LP13 - Just Give Us Some F*&king News...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So Garth Brooks is going to release a new DOUBLE album in time for Black Friday, he says. That's going to be a very big deal in the US. He's absolutely guaranteed a #1 selling album that week. He hasn't toured or released an album since 2001, instead going on hiatus to raise his family. The public has been waiting for this comeback for a long time, as he pretty much said he wasn't going to do anything until his youngest graduated, which she just did.

I know some of you like to pretend U2 don't care about these things, but they really do IF it's somebody they know they can't beat. It seems unlikely they'll release the same week as Garth does. Your typical American Black Friday shopper is going to see a Garth Brooks album and a U2 album, and choose GB. I'm sure some of you fans in the rest of the world don't see why a Country singer is any threat to U2 at all, but U2 has made it very clear that succeeding in AMERICA is very important to them.

For the record, I think it's really stupid that things like that play any part in U2's career at all. They REALLY want the album to go to #1... why it still matters to them at this point I don't really know
.


I dbl :handuppalmfoward: take full responsibility for the following rather bad semi-pun:




"....but tiiiime won't take the boy out of this man...."


:wink:
 
Can we agree then that U2 has now joined the Pinnacle of the top most powerful and big band club in music history along with The Beatles, Stones, Led Zeppelin and Floyd ?

I mostly agree with this...at this point I'd put them in the same league as the Stones, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who and, of course, Rush. U2 could never do another thing and their legacy would be secure.

The Beatles are in a league of their own, partially because they were first. But no band is ever going to have that kind of cultural impact again.
 
I mostly agree with this...at this point I'd put them in the same league as the Stones, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who and, of course, Rush. U2 could never do another thing and their legacy would be secure.

The Beatles are in a league of their own, partially because they were first. But no band is ever going to have that kind of cultural impact again.

Nor will any band cover anywhere near as much ground, be as innovative, change as much, or be even half as good as the Beatles. The distance between the Beatles and the second best is greater than the distance between 1 and 2 in any field of art, sport, political manipulation...

I really don't think U2 are up there with Floyd, Zep, Stones in the popular consciousness. U2 are better than Floyd by a long shot, but y'all are forgetting how many people absolutely hate U2. The Stones, Who, Zep, Floyd, and Bowie don't have that problem. Of course there are people that don't like them, but U2 are divisive in a way that very few other big bands are. That's always been the case, but their stock now is particularly low.
 
but y'all are forgetting how many people absolutely hate U2. The Stones, Who, Zep, Floyd, and Bowie don't have that problem. Of course there are people that don't like them, but U2 are divisive in a way that very few other big bands are. That's always been the case, but their stock now is particularly low.


I've certainly met more people in my life that hate U2 than those who admittedly like them.
 
Nor will any band cover anywhere near as much ground, be as innovative, change as much, or be even half as good as the Beatles. The distance between the Beatles and the second best is greater than the distance between 1 and 2 in any field of art, sport, political manipulation...

I really don't think U2 are up there with Floyd, Zep, Stones in the popular consciousness. U2 are better than Floyd by a long shot, but y'all are forgetting how many people absolutely hate U2. The Stones, Who, Zep, Floyd, and Bowie don't have that problem. Of course there are people that don't like them, but U2 are divisive in a way that very few other big bands are. That's always been the case, but their stock now is particularly low.

I can't find much to disagree with in this...though I wasn't speaking in terms of quality (i.e. U2 is "better" than Pink Floyd), just their cultural status. You're right about U2 being divisive, and hated by many people, in a way those other bands aren't. But that could partially be because they are still "in the game". You're also quite right about the unique cultural space The Beatles occupy.

It will be interesting to see what the appraisal of U2 is in 20 years.
 
I've certainly met more people in my life that hate U2 than those who admittedly like them.

Yeah I avoid mentioning U2 in any Facebook statuses etc simply because I'm sick of people commenting "U2 are shit" or "Bono's a tool". It's mainly due to Bono's activism and the fact that apparently "all their songs sound the same".
 
Yeah I avoid mentioning U2 in any Facebook statuses etc simply because I'm sick of people commenting "U2 are shit" or "Bono's a tool". It's mainly due to Bono's activism and the fact that apparently "all their songs sound the same".

I think we get plenty of those comments on here as it is.:D

All kidding aside, I've had to fight the "sounds the same" opinions more than a few times in the past too.
 
Yeah I avoid mentioning U2 in any Facebook statuses etc simply because I'm sick of people commenting "U2 are shit" or "Bono's a tool". It's mainly due to Bono's activism and the fact that apparently "all their songs sound the same".


"No one likes U2" seems to be popular as well
 
I like when my friends, who are also dads, make fun of me for liking "Dad Rock".

Sent from my 831C using U2 Interference mobile app
 
I can't find much to disagree with in this...though I wasn't speaking in terms of quality (i.e. U2 is "better" than Pink Floyd), just their cultural status. You're right about U2 being divisive, and hated by many people, in a way those other bands aren't. But that could partially be because they are still "in the game". You're also quite right about the unique cultural space The Beatles occupy.

It will be interesting to see what the appraisal of U2 is in 20 years.

As some one who's "... life was changed by rock & roll".... :wink: :)
as in The Beatles in 64 when I was not quite 11 yrs .....

