| October 16th, 2004 10:38 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
the Eagles are the greatest band mentioned in this thread
 |
| October 17th, 2004 02:48 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
'It Could Be About God...'
U2 provide an exclusive rundown of their magnificent new album, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb.
Blender, October 17, 2004
By Adrian Deevoy
[From the November issue of Blender]
"Vertigo"
First single, bursting with energy
The Edge: "Rock & roll has to have that feeling of urgency and I think this has it."
Adam Clayton: "To me it sounds like it could have been done in 1980 and yet it has that contemporary feel as well."
"Crumbs From Your Table"
A drunk classic!
The Edge: "It's actually the only song we've ever successfully worked on when we were completely pissed. Totally drunk. Around the kitchen table with acoustic guitars, slurring away."
"Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own"
Bono's heart-wrenching love letter to his dad
Clayton: "Bono's grieving for his father. It's such a personal song."
The Edge: "We actually sang it at his dad's funeral."
"City of Blinding Lights"
Vintage U2: rich imagery, driving guitars
Clayton: "This began as an outtake from Pop. To us, it was a homage to Scott Walker. The working title was 'Scott Walker.' "
"All Because of You"
The Edge re-finds the Riff
Clayton: "It could be about God, it could be about your father or your friends. Or the audience."
The Edge: "Life would be so much simpler if you didn't know what you knew. I think it's about that, in a way."
"Love and Peace"
Like Led Zeppelin playing rockabilly -- in a dumpster
Clayton: "The scary bass sound you hear on that isn't actually me. It's name is Brian."
The Edge: "The solo comes from a very deep and dark place. You wouldn't want to go there."
"Man and a Woman"
U2 go Motown, in a smoochy kinda way
Bono: "I always thought if we could get this one right, it would make you feel like you were in New York City sitting on the stoop, hearing it coming out of taxi cabs on a hot summer evening."
Clayton: "The ladies will love it."
"Miracle Drug"
Wondrous swooping tune, great story
Bono: "We all went to the same school and just as we were leaving, a fellow called Christopher Nolan arrived. He had been deprived of oxygen for two hours when he was born, so he was paraplegic. But his mother believed he could understand what was going on and used to teach him at home. Eventually, they discovered a drug that allowed him to one muscle in his neck. So they attached this unicorn device to his forehead and he learned to type. And out of him came all these poems that he'd been storing up in his head. Then he put out a collection called Dam-Burst of Dreams, which won a load of awards and he went off to university and became a genius. All because of a mother's love and a medical breakthrough."
"One Step Closer to Knowing"
Sparse splinters of sound and a lonesome search for faith
Bono: "I was talking to Noel Gallagher [from Oasis] about my dad, who lost his faith toward the end of his life. And Noel asked, 'Does he believe in God?' And I said, 'I don't think he knows.' So Noel went, 'Well, he's one step closer to knowing now.' And I thought, 'I'm going to write that song...' "
"Original of the Species"
Air-punching chant-along
The Edge: "I had to rewrite the chords for the verse and it was like killing your children because I loved those chords."
"Yahweh"
Modern hymn with a broadband connection to God
Bono: "This is an unusual one. Daniel Lanois played the mandolin on that song and it just touches it."
The Edge: "The real key was the bass part because it underpins the whole song, it's magnificent."
Clayton: "Really, it was nothing."
|
| October 17th, 2004 09:33 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Sounds promising. |
| October 17th, 2004 10:07 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
I despise U2 as much as anyone. Maybe more than most people. But, i have to acknowledge, that they would be the only challengers to the Stones. And, i think they will over take them. They've probably sold more records, they have at least another 10 years in them, and they believe in a concept that we Stones fans have forgotten about.
MAKE NEW MUSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They have now released 2 studio albums since 2000. We've had 4 new songs. 4 CRAP new songs. They have a front man who can really connect with his audience. And, they are still relevant to many young folk. Like it or not, a 16 year old who like U2 is ok - 1 who likes the Stones might be a bit of a dick to his peers.
There is simply no excuse for an 8 year delay. I bet there is just as much effort in re-mixing, re-recording, over-dubbing a live cd (might i add, ANOTHER FUCKING LIVE CD!), than it is to zip into the studio and make 10 new tracks.
Dont get me wrong. I am not a U2 fan. But, they have it all. The cred, the fans, the stage presence, and the songs. Now, they have a new cd of stuff to tour behind. Elevation probably outsold all of the 90's Stones releases. THis new one will probably do the same.
Still, dont worry. You'll be able to hear a new version of Brown fucking sugar and Gimme fucking shelter on Nov1.
