Sulphur on 15/7/2009 at 21:39
I respectfully disagree. The Stones in their heyday had at least twice the amount of balls that U2 had in theirs. That alone makes them the supremely more entertaining and interesting rock band. Because when it comes to rock, if you can't count the sheer swinging collective mass of a band's balls, then what CAN you count.
uncadonego on 15/7/2009 at 21:59
Bono can't even count! One, two, three, fourteen! Catorce???? Come on! Didn't anybody in the studio or in his life have the gumption to tell him to his face!
Sing to Vertigo:
Hello! Hello! There's a place called Spanish class!
st.patrick on 15/7/2009 at 23:58
Apparently yelling one Spanish word into English lyrics makes the song trendy, meaningful and, above all, global. Cue Ashtray Heart by Placebo.
My private vision of Hell is Bono Vox and Brian Molko whining into my ears from close distance. Simultaneously. Naked.
Queue on 15/7/2009 at 23:59
Quote Posted by jimjack
Their later stuff, Vertigo, and Elevation I swear are all the same song.
What song/artist isn't now-a-days? Thanks to (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bduQaCRkgg4) Auto Tune even
I could make a "song" by just reading Poe aloud, then processing the shit out of it.
But I do admire Bono, and loved his performance in
Across The Universe. No one else would have been a better choice to sing
I Am The Walrus.
Joshua Tree fucking ruled!
june gloom on 16/7/2009 at 01:49
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I respectfully disagree. The Stones in their heyday had at least twice the amount of balls that U2 had in theirs. That alone makes them the supremely more entertaining and interesting rock band. Because when it comes to rock, if you can't count the sheer swinging collective mass of a band's balls, then what CAN you count.
I guess there's no accounting for taste. Personally, I hate both bands, so there.
heywood on 16/7/2009 at 02:16
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I respectfully disagree. The Stones in their heyday had at least twice the amount of balls that U2 had in theirs. That alone makes them the supremely more entertaining and interesting rock band. Because when it comes to rock, if you can't count the sheer swinging collective mass of a band's balls, then what CAN you count.
Apples & oranges. Of course the Stones have more balls, but you're comparing two different styles of music. U2 is a pop band, and probably the most successful one since the Beatles. And like the Beatles, they experiment and try to keep their sound current. The Stones, on the other hand, are out there playing the same old warhorses.
I don't rate either band very high for their musicianship, but they both can put on a good show.
PigLick on 16/7/2009 at 03:06
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Like 'em or hate 'em, they're still better than the Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones' primary contribution to music has been that they're British.
this shit has to stop here
fett on 16/7/2009 at 07:07
Seriously, you guys didn't like Achtung Baby? I'm just...wow....:erm:
Aja on 16/7/2009 at 07:19
Maybe the biggest problem is that I've probably heard U2 more than some of my very favourite music. Too much of any music is no good, vital or otherwise.
belboz on 16/7/2009 at 13:28
I've never like U2, bono thinks he's god and that the sun shines out his arse.
