F*ck you submittard. U2 is one of the greatest rock bands evar and amazing live.

Let me guess, submitter, you "only like their older stuff". Once a band achieves any measure of mainstream success, they automatically suck. Blah blah blah.

I just saw this film last week (have friends who work at the local IMAX) and I can honestly say that it is much better than I thopught it would be. I'm just an okay fan of U2, but this film made me really want to go see them live.

And IMAX 3D rocks out.

Its great that your band made a movie. I dont like the band even a little bit. I do wish my band would make a movie.

/not busting on your band, seriously
//really do wish Bono was dead though
///Do wish my band would make a movie, its hard enough to get gigs though.

I have heard nothing but great things about this film, and about the new 3D technology they used to produce it. I will go, and I will bring my wife and child as well. I'm looking forward to it.

/proud fan since 1980

KellyLockhart: I'm just an okay fan of U2...

I'm a great fan of U2.

/sorry to hear you're just 'okay'

U2 was my favorite band.

Shark Jump:



.. unwatchable/unlistenable pretentiousness

They never fully recovered

"Think of the children... excuse me while I bathe in all this money"

What a buck of arrogant window lickers. They are easily the most over rated band. I don't care if your music has "a message", which it doesn't, I just want you to be able to sing and play your instruments, which u2 cant.

"I approve"

rocinante721: U2 was my favorite band.
Shark Jump:
[RATTLE AND HUM]
.. unwatchable/unlistenable pretentiousness
They never fully recovered

Why am I the only person in the world who absolutely loves that album, and even the movie itself somewhat.

Maybe it was because I was 12 in 1987 when I saw it in the theater, and had never seen a concert before.

Still, I think it rocks.

FTA:"Irish people are essentially Latin people who don't know how to dance"

I don't know why that made me laugh, but it did.

/Love U2
//Well, at least Joshua Tree.

I think of U2 as more of a "meh" band than a "suck" band. I mean, they are still musically proficient and actually play their instruments.

ITs not that they are a crappy band.

They do have a lot of hits...


WITH THAT SAME TIRED GUITAR RIFF/SOUND OVER AND OVER n OVER

I saw them on the same tour they made 'Rattle and Hum'. I was squirming out of shear boredom. Oh well, without that we wouldn't have Lucky Clovers or Joel Wasserstein's Bar Mitzvahs!

Is the crappy headline the fault of the submitter or those at Fark? Especially under the Music tab, it seems most of the time the news article is submitted with a crappy remark about the artist. U2 a suck band? Never bought a U2 album in my life, but even I know that isn't true.

eatit: Its great that your band made a movie. I dont like the band even a little bit. I do wish my band would make a movie.

/not busting on your band, seriously
//really do wish Bono was dead though
///Do wish my band would make a movie, its hard enough to get gigs though.

THIS

/Ahhh, you're also from PA...No wonder I understand...

Here comes the thread where people with no actual music appreciation skills try to look "hip", "unconventional" and "edgy" by dissing a great rock band who itself is "hip", "unconventional" and "edgy", just because that band achieved financial and popular success. Like, we should blame them for that or something.

Here's a news flash for you dorks: U2 is a complete original, and anything you think sounds "cliched" about them now is something they invented in the first place. I guess you had to be there in 1980 to really understand, and so you youngsters are forgiven, but then again, that's what MUSIC APPRECIATION is all about. It's not about whether you like or dislike something personally, it's about putting yourself in a time and place and appreciating what a particular artist accomplished in that time and place. You have to disassociate yourself from your personal preferences in order to do that, which is an uncomfortable thing for some, but it's well worth the effort if you can get there.

And for those of you who were around in the early 1980s and witnessed the revolution that was U2, you should know better. As for who they are today, they could sing their shopping list and it'd be better than 95% of the crap we hear on rock radio today.

Show a little respect. There are few bands that deserve it more.

downstairs: Why am I the only person in the world who absolutely loves that album, and even the movie itself somewhat.

You're not. Rattle and Hum is a masterpiece of concert film, and even the haters know it.

They're from England and who gives a shiat?

karmachameleon: It's not about whether you like or dislike something personally, it's about putting yourself in a time and place and appreciating what a particular artist accomplished in that time and place. You have to disassociate yourself from your personal preferences in order to do that, which is an uncomfortable thing for some, but it's well worth the effort if you can get there.i>

So I shouldn't base my musical taste on what I enjoy, but rather on what someone tells me I should enjoy. You stated that someone who doesn't like u2 is trying to be hip and edgy, while it sounds more like you are trying to get in line with what others tell you. Something that seems a bit to much like musical conformity. I will continue to decide what is and is not good music, based on my personal preference and taste. So without trying to be hip, I say u2 is trite and pretentious. I do not enjoy their music or their shallow attempts at having a message. That does not mean I am without musical taste, or lack a sense of music appreciation, it means I don't have your sense of taste. And that is something I am grateful for.