As a protest, i should buy U2's new cd instead! Cause i tell, aint nothing in this world gonna make me buy the "new" Stones release (read: rip off).
See, thats the problem. We are getting ripped off! Rorted! Hood winked! They can package and re-package and re-title and remaster all they bloody like. I want new stuff!
God, i hate U2 though. |
| October 18th, 2004 07:39 AM |
|
|
| Factory Girl |
corgi, I beg you don't buy the new U2 cd. Buy beer instead. |
| October 18th, 2004 04:11 PM |
|
|
| gypsy |
I would rather eat glass than listen to U2. If they do outsell the Stones, or take over as best selling band of all time, then it just proves my theory that I live in a country full of idiots. |
| October 18th, 2004 04:38 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
I despise U2 as much as anyone. Maybe more than most people. But, i have to acknowledge, that they would be the only challengers to the Stones. And, i think they will over take them. They've probably sold more records, they have at least another 10 years in them, and they believe in a concept that we Stones fans have forgotten about.
MAKE NEW MUSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They have now released 2 studio albums since 2000. We've had 4 new songs. 4 CRAP new songs. They have a front man who can really connect with his audience. And, they are still relevant to many young folk. Like it or not, a 16 year old who like U2 is ok - 1 who likes the Stones might be a bit of a dick to his peers.
There is simply no excuse for an 8 year delay. I bet there is just as much effort in re-mixing, re-recording, over-dubbing a live cd (might i add, ANOTHER FUCKING LIVE CD!), than it is to zip into the studio and make 10 new tracks.
Dont get me wrong. I am not a U2 fan. But, they have it all. The cred, the fans, the stage presence, and the songs. Now, they have a new cd of stuff to tour behind. Elevation probably outsold all of the 90's Stones releases. THis new one will probably do the same.
Still, dont worry. You'll be able to hear a new version of Brown fucking sugar and Gimme fucking shelter on Nov1.
As a protest, i should buy U2's new cd instead! Cause i tell, aint nothing in this world gonna make me buy the "new" Stones release (read: rip off).
See, thats the problem. We are getting ripped off! Rorted! Hood winked! They can package and re-package and re-title and remaster all they bloody like. I want new stuff!
God, i hate U2 though.
Great post Corgi....I feel exactly as you do, except I hate U2 even more...nonetheless, they are still viewed as a vital, relevant, commercially successful band while our beloved heroes are but a nostalgia act-and a bad one at that......You are dead on about them having a younger fan base, while the Stones younger fan base are now eligible for social security.....U2 will overtake the Stones not only in sales and concert gross, but also in terms of longevity and lasting impact...sad-but fucking true..40 yrs and yes, 5-6 great albums, but nothing even listenable since 1981(VL is good, but we tend to overrate it simply b/c it's not another embarrassment)....
[Edited by jb] |
| October 18th, 2004 04:41 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
" but nothing even listenable since 1981(VL is good, but ... "
<------ See Mick Taylor ! |
| October 18th, 2004 06:50 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
Glasto - With or Without U2
NME, October 18, 2004
U2 have been ruled out of a headline slot at GLASTONBURY 2005 - but organiser MICHAEL EAVIS has hinted as to who will be playing.
At the close of this year's festival, Eavis announced that U2 were first on his wish list of headliners. However, it transpires that they will be unable to play due to touring commitments.
Eavis told the Virtual Festivals site: "U2 are not doing it. We heard last week. They are doing a tour with Clear Channel and it would get in the way of their schedule. But their manager said they will do it at some point in the future. We're always talking to potential headliners from a very early date, because they are the most complicated to sort out."
However, it's better news for fans of this year's British big-hitters, three of which are set to make a return appearance.
"In terms of what you could call the "second division" of artists, who are still massive of course but not headliners, we're confident Razorlight, Franz Ferdinand, The Streets and Snow Patrol will all play. They're all brilliant and hopefully they will play. I expect to see them there."
As for the headline slots, Eavis hinted that he is looking at names just as big as U2, prompting speculation that he is in talks with Madonna -- who was in the frame to play when in 2001 before that year's event was called off.
Eavis said: "We know who we want the three headliners to be, but I can't tell you who! What I will tell you is that we have sent someone out to the States this week to pursue an artist we want. Yes, they are American and yes, they are of superstar proportions. That's all I can say!"
|
| October 18th, 2004 10:00 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
jb wrote:
40 yrs and yes, 5-6 great albums, but nothing even listenable since 1981(VL is good, but we tend to overrate it simply b/c it's not another embarrassment)....
