It's not news, it's U2links Presented By Blender

It's Not News... It's FarkU2!

deevo: It's not news, it's U2links Presented By Blender

Curses! Foiled again!

This is my third U2 greenlight in a row. It's an easy way to bump up your greenlight count.

But do we really have to have this same discussion, again? I'm interested to see if it's the same people having the same argument every time, or new people thinking they're breaking new Fark ground, to be honest...

Either way it's freakin' sad. Can't we discuss the issue at hand for once?

Plus the Rolling Stones were never shot down over Russia.

danduran: Either way it's freakin' sad. Can't we discuss the issue at hand for once?

If you want to discuss U2 so much, why don't you go to a U2 forum or something? Not being snarky, but most of Fark seems to hate them with a passion. Since you're overkilling it with the submissions, pretty soon no one's going to care or even bother to post.

Glitchwerks: danduran: Either way it's freakin' sad. Can't we discuss the issue at hand for once?

If you want to discuss U2 so much, why don't you go to a U2 forum or something? Not being snarky, but most of Fark seems to hate them with a passion. Since you're overkilling it with the submissions, pretty soon no one's going to care or even bother to post.

I just submit them - I don't green them. If you hate them so much, why do you come into the thread and post?

danduran: I just submit them - I don't green them. If you hate them so much, why do you come into the thread and post?

I don't hate U2. I actually kind of like them. I just wanted to make one silly comment and that was it. I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling deevo! Then you made your post so I responded. I'm just sayin' anyways...

Is that all the stuff there is in music to discuss? U2? Man, I'd submit links, but I doubt anyone on Fark wants to see an hour long video of Moritz von Oswald talking about BC/CR/R&S.

Glitchwerks: danduran: I just submit them - I don't green them. If you hate them so much, why do you come into the thread and post?

I don't hate U2. I actually kind of like them. I just wanted to make one silly comment and that was it. I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling deevo! Then you made your post so I responded. I'm just sayin' anyways...

Is that all the stuff there is in music to discuss? U2? Man, I'd submit links, but I doubt anyone on Fark wants to see an hour long video of Moritz von Oswald talking about BC/CR/R&S.

Yeah, my beef is that every single U2 thread is the same - everyone ignores the actual story, and just bleats on about (rightly or wrongly) a) liking their old stuff, b) all their songs sounding the same, or c) how much of a douche Bono is.

But it must be great for the page impressions, which is why I suppose they continually get greenlit.

10th in the UK maybe, in the US #1 domination belongs to The Beatles, Elvis, and Jay-Z. None of those three owe their careers to stealing Ramones songs and claiming them for their own though, as if U2 could write songs that good.

THIS is still the soul and face of rock and roll, palm trees aside

Personally, I'm jonesing for a Coldplay greenlight.

/Can't get enough of people bashing them

Put on your suck. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah...

That new single is AWFUL.

/U2 fan
//At least up until Zooropa, and it wasn't that bad.

3/4's* of U2 stopped to sign autographs before heading into Letterman today. all the way down the line, not really turning down anyone who was near. for the biggest band on the planet, they're damn classy fellows
/*Larry went straight from his car into the studio

Already Disturbed:
/*Larry went straight from his car into the studio

If he had stopped to sign, he wouldn't be Larry anymore.

1.If Bono finds a cure for AIDS then I won't think he's as big of a douche as he is now. But he's going to have to whip cancer as well for me to ever think he's cool.

2.If you mostly play quarter and whole notes on a guitar with a bunch of reverb, you have no business calling yourself "The Edge"

most bands ages would go into the hundreds subster....

The new album is just not doing anything for me.

I told a friend as we were listening to it the first time, "It sounds like U2 banged Enya and this is the baby."

For me, while I'm not a strict traditionalist, I'd prefer a *bit* more song structure. And, do so many songs *really* need a minute and a half intro before vocals?

I just get the impression they wanted to set out to show how sophisticated they could be, dug into the bag full of expensive chords, and came up with something that's surely music, but not really songs.

Shemp Mo-Din: The new album is just not doing anything for me.

I told a friend as we were listening to it the first time, "It sounds like U2 banged Enya and this is the baby."

For me, while I'm not a strict traditionalist, I'd prefer a *bit* more song structure. And, do so many songs *really* need a minute and a half intro before vocals?

I just get the impression they wanted to set out to show how sophisticated they could be, dug into the bag full of expensive chords, and came up with something that's surely music, but not really songs.

whats this? an Intelligent Music comment on fark?