...absolutely no doubt that (also because the particular time & place esp with The USA's cache then) The Beatles taking America by storm.... ushered in a music and as they continued, etc - helped a cultural revolution bloom....
(saw/experienced that, too, here in the usa)

so they stand above all in that respect.....

but I'd put The :heart: Who and :heart: U2 up with The Beatles musically :)

Yeah I avoid mentioning U2 in any Facebook statuses etc simply because I'm sick of people commenting "U2 are shit" or "Bono's a tool". It's mainly due to Bono's activism and the fact that apparently "all their songs sound the same".
:lol::lol::lol:

Tell that to all the U2 fans who never quite forgiven them for chopping down The Joshua Tree and replacing it with AB, Zooropa, POP....and maybe for some NLOTH.
 
People forget, but Zepplin were hated in their time.


Led Zeppelin’s legacy is fittingly long and fittingly loud. Depending on your preference in white male hagiography, “modern” rock music is often said to have started with Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone,” or Sgt. Pepper, but these myths are wishful, and overly fanciful: Modern rock music started with Led Zeppelin. Their influence, for better and worse, over all that’s come since is singular. Punk in the 1970s was a rejection of their pompous pretentiousness, metal in the 1980s an affirmation of their excesses, grunge in the 1990s a reclamation of punk that often sounded a lot like Led Zeppelin. We have Led Zeppelin to blame for Creed; we have Led Zeppelin to thank for the White Stripes. They were a band loved by millions, but if you were smart, or just cool, you probably hated them. Led Zeppelin lifted popular music to new heights of opulence and ambition and in doing so made people fear for its future. They were a microcosm of age-old anxieties about music and commerce and youth and race and sex: if the music of the ’60s—Motown, the Beatles, Stax and Muscle Shoals, Woodstock—brought unprecedented consensus, Led Zeppelin brought something like the opposite. Forty-five years later, we live in their aftershocks.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/06/led_zeppelin_how_jimmy_page_robert_plant_et_al_invented_modern_rock.html#comments


Floyd have always been an acquired taste, and their druggie countercultural aura was part of their appeal -- they are very much a teenage rite of passage band. Lots of people have their Floyd phase.

It's hard to say with U2. I suspect history will be kind to JT and AB. But they are so upfront with their need to be loved that no one wants to give them (or their fans) the satisfaction. And we can be an evangelical bunch. I think that their influence is more pervasive than we might think. I was born in the late 1970s, and I remember in college a discussion about "name one band of which everyone owns at least one album." They were the obvious first choice, even over The Beatles, since many peole know them from their parents but don't necessarily own Rubber Soul.

I think the songs will win out in the end. They have an easy dozen classics. Another dozen beloved. And 2-3 contenders in "best song ever written" contests. The problem is Bono, sadly. The South Park guys hit it on the head.
 
I usually don't have a problem with being open about my fandom. I have U2 song lines as e-mail signatures and also have little bits of infos about the music I enjoy on my website. Whenever someone comes to my place, they see that I have a thing for U2. I'm surrounded by quite mature people most of the time who either don't know much about U2, aren't that interested in music anyway or don't care much, so I don't really have any negative experience, at least not with people I know personally. I also teach literature classes and I haven't really experienced any negativity from my students, nor has anyone NOT come to my classes because they knew I'm a U2 fan. Some have been curiously and asked me about it and I've had quite rational discussions about the band, but no hostility. Stupid and childish comments about the band or Bono in particular are something I know from the internet alone and I don't take that seriously.

Maybe it's because I generally accept all kinds of music tastes in other people, too, even though I often don't share them. I think if you really know a person and are interested in that person you don't really care about their taste in music, even though you sometimes might not agree with it, it's just part of who you they are and the world is big enough for everything.
 
I've heard "Bono's a dick" dozens of times. Mostly in Ireland.
 
I mostly agree with this...at this point I'd put them in the same league as the Stones, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who and, of course, Rush. U2 could never do another thing and their legacy would be secure.

The Beatles are in a league of their own, partially because they were first. But no band is ever going to have that kind of cultural impact again.

True, but I simply meant that U2 are now definitely in that "Monster Band group" few in music history amongst these giants in terms of worldwide popularity, album sales, tour scopes ,musical impact overall and the longevity of their legacy...
 
I really am a closet u2 fan. I pretend to hate them just like everyone else. But deep down im just a fangirl at heart. In fact, im one of the most active posters here in PLEBA under several different alters. :love:

Leather Day, MOOB Day, those are the best days of my life. I once carved a Bono tatoo on my arm with a rusty spoon. Im so fat and hideous that my arm is perma covered - so the general public doesn't often see it. But when i roll (literally) into the concert i leave nothing to the imagination and have been known to throw my lady undergarments at the rhythm section.
 
I really am a closet u2 fan. I pretend to hate them just like everyone else. But deep down im just a fangirl at heart. In fact, im one of the most active posters here in PLEBA under several different alters. :love:

Leather Day, MOOB Day, those are the best days of my life. I once carved a Bono tatoo on my arm with a rusty spoon. Im so fat and hideous that my arm is perma covered - so the general public doesn't often see it. But when i roll (literally) into the concert i leave nothing to the imagination and have been known to throw my lady undergarments at the rhythm section.

Oh honey, I sure got you good in the "I'm one of your husbands" thread. ;)

PS. See you at home. What would you like to do for dinner(s) tonight?

Sent from my 831C using U2 Interference mobile app
 
Guys, every American loves Garth Brooks, and everyone everywhere loves Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. If Garth Brooks and Pink Floyd were to release a collaborative triple album of polka songs on Black Friday, every citizen of the US would buy 5 copies.

These are confirmed facts. Do not argue them.



i think, per capita, Garth Brooks is much more popular in Ireland than in the US.

he'll never-ever-ever get back to Taylor Swift heights of popularity again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom