Liverpool FC Forum

by **Number 9** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:38 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:my friend is real gay for U2, we make fun of him all the time for it. Tries to claim that they are "the most influential band since the beatles, maybe even bigger" and I just and

Your mate has a point. They've had no peers over the past 20 years.

Foo Fighters are a far better band and thats not in 20 imo!I see your type all the time,its pathetic.Just cause U2 are from Ireland you think they are better than anything..they are OK.But FFS no way they are great.
They had 1 great album which was class,after that I feel they have went downhill.

It all comes down to taste though..I suppose ya like what ya like so there is no argument!

by **Emerald Red** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:42 pm

Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:my friend is real gay for U2, we make fun of him all the time for it. Tries to claim that they are "the most influential band since the beatles, maybe even bigger" and I just and

Your mate has a point. They've had no peers over the past 20 years.

Foo Fighters are a far better band and thats not in 20 imo!I see your type all the time,its pathetic.Just cause U2 are from Ireland you think they are better than anything..they are OK.But FFS no way they are great.
They had 1 great album which was class,after that I feel they have went downhill.

It all comes down to taste though..I suppose ya like what ya like so there is no argument!

Which album?

by **Number 9** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:45 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:my friend is real gay for U2, we make fun of him all the time for it. Tries to claim that they are "the most influential band since the beatles, maybe even bigger" and I just and

Your mate has a point. They've had no peers over the past 20 years.

Foo Fighters are a far better band and thats not in 20 imo!I see your type all the time,its pathetic.Just cause U2 are from Ireland you think they are better than anything..they are OK.But FFS no way they are great.
They had 1 great album which was class,after that I feel they have went downhill.

It all comes down to taste though..I suppose ya like what ya like so there is no argument!

Which album?

I'll give you a clue it was the only great album they done!

by **Emerald Red** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:46 pm

Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:my friend is real gay for U2, we make fun of him all the time for it. Tries to claim that they are "the most influential band since the beatles, maybe even bigger" and I just and

Your mate has a point. They've had no peers over the past 20 years.

Foo Fighters are a far better band and thats not in 20 imo!I see your type all the time,its pathetic.Just cause U2 are from Ireland you think they are better than anything..they are OK.But FFS no way they are great.
They had 1 great album which was class,after that I feel they have went downhill.

It all comes down to taste though..I suppose ya like what ya like so there is no argument!

Which album?

I'll give you a clue it was the only great album they done!

Which one?

by **dawson99** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:46 pm

The Strokes are better (IMO)
Live band, can't beat the Charlatons

by **Number 9** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:50 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:my friend is real gay for U2, we make fun of him all the time for it. Tries to claim that they are "the most influential band since the beatles, maybe even bigger" and I just and

Your mate has a point. They've had no peers over the past 20 years.

Foo Fighters are a far better band and thats not in 20 imo!I see your type all the time,its pathetic.Just cause U2 are from Ireland you think they are better than anything..they are OK.But FFS no way they are great.
They had 1 great album which was class,after that I feel they have went downhill.

It all comes down to taste though..I suppose ya like what ya like so there is no argument!

Which album?

I'll give you a clue it was the only great album they done!

Which one?

Joshua Tree was the ONLY great album they done...the spice girls and tears for fears made better albums than the rest!! :laugh:

by **Emerald Red** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:58 pm

Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:my friend is real gay for U2, we make fun of him all the time for it. Tries to claim that they are "the most influential band since the beatles, maybe even bigger" and I just and

Your mate has a point. They've had no peers over the past 20 years.

Foo Fighters are a far better band and thats not in 20 imo!I see your type all the time,its pathetic.Just cause U2 are from Ireland you think they are better than anything..they are OK.But FFS no way they are great.
They had 1 great album which was class,after that I feel they have went downhill.

It all comes down to taste though..I suppose ya like what ya like so there is no argument!

Which album?

I'll give you a clue it was the only great album they done!

Which one?

Joshua Tree was the ONLY great album they done...the spice girls and tears for fears made better albums than the rest!!

Most people would argue that Acthung Baby surpassed that album, and before that maybe even Rattle and Hum, but certainly Achtung Baby was their peek. So one good album? There's three. Then you go back further than than that and you had War, which more or less was their stepping stone to fame in America, which had songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday, Surrender, and New Years Day on it. Classic rock anthems in this day and age.

Anyway, that's enough out of me on this thread. People may or may not like a band, but to not even recognise acheivment and the status of a group is just ignorant and sounds more like spite than opinion.

U2 haven't had one good song in 20 years is a gem of a viewpoint, and another is that they've only had one good album. Quality.

No band stays the course of 30+ years and puts on stadium filling mega concerts like 360 if they've had no good songs and only one good album.

Goodnight.

by **andy_g** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:20 pm

hurray! the biannual U2 thread! the thread where emerald gets all hot under the collar when people don't recognise their immense achievements.

emerald, they give you loads and many others a lot of pleasure. they make sh!t loads of money and sell out stadiums. fantastic - i'm happy for you all. but making comments about them being peerless for 20 years is just plain ballookas, surely you must realise that. they are a successful commercial rock act, nothing more, nothing less - hardly ground breaking, hardly influential (except for the other bands who want to be successful commercial rocks acts), and again not peerless.

i remember the debate went round and round in circles in the last U2 thread about who actually are the most influential bands in the last 20 years and as its about music opinions are very strongly defended. the problem is that many of the really influential go unrecognised by the mainstream and so are missed by those that follow the commercial 'greats'.

by **Number 9** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:38 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:my friend is real gay for U2, we make fun of him all the time for it. Tries to claim that they are "the most influential band since the beatles, maybe even bigger" and I just and

Your mate has a point. They've had no peers over the past 20 years.

Foo Fighters are a far better band and thats not in 20 imo!I see your type all the time,its pathetic.Just cause U2 are from Ireland you think they are better than anything..they are OK.But FFS no way they are great.
They had 1 great album which was class,after that I feel they have went downhill.

It all comes down to taste though..I suppose ya like what ya like so there is no argument!

Which album?

I'll give you a clue it was the only great album they done!

Which one?

Joshua Tree was the ONLY great album they done...the spice girls and tears for fears made better albums than the rest!!

Most people would argue that Acthung Baby surpassed that album, and before that maybe even Rattle and Hum, but certainly Achtung Baby was their peek. So one good album? There's three. Then you go back further than than that and you had War, which more or less was their stepping stone to fame in America, which had songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday, Surrender, and New Years Day on it. Classic rock anthems in this day and age.

Anyway, that's enough out of me on this thread. People may or may not like a band, but to not even recognise acheivment and the status of a group is just ignorant and sounds more like spite than opinion.

U2 haven't had one good song in 20 years is a gem of a viewpoint, and another is that they've only had one good album. Quality.

No band stays the course of 30+ years and puts on stadium filling mega concerts like 360 if they've had no good songs and only one good album.

Goodnight.

Most people would argue you talk shi,te...I'd be inclined to agree with them!

"Bono is great cause he's from Dublin and Im from there,or I had an Irish granny or my grannies da came from there,thats why U2 are great"

Good band,good show but by no means the best..far way off it.Watch The Who,Pink Floyd,Foo Fighters,Pixies,Metallica etc etc to see a band play from its heart,not a "what they want to hear band"..U2 are good though!

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:01 pm

one good album?

fair enough if you don't like U2, but Acthung Baby WAS a great album and they have had plenty of great songs over the last 20 years too.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:03 pm

I don't care either way

Liverpool FC Forum

U2 - Saw them at wembley on friday

Who is online