/i will take Us 3 over u2 any day.

nice NEGATIVLAND reference,MARQUIS!



"a little dog named snuggle..."

Here comes the thread where people with no actual music appreciation skills try to look "hip", "unconventional" and "edgy" by dissing a great rock band who itself is "hip", "unconventional" and "edgy", just because that band achieved financial and popular success. Like, we should blame them for that or something.

Here's a news flash for you dorks: U2 is a complete original, and anything you think sounds "cliched" about them now is something they invented in the first place. I guess you had to be there in 1980 to really understand, and so you youngsters are forgiven, but then again, that's what MUSIC APPRECIATION is all about. It's not about whether you like or dislike something personally, it's about putting yourself in a time and place and appreciating what a particular artist accomplished in that time and place. You have to disassociate yourself from your personal preferences in order to do that, which is an uncomfortable thing for some, but it's well worth the effort if you can get there.

And for those of you who were around in the early 1980s and witnessed the revolution that was U2, you should know better. As for who they are today, they could sing their shopping list and it'd be better than 95% of the crap we hear on rock radio today.

Show a little respect. There are few bands that deserve it more.

i'm torn. on the one hand i think this guy is a pretentious tool. on the other, i sorta agree with him. it makes my head hurt.

HappyHarryHardOn: ITs not that they are a crappy band.
They do have a lot of hits...
WITH THAT SAME TIRED GUITAR RIFF/SOUND OVER AND OVER n OVER

This is always the case with bands that someone doesn't like. Their "stuff all sounds the same" syndrome.

Tell me, HHH...what is your favorite band? I'll bet you think their stuff all sounds totally different, and totally original. Right?

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: I just want you to be able to sing and play your instruments, which u2 cant.

Statements like this tend to damage your credibility. Do you mean that Bono is tone deaf? He can't carry a tune? Does the Edge not know which string is which on his guitar?

GibbyTheMole: I think of U2 as more of a "meh" band than a "suck" band. I mean, they are still musically proficient and actually play their instruments.

Same here. I actually hold U2 in a higher regard than alot of bands I don't care for since they can play very well(I actually like the song 'Bullet The Blue Sky'), but other than that they are just not my thing.

/Plus who calls themselves The Edge?
//And people call prog rock pretentious

U2 fans hate when you talk bad about the band. WOW
Anger management people.
Shhhhhh its gonna be ok.

icallhimgamblor: kungfu jesus with a side of lime: I just want you to be able to sing and play your instruments, which u2 cant.

Statements like this tend to damage your credibility. Do you mean that Bono is tone deaf? He can't carry a tune? Does the Edge not know which string is which on his guitar?

I was implying that I do not enjoy the way that they use their particular instruments to play music. I am not trying to imply that they cant use their instruments, but was trying to say that they cant use them in a way that would produce enjoyable sounds.

YES mr. FABULOUS, I happen to think *THIS* is entirely original:
(and not one song sounds the same, go figure)

Marquis de Sod
They're from England and who gives a shiat?


Fail and fail.

U2 are pretty good, if a little up themselves. But don't let Bono's general save-the-world douchbaggery take away from the fact that he can sing, and that they are good musicians.

WTF is a Butthole Surfers fan doing clicking on a U2 thread in the first place?

I'm not gonna bag on the Surfers, because they are actually pretty cool. But I'm pretty sure that if I played a couple of their earlier releases for someone who didn't like them (your mom, for example), they would say something about "that noise all sounds the same to me". Go ahead and deny it, but it's true.

I liked them most when they started shedding fans in the mid-to-late 1990s, all the while making interesting music. Zooropa is an outright great album, and Pop is far better than their last two.

"The Clash was the band that U2 wished they could have been"

HappyHarryHardOn Quote 2008-01-22 12:17:57 PM
nice NEGATIVLAND reference,MARQUIS!



"a little dog named snuggle..."


Snuggles.


Sorry, pet peeve.


"But can they really get into my head?"
"As long as you can keep an open mind"

An tSaoi Quote 2008-01-22 12:53:33 PM
Marquis de Sod
They're from England and who gives a shiat?


Fail and fail.

U2 are pretty good, if a little up themselves. But don't let Bono's general save-the-world douchbaggery take away from the fact that he can sing, and that they are good musicians.
FAIL on your part for not knowing the reference.

Marquis de Sod
They're from England and who gives a shiat?
An tSaoi says:

Fail and fail.



