jtgillia said:

Come on. This isn't arrogant...

jtgillia said:

???

jtgillia said:

Oh I explain my shit and get called an asshole when debating your skewed opinion and Im the one who should lighten up?

rdhull said:

U2&The Rolling Stones are Overrated&Inflated Period.Parliament Funkadelic Plays Circles around both on there Off Day.Bernie Worrell,Eddie Hazel,Mike Hampton,P-Funk Horns,Bootsy can play U2&the ROlling Stones Grooves in there Sleep&then do a Whole Gig of there stuff.U2 is as about as Funky as Jackson Browne.Prince dissed there WEack Ass Because what they get away with A Brother would get Laughed off a Stage for even pulling that Mess.nobody brags about U2's Guitar Playing,Bass Instrumentation,Drumming etc... it's all on the Production&Songwriting period.Rolling Stones play the same Damn song for almost 30 years&are Proclaim as being Great?? what kind of world do we live in??

jtgillia said:

You Know Your Shit Man,Shake these Haters up in here trying too praise tired Ass U2.

jtgillia said:

Don't Let up Man U2 couldn't Hold Van Morrison's Jock Strap.that is the Baddest Irish Song-Writer IMHO.Bono over the past 10 years has become more closer too Sonny Bono.IMHO

rdhull said:

1988 East Coast between New York&Virgina.you wanna get all IRS up in here over those tired Drunk Bums ok.what about them is so Ground-Breaking?all you hear about is there Songwriting&Bono.Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys blows there tired Shit into the Water."California Girls"&that Melody&Harmonies alone would clean U2 out easily IMHO.back in 91 with that Album they were jacking there Sounds off Jesus Jones among others.are U2 on Steely Dan's Music Level?Hell Naw.I Can Name 499 other Acts that Would Whip there Ass with One Eye Closed.truth be told all Acts are overrated&Underrated but acts like U2 are Overexposed&take Bono away&they would be Assed out.you saw Larry Graham leading the Family Stone now it ain't the same without Sly but Larry was Handling Business let U2 get on any stage without Bono&they will get the Sexual Chocolate Treatment.

mistermaxxx said:

Ohhh, NOW you're going to bat for PFunk, but when you got into it with PFunkjazz about his dislike of your proclaimed hero Rick James and his singing of ballads you didn't have one good thing to say about Parliament/Funkadelic. Very opportunistic of you. VERY opportunistic.

mistermaxxx said:

Has there been a revamping of the meaning of the silly word "hater"? It's 2 people in this thread that dislike U2 doing the so-called "hating" in a thread asking for U2 suggestions. And you praise Madonna to the ends of the earth - but you're not a fan anymore. All very logical. All very consistent.

mistermaxxx said:

This is part of the problem. You act as if music is some type of competition, like the Olympics. Music is an art of expression. Its participants don't line up and run against each other, they don't play with a ball to outscore each other. One's style doesn't have to be equalled to be of equal merit. Believe it or not, just because something is different doesn't necessarily make it inferior or superior. Sometimes it's just different. Of course there are musicians who are more accomplished in some ways than U2, but if we're going to go that route, NOBODY outside of Jazz is worth anything, so we can just forget about any group mentioned in this thread based on how well they play their respective instruments.

I mean seriously, if some of you don't like U2, that's fine, because we're all entitled to like whatever it is we like. But the original poster asked for suggestions from people about what's best to get from their catalog, and to rank on 'em like you're doing is akin to all the anti-Madonna bashing that you get your feathers ruffled by when people do the same thing in the MYRIAD of threads devoted to her. 'Tis your right to do what you're doing, just as it IS an anti-Madonna fan's right for their opinions of her and everything else about her in a thread dedicated to her. And the opinions here about U2 are no less valid as yours about Madonna - just different. Remember this the next time there is another Madonna thread.

mistermaxxx said:

