Bono's BS

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from neophyte321:

to each his own, of course, but as for staying power, the Stones had top concert receipts again. ... "Karaoke"? Are f'ing mad?

As I said, they remain a huge live draw...

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003438485

...but so does Britney. A Stones concert is like a jukebox in the sense that they were playing songs that were hits 25++ years ago (and since Miss You is 1978, that's probably generous).

On their tour a few months back, the one hap saw, U2 were playing a new song from their latest album that was yet another Billboard Top 40 (Vertigo).

As you said, it's basically a matter of opinion here. Truth is that I don't listen to U2 very much at home. I still listen to Zep, however. I responded to this strictly because it was the Stones, who to me have no live rock band credibility left.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from acronym:

Thats a little harsh, dude.....the stones were great. Except, they were formed a fair while before ac/dc, a LONG time before, it could nearly be argued they had the market to themselves for a while.

But heres the thing-their totally different bands, completely.

You cant compare the flouncy, pretentious, puffy shirt vietnam era drugged out musical journey of the stones, to the blue singlet, aussie pub rock apolitical nastiness, of a band whose lead singer drowned in their own vomit coz he was a total pisshead.

You're right, they can't be compared. The difference being that AC/DC has a large dose of talent. Yes, the Stones are "talented," in a sad way. They managed to become multimillionaires on almost attitude alone. That takes talent.

Mind you, im a huge fan of inxs , they had some great albums and work too.......but they never had the "rock" credibility, its a cultural thing maybe.
Especially, after listen like theives was aired on miami vice.

I liked Don't Change and that was about it. They were much too pop.

How could an aussie rock band, live up to ac/dc? They cant.

Hard for any rock band - anywhere - to live up to AC/DC.

By the way, whatever happened to Midnight Oil? I thought they had some great stuff, and I don't mean "Beds Are Burning." "Dreamworld" is an amazing track.

Quote from acronym:

Legitimate performers, you know-who was that band, when they didnt perform their "golden oldies', and tried to introduce their "new stuff" they were boo'd off-stage?

I have no idea. Pray tell...

Z brought it up, its just an interesting thing-people WANT to hear the classics, and i can understand that to a degree.

Z brings a lot of things up, little of which stands up to scrutiny. Looks nice on the surface, until you scratch and reveal the rot underneath. Still, he's entitled to his opinion of the Stones and U2, as is anyone.

Always hated "40" though, i guess thats the limit of my religio chant tolerance level.

Hmmm, that's too bad.

FWIW, eddie vedder is, imo, the most inspired artist to have existed in my lifetime, & possibly before.

The man is a legitimate guru, imo.

That's going much too far, IMO. I saw them here when 10 came out, and holy shit did they ever put on an incredible live show. I don't think Vedder is the genius you apparently find him to be.

 

[acronym]

Quote from hapaboy:

You're right, they can't be compared. The difference being that AC/DC has a large dose of talent. Yes, the Stones are "talented," in a sad way. They managed to become multimillionaires on almost attitude alone. That takes talent.

I liked Don't Change and that was about it. They were much too pop.

Hard for any rock band - anywhere - to live up to AC/DC.

By the way, whatever happened to Midnight Oil? I thought they had some great stuff, and I don't mean "Beds Are Burning." "Dreamworld" is an amazing track.

I have no idea. Pray tell...

Z brings a lot of things up, little of which stands up to scrutiny. Looks nice on the surface, until you scratch and reveal the rot underneath. Still, he's entitled to his opinion of the Stones and U2, as is anyone.

Hmmm, that's too bad.

That's going much too far, IMO. I saw them here when 10 came out, and holy shit did they ever put on an incredible live show. I don't think Vedder is the genius you apparently find him to be.

I cant do the Z troll multiple reply-quote -where its convenient thing, so here goes;in summary;

Acka dacka are great, and they crap all over sir paul mcartney.
Strangely, nobody has criticized their charity work, if they did any.

Inxs, being too pop? But it was cool pop, and if you turn it up loud like house music, you'll see the value.

They were, i think, a truly great band-not real rock and roll, obviously
, but stood up and did the job where so much eurotrash and crap wannabe Us bands, just sank like souffle's.

Like a cool hawaiin breeze, rather than a local football riot.


Midnight Oil?
Most of their stuff was great really, i dont think you can listen to a midnight oil album and not , i dont know, somehow, not , think about something.


And that's the only real objective of any political band, i guess.
Except, peter garrett, the gargantuan , bald lead singer of midnight oil is now a labor MP.

Go figure.......Realistically, the hunters & collectors were likely their equal, with mark hunter i think it was -
if you havent heard "ghost nation", you should check it out, great album, you want shivers up your spine, that'll do it.

Hmm, maybe that didnt sound like such a great endorsement, maybe in the "joshua tree" mould, i dont know.


And finally, theirs no question eddie vedder is a truly inspired artist, he writes most of his own stuff to begin with, and im yet to see a band that isnt trying to rip off another, except these guys.
There just a band, but ive been looking, and i just dont see any seriously original material from most of the also- ran bands.
And im guessing, but i dont see eddie delving into hip hop soon, either.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from neophyte321:

"acting like a liberal" ....


