I'm curious fhl....what do you do for a living?
Bono's BS
- Thread starter Pa(b)st Prime
- Start date
neophyte321
Guest
Ever hear the duo with Bono and Mick? You, especially, will like it. Warning: It is borderline religious. (nearly a crazed evangelical, religious-right, exctasy, really...)
Feel-Good Tune of the Decade: (RIGHT-CLICK, SAVE AS ...) http://www.geocities.com/wpp9786/Mick-n-Bono_JOY.mp3
As for relevance, Have you ever heard the tune "Sympathy for the Devil", or listen to the album "Exile on Mainstreet"?
to each his own, of course, but as for staying power, the Stones had top concert receipts again. ... "Karaoke"? Are f'ing mad? There is virtually no U2 song I would select to play, (although I wouldn't pay to see the Stones today either). Too overproduced, too sappy for my tastes. I did say "ROCK" after-all.
Amen, bro!
U2's world tour ended in Honolulu a couple of months ago at Aloha Stadium...and I was there, baby!! Awesome!! Pearl Jam was the freakin' OPENING ACT!
Granted, Bono's schtick does get over-theatrical at times, sometimes edging perilously close to moonbat, World of Denial territory, but in the end its about the music. And U2's music continues to be written at a very high level. If they had stopped at the Joshua Tree they'd still have to be considered as one of the greatest rock bands of all time; that they have consistently put out incredible music is testament to their creative genius.
The Stones had Satisfaction, Miss You, and ....well, nothing else is memorable to me, frankly. You couldn't pay me to see 'em....
Having said that, I can understand how the 60's generation has latched onto the Stones. The music you grow up with never dies completely but resonates forever. One generation's icons are the next generation's stooges.
Except U2, Rush, Metallica, Boston, and a few other bands.
p.s. As for the topic of this thread, I can never begrudge another human being for trying to retain more of their income than hand it over to the government. For all we know, Bono may be channeling whatever he saves in taxes to charity. I just don't think he's playing a facade with his idealism, laughing in private whilst squirreling away his tens and tens of millions.
Next thing you know, we will hear some juvenile argument that U2 is more relevant than Pete Townsend and The Who...that kind of person is talking bout my generation.
I think if Bono were as selfish as people are making him out to be, that he would trade record/album/CD sales with the Stones any day...
U2 had their decade or two as being "relevant" Stones had four...
I already see Bono as little more than a lounge act in Vegas (Not to say that a lounge act can't help charities.)
I recall the arguments of people who thought The Rolling Stones were the greatest band vs. The Beatles, that The Beatles were the intellectual ones, but that the Stones were the greatest Rock and Roll band ever.
Difficult argument, as perhaps The Beatles had the greatest creativity and uniqueness in a 10 year period of any band ever, but the Stones did produce great R&R for a long time.
Why don't we look back in 20 years and see who is actually the more relevant band...U2 or the Stones.
As far as iconic goes, Bono and U2 shrink in comparison to Elvis, Dylan, the Stones and The Beatles.
Just an opinion, but I think "I can't get no satisfaction" is, was, and will be more relevant than "I still haven't found what I'm looking for."
I think if Bono were as selfish as people are making him out to be, that he would trade record/album/CD sales with the Stones any day...
U2 had their decade or two as being "relevant" Stones had four...
I already see Bono as little more than a lounge act in Vegas (Not to say that a lounge act can't help charities.)
I recall the arguments of people who thought The Rolling Stones were the greatest band vs. The Beatles, that The Beatles were the intellectual ones, but that the Stones were the greatest Rock and Roll band ever.
Difficult argument, as perhaps The Beatles had the greatest creativity and uniqueness in a 10 year period of any band ever, but the Stones did produce great R&R for a long time.
Why don't we look back in 20 years and see who is actually the more relevant band...U2 or the Stones.
As far as iconic goes, Bono and U2 shrink in comparison to Elvis, Dylan, the Stones and The Beatles.
Just an opinion, but I think "I can't get no satisfaction" is, was, and will be more relevant than "I still haven't found what I'm looking for."
What is interesting about the music of the 60's and 70's is that a lot of young people are just now discovering that music, and realizing how great some of it was, thanks to the music sharing and download industry. It is fascinating to see a teenager into Jimi.
I don't know why it hasn't happened yet, but I wonder why someone hasn't started selling IPods preloaded with the entire discography, or a select group of work from The Stones, The Beatles, Dylan, etc. I would think there is vast group of technologically challenged people out there who would go for something like that. Just pick it up, and play all the tunes of your favorite band, or singer. An IPod filled with nothing but Sinatra or Elvis might be a big seller as well. Maybe Apple should offer that as a product, pre-loaded IPods.
The variety of The Stones, while it did not compare with the variety of The Beatles, is pretty amazing during those first couple of decades, as you saw they grow both musically and personally, and the influence of the drug culture of that period.
I don't know why it hasn't happened yet, but I wonder why someone hasn't started selling IPods preloaded with the entire discography, or a select group of work from The Stones, The Beatles, Dylan, etc. I would think there is vast group of technologically challenged people out there who would go for something like that. Just pick it up, and play all the tunes of your favorite band, or singer. An IPod filled with nothing but Sinatra or Elvis might be a big seller as well. Maybe Apple should offer that as a product, pre-loaded IPods.
The variety of The Stones, while it did not compare with the variety of The Beatles, is pretty amazing during those first couple of decades, as you saw they grow both musically and personally, and the influence of the drug culture of that period.
You couldn't be more spot on. I've owned 4 U2 albums (War, JT, RH, AB) and don't find but a handfull of songs on those albums to still be memorable. ("The Fly" for sure!) Compare "Streets Have No Name" to "Street Fighting Man". Nuff said.
I tell you love, sister, it's just a kiss away..... 200 years from now the Stones will live.
I tell you love, sister, it's just a kiss away..... 200 years from now the Stones will live.
A lounge act?
Golden oldies?
Surely you jest?
I suppose, preachiness only goes so far.
Z should know that, after all.........
Come to think of it, Mcartney does a tonne of charity stuff, but hes widely regarded as an overly sincere tripped out loon, so you dont hear him being bagged too much.
And his solo stuff was dreadfull, as was wings, so maybe theres no comparison.
Maybe your onto something Z, i doubt Bono could have made a solo career.
Golden oldies?
Surely you jest?
I suppose, preachiness only goes so far.
Z should know that, after all.........
Come to think of it, Mcartney does a tonne of charity stuff, but hes widely regarded as an overly sincere tripped out loon, so you dont hear him being bagged too much.
And his solo stuff was dreadfull, as was wings, so maybe theres no comparison.
Maybe your onto something Z, i doubt Bono could have made a solo career.
Capitalism and rational selfishness have a lot in common, although one may debate how "same" they are. The fallacy of your logic, however, is to assume a strawman that socialism is "unselfish" and then proceed to argue against it. The illusion that socialism as the opposite of capitalism is one that both socialists and the ultraliberals (who call themselves anticommunists) want to maintain. But it's only an illusion. In reality, socialism is the more pragmatic version of an utopian dream that persisted throughout human history, well before there was capitalism.
You also make the false assumption that selfishness is bad. That's a very pre-enlightenment idea. That's why I said in an earlier post that it's a carry-over from before enlightenment. Although not an explicit foundation of the "social contract" concept, the idea that rational selfishness is good, or at least it is an essential part of human society, was definitely implied.
The evangelicals probably never went through this thought process.