Uhmmm, AN TSAOI before being so quick on typing FAIL AND FAIL, you should be familiar with some U2 trivia...
the "They're from England and who gives a shiat?" is a quote from Kasey Kasem, who actually said that about U2 while recording some promos...

later, NEGATIVLAND did a song with the quote and other stuff:

August 20, 1991: SST Records releases a CD single by Negativland called "U2", a tape-collage parody of U2's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" featuring sampled and scrambled portions of the U2 song itself and a found tape of radio personality Casey Kasem losing his cool. As part of the joke, the CD packaging features the title--the letter "U" and the numeral "2"--largely and prominently with the attribution "Negativland" in much smaller letters below it.

October 5, 1991: two weeks later, a federal judge issues a temporary restraining order at the behest of Island Records and Warner-Chappell Music. "Preferring retreat to total annihilation," Negativland and SST immediately capitulate to every demand. These demands are:

Everyone who received a copy of the record--reviewers, record stores, radio stations, etc.--must be notified to return it. If they fail to comply, they may be subject to penalties "which may include imprisonment and fines". Once returned, the records will be forwarded to Island for destruction.
All of SST's on-hand stock of the record--in vinyl, cassette, and CD--is to be delivered to Island, where it will be destroyed.
All mechanical parts used to prepare and manufacture the record are to be delivered to Island, presumably also for destruction. This includes "all tapes, stampers, molds, lacquers and other parts used in the manufacturing" and "all artwork, labels, packaging, promotional, marketing, and advertising or similar material."
Negativland's copyrights in the recordings themselves are assigned to Island and Warner-Chappell. Negativland no longer own what they have created.
Negativland and SST must pay $25,000 and half the wholesale proceeds from the copies of the record that were sold and not returned. Estimated cost to Negativland is $70,000--more than they have made in their 14 years of existence



(look for the actual song on the internet its great!)

downstairs: Why am I the only person in the world who absolutely loves that album, and even the movie itself somewhat.

I love that song Heartland

lerxst2112: Same here. I actually hold U2 in a higher regard than alot of bands I don't care for since they can play very well(I actually like the song 'Bullet The Blue Sky'), but other than that they are just not my thing.

U2 doesn't suck...they're just terribly boring now, for some reason. They used to be good for a few goosebump-inducing moments per record. Now....it's all so bland, isn't it?

HappyHarryHardOn: Marquis de Sod
They're from England and who gives a shiat?
An tSaoi says:

Fail and fail.



Uhmmm, AN TSAOI before being so quick on typing FAIL AND FAIL, you should be familiar with some U2 trivia...
the "They're from England and who gives a shiat?" is a quote from Kasey Kasem, who actually said that about U2 while recording some promos...

later, NEGATIVLAND did a song with the quote and other stuff:

August 20, 1991: SST Records releases a CD single by Negativland called "U2", a tape-collage parody of U2's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" featuring sampled and scrambled portions of the U2 song itself and a found tape of radio personality Casey Kasem losing his cool. As part of the joke, the CD packaging features the title--the letter "U" and the numeral "2"--largely and prominently with the attribution "Negativland" in much smaller letters below it.

October 5, 1991: two weeks later, a federal judge issues a temporary restraining order at the behest of Island Records and Warner-Chappell Music. "Preferring retreat to total annihilation," Negativland and SST immediately capitulate to every demand. These demands are:

Everyone who received a copy of the record--reviewers, record stores, radio stations, etc.--must be notified to return it. If they fail to comply, they may be subject to penalties "which may include imprisonment and fines". Once returned, the records will be forwarded to Island for destruction.
All of SST's on-hand stock of the record--in vinyl, cassette, and CD--is to be delivered to Island, where it will be destroyed.
All mechanical parts used to prepare and manufacture the record are to be delivered to Island, presumably also for destruction. This includes "all tapes, stampers, molds, lacquers and other parts used in the manufacturing" and "all artwork, labels, packaging, promotional, marketing, and advertising or similar material."
Negativland's copyrights in the recordings themselves are assigned to Island and Warner-Chappell. Negativland no longer own what they have created.
Negativland and SST must pay $25,000 and half the wholesale proceeds from the copies of the record that were sold and not returned. Estimated cost to Negativland is $70,000--more than they have made in their 14 years of existence



(look for the actual song on the internet its great!)

I'm sorry I fell asleep about half way through that. It's my fault though, i assumed you were going to write something interesting. Should have known better in a u2 post.

HappyHarry Thanks on the extra information, didn't know about all the extra festivities from the lawsuit.

If you ever want a delightful song, pick up TOYWAR with a longer mix of Clowns and Ballerinas.

