cdirani
War Child
And If the media stops just to print a headline that Britney Spears is at the rehab (like many "singers" of our RELEVANT pop scene) then the question turns out to be stupid.
I find it highly ironic that Q107 - A CLASSIC ROCK RADIO STATION is questioning whether U2 is relevant by the way...
The reason the word relevant came up is because Mr. Bono said that this is their best album and if it is not then U2 is not relevant anymore. So now the blame belongs to mr Bono .
Can I just say... U2 are a band, four members, plural !
My question would be: Is the release of this CD anybig deal? The music is 95% great, agreed. But does it merrit 5 nights on letterman? Is that an acolade for their accomplishment or just a P.R. power move? That wherein the definition of relevance lies I think. But it's just IMHO always.
I find it highly ironic that Q107 - A CLASSIC ROCK RADIO STATION is questioning whether U2 is relevant by the way...
Define relevance?
That's the key thing, what does relevant mean?
TV On The Radio might have made what was critically regarded as the best album of '08, but they've hardly captivated millions of people like U2 or Coldplay do. Of course, TV On The Radio have nowhere near the commercial scope to captivate these millions of people, but if no one's hearing the songs, what relevance does the band and a song like Golden Age truly have?
This isn't a criticism of TVOTR, just a query as to whether they have the potential to be as relevant as a more established band.
As much as I hate to go back on years of shit talking, the honest truth is that even haters like myself will find little to dislike in this album. Although "No Line On The Horizon" does nothing to answer the age-old question, “Is U2 full of shit or do they know exactly what they are doing?”, this may ultimately for the best. For this is the mystery that keeps U2 relevant throughout the years… this question of whether they are the biggest sell-outs in rock history or bonafide geniuses. And mystery is exactly what the music industry today is missing more than anything.
Course U2 are relevant! They are still the influence of up and coming bands.
"My brief flirtation as a U2 fanboy came to an abrupt end due to a combination of “Zooropa” and “Pop” sucking and my girlfriend at the time having an affair with a goddamn U2 stage show lighting technician. I sold all my U2 records to Amoeaba and washed my hands of them. I no longer enjoyed U2 without thinking of that crushing humiliation suffered at their unknowing hands."
Can I just say... U2 are a band, four members, plural !
That's predominate in Commonwealth English, but here in 'merica, one would tend to say 'U2 is' instead of 'U2 are'.
There are plural members of the band, but the band itself is a singular unit (there are not multiple U2s), hence "U2 is..."
See below.
Yep. The U2 are bit used to drive me nuts because U2 the band is singular, not plural, but I got over it.
Ever hear the quote: "America and England are two nations divided by a common language." ? Differences in usage such as this are part of the reason. Also that you people (Brits) call cookies biscuits. They are cookies, damn it!
I think U2 are, I don't think their music is.
They haven't been anywhere near the front of the pack musically for 15 years now (that's not a statement about quality, just influence/impact etc - although granted ATYCLB had a cultural impact in the US post 9/11, but that's more circumstance than creative genius).