It's been suggested many times that debt relief for Africa simply perpetuates their problems... Corrupt, Unaccountable, Genocidal government. (who lends to regular defaulters, anyhow?)

Heard the joke about the finance ministers?

African finance minister is visiting his Asian counterpart's home. Stunned by the opulant mansion, he enquires how the minister came to afford such luxury. "See that bridge over there?" says the Asian, pointing out the window. "Ten percent."

Some time later, the Asian is visiting the African, who is living in a magnificent palace. "How on earth did you manage to pay for this place?" he asks.

"See that bridge over there?" says the African. The Asian looks out the window.

"I don't see any bridge there."

"That's right." Grinning, he points to himself: "100%".

To that extent, if accurate, I AGREE he is acting like your classic liberal, paving the road to hell with good intentions.

Saving 10 million Africans today only ensures that we'll have to save 20 million the next famine (which is never too far away).

Though even managing a farm seems to beat Africans--forget managing a city or a modern economy--they still insist on procreating furiously. (Actually, given a HIV prevalance of nearly 20% among South Africa's working population--ie the smartest people in Africa's best economy--procreation is probably at least as much a by-product of their insatiable sexual appetites as it is a desire to raise a family, afterall black males in Africa don't stick around to raise children any more than they do in Chicago.) What are they thinking? Clearly, they are not thinking. Fortunately, just like Mexico, Africa has a 'safety valve' in naive Europeans who welcome its refuse, convinced that these wretches will become the engineers and city managers of tomorrow to replace retiring Frenchmen and Danes, and should they not, well it's terribly enriching having those delightful black ghettos pop up in your cities anyway.

There is a solution to Africa's woes that is virtually guaranteed to work, or at least work significantly better than anything that has yet been tried. That is to encourage the family sizes of the most able Africans and limit births to the least able. Since a significant part of human ability is genetically inherited, the same science that grows bigger tomatoes will eventually create more able Africans. So simple, so scientifically reasonable, so morally plausible, and yet, for all that, so unspeakable.

 

[neophyte321]

Quote from traderNik:

As I said, they remain a huge live draw...

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003438485

...but so does Britney. A Stones concert is like a jukebox in the sense that they were playing songs that were hits 25++ years ago (and since Miss You is 1978, that's probably generous).

On their tour a few months back, the one hap saw, U2 were playing a new song from their latest album that was yet another Billboard Top 40 (Vertigo).

As you said, it's basically a matter of opinion here. Truth is that I don't listen to U2 very much at home. I still listen to Zep, however. I responded to this strictly because it was the Stones, who to me have no live rock band credibility left.

we are saying the same thing differently, and a different thing the same way.

U2 live in concert, IMHO, would BLOW the stones away. That's kind of my point, their music is more spectacle. "Play with Fire" is far simpler yet a more complex tune than any in U2's repoitoire. "Dead Flowers", btw, is one of my all-time favorites.

Jagger is Bono's senior by 20 some years. (roughly anyways) Ever listen to Clapton "karaokee" old blues tunes? You want to talk about "staying power" If Bono is packing stadiums well into his 60's you'll have a leg to stand on.

In any event, if you took the time to download that song, you're that much closer to conversion to the evil rightwing, religious brainwashed.

 

[neophyte321]

Quote from hapaboy:

"Satisfaction" is such a simple tune it's ridiculous. That old fogies like the resident troll think it's a masterpiece illustrates that....well, that they are old fogies.

don't blink..... you will soon be refered to as the "old fogie" while you heap praise on the oldies band, U2

Bono is already in his mid 40's for crying out load. (i think anyways)


you don't have to be old to appreciate the old, or VERY old even ... Bach, Vivaldi , etc ...


I just thought of a U2 song I'd play voluntarily, "End of the World", that's a fantastic song ...

 

[I am...]

Quote from acronym:

From my previous link.............

I suppose you'd all agree with this, too?

Steven baldwin;

"You would do far more good if you just preached the gospel of Jesus rather than trying to get rid of Third World debt relief."

fing absurd. Let them eat crucifix'es, thatll solve the problem.

This world is built on sacrifice: if someone gains, someone must lose. That's not my gospel. I am about win-win.

There is abundance available when perceptions line up with reality, and someone is willing to bring it forth. If Africa ever got hold of my gospel - not the popular substitute made of it - they would experience healing and abundance.

If but one African truly got hold of my gospel, this would be a forgone conclusion.

Can green slips of paper and metal discs really solve the conflict in Africa? Not if you put your trust in them. The conflict is the same for Africa as for Europe. To be of help, Europe would first remove the beam in it's own eye before attempting to remove the splinter in the eye of the Africans.

So long as Europeans perceive my gospel to be about crucifixion and sacrifice, they will condemn their African brethren to it. I am about resurrection and abundance.

Jesus

 

[Cesko]

Quote from spect8or:

Heard the joke about the finance ministers?

African finance minister is visiting his Asian counterpart's home. Stunned by the opulant mansion, he enquires how the minister came to afford such luxury. "See that bridge over there?" says the Asian, pointing out the window. "Ten percent."

