Bono: U2 Won't Be Back For A While

Bono has revealed that U2 won't be "back for a while" as the plan to take a well deserved break.

11
Bono has revealed that U2 won't be "back for a while" as the plan to take a well deserved break. The band, who recently finished their 360 world tour, said they won't be heading back on the road "for a while". Speaking at the GQ Awards, Bono told Metro: "They say every tour is ten days too long. Not with this one. We genuinely loved every single night and at the end we were so sad." Whilst collecting their award for Best Band, Bono told the audience: "Growing up is not what is meant to happen to a rock band. It has happened, we are now men." Other guests on the red carpet included Blur's Alex James, Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, Dizzee Rascal, boy band One Direction, The Saturdays, Kylie Minogue, Pixie Lott and Leona Lewis. As previously reported, the frontman dismissed rumours that he suffered a "heart scare" whilst on tour. Thanks for the report to Gigwise.com.

142 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    Co Cor
    slaveskinJACKET wrote: burghUK wrote: too many hipsters and metalheads here , U2 are an excellent band and you hate them because they are mainstream. Admit it c*nts. Sorry to let you down, but I dislike U2 because they suck, their music sucks, their musicianship sucks, and they seem like giant twats... Bono and the Edge, at least -- the other two don't get much attention. jimmy-moto wrote: Has anyone else seen "It Might Get Loud" and laughed at The Edge when he was trying to play something other than simple chords loaded with effects? Me. But what was even better was when he seemed offended when Jimmy Page kept improving what the Edge brought into their jam session. And then he kept trying to correct him like, "No, it goes like this." That was hilarious. I would be embarrassed to be the Edge for his ability and for his repertoire, but definitely not for his success.
    Haha. The Edge seemed out of place in that movie.
    jetwash69
    Horsedick.MPEG wrote: jetwash69 wrote: Horsedick.MPEG wrote: jetwash69 wrote: No, I focused on your content, you're making illegitimate points and non-analogous points on why we should give a f*ck why you hate this band, then bragged about your "diverse" taste in music. Anyone who types multiple paragraphs about why you should hate something shows you have nothing to prove.
    They call this the straw man argument. A. I don't care what people think of my opinion of U2, just wanted to register a vote against U2 and buck the misconception that only hipsters or metalheads could think that way B. I don't hate this band; just don't particularly like them. Hate is a pretty strong word, which I'd have to reserve for Cold Play and Crosby Stills and Nash. C. Not bragging about anything, just providing a tiny representative sample to support the point that I'm not a hipster or a metalhead. Or a "15 year old tweenager" [sic] for that matter. At least you're right that I have nothing to prove. Tell us another.
    Horsedick.MPEG
    jetwash69 wrote: Horsedick.MPEG wrote: jetwash69 wrote: Horsedick.MPEG wrote: jetwash69 wrote: No, I focused on your content, you're making illegitimate points and non-analogous points on why we should give a f*ck why you hate this band, then bragged about your "diverse" taste in music. Anyone who types multiple paragraphs about why you should hate something shows you have nothing to prove. They call this the straw man argument. A. I don't care what people think of my opinion of U2, just wanted to register a vote against U2 and buck the misconception that only hipsters or metalheads could think that way B. I don't hate this band; just don't particularly like them. Hate is a pretty strong word, which I'd have to reserve for Cold Play and Crosby Stills and Nash. C. Not bragging about anything, just providing a tiny representative sample to support the point that I'm not a hipster or a metalhead. Or a "15 year old tweenager" [sic] for that matter. At least you're right that I have nothing to prove. Tell us another.