I'll be damned

I don't get it, the Rolling Stones must be close to 500 years combined age ?

gmoney101: U2 SUCK!!!! BONO WORSHIPS THE COCK

Oh, for fark's sake...how old are you? Farkin' 4?

/not that I expected anything but U2-haters in a U2 thread on Fark.
//loves U2.

WearTheFoxHat: gmoney101: U2 SUCK!!!! BONO WORSHIPS THE COCK

Oh, for fark's sake...how old are you? Farkin' 4?

/not that I expected anything but U2-haters in a U2 thread on Fark.
//loves U2.

I'll never understand how U2 fans survive on Fark, being so easily trolled and all.

The last 3 U2 albums haven't done much for me. They've gotten a lot of hype and won some awards, but I just can't get into them. I know a lot of fans claimed they'd never listen to the band again after Achtung Baby, which was silly as that album was one of their best and it was good that the band went in a new direction. But they're 30 years old now, well past their own Steel Wheels moment (itself a sad joke of nostalgia) and it looks less and less likely that they're ever going to release something that truly revitalizes them. Meanwhile certain critics will still label anything U2 touches gold, furthering their descent into something branded and embittering hordes of people who just see the band as some sort of institution devoid of "relevancy", whatever the hell that means.

So, no, I'm not overly fond of No Line on the Horizon, and I'm not all that taken by U2 at the moment, either. But don't mistake me for a hater. I think, overall, that U2 is awesome, recent complaints aside, and have a hard time fathoming why people get their panties in a twist over Bono's sincere efforts to help the world that he's as much a part of as any of us. God forbid a rock star try to make a difference while the rest of us sit around on our asses and criticize him for it.

Shemp Mo-Din: The new album is just not doing anything for me.

I told a friend as we were listening to it the first time, "It sounds like U2 banged Enya and this is the baby."

For me, while I'm not a strict traditionalist, I'd prefer a *bit* more song structure. And, do so many songs *really* need a minute and a half intro before vocals?

I just get the impression they wanted to set out to show how sophisticated they could be, dug into the bag full of expensive chords, and came up with something that's surely music, but not really songs.

Wow, the way you're describing it, it sounds like I might need to listen to it. Someone already said they ripped off Budd/Eno, so now I guess I'm going to have to download the damn thing and hear it for myself.

review of "Get On Your Boots"
Link (new window)

sadchild: review of "Get On Your Boots"
Link (new window)

review of "NLOTH"

same site, different author

Link

DavIng: review of "NLOTH"

same site, different author

Link

From that review:

The negatives are far and few, but they are there in the form of two of the songs: "I'll Go Crazy if I Don't Go Crazy Tonight." and "Cedars of Lebanon" The former falls somewhat flat; it's not awful, and it fits with the album, but it feels like its going through the motions. The latter may grow on me, but it's the typical introspective U2 closer-it's a somewhat depressing look at the third world, and comes off as a bit preachy even for Bono standards.


"Cedars of Lebanon" is one of the only things on that album that is solid. That he isolates it as a weak spot doesn't give me much faith in his abilities. Also:

The opening few tracks might be one of U2's strongest album openers in a while as well.

He's just delusional. Those opening few songs drag the entire thing down. It gets better as it goes, but never quite overcomes those first few tracks.

swahnhennessy: The last 3 U2 albums haven't done much for me. They've gotten a lot of hype and won some awards, but I just can't get into them. I know a lot of fans claimed they'd never listen to the band again after Achtung Baby, which was silly as that album was one of their best and it was good that the band went in a new direction. But they're 30 years old now, well past their own Steel Wheels moment (itself a sad joke of nostalgia) and it looks less and less likely that they're ever going to release something that truly revitalizes them. Meanwhile certain critics will still label anything U2 touches gold, furthering their descent into something branded and embittering hordes of people who just see the band as some sort of institution devoid of "relevancy", whatever the hell that means.

So, no, I'm not overly fond of No Line on the Horizon, and I'm not all that taken by U2 at the moment, either. But don't mistake me for a hater. I think, overall, that U2 is awesome, recent complaints aside, and have a hard time fathoming why people get their panties in a twist over Bono's sincere efforts to help the world that he's as much a part of as any of us. God forbid a rock star try to make a difference while the rest of us sit around on our asses and criticize him for it.

