Porno might be one of my favorite songs of the year. What the hell?
I'm a big fan of the song too. I don't understand why it's so disliked.
Porno might be one of my favorite songs of the year. What the hell?
The '2 is greater than The 'Fire.
For that matter, Rush > AF.
It doesn't have to be a competition. I like U2 more than Arcade Fire but I like Arcade Fire's albums better than anything U2 has released since Pop.
Great. But what about the things that really matter?
Where do you stand on Rush?
It doesn't have to be a competition. I like U2 more than Arcade Fire but I like Arcade Fire's albums better than anything U2 has released since Pop.
Did I actually stumble into Bang & Clatter?
It doesn't have to be a competition. I like U2 more than Arcade Fire but I like Arcade Fire's albums better than anything U2 has released since Pop.
There's nothing else U2 related to talk about unless we resurrect topics like fish and bicycles.
You're half right here, while most of your post is just half arsedToo long between releases and too much mediocrity from the sacred '2.
Did I actually stumble into Bang & Clatter?
Will someone please explain to me why people keep calling the band "the '2" in this obnoxious way?
Will someone please explain to me why people keep calling the band "the '2" in this obnoxious way?
He referred to knowing that a magazine was going to get a rating of a 2 and subsequently referred to it as "the 2." When that magazine ended up giving them a 5/5 instead of a 2, he claimed he wasn't talking about a rating and was actually referring to the band as "the 2." It was the stupidest thing you've ever seen in your life.
Don't hold anything back there, lol. Of course I know he has said this in the past, but that doesn't make it any less true. All it means is that they obviously considered their past few albums to be great enough to meet their standards (and I think they were right, actually, as they have all been great IMO, with the exception of a couple songs on each album). I am just curious, let's say that this time the album doesn't quite meet their standards...I am wondering what would happen. Do they just keep working on it indefinitely? Or do they scrap the entire project and start again? I imagine that at a certain point, they would have to scrap it if it isn't arriving at a particular standard they have set for themselves.Just fucking stop. He says that about every fucking album. They're going to release an album in Feb, Mar or Apr, and they will consider it great unless the general public doesn't digest it properly -- in which case they'll distance themselves.
Come on. Space Moon.
y so angry, tho?Just fucking stop. He says that about every fucking album. They're going to release an album in Feb, Mar or Apr, and they will consider it great unless the general public doesn't digest it properly
Question for you guys: Do you think that if the new album, as a whole, is not up to par to what U2 considers "great", that they might decide not to even release it? Bono did say on Letterman, "Why does the world need a new U2 album [unless it's great]. There are plenty of them already." Those words really hit home with me. It got me thinking that if the album doesn't meet their standards, they could very well not release it. Thoughts?