    Lol, impress me more. I refuted what you've been saying. Plus you're not impressing anyone with multiple paragraphs on why we should agree with your disgust of U2, I'm not sure who you're trying to impress with your lengthy bitchfest. You fit your A. post, it shows you're trying too hard that you went to the length of not only creating a lengthy post, you had to go out and beyond by posting your "diverse" bands". By posting multiple paragraphs to pretend that your point actually matters shows you actually don't have a point, which refers back to your A. point that you're a crybaby hipster and/or a metalhead.
    jetwash69
    Horsedick.MPEG wrote: jetwash69 wrote: Horsedick.MPEG wrote: jetwash69 wrote: ...I also realize burghUK has the right to like the. I'm glad he/she gets enjoyment from them... I love when people type 5 paragraphs declaring why their opinion is absolute. Cool story, bro. Shame you focused on paragraph counts instead of the point. The excerpt above pretty much pre-empted your point. Or do you disagree with my point that we're all entitled to our opinions? No, I focused on your content, you're making illegitimate points and non-analogous points on why we should give a f*ck why you hate this band, then bragged about your "diverse" taste in music. Anyone who types multiple paragraphs about why you should hate something shows you have nothing to prove.
    jetwash69
    Shazazmic Especially when they include every band they listen to to prove that their music tastes are extremely diverse and unbiased.
    Cool story, bro. Cause like everyone else here, I only listen to 13 bands. Of course, I have biases just like anyone, and even though I don't like U2 in general, I still like a few of their songs. My posts don't proven anything; they don't intend to. But if you saw my CD collection, I doubt you'd find it anything but ecclectic. It's got mainstream, off the wall, rap, local stuff, and includes native music from the far east, the middle east, and the midwest. I don't have every subgenre covered, and it's a pretty humble collection considering I started buying them about 5 years after the format hit the market. But it covers stuff written hundreds of years ago up to stuff released this year. But sorry, no U2 CDs, just a few of their songs on soundtracks. Definitely more than 13 bands, and it seems to fit Webster's definition of ecclectic. At least better than the definitions for hipster or metalhead. Once again, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it amounts to "tl;dr".
    jetwash69
    Horsedick.MPEG wrote: jetwash69 wrote: ...I also realize burghUK has the right to like the. I'm glad he/she gets enjoyment from them... I love when people type 5 paragraphs declaring why their opinion is absolute.
    Cool story, bro. Shame you focused on paragraph counts instead of the point. The excerpt above pretty much pre-empted your point. Or do you disagree with my point that we're all entitled to our opinions?
    Horsedick.MPEG
    jetwash69 wrote: Horsedick.MPEG wrote: jetwash69 wrote: ...I also realize burghUK has the right to like the. I'm glad he/she gets enjoyment from them... I love when people type 5 paragraphs declaring why their opinion is absolute. Cool story, bro. Shame you focused on paragraph counts instead of the point. The excerpt above pretty much pre-empted your point. Or do you disagree with my point that we're all entitled to our opinions?
    No, I focused on your content, you're making illegitimate points and non-analogous points on why we should give a f*ck why you hate this band, then bragged about your "diverse" taste in music. Anyone who types multiple paragraphs about why you should hate something shows you have nothing to prove.
    JGuitarC
    I feel sorry for everyone here who's completely bashing U2. You're all fools. If you say you hate U2, you've never seen them live. And if you've seen U2 live, you'll never hate them. No one else puts on a show with an experience like that, and I can't see anyone come close. Sucks for you if you missed out, but don't say they're the worst band ever, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
    jetwash69
    Horsedick.MPEG wrote: Lol, impress me more. I refuted what you've been saying. Plus you're not impressing anyone with multiple paragraphs on why we should agree with your disgust of U2, I'm not sure who you're trying to impress with your lengthy bitchfest. You fit your A. post, it shows you're trying too hard that you went to the length of not only creating a lengthy post, you had to go out and beyond by posting your "diverse" bands". By posting multiple paragraphs to pretend that your point actually matters shows you actually don't have a point, which refers back to your A. point that you're a crybaby hipster and/or a metalhead.
