English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I mean come on, they're OK... To me it's like they're popular because they're popular. People act like they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. I find them very homogenious and bland, lowest common denominator. I think the Rolling Stones are better and they've sucked for like 30 years. Not to mention the fact that Bono is an uglier version of Robin Williams. Those glasses? Boo. Also, what's with "The Edge?" Please. As if he's particularly talented, especially relative to other rock and roll guitarists. I think one of te big reasons that people like them so much is because they give to charity. That's certainly nice of them, but that doesn't make them any good. They have like 3 or 4 really good songs, (One of which was written by John Lennon, so it only half counts.) with that many good songs I put them at the level of say, Supertramp or the Classics IV maybe Joe Cocker, but that's generous. You know who's better then U2? ELO, how do you like that? ELO has 11 solid songs.

2006-10-16 11:49:58 · 7 answers · asked by yhwh69 1 in Entertainment & Music Music

7 answers

yeah i don't care for 'em either

2006-10-16 11:51:45 · answer #1 · answered by I♥him 5 · 0 0

There are 3 or 4 really good songs on the Joshua tree album alone. As a body of work over the last 25 years they have few peers.
I don't care what they look like or whether they give to charity. To say they are homogenious is a scandalous accusation (Coldpaly are the hands down winners for that accolade), as they don't keep banging out the same album time after time. They've covered many different genres over the years. Their ability to change styles (As ELO did in the 70's) is what makes them a great group.
There are better groups than U2, such as The Who and The Jam, and there will always be something i prefer to U2, but i'll still buy their albums, because they are worth it.

2006-10-16 12:01:54 · answer #2 · answered by onetruekev 5 · 1 1

i didnt read the whole thing. however, you need to think of U2 in the band and then there is just bono. The band I could care less for they are totally overated and obsessed with being totally international. Bono on the other hand is a nice guy, for all I care He could suck at his band but his world wide efforts to cure AIDS and hunger and poverty, well its money well spent eh?

2006-10-16 11:57:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I gotta admit a few things- I'll give it them for longevity, so I guess they're doing something right. But I never Really got into them. I do like a few songs, but they never really clicked w/ me.

I guess one of my problems w/ them is that they don't really rock hard enough for me....

2006-10-16 11:52:43 · answer #4 · answered by Fonzie T 7 · 1 0

"Kind of" is an understatement. I've never seen what the big deal ever was about U2.

2006-10-16 11:52:54 · answer #5 · answered by GirlsRGamers2 7 · 2 0

they are the worst band ive ever heard that made it to the bigtime!

2006-10-16 12:10:47 · answer #6 · answered by cadaholic 7 · 0 1

i dont like them either

2006-10-16 12:09:03 · answer #7 · answered by nickelback fan 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers