bjaiken

I love Pink Floyd. Most familiar with DSOTM and the Wall (of course), and I really need to spend some time listening to their other albums in greater detail. I do, however, have to be in a certain mood to listen to Floyd.

^ Don't hold your breath. Nathan has called the new album "chilled out and beachy". Those aren't exactly adjectives I would use in describing a raw album.

^ I kind of remember some of those comments, but, if I recall correctly, I don't think they were apologizing for their music. They were just apologizing for the fact that they've become so mainstream, and they thought it was bunk that people who otherwise would not listen to their music were now attending their concerts and buying their CDs. That's different from being apologetic about the type of music you've produced, as they have control over one (the music) but not necessarily over the other (the fan base).

I've said this several times: I actually like Pablo Honey quite a bit. But I love 90s alternative music, and PH fits right in.

[ame= ] [/ame]

Yeah, I thought atoms for peace was a tight band, but i would only like it now if they came out with new material. And if thom is going to put out new material, I want it to be with radiohead. You see the dilema...

I am tired of atoms for peace, but Flea is one of the most mighty bass players ever.

:laugh3: You know where I stand on that one.

I like what I've heard by her. It's catchy pop music.

NEED...SOMETHING....NEW! ANYTHING!!!

Well, I guess I only have the DVD to look forward to in the immediate future. My show was supposed to be next weekend.

^ I'm hoping they do. I love that album (and yes, I have the prior albums ;))

Has anyone bought the Disintegration Remaster? It's available on iTunes, but I want to wait for the physical packaging.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well on a message board. Especially when you have people who have crazy ideas, yet they're still dead serious. There's nothing wrong with liking the Gorillaz more than the Beatles, and music is subjective. But if anyone suggests that the Gorillaz are a bigger, more influential band than the Beatels, they need their head examined. I'm glad to see you're not crazy.

That's a bit harsh, especially since the Gorillaz haven't always appeared on stage.

Just like any other band, really. There are plenty of videos of them performing if you search YouTube. That is not what's so crazy. The fact that he said they're bigger than The Beatles is...

^ I do love Coldplay. But 60%? I think that's really high. I mean, what are you counting? Take me for example. I adamant that U2 are a bigger and, at this point in time, historically more significant band than Coldplay. That's not an indictment against Coldplay.

How many people say bad things about them? Not many. Some people believe Coldplay has taken a turn for the worse, and I don't see anything wrong with stating that. You can still be a fan and not like the direction a band is going. To say you approve of something when you don't is disingenuous.

I love Coldplay. Coldplay are not bigger than U2. Period.

I've seen it all in this thread. Coldplay are bigger than U2, and now the Gorillaz are bigger than the Beatles. I'm speechless.

It's not a matter of personal taste - that's subjective. U2 has two trump cards to play on Coldplay: 1. Any objective measure of what it means to be a rock legend: era defining albums, innovative stage shows, creating an entirely new musical landscape, multi-decade success - the nod goes to U2. These are objective facts. 2. There is no Coldplay without U2.

I love all 3 bands. I have every single album put out by all 3 bands, and I know their catalogs like the back of my hand. So I'm not here to "hate" on any band. That said, I would consider you a fool if you didn't take an opportunity to see the original four members of a generation defining band in a one-off festival environment. I will admit that I am in my early 30s, so I was listening to music when Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were released (UF is even a little before my time). I would imagine most people on this forum look back at these albums retrospectively and, therefore, have a hard time placing them in their proper context. Let me tell you something: Music would not sound the way it does today without u2. Some bands are so big, and influence so great, that it is impossible to escape. Like, it doesn't even matter whether you like the Beatles or not - their influence is so great that it changed the entire landscape of music. I'm not saying u2 are comparable to the Beatles, but for an entire generation, u2 were "their" Beatles. So I am offended when some punk kid with no perspective tries to tell me about u2 and their place in music. You have no idea what you are talking about. Kudos to the younger people on this board who, whether they like u2 or not, still show them the respect they deserve. If you don't like them, a simple "it's not my taste" would suffice.

They better get to releasing some type of news ASAP. As far as I can tell, no one even knows the exact nature of the injury other than its his back. What the hell does that mean? Some people in the U2 camp better start talking.

That's good to hear. Me and about 6 other people from work have tickets to the Anaheim show. We can deal with it either way, but we need to plan. It's amazing how many people have a stake in one man's back - fans, crew, arena workers, etc. Also, it's crazy how much money is riding on the health of bono's back. If my back gets hurt, no one really gives a shit, and it doesn't really cost anyone money.

I wonder when a decision will be made. 1st date of the tour is now only 2 weeks away.