I don't think that Steel Wheels was an embarrassment, it got the best reviews on his time and the album is average at least. VL is pretty damm good record. |
| October 18th, 2004 10:15 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
JB - Great assessment. IMO, perhaps a little harsh. I loved Undercover & VL. At the time, i liked SW a heap too.
But, the sad fact is...
...we are very close to end of days. My anger and hatred of U2 is no doubt fuelled, in part, by jealousy. I hate seeing bands getting close to my idols. Wether its Beatles, Led zep, ac/dc, kiss - or any of the myriad of challengers. But, U2 are something else. They are the real deal as far as taking the mantle go. And, for the 1st time, a real threat not just on record, but live. As the Stones get older, U2 are just hitting their straps.
Cases in point.
Licks! Loved it. No one could touch them, but Keith moved (i think) twice. Ronnie was fucked. And, shame on all of us for tolerating this, but we all made a big fucking deal of him delivering a solo on CYHMK! I mean, 1 bloody song!!! And we all chant and cheer. He should be delivering killer solos (and not just note-for-note copies) on every song he does.
But, look at jaggger and Hewson. Ok, really, no comparison, but i just sort of want to point out how truly a "greatest band in the world" U2 MIGHT take.
The STones had the b-stage, and the runway linking it. BTW, U2 had a b-stage first!!!! Anyway, it was cool. But, did Jagger use it? Noooooooo. Except for making his way to the stage. He didnt walk out onto it at fucking all. I'm talking my show of course, but the MSG dvd show, he didnt use the linkage at all. Now, Bono would have been all over it. He would have pulled chicks up. He would have made a very close link to the crowd.
Jagger did a fucking stupid dance during Monkey Man.
I am being very harsh. And, contradicting myself - i know this. But, i am worried. Really, U2 can match anything the STones can do live since VL. POPMART, though pretty much a loser of a tour, pushed the stage presentation envelope more that anyone prior. The Stones used to do that!
Even though elevation and licks tours were scaled back a tad, U2 once again used their design to "encircle" their audience. Imagine being in that "heart shaped" part? Think back to 81 - the arena set - ramps fucking everywhere. Ok, Jagger's 61, but there was nothing. Just a small, black stage. As i said, Keith didnt move much, ROnnie was pathetic. When i Darryl gonna get some personality? His funky dancing is cool, but look up the audience once in a while. Connect!
Even critics like U2 - for the most part. So what, big deal, i agree. But, critics help uncommitted people make a purchase assessment. U2 have had some awesome reviews for their past few cd's. Of course, the Stone havent. Why? Because there has been no new cd's! Wonder what the critics will say about "live licks"?
U2 connect! Part of the Stones charm was their arrogence. Their virtual dismissal of the audience. Coming on hours late. No encores. Since 89, its all lovey-dovey. But, even that's gone. Jagger hardly ever says any of the outrageous kinds of things he used to say. If we are lucky, we get a "fank yoo!". Ok, i'm going over board, but it's there to see. Even introducing the band is a boring chore.
As for new stuff, well, we are well and truly screwed. Who in their right mind thinks the next Stones cd will be good? I mean, be honest! I dont. I think it may have 2-3 good songs, 2 Keith dirges, a crappy reggae track, and some very dodgy filler. Stones by numbers. They need to get it right, after 8 years of being lazy and uncaring of their fans. Fingers crosssed i am wrong. I didnt mind the ideas behind b2b - Hey, that was the STones trying to copy U2 circa POP!!! - but times have changed. We need a rocking cd. Hard. Ditch the country shit. Ditch the reggae stuff. The world is offering plenty of ammo to get angry about - reflect it! I dont need another song about chicks smelling like caviar. Is there another Gimme Shelter in tank? Another Highwire, even? Will the new cd outsell U2? Will it outsell Xtina? Unimportant, really, i agree. But, they need this new one to be hot. To be relevant. Powerful.
They need to care, and have pride. The last thing they need to think about is how some of the songs will fit in next to Brown Sugar and Start me up.
They need to make songs that REPLACE the above. We need new classics.
Or, is it all too late? Maybe a 3 year stint in Vegas is all they are good for? After Celine Dion is finished, of course.
P.S. That was a bit below the belt! hahaha. And, yes, i am in a bad mood. I have a terrible cold, and of all things, my eye-ball hurts.
|
| October 18th, 2004 10:29 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Corgi I really wait a decent album, after 8 years must be good. The fact about U2 is that they don't have competition now, tell me a band that can match U2.
