Latest U2 News / Sightings

Originally posted by flowerchild:[..]
I think I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
Which brings us to the point I was trying to make. You're a twenty-something, right? When you hit your mid 40's revisit that statement (accepting they have grown older and act as such) and see how you feel about it then. thirtysomething

Also, if they do act as such, that would put them on the path that you feared. Which they've never gone on, so I don't think they would have started, backlash or not.

Originally posted by flowerchild:I'm afraid that if they lose their thirst for "being relevant" they'll stop entirely, so I'm a little torn on this whole matter...

Originally posted by cesar_garza01:[..]


Agree with you completely Greg. Easy to say "act your age" when you're 25. See you in a few years, friends.

Originally posted by cesar_garza01:[..]


Agree with you completely Greg. Easy to say "act your age" when you're 25. See you in a few years, friends.

Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
And while you revisit the above statement, revisit this one as well...

"Rock music may eternally belong to the young"

Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]I fail to see where there's more "quality" in the Bomb or ATCLB than in TUF or The Joshua Tree, or even in Boy or War...... but hey, to each their own.

Originally posted by cesar_garza01:[..]
I'm 31 and I teach to a bunch of college kids that think I'm a grandpa. Ageism sucks.
Rock music is for the young at heart, who cares what's your age.

Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
Exactly. Thanks, Cesar... I never could say anything in 20 words or less!

Originally posted by Bloodraven:Everybody will try to stay relevant in middle age, no matter what is your life, you'll get that crisis too.

But one thing is trying and another is to do it ridiculously or to do it right, and a different thing is if you succeed at it or not.

And the important thing for me is that I honestly believe U2 has been doing it the right way (ie not ridiculously) except for a couple of things -like I said before, Boots and Miracle comes to mind as them trying too hard on looking younger than they are and failing- but overall I think their music is suited to their age.

The article says something like "yeah, keep on playing, just do it in that corner and don't make too much noise, please, so I can still like you for what you were". Screw that.

Also I can't see the difference between their attitude before/after the tour, for him to say something like they learned a lesson from the SOI backslash. I really don't know what the writer means with that.

[..]
Basically what I mean is that the music in the Bomb album was created by better musicians than the music in the War album.

Regardless of if the War album is better or not than Bomb, the music itself has more qualities in Bomb than in War. I prefer War since -besides still having great riffs and tunes- the energy and emotion expressed in there (proper to their younger age) is more fulfilling to me than the Bomb songs, even if I think the latter has "better" music.

Another way to say it is: I don't care about David Gilmour's albums, and I absolutely love Roger Waters'. Yet I reckon that Gilmour is a better musician and his music has more qualities than RW.

Originally posted by Bloodraven:[..]

I hate people that write too much.