    Well, as long as you ignore what I actually say, then I guess you'll never get it. Best wishes.
    austinm82
    I completely agree...I've seen a lot of great conerts in my day, and UE completely blew them all away. You U2 haters need to give them a listen.
    RP75
    Hooray!!! Best news in ages!!! Don't come back. Ha ha!!!!
    kurtshapedbox
    The people making fun of the people making fun of U2, look just as silly as the people their making fun of. har har
    jetwash69
    slaveskinJACKET wrote: jetwash69 wrote: ...Punk from the Clash... What? They were just a 70's rockabilly band, although that's basically what punk is a more aggressive version of, at its roots. However, The Clash is much more akin to Buddy Holly than to The Misfits, The Sex Pistols, Black Flag, The Stooges, etc.
    Cool story, bro. I don't find the Clash in the rockabilly section of the vintage record stores; rather in the punk or rock sections. Since some (or at least one) of them sported mohawks from time to time, I'm going with punk. BTW, while there's some rockabilly in there, there's also a lot of reggae and other influences too. BTW, I think most would agree that psycho-billy and hell-billy are subgenres of punk and there was a punk community within post 50s rockabilly, e.g., The Stray Cats, etc. Perhaps you were confusing the Clash with them. Anyway, that's all off point. I was just using them as an example of a mainstream band that coexisted with U2, from the region, that I happen to like. Because although U2 fanboys are in denial, there are plenty of valid reasons not to like U2 other than being a hipster or a metalhead. BTW, your example of "the Edge's" conduct in It Might Get loud is classic. I don't understand why you want to quibble over irelevant points with folks on your side of the basic argument.
    Ghost_Dancer
    The break is probably so Bono can go and bitch about how we're not doing enough to feed the starving childern in Africa. I'm sorry, Bono, I work two lousy minimum wage jobs to feed myself. I'm sure you could spare a couple 100,000 for me?
    Horsedick.MPEG
    jetwash69 wrote: burghUK wrote: too many hipsters and metalheads here , U2 are an excellent band and you hate them because they are mainstream. Admit it c*nts. I found them annoying in high school back when they were originally getting overplayed. And I like plenty of mainstream stuff like Zeplin, Rush, and Muse. I like a lot of "hipster" stuff like Captain Beefheart, The Kills, etc., too. Lots of metal is OK by me to, from 'Maiden to Metallica with room for A7X and Lamb of God. Punk from the Clash to the Butt Trumpets works for me and I even like some Bangles and some Madonna. Yet other than a very few songs, U2 just rubs me the wrong way. It seems like it's not just hipsters and metal heads that object to some of U2's attributes. Check out Winnebego Man at 1:17:38. Noel: "He went a little Bono on us". His name has become an American metaphor for leveraging fame to prosilitize political views. I realize if I don't like U2 then I don't have to go to their show--and I didn't--and I wouldn't have even if it were a free show. I also realize burghUK has the right to like them. I'm glad he/she gets enjoyment from them. Whether burghUK likes it or not, we have an equal right not to like U2 and that doesn't make us hipsters or metalheads or necessarily have anything to do with them being mainstream. I'm just thankful they don't get much radio play where I live anymore--even when they were in town.
    I love when people type 5 paragraphs declaring why their opinion is absolute.
    Shazazmic
    Horsedick.MPEG wrote: I love when people type 5 paragraphs declaring why their opinion is absolute.
    Especially when they include every band they listen to to prove that their music tastes are extremely diverse and unbiased.
    vanillasky
    No, I hate them because they have made the same record over and over again for about 30 years now.
    I don't think you need to have a degree in music to know that they have had some very diverse sounds. From their early post-punk days to the ambient, Eno era to their experimentation in the 1990s to the less-than-desirable pop they've made for the past ten years. You've just proven that your U2 experience consists of "With or Without You," "Beautiful Day," and other assorted hits.
    jetwash69
    burghUK wrote: too many hipsters and metalheads here , U2 are an excellent band and you hate them because they are mainstream. Admit it c*nts.