They run alone, not competition at all. The Stones' got more competition during 1964-97 and now they are a nostalgia act. I can think on few BIG BANDS with competition for U2: Aerosmith is famous on US but unknown on Europe and his last album bombed, Kiss is pathetic, the Stones are dinosaurs for the kids and AC/DC is on the Stones' way releasing 2 albums for decade.
And if we talk about new groups they only last 2-3 years max. and then out. NOT COMPETITION FOR U2!!
Sad but true. |
| October 18th, 2004 11:49 PM |
|
|
| sammy davis jr. |
U2 is great....(like 'em or not) the Stones were great, but not anymore. There are some similarities between the two bands though: both have good front men, both have an original signature guitar sound, and both have been the biggest band in the world at one point in their careers. The major difference between the two these days is U2 doesn't need 37 backup musicians to get through their catalogue in concert. And the singer still has a good voice. |
| October 18th, 2004 11:56 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Ouch! I love U2 & hope to see the next tour. They are the best band out there right now(of the big name ones) & this new release won't change that. The Stones have lost their crown. |
| October 19th, 2004 12:13 AM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
I was seeing on Amazon.com...
The new U2 album is #5, a month before of the release date! |
| October 19th, 2004 12:50 AM |
|
|
| Poplar |
New U2 albums are always exciting. That says it all. Excitement. Each one is a new adventure, and a new realm. Some place you, or no one for that matter, has ever been. U2 was the first band I ever spent any money on as a kid. I walked up to "New World Records" and bought a little cassette of "War." Good lord, all these years later I still go out at midnight to score their new work as soon as I can. Their shit is always thoughtful, and on the edge of where music is going. You know you're going to get an album that makes you think, and that evolves every time you listen to it. I still get new thought and emotions listening to the U2 albums I've heard hundreds of times. There is no other band that offers me that now. I hope they keep going, because I cannot imagine life without U2. Same with the Stones, but not in such a contemporary way.
Zooropa: although this album takes a lot of grief, it's one of the most important albums in the little world that is my life. It came out my senior year in high school, and it expanded my musical horizons beyond all limits. Every time I hear it, i get that same feeling; going some place new in music. I think that exploring (no guitar pun intended) aspect of U2 allowed me to embrace a band like Phish, etc...
Above all else, listening to a song like "Streets Have no Name" ... it was Edge who made me say "I want to play a fucking guitar."
I can't wait for the new album, I know it will rock my world for months. |
| October 19th, 2004 01:07 AM |
|
|
| gypsy |
I don't blame SS for not posting anymore. He probably read this thread...what a shame. It should be deleted, as it has TWAT written all over it. |
| October 19th, 2004 01:48 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Gypsy, Hewson IS a twat. That aint news.
But, you post something positive. Post some thing that will convince me that the next Stones cd will not be A-1 grade crap. Write a huge essay on why the Stones have still got it. Cause, i tell ya, they havent. They havent had it for years. I mean, what a top point made a couple of posts ago. U2 dont need 37 musicians to make their sound. Man, i nearly cried when i read that. It is so true, its painfull.
Get on you knees and bow to the new masters.
I DID have hope. About 18 months ago. I thought as soon as i saw them, the way they played (well, Ronnie exempted) was fantastic. But, all that fire, all that "well-oiled machine" the Stones built up on that long tour. All gone. All wasted. No creative spark at all. We should have a had a new cd 1/2 way through the tour. Why not? Take a risk! Record on the run. Now, its hitting close to 8 years! But, before the tour. What the hell did they do? Goddess sold 14 copies, and Keith settled into developing his American hybrid accent. If he wrote any songs - shit 1, just 1 song, where is it?
We get a lame ass live cd - 12 months after getting most of it all on dvd!! I mean, shit, they cant even put out stuff from India, or Bangkok, or even Australia - Nooooooooo. Too risky. Gotta be, mmmm, lets see, yep, same old countries. In fact, that was true of the dvd too. NY, London, Paris.
But, go on, write something. Dont tell me how hot Jagger is, or how cool Keith is. Tell me they have a burning desire to create new material. To knock our socks off. Dont tell me how great they were in the 60's, or how wicked a boot from 19fucking73 is.
Convince me that 2005 is gonna see a cd to rival anything they've done.
Because, recent history says, they cant.
What?? Dont stop is "My Generation" of the millenium?
Losing my touch is "smells like teen spirit"?
Those 4 songs were dire. And, again, what has Keith written since 1997????
P.S. I am even more deflated than i was a few hours ago. I need a root.
|
| October 19th, 2004 02:16 AM |
|
|
| gypsy |
I never said the Stones haven't given us anything new in years. They haven't. But what they have given us over the last 40 years, U2 can't even fucking hold a candle to.