Wtf? It aint about U2 being as funky as Bernie etc..they are top notch at the music THEY play...and nah they cant play them off the stage without practicing for what they need to be playing just like anybody else...can they do Streets With No Name? can they? This snt about what "genre" thats played. The can do a gig of their stuff eh? Not witout practice just like U2 couldnt do there stuff witout practice..dont even try to front like Bernie et al. can just go upstage and start playing With Or Without you, Streets, Fly etc with no hesitation and vice versa...and wtf does the Stones have to..ahh..I see...but Ill entertain it..nobody gives props to Edges guitar playing or production..riggght..bass and drums ok, so what. My point is not to detract from the music they "do" perform. What si this "gettin away with what others cant get away with"? I aint talkin about awards. So you saw them in 88 eh? Where? They couldnt play? They werent good? Okaaay,,,right! And the media is who proclaim people to eb great etc..shit dont even trip. If you had millions of people cming to see you for 30 plus years you wouldnt consider yourself being great or having some staying power? EVERYONE gets bloated..even Bernie, Bootsy ( dont try and tell me he has been so electic ..this just an example). Not everythging released by them is a masterpiece..but I aint gonna act all fopul and say "oh that last one has no merit"..yall are some biased mf-ers. Dont make this into what it aint.

mistermaxxx said:

hahaha--look in then mirror for haters...I aint the one talkin shit...he knows his shit? uh huh,righttt.. there goes your credibility too..just because he is hatin on a proven band that you have beef with...damn shame ..damn shame..as if othe r bands aretn tired..and i wasnt given praise anyways..i was just poiointing out boolshit about detracting from what is proven to be classic material...now what if some fool said "Motor Booty Affair' is nothing but one good song called Aqua Boogie...would it be about.."well the Stones can do riff rock better...?" pay attention!
[This message was edited Sat Nov 9 23:47:30 PST 2002 by rdhull]

mistermaxxx said:[quote]

rdhull said:

yeah...sureeee you saw them live lol. And what did I say was ground breaking--I asked if you wanted me to tell you what is so great about them...but I'll pass now anyway cause youre blinded by..something...



There you go again with the comparisons..lol..who gives a fuck about Brian Wilson and Ca Girls..I never said U2 were THE BEST or THE WORST...pay attention. And hell yeah some of U2's stuff surpasses Brian Wilson..hahah youre strugglin



Ok now I see why you have JT Gillas back...they were biting off of Jesus Jones? LOLOLOL--they may have been biting off the electronica movement but a specific group? And Jesus Jones to boot???!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL...okayyy..JT got some company! Now youre opinion is just as ignorant as jtgillas..yeah U2 wanted to be Jesus Jones....right here right now.



Hey smart guy--take away any prominant member of a band and see what happens..especially the lead singer..DUH!! (watch your as come up with some Van Halen did it shit).You still aint said shit yet..Um...ok...overexposed...lets see..they make a cd every 3 years and do the usual two year tour promotion like any other band that still has popularity and is consistent..and thats a bad thing? Gotta be on the underground to be good? After 20 years? Gotta not hear from them? Man..please! Near the end where you said "truth be told all acts are overrated underrated"--well no shit! This wasnt even about that till you made it that..yall just mad cause I broke shit down and explained Gillas gross display of foolishness and your ego is attached. But "I unda-stand". It aint right but its ok..Ive had to do this kind of stuff before.


.
[This message was edited Sun Nov 10 19:36:43 PST 2002 by rdhull]

Supernova said:

Oh he knows this---its just an ego and a race thing. He doesnt want to get clowned along with JTGILLA ..too late!!!

mistermaxxx said:[quote]

jtgillia said:

Quotin this once more because this is mu-fuggin COMEDY!!! "you know your shit man" JT the singles only man knows his shit eh Maxx? keep doin it bruh.

.
[This message was edited Sat Nov 9 23:52:37 PST 2002 by rdhull]

mistermaxxx said:

Once more again for two ignorant statements backing each other

Pantheon of some ig'nant statements:

Funkystrange-Jimi Hendrix is overrated"

JTGILLA: "The second half of JT is sucks beyond belief"

Mistamaxx: You know your shit man (referring to JTGILLA on his singles only listenin ass lol)

Now wasnt it last week someone said you had to know your shit to post in this forum? Who left the got damn gate open?
[This message was edited Sat Nov 9 23:45:59 PST 2002 by rdhull]

Supernova said:

Oh..is this how this Mistamaxx is playin...uh huh..I see ...fuckin poser

I have to admit that I did'nt really find U2 very interesting until the whole 'Achtung Baby/Zoo TV' thing hit. They always seemed a bit boring & self-righteous.

