MUS
Active topics
  1. I agree about the Rolling Stones...I still don't know what so good about them. Guns 'N Roses are better.
  2. Originally posted by wtshnnfb01Agreed. Also your all going to hell for hijacking my topic. When was the last time I took one of your topics to the dogs? Were U2 fans. Were supposed to be better than this. This is the kinda shit I expect from Greenday fans. Aren't we supposed to be peaceful and have a deeper sense of politics? No matter.

    Now then, I'm going to start posting reasons for artist I listed. This will probally take severael days.

    The Who and Le Zep both made my list for a simple reason. Both are/were greater than the sum of there parts. Most bands have one or two members who really stand out. Both of these bands every member excelled in there fields. Especially the rhythm sections, which are often overlooked in most bands in favor of the lead vocalist or lead guitarist. Not that these two bands were lacking in those departments either. Jimi Page is a great guitarist who is often overlloked by all the Clapton and Hendrix fans, whilst Pete Townshend is widely regarded as the man who paved the way for punk. Combine it with the fact that both of these bands have/had great lead singers and its really a shame what happened to them. Just my 2 sense. Next time I'll do the grunge acts I listed.


    John Bonham was a fantastic rock drummer, one of the best.

    However, I'm surprised so many people think that a lot of members of some of the key groups that define different eras are overlooked, e.g. Page - whenever I've had discussions with friends and random people about music and what have you, his name pops up more often than not. But that's my angle, and the people I come across on a day to day basis, and most of them really under-rate Edge as a guitarist so make of it what you will.
  3. Originally posted by MWSAHI agree about the Rolling Stones...I still don't know what so good about them. Guns 'N Roses are better.




    I guess that's a matter of taste, but to say that a Band that drifted into irrelevance after 5 years and 3 decent albums is 'better' than one that is on top for 40 years seems a little strange to me...

    I'm not a big Stones fan but I'll grant them the place that they deserve in the Rock Olympus. And they're most certainly no idiots as LikeASong implies.

    Also, to add to the list from my perspective:
    Manic Street Preachers
    Depeche Mode
    Beastie Boys
    Bob Marley and the Wailers
    The Clash

    and, as Bands soon to become essential:

    Snow Patrol
    The Hives
    Mando Diao
  4. Ha! I love it. In the space of a few posts this forum has totally dissed arguably the two biggest rock bands. Rolling Stones and Beatles. Not that I'm a fan of either. I like how we're unashamedly biased towards U2. Could it be because we feel threatened by other "supergroups"??
  5. Originally posted by yeah[..]



    I guess that's a matter of taste, but to say that a Band that drifted into irrelevance after 5 years and 3 decent albums is 'better' than one that is on top for 40 years seems a little strange to me...

    I'm not a big Stones fan but I'll grant them the place that they deserve in the Rock Olympus. And they're most certainly no idiots as LikeASong implies.

    Also, to add to the list from my perspective:
    Manic Street Preachers
    Depeche Mode
    Beastie Boys
    Bob Marley and the Wailers
    The Clash

    and, as Bands soon to become essential:

    Snow Patrol
    The Hives
    Mando Diao



    Indeed a matter of taste, I guess. Of course the Stones are good, but I prefer the Roses.
  6. Originally posted by aussiemofoHa! I love it. In the space of a few posts this forum has totally dissed arguably the two biggest rock bands. Rolling Stones and Beatles. Not that I'm a fan of either. I like how we're unashamedly biased towards U2. Could it be because we feel threatened by other "supergroups"??



    Honestly? No, I can't say that I feel that, I just don't like the Beatles THAT much, I do like the Stones, just don't think they're THAT amazing (apologies for emphasising THAT in quick succession) - but in their success has given them their recognition, and for that I think they need to be given credit where credit's due, and I'm sure the criticisms we can level at them are being applied in equal measure to those who don't rate U2. The fact they had an influence on U2 should also be taken into account, just as they Ramones did
  7. Originally posted by wtshnnfb01Lets make a list of bands everyone should listen to.

    U2(oviously)
    The Eagles
    The Who
    Led Zep
    Pearl Jam
    Nirvana
    Alice In Chains
    Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers
    Bruce Springsteen and The E-street band


    Add any you want. I'll list specific reasons if this takes off.



    Was about to stick Springsteen down aswell until I noticed you put him on here
  8. yea it is a matter of taste i guess. dont get me started on guns n' roses....
  9. What the fuck is wrong with us? No one has listed Rush yet? Have we gone insane? Forgive me Neal.
  10. Originally posted by wtshnnfb01What the fuck is wrong with us? No one has listed Rush yet? Have we gone insane? Forgive me Neal.


  11. Originally posted by WojBhoy[..]




    It's Aaron. You'll get used to his random musings.
  12. You gotta admit Dan I do make useful post every now an then. Plus Rush does kick ass.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.