The Joshua Tree is easily one of my all-time favorite albums. And I don't care much for what they've done since Achtung Baby.

Great performances on Letterman this week. Can't wait to see the boys live.

...am i buggin'ya??

swahnhennessy: DavIng: review of "NLOTH"

same site, different author

Link

From that review:

The negatives are far and few, but they are there in the form of two of the songs: "I'll Go Crazy if I Don't Go Crazy Tonight." and "Cedars of Lebanon" The former falls somewhat flat; it's not awful, and it fits with the album, but it feels like its going through the motions. The latter may grow on me, but it's the typical introspective U2 closer-it's a somewhat depressing look at the third world, and comes off as a bit preachy even for Bono standards.


"Cedars of Lebanon" is one of the only things on that album that is solid. That he isolates it as a weak spot doesn't give me much faith in his abilities. Also:

The opening few tracks might be one of U2's strongest album openers in a while as well.

He's just delusional. Those opening few songs drag the entire thing down. It gets better as it goes, but never quite overcomes those first few tracks.

What are you smoking?

Songs 1-4 = Magic- Love it when the band sings together in chorus.

Song 3 Bono's voice is like an instrument, good tune.

Song 4 is my favorite on the album, again I just love it when they since in chorus, and the can tell a story very well still.

Song 5 is a good song, not a good title though, song 6 gets better as you listen to it more strictly a dance type tune, song 7 is great, song 8 grows on you, is experimental and is now one of the best songs on the album, song 9 was made for a movie, kind of a story, song 10- is another good one which will grow on you, song 11 is winding down the album

Nogale: swahnhennessy: The last 3 U2 albums haven't done much for me. They've gotten a lot of hype and won some awards, but I just can't get into them. I know a lot of fans claimed they'd never listen to the band again after Achtung Baby, which was silly as that album was one of their best and it was good that the band went in a new direction. But they're 30 years old now, well past their own Steel Wheels moment (itself a sad joke of nostalgia) and it looks less and less likely that they're ever going to release something that truly revitalizes them. Meanwhile certain critics will still label anything U2 touches gold, furthering their descent into something branded and embittering hordes of people who just see the band as some sort of institution devoid of "relevancy", whatever the hell that means.

So, no, I'm not overly fond of No Line on the Horizon, and I'm not all that taken by U2 at the moment, either. But don't mistake me for a hater. I think, overall, that U2 is awesome, recent complaints aside, and have a hard time fathoming why people get their panties in a twist over Bono's sincere efforts to help the world that he's as much a part of as any of us. God forbid a rock star try to make a difference while the rest of us sit around on our asses and criticize him for it.

The Joshua Tree is easily one of my all-time favorite albums. And I don't care much for what they've done since Achtung Baby.

Beautifull day? Zooropa? (the song), Elevation?, all because of you?

You are missing out if you dont give these songs a shot.

guyinjeep16: Nogale: swahnhennessy: The last 3 U2 albums haven't done much for me. They've gotten a lot of hype and won some awards, but I just can't get into them. I know a lot of fans claimed they'd never listen to the band again after Achtung Baby, which was silly as that album was one of their best and it was good that the band went in a new direction. But they're 30 years old now, well past their own Steel Wheels moment (itself a sad joke of nostalgia) and it looks less and less likely that they're ever going to release something that truly revitalizes them. Meanwhile certain critics will still label anything U2 touches gold, furthering their descent into something branded and embittering hordes of people who just see the band as some sort of institution devoid of "relevancy", whatever the hell that means.

So, no, I'm not overly fond of No Line on the Horizon, and I'm not all that taken by U2 at the moment, either. But don't mistake me for a hater. I think, overall, that U2 is awesome, recent complaints aside, and have a hard time fathoming why people get their panties in a twist over Bono's sincere efforts to help the world that he's as much a part of as any of us. God forbid a rock star try to make a difference while the rest of us sit around on our asses and criticize him for it.

The Joshua Tree is easily one of my all-time favorite albums. And I don't care much for what they've done since Achtung Baby.

Beautifull day? Zooropa? (the song), Elevation?, all because of you?

You are missing out if you dont give these songs a shot.

Don't take the troll seriously. There's no way someone who thinks Joshua Tree is one of the best albums of all time hasn't checked out newer stuff. It's like listening to teh Beatles all the way up to Revolver, deciding it's the best album ever, then not listening to Sgt Peppers. No one does that, except in Fark threads :p