of criticism. But I don't know what they are, and, assuming no-one on here is a professional music critic, nobody else does either.
So all our opinions are equally vaild (or should that be invalid?)
Therefore dismissing Take That as sh*t while promoting U2, or vice-versa is an entirely pointless exercise.
SteveVilla :
of course Dr G you are correct hence why my opinion is only my opinion. however to simply not discuss opinions means that there will be very little discussion about anything. although I accept the point you are about to make that some things are more measurable than others. music taste is of course entirely personal and objective.
"nuisance - ie affecting my life negatively over a protracted period of time.
This applies to the band, and increasingly, their fans as well."
it is a shame Mr Cleary that a bands musical output can impact negatively on your life, the volume or on/off control on your listening devise can help you with that. it has me with Take That
Mr Cleary:
Be good if we could turn the fans off aswell with their giving Bono all this demi God worship!
Irony is of course, a lot of U2 nuts in this country are actually quite xenophobic and racist
Remember that Afrikaaner on Louis Theroux who liked Lionel Richie? A bit like that.
SteveVilla:
i didnt know that Mr Cleary - I have been to a few concerts and met a few fans but never noticed them to be anything other than U2 music fans. certainly it didnt appear that lots of them were racist.
The above is an extract from a debate over the merits (or not of Take That) which turned into an attack on U2 and the suggestion that a lot of U2 fans are racist. I couldnt believe what I read and have complained to the site administrators on vbb.helpdesk@gmail.com particularly as it seems Mr Cleary is a site moderator!!
Feel free to complain if you feel strongly enough about being typecast as a rascist because of the band you like.
I cant post the url to the thread as i havent enough posts.