    I found them annoying in high school back when they were originally getting overplayed. And I like plenty of mainstream stuff like Zeplin, Rush, and Muse. I like a lot of "hipster" stuff like Captain Beefheart, The Kills, etc., too. Lots of metal is OK by me to, from 'Maiden to Metallica with room for A7X and Lamb of God. Punk from the Clash to the Butt Trumpets works for me and I even like some Bangles and some Madonna. Yet other than a very few songs, U2 just rubs me the wrong way. It seems like it's not just hipsters and metal heads that object to some of U2's attributes. Check out Winnebego Man at 1:17:38. Noel: "He went a little Bono on us". His name has become an American metaphor for leveraging fame to prosilitize political views. I realize if I don't like U2 then I don't have to go to their show--and I didn't--and I wouldn't have even if it were a free show. I also realize burghUK has the right to like them. I'm glad he/she gets enjoyment from them. Whether burghUK likes it or not, we have an equal right not to like U2 and that doesn't make us hipsters or metalheads or necessarily have anything to do with them being mainstream. I'm just thankful they don't get much radio play where I live anymore--even when they were in town.
    Salvo416
    Baconfish wrote: xwf wrote: burghUK wrote: too many hipsters and metalheads here , U2 are an excellent band and you hate them because they are mainstream. Admit it c*nts. No, I hate them because they have made the same record over and over again for about 30 years now. They are garbage. Which is a weird thing to say considering that the early 80s stuff sounds nothing like the late 80s stuff, neither does the 90s stuff nor the last album.
    Seriously.. listen to Pop and then listen to The Joshua Tree.. How about War and Zooropa? Nothing alike about those comparisons.
    almostlike/
    jimmy-moto wrote: Has anyone else seen "It Might Get Loud" and laughed at The Edge when he was trying to play something other than simple chords loaded with effects?
    Yeah. I've watched It Might Get Loud. Biggest fan of Jack White, Jimmy Page and The Edge. Don't really understand your comment. I mean, The Edge doesn't play mind-blowing guitar solos but that's not what music is all about. In the movie, if you recall, he called himself a "sound architect". That's exactly what he is. He doesn't need to show off for us to know his work is there.
    Horsedick.MPEG
    xwf wrote: burghUK wrote: too many hipsters and metalheads here , U2 are an excellent band and you hate them because they are mainstream. Admit it c*nts. No, I hate them because they have made the same record over and over again for about 30 years now. They are garbage.
    So does Slayer and everyone loves them
    Tsunami3000
    all i ask for is the edge to do solo stuff, or im a dumbass for not looking any of his solo stuff if he has, cause i think hes the only good thing from U2
    ashowe
    MoreGilmourII wrote: Inb4 a bunch of 15yr old tweens bash U2 for no real reason. ''hurr durr Bono douchebag durr durr can't sing hurpa lurp durpy doo''
    How about THIS for a real reason? U2 have built an empire of music on making the same album every single time they put out new material. Honestly, the singles from every album they've made since Achtung Baby could be sequnced, and you'd never know where one track ends and another begins. To vanillasky, I understand that you want to defend this band's artistic integrity to someone who probably only knows the singles, but don't forget that this is also a band synonymous with the Ipod. These guys do the same thing Tool do - rewrite something that actually was groundbreaking and innovative at one point. Lots of bands can be pioneers of a sound, but not many can keep blazing new trails. I'll stick to my Radiohead and Deftones records, thank you.
    Horsedick.MPEG
    slaveskinJACKET wrote: Vince Sixx wrote: In these comments: Butthurt U2 fans and prepubescent bandwagoners. I am neither.
    yes you are
    slaveskinJACKET
    CaliforniaKid wrote: i_am_metalhead wrote: We can only hope that this is a permanent break... Yes because they are totally NOT METAL and everything should be METAL because I'm an narrow minded prepubescent douchenozzle.