Some time later, the Asian is visiting the African, who is living in a magnificent palace. "How on earth did you manage to pay for this place?" he asks.

"See that bridge over there?" says the African. The Asian looks out the window.

"I don't see any bridge there."

"That's right." Grinning, he points to himself: "100%".



Saving 10 million Africans today only ensures that we'll have to save 20 million the next famine (which is never too far away).

Though even managing a farm seems to beat Africans--forget managing a city or a modern economy--they still insist on procreating furiously. (Actually, given a HIV prevalance of nearly 20% among South Africa's working population--ie the smartest people in Africa's best economy--procreation is probably at least as much a by-product of their insatiable sexual appetites as it is a desire to raise a family, afterall black males in Africa don't stick around to raise children any more than they do in Chicago.) What are they thinking? Clearly, they are not thinking. Fortunately, just like Mexico, Africa has a 'safety valve' in naive Europeans who welcome its refuse, convinced that these wretches will become the engineers and city managers of tomorrow to replace retiring Frenchmen and Danes, and should they not, well it's terribly enriching having those delightful black ghettos pop up in your cities anyway.

There is a solution to Africa's woes that is virtually guaranteed to work, or at least work significantly better than anything that has yet been tried. That is to encourage the family sizes of the most able Africans and limit births to the least able. Since a significant part of human ability is genetically inherited, the same science that grows bigger tomatoes will eventually create more able Africans. So simple, so scientifically reasonable, so morally plausible, and yet, for all that, so unspeakable.

You are absolutely right but for lots of people this is getting too complicated. By the way, aren't you one of those "greedy, selfish right-wingers"?? You sound like one.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from acronym:

I cant do the Z troll multiple reply-quote -where its convenient thing, so here goes;in summary;

Acka dacka are great, and they crap all over sir paul mcartney.
Strangely, nobody has criticized their charity work, if they did any.

Inxs, being too pop? But it was cool pop, and if you turn it up loud like house music, you'll see the value.

They were, i think, a truly great band-not real rock and roll, obviously
, but stood up and did the job where so much eurotrash and crap wannabe Us bands, just sank like souffle's.

Like a cool hawaiin breeze, rather than a local football riot.


Midnight Oil?
Most of their stuff was great really, i dont think you can listen to a midnight oil album and not , i dont know, somehow, not , think about something.


And that's the only real objective of any political band, i guess.
Except, peter garrett, the gargantuan , bald lead singer of midnight oil is now a labor MP.

Go figure.......Realistically, the hunters & collectors were likely their equal, with mark hunter i think it was -
if you havent heard "ghost nation", you should check it out, great album, you want shivers up your spine, that'll do it.

Hmm, maybe that didnt sound like such a great endorsement, maybe in the "joshua tree" mould, i dont know.


And finally, theirs no question eddie vedder is a truly inspired artist, he writes most of his own stuff to begin with, and im yet to see a band that isnt trying to rip off another, except these guys.
There just a band, but ive been looking, and i just dont see any seriously original material from most of the also- ran bands.
And im guessing, but i dont see eddie delving into hip hop soon, either.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe Vedder is one very shark cookie. I just don't see genius, and musically, to be honest, none of their albums were ever as good as 10 was. I think they've declined over time, not improved.

And yeah, give me "Hells Bells" any day over "Sgt. Pepper"

Cheers,
H

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Cesko:

You are absolutely right but for lots of people this is getting too complicated. By the way, aren't you one of those "greedy, selfish right-wingers"?? You sound like one.

Right-wing, yeah. Selfish? Yeah, somewhat, but not in a cruel way. Greedy? Hardly. Making money's a good thing, but I'm quite content with a lot less than conquering the world. I'm hoping to retire by the the time I'm 40, owning a modest home and on an income of only something like $1500/month (thereafter adjusting upwards, in line with inflation). I'm looking at southern South America for options. Something like Buenos Aires, or maybe a smaller Argentine or Uruguayan city. Maybe southern Brazil (the part that works best--guess why). Maybe Santiago. I think I'd fit in pretty discreetly in any of those. My Spanish has been steadily improving and isn't half bad at the moment (not much of a help in Brazil, obviously). I'm heavily southern European in appearance, which obviously helps avoid the sort of unwanted attention nordic 'gringos' have to endure. Just bit of an adventure in trying to adapt to something new. I don't think it would too hard to pull off at all. But if it doesn't work out I'd be quite happy to call Belgrade or Sofia home. Fo now, the latter two countries are reassuringly xenophobic, but I'm just wondering how long that can last under steadily improving economic conditions which will inevitably attract African and Muslim immigrants. Maybe instead of apologizing for Bosnia and Kosovo, Serbia can play them up to emphasize that Muslims (and hopefully by implication foreigners) are not wanted. But, bah, there I go thinking logically again. Bulgaria's hands, now being EU, seem tied, unfortunately. Well, in the event they stuff up their economies and never manage any meaningufl development, at least there'll be a bright side to it--it will offer less incentive for immigrants.