HappyHarryHardOn: YES mr. FABULOUS, I happen to think *THIS* is entirely original:
(and not one song sounds the same, go figure)

Well, except "Graveyard" and "Graveyard"

And, really, as was mentioned above, surely you could see how somebody would have exactly the same thing to say about LAT?

And the Surfers were even bigger pricks than U2 could ever be.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime:


I just want you to be able to sing and play your instruments, which u2 cant.

And then....


I was implying that I do not enjoy the way that they use their particular instruments to play music. I am not trying to imply that they cant use their instruments, but was trying to say that they cant use them in a way that would produce enjoyable sounds.


Sorry - that was pretty pathetic . . . if that's what you truly thought you should have said that the first time around.

I've never been a big U2 fan but I will say that at least they can play their instruments and Bono can sing when he's not being an insufferable asshat. "Pride (In The Name of Love)" is one of my all-time favorite songs, but I've never been able to get into their other stuff.

/sister is a huge U2 fan and owns an original copy of Boy signed by all four members back in 1980. She's been offered ten grand for it.

>And the Surfers were even bigger pricks than U2 could ever be.


i cant really call them pricks when they never ever did a serious interview or answered a single question straight.

So I guess it doesnt make them pricks, more like... suppositories?

(hence their names)


and ok. ill admit, all pop music sound the same. and country. and heavy metal and folk and...

you know where im going with this.....

People who say U2's stuff all sounds the same are really showing their ignorance - Achtung Baby and Zooropa sound nothing like their other albums - ie very little of the 'Edge' delay sound - and are two of their best.

Ah u2. I listened to Boy about 2 months ago. So awesome. So full of energy and spirit. Then I think about their current stuff. So full of... meh. So full of... boredom.

Early 80s u2 is to 2008 u2 as WIN is to FAIL.

I generally think it's retarded to trash a band for being big. But I also have to say that I can't think of a great band that hasn't lost their magic after becoming huge (Radiohead, I'm looking in your general direction). Maybe the reality is that great rock music is only made by hungry people. Maybe I'm expecting too much out of my favourites - an album like War or The Bends only comes along every couple of years - that kind of genius can only be the result of a brazillion variables converging at once.

I only hate their music now because it's a pale shadow of what it once was.

Obligatory:

The Eleven Worst Songs of 2004 (new window)

Just curious. I heard their new album and thought it was laughably terrible. Far below their other stuff (akin to the suckitude achieved with St. Anger). Is this a widely held belief among other U2 fans?

karmachameleon: Here comes the thread where people with no actual music appreciation skills try to look "hip", "unconventional" and "edgy" by dissing a great rock band who itself is "hip", "unconventional" and "edgy", just because that band achieved financial and popular success. Like, we should blame them for that or something.

Here's a news flash for you dorks: U2 is a complete original, and anything you think sounds "cliched" about them now is something they invented in the first place. I guess you had to be there in 1980 to really understand, and so you youngsters are forgiven, but then again, that's what MUSIC APPRECIATION is all about. It's not about whether you like or dislike something personally, it's about putting yourself in a time and place and appreciating what a particular artist accomplished in that time and place. You have to disassociate yourself from your personal preferences in order to do that, which is an uncomfortable thing for some, but it's well worth the effort if you can get there.

And for those of you who were around in the early 1980s and witnessed the revolution that was U2, you should know better. As for who they are today, they could sing their shopping list and it'd be better than 95% of the crap we hear on rock radio today.

Show a little respect. There are few bands that deserve it more.


Amen, dude!

/was there in 1980
//still love the boys to this day
///U2 haters can get off my freakin' lawn
////best not forget my anger management class tomorrow at 9.00 a.m. sharp

Ahhh fark you Rattle and Hum haters

The transition from black and white to color with Where the Streets Have No Name at Sun Devil still gives me the chills.

I can understand if you didn't see it cranked up and on the big screen... but if you did... you know what I mean.

don't listen to them, subby i'm right there with you.

moj0pin: Ah u2. I listened to Boy about 2 months ago. So awesome. So full of energy and spirit. Then I think about their current stuff. So full of... meh. So full of... boredom.

Early 80s u2 is to 2008 u2 as WIN is to FAIL.

I generally think it's retarded to trash a band for being big. But I also have to say that I can't think of a great band that hasn't lost their magic after becoming huge (Radiohead, I'm looking in your general direction). Maybe the reality is that great rock music is only made by hungry people. Maybe I'm expecting too much out of my favourites - an album like War or The Bends only comes along every couple of years - that kind of genius can only be the result of a brazillion variables converging at once.

I only hate their music now because it's a pale shadow of what it once was.

it's not because they're popular, i feel about U2 the same way i feel about the beatles -- overrated.

big f*cking deal.