were the last 11 albums too contrived?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The only U2 release worth listening to is the Another Day single. The rest all suck. U2's an awful band. What a pack of lame drunken idiots.
 
It's a shame, since Boy/Girl sounded so promising...
 
yeah. i've never been happy with anything they've done. that's why i came here.
 
:lmao:

Every single action taken by U2 since at least when they picked up Paul McGuinness, if not before, was meticulously planned. That's U2!
 
Everything since Cartoon World has sucked. They became so commercial after that. :wink:
 
also, refusing to site Mr. Rogers as an influence for song "Beautiful Day" was just wrong.
 
These contrived things always amuse me.

Unless U2 happen to wake up and record an entire album whilst jamming, and contain no thought...it is contrived. Almost all art is contrived. The only contrivance may be the type of reaction the band are seeking. So it isn't the album which is contrived - it is the reactions which are sought.

Back on topic...U23 was promising, the rest is a heap of crap. My favourite U2 song is Larry singing Dirty Old Town.
 
thelaj said:

Back on topic...U23 was promising, the rest is a heap of crap. My favourite U2 song is Larry singing Dirty Old Town.


It took your post long enough to get with the program.... :mad:

:wink:
 
You know what really sucks about U2?

Eleven albums and they ALL contain music. How repetitive is that? What an utterly derivative band. They always repeat themselves for commercial gain. :|
 
Plus, they suck in concert. I had to go see them six times last year, just to make sure they really did suck that bad.
 
bono uses the words kneel, kneeling, and soul on every album.....

just because it sells records.....LAME!2@!!!
 
corianderstem said:
Plus, they suck in concert. I had to go see them six times last year, just to make sure they really did suck that bad.

I think it's so lame that they still play instruments live.

That was fresh in 1976 at Mount Temple, but geez, you'd think by 1980, they would've decided to change things up and try something new!
 
This thread gets fifteen stars:

thread8uk.png


Unfortunately, a bug in the forum software prevents it from displaying that much awesomeness at one time. But that's what it's supposed to look like.
 
Even U2's forums are bland and repetitive. Clearly the band's nature influences the forum to sticking to a static 1-5 star rating. :tsk:
 
Axver said:
Even U2's forums are bland and repetitive. Clearly the band's nature influences the forum to sticking to a static 1-5 star rating. :tsk:

This forum hasn't been good since Pop. :tsk:

:wink:
 
Utoo said:


This forum hasn't been good since Pop. :tsk:

:wink:

U2 fansites and other fan publications have sucked since 1981.

Really, why do they keep sticking to covering the same four guys? :yawn:
 
Axver said:
Even U2's forums are bland and repetitive. Clearly the band's nature influences the forum to sticking to a static 1-5 star rating. :tsk:

Stars? We're still rating things with stars? Man, this site sucks almost as much as U2. We're so close-minded. Why couldn't we rate things in pineapples or flatworms or something? Interference should be more experimental in its rating system.
 
How dare they put out 11 extremely contrived albums - these guys really do suck - even thier pet's suck!


By far the best thread ever!!!
 
:larry: ---soooo boring
:adam: ----has he taken a lesson in his life?
:edge: ---same notes over and over and same freaking beanie
:bono: ----I mean really, come on...come on....saving the world? Try to save this band of mediocrity instead.









:laugh:
 
Back
Top Bottom