    Might as well have typed, "Haters gon' hate." It wouldn't have made you sound like less of a pretentious douchebag.
    Vince Sixx wrote: In these comments: Butthurt U2 fans and prepubescent bandwagoners.
    I am neither.
    Horsedick.MPEG wrote: xwf wrote: No, I hate them because they have made the same record over and over again for about 30 years now. They are garbage. So does Slayer and everyone loves them
    Slayer is also garbage.
    jetwash69 wrote: ...Punk from the Clash...
    What? They were just a 70's rockabilly band, although that's basically what punk is a more aggressive version of, at its roots. However, The Clash is much more akin to Buddy Holly than to The Misfits, The Sex Pistols, Black Flag, The Stooges, etc.
    slaveskinJACKET
    burghUK wrote: too many hipsters and metalheads here , U2 are an excellent band and you hate them because they are mainstream. Admit it c*nts.
    Sorry to let you down, but I dislike U2 because they suck, their music sucks, their musicianship sucks, and they seem like giant twats... Bono and the Edge, at least -- the other two don't get much attention.
    jimmy-moto wrote: Has anyone else seen "It Might Get Loud" and laughed at The Edge when he was trying to play something other than simple chords loaded with effects?
    Me. But what was even better was when he seemed offended when Jimmy Page kept improving what the Edge brought into their jam session. And then he kept trying to correct him like, "No, it goes like this." That was hilarious. I would be embarrassed to be the Edge for his ability and for his repertoire, but definitely not for his success.
    maowcat
    burghUK wrote: too many hipsters and metalheads here , U2 are an excellent band and you hate them because they are mainstream. Admit it c*nts.
    No i hate them because of their repetitive boring music, ignorant ****.
    Cazman
    Doesn't matter if they play a good live show if the songs are shit.
    b_flo
    I'm laughing at these hater's comments. Yes, U2 take a simple approach, the "less is more" approach...and they admit it. They know what works for them. But for you hater's, you can't even get your band to even sound tight. I've been doing several battle of the bands for several years. Some have gone on to become successful. The bands that have won, have been tight...simple or complex. No train wrecks. We can usually tell within 10 seconds of a song. Two bands can be playing the same 3 chords, yet only one might be sounding better than the other. The difference between a garage/bar band playing 3 chords, and U2, is world's apart. That's what makes the difference. I've not heard one person in the live audio industry criticize them, after working with them. In fact, I've seen a lot of local crew members, that listen to different genres, gain respect for U2. It's rare that A/B and C -lister bands would go and see another band's concert. In U2's case, A/B and C -lister bands do go to see them. They even want to collaborate with them. That says a lot! Btw, if you hear the phrase "polishing turd" (common phrase in the music industry), while your band is playing, you need to practice more, instead of hating on other bands...especially the successful ones.
    jetwash69
    Hey b_flo...big surprise to find you at a U2 article :. Good to see you again. Last time I read one of your posts I recall it saying something about Muse not being good enough to headline their own shows. BTW, here's Muse's gig history if anyone still thinks Muse has had problems headlining anywhere in the last 5 years: [url]http://www.songkick.com/artists/219230-m... y?page=1[/url] Did you ever get a chance to see Muse live as the main act with their full sets? Just curious about your professional opinion if you did after your time with them opening for U2.
    /OOM
    U2 are over rated, and in Ireland, where they are from, are just considered an absolute joke. To everyone claiming they are brilliant musicians, did ye know that The Edge writes all the basslines in every song, and records 90% of them. What does that tell you about the bassist? I know a session player who has jammed with them and said it was appalling how poorly they kept it together. I'm sure they were a pretty good band once, but those days are gone and they should give it a rest now, I think. But to each their own!
    G&L18
    Footallica? wrote: Bono can't sing anymore. His voice used to be great, but it isn't now. Get over it.
