I would seriously doubt a spring release after NLOTH and the trepidation surrounding it's follow-up (Fall 2009, June 2010, Fall 2010, May 2011, ???).
not next spring, but the spring after
I would seriously doubt a spring release after NLOTH and the trepidation surrounding it's follow-up (Fall 2009, June 2010, Fall 2010, May 2011, ???).
But I think In Rainbows is also widely regarded as middle of the road amongst Radiohead fans which is why I used Bomb. Those that rank Bomb high on their list in here usually are newer to U2 and music.
Wait I thought Radiohead was the topic at hand
No, this isn't trolling...
so in short: each one except for 50% of themIn short: each post Zooropa record has been weaker than the previous one, No Line and Bomb aside.
not next spring, but the spring after
so in short: each one except for 50% of them
if u2 break up will interference become a radiohead themed forum with a small section dedicated the band formerly known as "the 2"
No, it's not, you dumbass.
Hollow Island said:Not quite. Passengers>Pop>2000>2004<2009
Four records, each not as good as what came before, though three of them are good, the bad songs get worse and more frequent and the good stuff isn't as good. Then came a terrible record, and what followed is an improvement on Bomb, but still not as good as any record released prior to 2004. Unless they change how they look at making music and adopt an attitude akin to the Flaming Lips, Wilco, Radiohead, or U2 pre-2000, they won't be adding anything of note to their discography, and they'll probably be adding to the rot on their reputation - like the Stones. There is no point to them sticking around. If they don't change their attitude they should retire before they shame themselves. And I've said it a few times, but a steady flow of EPs is the way for them to go. 2-4 a year, starting now. Then they can put out a lot of stuff, and not work the life out of it. But I say there will be a record in 2015.
You ruined any credibility you may have had left
You ruined any credibility you may have had left by saying passengers is better than pop.
I approve of this message.
You're full of win
The best songs on Pop are as good as U2 gets, but half of it is weak, or the worst U2 had done up to that point. Passengers is consistent, U2's most daring work, had a few outstanding songs and no bad ones. Still not as good as most albums that preceeded it, though.
Why do so many U2 fans get defensive when Radiohead are brought up?
The best songs on Pop are as good as U2 gets, but half of it is weak, or the worst U2 had done up to that point. Passengers is consistent, U2's most daring work, had a few outstanding songs and no bad ones. Still not as good as most albums that preceeded it, though.
Why do so many U2 fans get defensive when Radiohead are brought up?
I will give you this much, the good songs on PoP are damn good; Mofo, Do You Feel loved, Staring at the Sun, Last Night on Earth, Gone, Please, Wake Up Dead Man, Miami, Playboy Mansion, Velvet Dress
The only song i really dont like is IGWSHA.
Why do you insist on bringing up Radiohead all of the time? Why are you calling people dumbasses? To me that is getting kinda defensive.
Take a chill, bro.
Passengers wasn't U2, it was Passengers.
Which half of Pop would you define as weak? I personally believe that Pop is U2's most daring work, because they put out something they weren't quite comfortable with (and I happen to be one of those people who liked the outcome - it has some unintended consequences that I think U2 could never have imagined, but are great anyway).
I think I'm about ready to bow out of this forum until 2012.
I hope that they break up. They haven't put out a record without a bad song since 1993, and their bad songs have been increasing in frequency and getting worse. Well, Bomb is all bad songs, so NLOTH is a step up. While it has some very good songs, they seem to have run out of ideas. Look at all the lazy Edge-isms on their last three records, the "Stay" quoting outro on MOS, the uninspired, nonsensical lyrics. No Line had a few really good songs, and some very good lyrics, but the ones they made without Eno and Lanois are fucking garbage. Those guys saved the record, and have made u2 the band they are. U2 can't do it on their own any more; their tour is a greatest hits joke, Bono looks like a pathetic overweight old man in his leather suit (When he dresses normally, he looks pretty good)...the whole thing is just pretty sad.
If they stick around, I think they'd be best suited by regularly releasing EPs that are unified in sound and concept (NLOTH would have been an incredible 6-7 song EP), but they'lll probably put out a record in 2015. And it will be bad. So, they'll be gone for 4 years.
Hollow Island said:The best songs on Pop are as good as U2 gets, but half of it is weak, or the worst U2 had done up to that point. Passengers is consistent, U2's most daring work, had a few outstanding songs and no bad ones. Still not as good as most albums that preceeded it, though.
Why do so many U2 fans get defensive when Radiohead are brought up?
who gives a real fuck about radiohead
radiohead was good back in the day, i mean 'the bends' was great. But seriously, they are the most overrated piece of shit nowdays it isnt even funny. I guess they might be "okay", even though they haven't released anything worth a fuck since H2TT. And really i have no idea why some people drink their piss they way they do...oh well
Jim Jones
I really want to know why people get so angry when Radiohead get brought up.
I really don't think you can accuse cobl of not listening to enough music as he is one of B&C's regular posters.