Liverpool FC Forum

by **dawson99** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:34 pm

So you include the frogsong, ebony and ivory and pipes of peace as 'the beatles?'

by **Emerald Red** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:36 pm

dawson99 wrote:Cliff Richards been around longer, being around for a long time dont make you good.

Music makes you good.

Pixies, Sex Pistols, Stone Roses... a burning flame burns quickly if it burns hotter or something lol

Yeah, that's true. Just look at the Rolling Stones. But this is my point: they've been around for 30 years and can still produce a #1 album and single. There's this unwritten rule in Rock and Roll lore that something tragic must unfold for a band to become legendary. A death due to OD on drugs, some sh*t like that. It's a myth that bands have a shelve life of 10 years, or into their late 20's before the band retires due to artistic differences, or the aforementioned rock lifestyle that takes its toll by either killing a band member or some sh*t like that. They tend to be past their best after this. This hasn't really been the case for U2 at all, They've broken that taboo in many senses and continue to be an inspiration to the music industry and in people's lives with their music, which I said, is still very relevant no matter who you are, or even if you dislike the band. Their music still carries with it a message that people can relate to. It's why they are still around, arguably at the top of the ladder.

by **dawson99** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:36 pm

A number one album dont make it good.
Mr Blobby had a number one. Girls Aloud are successful, don't make them a betetr band than the wombats for example, its all down to taste

by **Emerald Red** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:39 pm

dawson99 wrote:So you include the frogsong, ebony and ivory and pipes of peace as 'the beatles?'

Na, of course not. But they are still Beatles members. I mean, not every song was a group effort from them. It's what split them eventually. McCartney wrote individual songs, as did the rest, that are known as Beatle songs. You could regard their solo singles as Beatle songs too. Depends on your perspective.

by **Emerald Red** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:41 pm

dawson99 wrote:A number one album dont make it good.
Mr Blobby had a number one. Girls Aloud are successful, don't make them a betetr band than the wombats for example, its all down to taste

Come on, Daws, you know better than that to compare the likes of Mr Blobby to a proper rock album. Mr Blobby would never get near winning any major awards or even be considered for one, now would he? I know where you're coming from, but you're way off with it with regards to perspective.

by **dawson99** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:42 pm

..but as i said before, i dont think U2 have made a decent album in 10 years.

by **Emerald Red** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:49 pm

dawson99 wrote:..but as i said before, i dont think U2 have made a decent album in 10 years.

Atomic Bomb was decent enough. Not amazing. Just solid. So was ATYCLB. Two safe albums that were decent enough to sell by the sh*t load and spawn massive tours. By anyone elses standard, they would have been great albums. Not by theirs. That may sound a bit over-opinionated, but I think it's true. When U2 write a new album, people keep expecting the Joshua Tree part 2. It's not going to happen. That album belongs to a different time and era. However, their new album is without question a return to them being close to their very best. It's very rare for a group to rise to being a very good group in their early years, then rise above that by producing two or three exceptional albums in the space of a few years, then decline to being somewhat boring and mediocre, to all of a sudden jump straight back up to being great again. Usually when a band loses their way, it finishes them.

by **Big Niall** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:41 pm

dawson99 wrote:..but as i said before, i dont think U2 have made a decent album in 10 years.

i agree. while i hate bono i cannot deny the talent. however, if they never had the great songs of the early years, I don't think any of their albums this century would be good enough to break into the top of the music business.

as for the beatles, well i think their early stuff (let me hold your hand etc) was no better than pop band rubbish like take that or busted. however as they matured they did some great stuff. the long and winding road is probably my favourite. Lennons imagine is prob best song ever for me, not only a great song but the lyrics mean a lot which is unusual in a business where bon jovi are a success( i mean all that I'll die for you baby, rubbish)

by **andy_g** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:08 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
andy_g wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:and the fall

i hadn't noticed that the beatles were still producing music either...

Of course they f*cking aren't. Honestly, I don't get why someone trys to be a smart ar$e with statements like this. The Beatles were going for well over 20 years if you take into account their solo careers. Isn't Paul McCartney still making songs? As a band, they lasted what? Just over 10 years?

you counted the beatles as one of the bands who have been producing music for over 30 years - thats why i questioned it. so wind your neck in with the smart arse statements.

but now you're revised it to 20 years, if you include the solo efforts. by that token we can include any number of bands then whose members have gone on to have solo careers. i'm not sure where you are going with the argument.

you're are obviously a massive u2 fan so i'm not even going to try and tell you that they're rubbish and why i think that's the case. i don't personally like them or the aspect of the music scene that they stand for, but that's my own personal taste and orientation. i much prefer the more underground bands - many of whom have been going for a very long time - bands to whom commercial success is not as important as taking risks, making experiments and really trying to push the boundaries of their music.

by **Big Niall** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:34 pm

i think the point was that u2 are probably the only band ever to have such a long run of success. the rolling stones still play the same songs they did 30 years ago, the beatles broke up after 10. the red hot chillie peppers have also been around for ages and constantly creating new music although they havent sold as many albums.

by **Bam** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 12:31 am

you're are obviously a massive u2 fan so i'm not even going to try and tell you that they're rubbish and why i think that's the case. i don't personally like them or the aspect of the music scene that they stand for, but that's my own personal taste and orientation. i much prefer the more underground bands - many of whom have been going for a very long time - bands to whom commercial success is not as important as taking risks, making experiments and really trying to push the boundaries of their music.

--------------

by **Big Niall** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 12:46 am

Bam wrote:
you're are obviously a massive u2 fan so i'm not even going to try and tell you that they're rubbish and why i think that's the case. i don't personally like them or the aspect of the music scene that they stand for, but that's my own personal taste and orientation. i much prefer the more underground bands - many of whom have been going for a very long time - bands to whom commercial success is not as important as taking risks, making experiments and really trying to push the boundaries of their music.

--------------

do underground bands chose not be commercial successes? i don't know, it is an honest question.

by **Bam** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:41 am

Big Niall wrote:
Bam wrote:
you're are obviously a massive u2 fan so i'm not even going to try and tell you that they're rubbish and why i think that's the case. i don't personally like them or the aspect of the music scene that they stand for, but that's my own personal taste and orientation. i much prefer the more underground bands - many of whom have been going for a very long time - bands to whom commercial success is not as important as taking risks, making experiments and really trying to push the boundaries of their music.

--------------

do underground bands chose not be commercial successes? i don't know, it is an honest question.

Alot of them do, and its nothing to do with lazyness. But asked Emerald, he thinks he knows it all.

For many bands its not about being commercial or mainstream or to make million. Alot of bands do keep low profiles, even afte being offered gigs and tours abroad. I know some bands turn them down, their in it mainly for the music not the money, of course they earn a buck everyone needs to. But just because you've gone mainstream and razz ma tazz it doesnt neccerserily make you a better artist IMO.

Oh, and Bono is a k.nob

by **laza** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:23 am

Trust me to read this on Sunday bloody Sunday

Oh and Bono is door thingyming a jingling...........oh what Bam said

by **andy_g** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:24 am

laza wrote:Bono is door thingyming a jingling

beautifully put, laza

Liverpool FC Forum

Bono the hypocrite - At last somebody has the guts to say it

Who is online