    Mte. Bono used to have a powerful, passionate voice. Sometime in the 90s though it started to fade and now it's just so weak and whiney, I really cringe when he tries to sing their older songs live. Kind of sad that it's gotten to the point where the Edge is probably a better singer
    Footallica?
    Bono can't sing anymore. His voice used to be great, but it isn't now. Get over it.
    slaveskinJACKET
    Horsedick.MPEG wrote: slaveskinJACKET wrote: Vince Sixx wrote: In these comments: Butthurt U2 fans and prepubescent bandwagoners. I am neither. yes you are
    1. I am by no means a U2 fan. 2. The term 'prepubescent' would imply that I have not yet even reached puberty, let alone be done with it. You can come check, if you want to. 3. The term ' bandwagoner' would imply that my opinion is solely an extension of another's. That is also untrue. My opinion is completely independent of anyone else's, and no one else will be able to influence my opinion one way or the other. I've always disliked U2, and I always will. I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this to you. You've already proven that you're extremely immature and that your reading comprehension skills are lacking, at best.
    jetwash69 wrote: I don't find the Clash in the rockabilly section of the vintage record stores; rather in the punk or rock sections. Since some (or at least one) of them sported mohawks from time to time, I'm going with punk. BTW, while there's some rockabilly in there, there's also a lot of reggae and other influences too. BTW, I think most would agree that psycho-billy and hell-billy are subgenres of punk and there was a punk community within post 50s rockabilly, e.g., The Stray Cats, etc. Perhaps you were confusing the Clash with them. Anyway, that's all off point. I was just using them as an example of a mainstream band that coexisted with U2, from the region, that I happen to like. Because although U2 fanboys are in denial, there are plenty of valid reasons not to like U2 other than being a hipster or a metalhead. BTW, your example of "the Edge's" conduct in It Might Get loud is classic. I don't understand why you want to quibble over irelevant points with folks on your side of the basic argument.
    Sorry. I mostly agree. I've just never thought of The Clash as a punk band. I know they're categorized as one, but Taylor Swift and Rascall Flatts, for example, get categorized as country, for some reason (although that makes much less sense to me than calling The Clash punk). My point is that, if the Sci-Fi channel suddenly began playing A Walk to Remember , A Fistful of Dollars , and Dazed and Confused , that wouldn't make them science fiction, although the same thing happens with 'country' music these days, and, aside from traditionalists, it's generally accepted by the majority of the population. That's kind of the same way I view The Clash as a punk band, except that I can actually see how they could be thought of as a punk.
    jetwash69
    slaveskinJACKET wrote:Sorry. I mostly agree. I've just never thought of The Clash as a punk band. I know they're categorized as one, but Taylor Swift and Rascall Flatts, for example, get categorized as country, for some reason (although that makes much less sense to me than calling The Clash punk). My point is that, if the Sci-Fi channel suddenly began playing A Walk to Remember, A Fistful of Dollars, and Dazed and Confused, that wouldn't make them science fiction, although the same thing happens with 'country' music these days, and, aside from traditionalists, it's generally accepted by the majority of the population. That's kind of the same way I view The Clash as a punk band, except that I can actually see how they could be thought of as a punk.
    No problem. You make some great points about how arbitrary categorizations can be. I'm not familiar enough w/Taylor Swift or Rascall Flatts to really get on board with that, but I'll take your word for it. Kinda like when the modern rock stations used to play Outkast's Hey Ya in their regular rotations; that certainly didn't make it modern rock. Catchy tune, but not rock. Punk is a really broad genre, and you're right, rockabilly was a huge chunk of it's origin. Check out the Clash's full catelog (or even their greatest hits) and you'll find other songs rooted in ska, reggae, funk--even dance and rap. They ran in the same circles as the Sex Pistols and the Ramones back in the early days, but clearly they were nowhere near as offensive as the Sex Pistols, but they certainly shook the political status quo with songs like "Know Your Rights" and "The Guns of Brixton". Take care, and happy fanboy sniping!