I was hoping against hope that the 4 new songs from Licks in '02 would be kick-ass; but they weren't...I was so disappointed. But, man, I cannot knock our Stones when they've churned out such priceless gems that I will NEVER stop listening to. I will ALWAYS have them on my CD player...I never tire of listening to them--particularly their more obscure stuff.
I will get down on my knees and pray to God that Keith can come up with something that just totally blows us the fuck away. I so wish they would...but maybe the well has run dry. All I know is that I am damn happy for all that they have given us in the past. And I will still pay big money to see those guys perform--because they kick ass.
Maybe they need to spend some time with Marianne and Anita--read some of their old muses suggested books, to get them back in that late 60's/early 70's mindset when everything they wrote was golden. |
| October 19th, 2004 10:34 AM |
|
|
| Factory Girl |
I have never gotten excited over anything U2 has peddled. They are so plain vanilla and so boring. They are suffering the same fate that befell on Springsteen-they lost their fire. |
| October 19th, 2004 10:42 AM |
|
|
| jb |
I feel your pain Corgi!!! We(Stone fanatics) have every right to criticize the band as they really have been unproductive creatively for way too long...yes, the tours are still great fun, but without new music, they really are no different than any other "oldies" act....they seem, sadly, content to keep the bank roll steady by touring, but feel no need or desire to light the fire under their collective asses and give us an album we can be proud of.... |
| October 19th, 2004 10:48 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Factory Girl wrote:
I have never gotten excited over anything U2 has peddled. They are so plain vanilla and so boring. They are suffering the same fate that befell on Springsteen-they lost their fire.
If youve never got excited by them and consider them boring, thats fair enough, but if thats the case, how can you tell they've 'lost their fire'?
As for Bruce - currently more "on fire" than he has been for over two decades (and playing shows on his last tour that were almost twice as long and had twice the variety and passion that the Stones' shows had). Plus he's still musically 'relevant' and still creatively inspired.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| October 19th, 2004 10:58 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
I think Springsteen "lost his fire" during his "Luckytown" period but he regained it during the current phase. U2 has never lost their fire although they have released a couple of duds over the years.
As for the Stones, I love "Don't Stop" even if the lyrics aren't the best they've ever done. It has that classic early 80's/late70's feel. Let's hope they stop with all the ballads(esp. Keith) & try to rock it up a bit. |
| October 19th, 2004 11:05 AM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
heard one Bruce live performance since his last album playing on SNL, it was enough to make me lose all interest in ever watching Bruce play live again
but even he's a better choice than U2. Their music isn't particularly horrible, its just sounded the same for far too long, I can't understand why they've lasted 25 years. I've enjoyed all 3 of the last Stones albums far more than anything by U2. Even the 40 Licks songs were no lamer than just about anything by U2. I don't know how anyone can sit through an entire U2 album and still be awake, let alone say they are better than the Stones in any way |
| October 19th, 2004 11:17 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
Look into the face of a child
Measure how long you smiled
Before the memory claimed
How long would children remain
How long would children remain ......( fade to Steelie )
|
| October 19th, 2004 11:27 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
After The Fire? Wow, that one stunk! |
| October 19th, 2004 12:04 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
glencar wrote:
I think Springsteen "lost his fire" during his "Luckytown" period but he regained it during the current phase. U2 has never lost their fire although they have released a couple of duds over the years.
agreed |
| October 19th, 2004 12:27 PM |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
Joey wrote:
Look into the face of a child
Measure how long you smiled
Before the memory claimed
How long would children remain
How long would children remain ......( fade to Steelie )
1. U2 sucks and Bono has an itchy twitchy twat
2. joey, lunch has been changed from the "Boom Boom Room"
back to the "Kitty Kat Klub". Same time however
3. gypsy keep up the good posting
4. U2 still sucks |
| October 19th, 2004 12:33 PM |
|
|
| Factory Girl |
Gazza, I know you're a big Boss Fan and thats cool.
We'll just agree to disagree on that issue.  |
| October 19th, 2004 12:48 PM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
U2 are very popular for many reasons.They are as relevant to the young as the Stones were in my youth.Whether they will be when they are 60 yrs old is doubtful.The Stones crown if you wish peaked in the 70's.U2 nor anyone else will ever create Beggars,Let it Bleed,Sticky,and Exile and the tour buzz the Stones have done.But as much as I love the Stones folks we are on the long slide down.However just to still have them out there playing live and still pretty damn close to the top of their game most nights is enough for me!....They owe me nothing!!!!!! |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]