I thought 'Achtung Baby' was musically leagues ahead of their previous albums (including the Joshua Tree), it was packed full of ideas and new sounds, and had some real depth to it. I even went to see one of the 'Zoo TV' shows, and I have to say I was really impressed. They really showed that a 'stadium' concert could be entertaining, challenging, interesting & personal. You could dazzle the audience with gimmicks & special effects without sacrificing the performance or intimacy.

Ever since then I've had a great respect for U2
(though I do think 'Achtung Baby' was their peak)

i'm happy to say that after 9 years, i am finally at peace with 'zooropa'. when it was u2's latest it was kind of hard to like, too easy to find fault with. it has aged very well, i must say.
i appreciate that u2 was trying to stretch, attempting to bust out of what everyone's conception of what the band should sound like.

Well thats a fair assessment other than what those other two were trying to bring..immediately talkin shit on some bullshit they dont know. Bringing up other bands and artists ..wtf? This is a semi explanation of U2 imho.U2 were self righteous yes...theres a reason for that..where they come from. The Dublin ghetto etc..seeing war, terrorism, etc..they were one of the serious bands or bands with a message in their music that was from the new wave-punk influenced eighties era...serious about their influence, message and plight. Defintiely not Duran Duran(no offense). Then they took a left turn with Eno etc with UF and honed it to perfection on JT...then went overboard thinking they were the kings with Rattle and Hum when all they were doing is wearing their influences blatantly on their sleeves. They got clowned for that and stopped taking themselves so seriously. So they came up with AB and Zoo TV tour..one of the best tours to go down in history and one of the best copmebacks once youve been on top. Right up there with Clinton and the motherships connections heyday (for those of you who like to bring up others casue you cant debate shit). That was their ATWIAD after the Purple Rain of teh JT.Also in the UF tour Bonos crazy ass climbed to the roof (near) of a arena ( Long Beach?) and dropped,letting his fans catch him. Foolish and trusting of his rabid fans yes..but thats the self righteous sincere angle to him and always has been. I read that George Clinton etc smoked crack onstage lol. And Rick James is a drug addict since were talkin overrated etc ( thats for you Mistermaxx heheeh...) ...but as I said U2 flipped it in the nineties SUCCESSFULLY. They didnt become James Brown but they began to groove with their music, still keeping their vision but also having some fun experimenting..willing to alienate their core audience to the extreme with this new music style and vision. And they DID alienate many of them. Their core rabid audienc e was used to their anthemic songs. Not this nihlistic point of view. It is like they went Bowie and went to Berlin (which they did).Bono got damn hear silly and ridiculous with some of the onstage antics and costumes. Still the music is bangin and cant be denied. And they have been doing it for 20 plus years now. Longevity is not neccessaruly a BAD thing. I mean damn. Youre damned if you do youre damned if you dont. Eff that...and JT and Maxx know it. But if you dont like U2 so what--thats ok..but dont make foolsish statements saying "oh their music on this and that is worthless, no melody, blah fuckity blah"..Come up with something besides "they overrated". thats some ignorant biased bullshit and disrespectful of the forum in my eyes and some ego crap trying to look good. If you know you made some crap statement be a gotdamn man and admit you fucked up. I have many times.
[This message was edited Sun Nov 10 9:38:59 PST 2002 by rdhull]

BorisFishpaw said:

Zoo TV was what clinched ot for me as well..they have my respect ever since then..it clinched it. The recent tour was opposite that and was just as powerful..only the music to stand on and goddamn if it wasnt a religious experience. Just like saeeing Patti Labelle, Clinton, The Stones etc..U2 is a band that everyone should se live to understand more fully and feel the music and THE DELIVERY.

U2 seem to be incapable of putting out albums with decent second sides. For some reason they always cram all the best songs in the first half. The only album of theirs that I can listen to all the way through is Achtung Baby. Everything else I have to switch off after the fifth song or so.

End.

yeah, because as we know everybody puts their "best" songs on the second side, near the end of the record.

