Shuttlecock IV: The Doubles

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
ByE6S-7CEAA1qtO.jpg
 
OK, so I wathced the Shuttlecock episode of Jools Holland just now, and holy hell is Sam Smith horrible. Was eating dinner in the next room and had to get up and mute the TV. Who actually likes that crap?
 
OK, so I wathced the Shuttlecock episode of Jools Holland just now, and holy hell is Sam Smith horrible. Was eating dinner in the next room and had to get up and mute the TV. Who actually likes that crap?


Did it finally air? I have like 5 episodes on my dvr but haven't checked out the new one that recorded.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
OK, so I wathced the Shuttlecock episode of Jools Holland just now, and holy hell is Sam Smith horrible. Was eating dinner in the next room and had to get up and mute the TV. Who actually likes that crap?

Should have left it on. It's suitable dinner party music.

Or as Kevin Spacey would call it, "Lawrence Welk shit."
 
The December 1991 issue of Rolling Stone predicted the eventual writing of Sleep Like A Baby Tonight, and might have predicted something nice about The Edge as well, and Larry's desire to act, and not sure about Adam.

rollingstone1991dec.jpg
 
My new favourite thing in music talk (said with a wry smirk):

Rounding up.

Like, U2 have given us forty years of music. That rounding up. Ok, sure, it's true that they formed a band as teenagers and I guess 1976/77 is getting sort of close. As recording artists, I'd put 1980- as their era. And considering how much of the last decade has been dead time, on-hiatus-in-all-but-name, I think of their real career as something in the 25-28 year range.

Which is quite a bit of time, don't get me wrong. But 'forty years' talk just makes me feel old. All these bands that run out the clock so that fans can say 'forty years', 'fifty years', 'sixty years'!!! Australian dance artists The Avalanches are now celebrating 15 years! YAAH!
 
U2's career is at about the same length as the Beatles would've been when The Beatles Anthology was released.

I was just starting high school at the time ('95) and the Beatles seemed ancient to me.
 
I mean, am I wrong? Is U2 seriously just going to gel perfectly with AAC? Am I just a bafflingly stupid person? Will the average KROQ fan and the U2 fans just get along peachy keen? Sometimes...sometimes I really hate even trying to have a conversation.
 
It's not U2 that bothers me (well, them playing an acoustic set as the headliners of a rock fest would bug me), it's the idea of U2 and the circus they bring with them headlining a fairly small festival. It just doesn't seem like a good idea.

I don't remember if Travis said this to me in person, or somewhere on here, but if it was just a KROQ side show, and it was 90 minutes of acoustic at the same venue, I'd be totally in. I love U2, and I wouldn't mind seeing an acoustic show, at all. Especially with the forewarning that it would be acoustic. I've tried to be clear about that, maybe I failed. I want to see U2, of course, but I know they'll be back next year, probably several times, so I'm not chomping at the bit for it, either.
 
Eh, to me U2 just caps off a pretty strong lineup (especially if Edge remembers to pack an electric guitar in his carry on), so if I were in So Cal, I'd be making every effort to get tix. But I like Smashing Pumpkins, Tears For Fears and Weezer quite a bit, and also like Interpol and Modest Mouse though not quite as strongly. So in my opinion its a shot to see 6 very good bands in one show (plus 3 I don't care about), for a reasonable ticket price. If that show was in Boston it'd be a no brainer for me personally.
 
We're going to try for tickets, and I want to see all of the bands, but I'm not going to be blind to the potential pitfalls, either. That's all I was trying to say both here, and there. I think, in the end, because things have to be so black and white, that I accidentally ended up on the NO U2 ARE SUX I DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM AT MY FESTIVAL!!:!?!KJ:LKGJ:SL side of the argument, and that wasn't my intention.

I am probably going to post this over there as well. It's so easy to get caught up in the heat of things, when people (myself obviously included) can get so very hyperbolic.
 
U2's career is at about the same length as the Beatles would've been when The Beatles Anthology was released.

I was just starting high school at the time ('95) and the Beatles seemed ancient to me.

I compare U2 more to The Rolling Stones due to both having longevity as a active bands. If you compare where the two were, and are, 34 years after their debut albums, Boy 1980 and The Rolling Stones (UK title)/England's Newest Hit Makers (US) 1964.. The Stones had released Bridges to Babylon in 1997, and of course with U2 we have Songs.. Did anyone care about Bridges in 1997? I vaguely recall a press conference shown on MTV but most people really cared about the next time the Stones were going on tour. I don't think U2 have reached that type of act yet where the general public only cares about their tour and going to see the hits. I mean, I am sure some do. But with U2 it's more admirable that they really do focus on their new albums.
 
Back
Top Bottom