hcbiggs2002 said:
I don't like to speak ill of the dead but...! How dare he compare U2 to the Spice Girls!! U2 are by far a superior band in everyway!
I must admit... you have a point there. Don't forget though, that George pretty much shunned commercial pop/rock after his 1987 comeback, and subsequent rejection of the record industry (for the 2nd or 3rd time at least). With the exception of the odd set of Beatles stuff ... which had a
hell of a lot more to do with a certain Mr McCartney than it did with Harrison anyway.
As I seem to have become George's biographer and apologist, to whoever said he didn't get cancer until 2001: he was diagnosed with throat cancer and had a piece of his lung removed in 1997. His diagnosis of brain cancer followed in 2001.
I can't say I'd be in the best of moods under any of those circumstances and would probably moan about any bugger who irritated me. It was probably something of a generalisation on George's part. Who knows? maybe we should have a seance and ask him. He'd probably tell us to bog off and go talk about something more important than a throwaway comment about U2.
blueeyedgirl said:
DIE, THREAD, DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh dear! Go take your medication, sweetie, you'll soon feel better.
That said, this is geting boooooooooooooooooooooooooring. George (of whom I personally was very fond) was as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. What he said wasn't some sort of fact, it was his prediction based on his opinion. He predicted wrongly. Shock horror! So f***ing what? Cope.
Whatever the case - the Beatles vs U2 nonsense is plain dumb.
Just to change tack a little.... I thought George's comment about Oasis was bang on the mark. good band, but overrated.
Anyway as it doesn't matter, I'm giving this silly thread up!
Max_theHitman said:
Will humankind still remenber the "Beatles" and "U2" in the year 2500??
That is the question.
We'll have blown up the planet long before then, so it won't be an issue.