EXP
Active topics


  1. Stop using Wikepedia please, it doesn't have much credibilty.


  2. The U2 wikipedia page is actually meticulously well-kept. It has "featured article" status, which pretty much means that everything on the page has to be credible with documented sources to back virtually every sentence up.

  3. Pfft, that's the only place I studied for my test last Thursday and I got an A on it. Wikipedia is awesome!
  4. That U2 Twitter I'm not so sure about. Look how Ireland is spelt.


  5. If Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia – how do you know you aren’t citing or referencing an entry written by someone who flunked out of school?

    Sinbad is not dead as reported in Wikepedia. Twenty-five percent (25%) of those who have visited the Wikipedia web site have read something they knew to be inaccurate - Rasmussen Reports. If you got an A what does that say about your class or teacher or school. Are you IU or Purdue, Hoosier?
  6. a little of-topic, this discussion...
    but whilst we're at it: who makes the messages on U2 Twitter? is that official?
  7. I hope that they do not ever release that "club" album!!!!
  8. I hope they do. The 90 remixes were gold
  9. Originally posted by shkee23:[..]

    The U2 wikipedia page is actually meticulously well-kept. It has "featured article" status, which pretty much means that everything on the page has to be credible with documented sources to back virtually every sentence up.


    Thanks

    Re: "stop using wikipedia please". I wasn't pretending it's 100% accurate - testimony is always fallible (you witness could lie). But it tells us something for what is worth, right? And it's certainly not that unreliable.

  10. Originally posted by AidanFormigoni:It's a difficult question, but I'd rather do a "perfect" song instead of do a "comercial" one...

    Anyway, I like the fact they're usaing new producers...I believe it's a positive thing.





    But we're talking about the 90s here. People were still buying actual albums. Artists were still selling millions of albums. Compared to other U2 album sales and to album sales of other artists back then, 8 million isn't exactly THAT much. Still a great number, though, but I think the album mainly sold so many copies because it came after Achtung Baby which many consider to be U2's greatest album. I don't want to downplay the success of Zooropa, its quality and relevance, but I don't think it's fair to compare a 1993 album to a 2009 album. No Line on the Horizon is an amazing album and got lots of critical acclaim. I'm very sure that they would have sold many more copies if it hadn't come out in 2009 but, let's say, in the mid 90s. People still want to hear U2's music, their tours and shows still are an enormous success. U2 have never been a successful "single" band. I don't quite get Bono's obsession with having a radio hit, it doesn't say much about relevance, and it surely doesn't say much about quality, which becomes very clear if you listen to the crap that's on the charts nowadays. As much as I like the idea of the band experimenting with different styles and directions and as much as I'm excited about every new U2 project, I'm still a little concerned about them getting "cold feet" when it comes to actually releasing the ominous "Songs of Ascent" album if it's indeed a album with songs that come out of the same vein as the songs on No Line. Personally, I'd LOVE to hear it. I loved the new stuff they've been playing this tour. I couldn't care less if the songs are played on the radio or not, since I hardly ever listen to radio these days anyway.

  11. Originally posted by Cypress:[..]

    But we're talking about the 90s here. People were still buying actual albums. Artists were still selling millions of albums. Compared to other U2 album sales and to album sales of other artists back then, 8 million isn't exactly THAT much. Still a great number, though, but I think the album mainly sold so many copies because it came after Achtung Baby which many consider to be U2's greatest album. I don't want to downplay the success of Zooropa, its quality and relevance, but I don't think it's fair to compare a 1993 album to a 2009 album. No Line on the Horizon is an amazing album and got lots of critical acclaim. I'm very sure that they would have sold many more copies if it hadn't come out in 2009 but, let's say, in the mid 90s. People still want to hear U2's music, their tours and shows still are an enormous success. U2 have never been a successful "single" band. I don't quite get Bono's obsession with having a radio hit, it doesn't say much about relevance, and it surely doesn't say much about quality, which becomes very clear if you listen to the crap that's on the charts nowadays. As much as I like the idea of the band experimenting with different styles and directions and as much as I'm excited about every new U2 project, I'm still a little concerned about them getting "cold feet" when it comes to actually releasing the ominous "Songs of Ascent" album if it's indeed a album with songs that come out of the same vein as the songs on No Line. Personally, I'd LOVE to hear it. I loved the new stuff they've been playing this tour. I couldn't care less if the songs are played on the radio or not, since I hardly ever listen to radio these days anyway.




    +1

    It is absolutley true what you say here. U2 shouldnt make music to be on the radio but they should make music which they like to make. Most of the stuff that is on the radio and on TV is crup anyway so they shouldnt be to focused on that.

  12. I've always thought that U2 have been more relevant when they're not trying to be relevant. They start over-thinking things, trying for that big radio hit and they end up with a platypus of an album like NLOTH, with good bits and odd bits that doesn't really work as a whole.

    My hope for this new album, whatever it turns out to be (and from today's press it would seem to be the 'club' album produced by Danger Mouse that's the front runner) is that they've written something fresh and real. The audience will get to decide whether it's relevant or not.
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.