    b_flo
    jetwash69 wrote: b_flo wrote: Really, me saying Muse not good enough to be headliners...sorry, you've got the wrong person. I've got all their albums. That's one of the best shows I've seen. Sorry if I do have the wrong person. It was a long time ago, and whoever it was said a lot of the same stuff you said here but said that U2 "schooled" Muse on showmanship and that Muse's performance paled in comparison to U2's. Part of the ensuing Donnybrook that always happens in U2 article comments, involved that person somehow minimizing Muse's ability/clout to headline in the US. Maybe not a matter of how good they were, perhaps more a matter of US popularity. There's probably other techs who talk about "nutbagging" mics if the band are jerks (that person had something in his profile like that too), but I don't remember him having all the cool stage photography you have in yours. By the way, while I agree that it would be a better use of someone's time to hone their own skills than to criticize others', I think we're all entitled to our opinions about bands, even those who aren't musicians. I think a lot of the U2 backlash comes from having the brand rammed down our throats in so many different vectors. Incessant radio play. Movie soundtracks. Talk shows. And all the "news" outlets advertising U2 under the guise of showcasing Mr. Bono's activism. So yeah, either I got the wrong guy or at the very least I somewhat mis-paraphrased. Regardless, I apologize; neither were the intent.
    No probs mate! I hear ya when you see any type of band being branded everywhere...especially being tied to major corporate sponsors. However, seeing the money trail, a lot of people are misguided on how bands earn a living. Yes, U2, and others of that caliber are tied to these major corporations. But, lesser exposed bands are also getting paid from the same companies. They're just not being showcased to that nature, until they make it to the next level. Bands, like Muse, have made it to the next level, yet have more haters than before...just human nature. It comes with the territory. Any band branded as #1 will always be scrutinized....you just have to get back to basics. Why does this band play better, live, than your average bar band? Why does this band sound solid? I've worked with several bands that I've listened to, yet walked away disappointed...then there's those that have proven themselves. There's bands that I've disliked in the past, but have admired them after watching them play live. Of course, there's a lot of local bands, I've worked with, that deserve more. But who knows what they'll do when they become an A/B or C lister band. A lot of haters, on here, just ramble on when they see the article...not having seen that band play live...just falling for all the negative media hype. The best sources are the ones in the biz. UG knows that they'll get a ton of replies when they do a U2 article. I've yet to see them try to expose artists that rip off their fans, by lip-syncing, being 100% track acts and just not giving a sh*t.
    CaliforniaKid
    slaveskinJACKET wrote: 1. I am by no means a U2 fan. 2. The term 'prepubescent' would imply that I have not yet even reached puberty, let alone be done with it. You can come check, if you want to. 3. The term ' bandwagoner' would imply that my opinion is solely an extension of another's. That is also untrue. My opinion is completely independent of anyone else's, and no one else will be able to influence my opinion one way or the other. I've always disliked U2, and I always will. I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this to you. You've already proven that you're extremely immature and that your reading comprehension skills are lacking, at best.
    Well genius, the term "prepubescent" does not IMPLY that you haven't reached puberty, its the DEFINITION of prepubescent. I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this to you. You've already proven that you're extremely immature and that your reading comprehension skills are lacking, at best.