Hey RD,
I really like U2, but I feel I'm missing out on that full on feeling you give to your opinion. The way you refuse to bend under the weight of another opinion and keep to your guns no matter what.
Therefore, I'll just have to say
U2 ARE SHIT.
Not only are they shit, but but they actually make Justin Timberlake look talented.
And anyone who disagrees with me on this subject has such a lack of musical taste and intelligence that they deserve to be put out of there misery immiediately.

dewmass said:

let me also explain my "arrogance"..it was partly due to the fact of the arrogance in which JTGILLA dismissed their material "arrogantly" himself in his first post..it isnt as if I came out goin "KABLAM!" or "BOOYA" :LOL:.. and I also dont think some of U2's shit doesnt stink...I was just writing form the pov of my opinion and also as if someone had said Funkadelic are way overrated..EWF is overrated ..dont buy There A Riot Goin On because its unlistenable...thats in essence the same thing being said. I just have a different way of dealing with it..

rdhull said:

Well, most great artists should be capable of sustaining a record from beginning to end. Especially if they only release one every three years.

End.

PeterJL121 said:

thats true..and thats why U2 suck...nevermind that people tend to put the strongest songs first and their more thoughtful material last...even if it is from a record companies wishes etc...because god knows that on Whats Goin On, the title track should have been one of the last songs..and that on JT Where The Streets Have No Name should have been like..the last song...and Lets Go Crazy should be like where Baby Im A Star is..and ...sheesh..I guess it takes some work and special effects to keep some people interest thorughb a whole album...thats why I cant stand Soike Lee films..or Soderberg etc..they dont have any special effects in their movie and it's so boring..hardly anything blows up! I hate that!! P.S. do NOT see any Kubric films or Magnolia by P.T. Anderson etc..I mean what the hell? zzz ..and they have been in the game for a while too when they produced some of these films like U2 has been in the game. Hey, have you heard the new Justin Timberlake or Aaron Carter cd? They're great!!

rdhull said:

Good lord! Are you all right? When did I say U2 sucked? If I thought they sucked, I wouldn't be familiar enough with their discography to critique it. It's funny that you should mention Purple Rain, because that's a perfect example of a well paced album: Let's Go Crazy and The Beautiful Ones on side one, When Doves Cry and I Would Die For You on side two. And it climaxes with the classic title track!

Thanks for proving my point...

End.

PeterJL121 said:

And yes some albums are sequenced nicely but not all ..thats the point, but nevermind all that...did you get the new Justin Timberlake or Aaron Carter discs or not?
[This message was edited Sun Nov 10 12:41:57 PST 2002 by rdhull]

The bottom line is that music is subjective. Whether a group or an album is worthy of anyone's time is solely the opinion of one person. I don't bow down to an overall opinion, or a poll, or MTV. Rdhull calls U2 a "group that has been proven of greatness". Proven by who? Critics? U2 fans? Well, not be me. And I can guarantee you that there are many others that agree with where I'm coming from, and it's also not a crime or a matter of being right or wrong (ignorant as rd so delicately puts it). Obviously, rd doesn't understand my playful sarcasm when I said "superior opinion." Opinion related topics are not for debating as rdhull believes. Because you won't get anywhere.

I listen and think what I want-therefore, I feel it is my right to not listen to U2 if I don't want. This isn't about U2 anymore, though. This is about rdhull and his incredibly facsist view of the music...

However, the original topic was about whether or not the author should get their albums or if their greatest hits covered most of what was worth hearing. After wading through a lot of U2's shit, I can say with confidence that I believe the greatest hits albums would cover it (except for a small handful of songs, like Bullet the Blue Sky, Babyface, and Wild Honey). And nothing rdhull says is going to prove anything wrong with that statement because it's my opinion.

fms said:

I loved Zooropa the first time I listened to it. Not the whole thing, but most of the songs. I can't get into "The Wanderer" at the end sung by Johnny Cash, and I like Johnny.

I feel like this: the transformation they made from the 80s into the 90s is to be commended. Who wants to sound like War, The Unforgettable Fire, and The Joshua Tree over the long haul? Nothing wrong with that sound, but to keep challenging yourself and your audience you have to sometimes flip the script. It would have been boring if Prince used the Linn Drum for 20+ years on album after album, or tried to release Purple Rain all over again. Sometimes flipping the script isn't successful (artistically), but the effort is to be commended. Achtung Baby (their apex), and Zooropa are musically the antithesis of what they had been doing before. Not necessarily more relevant per se, just wrapped in different arrangements and sound.