    jetwash69
    This article is probably dead now, but just to set the record straight, going back to the old articles, I couldn't find b_flo saying that U2 schooled Muse, or that they weren't enough to headline. Here's part of the discussion about Muse headlining: quote]fenwaypunk04 wrote: b_flo wrote: jetwash69....I don't know what your definition of pop music is, but it means 'popular' music...now to the world of metal, 'Ace of Spades' is a pop song...'Anarchy in the UK' is a pop song in the punk genre. U2 is a pop band in modern rock...and so is Slayer, in the realm of metal. I'm pretty sure I've worked w/a lot of bands you've listened to and it's no wonder that a lot of them admire U2 for their talent and live performance...yes, face the truth, your favorite bands listens to them too. Btw, America is falling behind in the music world. Muse headlines in Europe, but not in the U.S. (they opened up for My Chemical Romance in the U.S., but headlined in Europe)...and what do ya know...your friends, U2, are trying to get the Muse exposed more, here in the U.S. It's like when The Police (a pop band) passed the torch onto U2...now U2 can pass the torch to the Muse...that means that the Muse will become a pop band in the U.S. I couldnt help but see some flaws in your post, like i've said before, they headlined in the US in 2007 w/ Cold War Kids as the opening act... and what really ticks me as that you constantly call them "The Muse". Maybe U2 isn't doing good enough to get their name out? Nope, it's the fact that you really shouldn't make comment on something you don't fully now. Muse is actually already well known to fans of music that have an open mind and dont only listen to music. And to add on, Muse has actually headlined all over the world in many different countries, as well as America.[/quote] And here's the comments I was thinking about regarding U2 vs. Muse at the 360 tour date b_flo worked:
    b_flo wrote: Muse are one of my favorite bands, but kinda disappointed when they opened up for U2. Don't get me wrong, Muse played great, but their mix was not that great. The vocals kept on being drowned out, and the low mids were a little muddy...but still a great band though. Also, a lot of Muse fans, that came just to see Muse, were converted to U2 fans...they didn't know what hit them! Hope to see/work with both bands again.
    So here's where I really owe b_flo the apology: I was mixing him up with this guy:
    prelude222 wrote: U2 are not touring with Muse, Muse is touring with U2. When Muse can headline a North American tour, then you can pay to see them. Like I said in my earlier post, Muse fans, you didn't miss anything. I can see Bellamy in the back every night going "ohhh shittt..." So thats how its done??
    [b][quote]prelude222 wrote: I just saw U2 with Muse at Giants Stadium. With 3 huge Muse fans. I'm sorry, but U2 mopped the floor with them. Muse had no emotion, excitement, nothing. Their songs rocked, but you could have [played the CD really loud and got the same effect. I notice its cool on this site to bash U2, but they still do it better than anyone. Just because they're the most successful, doesn't mean they suck. Muse was boring and lifeless, and got a lesson by guys 15 years older than them.
    Not that I expect anyone to care, but I just wanted to correct any inaccuracies.
    jetwash69
    b_flo wrote: Really, me saying Muse not good enough to be headliners...sorry, you've got the wrong person. I've got all their albums. That's one of the best shows I've seen.
    Sorry if I do have the wrong person. It was a long time ago, and whoever it was said a lot of the same stuff you said here but said that U2 "schooled" Muse on showmanship and that Muse's performance paled in comparison to U2's. Part of the ensuing Donnybrook that always happens in U2 article comments, involved that person somehow minimizing Muse's ability/clout to headline in the US. Maybe not a matter of how good they were, perhaps more a matter of US popularity. There's probably other techs who talk about "nutbagging" mics if the band are jerks (that person had something in his profile like that too), but I don't remember him having all the cool stage photography you have in yours. By the way, while I agree that it would be a better use of someone's time to hone their own skills than to criticize others', I think we're all entitled to our opinions about bands, even those who aren't musicians. I think a lot of the U2 backlash comes from having the brand rammed down our throats in so many different vectors. Incessant radio play. Movie soundtracks. Talk shows. And all the "news" outlets advertising U2 under the guise of showcasing Mr. Bono's activism. So yeah, either I got the wrong guy or at the very least I somewhat mis-paraphrased. Regardless, I apologize; neither were the intent.
    b_flo
    See, it's one thing on criticizing a band for their talents, but if you can't even get your band to play tight...then your opinions are moot. If a band plays solid together, but simple, they'll sound 1000 times better than a band that sounds like a train wreck...trying to be complex. Just playing a few bars together, will determine if you're band is legit.