Bands You Just Don't Get

Originally posted by TheDirector217:
U2 charges a fan-friendly $49.50 for GA floor seats, when a band of their stature could EASILY charge 4x that rate.

unfortunately my ticket stub collection is buried away in a box right now so i can't look it up, but i know for a fact that i paid more than than for their last show at verizon (november 2005?). i seem to remember a face price in the $75 range. it was a great show tho, totally worth it.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
You guys are so damn negative today.

I love all the music.

BEST REPLY EVAH.

Um, plus $50 is a good bit of change for a show, IMO.

Originally posted by sweetcell:

Originally posted by TheDirector217:
U2 charges a fan-friendly $49.50 for GA floor seats, when a band of their stature could EASILY charge 4x that rate.

unfortunately my ticket stub collection is buried away in a box right now so i can't look it up, but i know for a fact that i paid more than than for their last show at verizon (november 2005?).

Definitely Sigur Ros. The first time I heard them I thought someone had recorded the mating calls of a whale.

Originally posted by sweetcell:
you're fired.

You can't fire me because you quit.

Quit DC that is.

-1 to you.

I don't think Thievery Corporation is all that either.

Originally posted by sweetcell:

Originally posted by TheDirector217:
U2 charges a fan-friendly $49.50 for GA floor seats, when a band of their stature could EASILY charge 4x that rate.

unfortunately my ticket stub collection is buried away in a box right now so i can't look it up, but i know for a fact that i paid more than than for their last show at verizon (november 2005?). i seem to remember a face price in the $75 range. it was a great show tho, totally worth it.

Trust me. It was $49.50 for floors plus service charges. I remember it like it was yesterday. Lower bowl seating went for $125 or $137.50. The rest (club & uppers) were cheaper than that. Uppers were $49.50 as well. BTW, the D.C. shows were Wednesday & Thursday. October 19th & 20th, 2005. I'll never forget those dates for the rest of my life.

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Definitely Sigur Ros. The first time I heard them I thought someone had recorded the mating calls of a whale.

The first time I heard Sigur Ros on some NME compilation I thought to myself "If I did heavy/Winehouse drugs, this would be my favorite band ever!"

Brian

Originally posted by TheDirector217:

Originally posted by sweetcell:

Originally posted by TheDirector217:
U2 charges a fan-friendly $49.50 for GA floor seats, when a band of their stature could EASILY charge 4x that rate.

unfortunately my ticket stub collection is buried away in a box right now so i can't look it up, but i know for a fact that i paid more than than for their last show at verizon (november 2005?). i seem to remember a face price in the $75 range. it was a great show tho, totally worth it.

Trust me. It was $49.50 for floors plus service charges. I remember it like it was yesterday. Lower bowl seating went for $125 or $137.50. The rest (club & uppers) were cheaper than that. Uppers were $49.50 as well. BTW, the D.C. shows were Wednesday & Thursday. October 19th & 20th, 2005. I'll never forget those dates for the rest of my life.

Untrue. I paid $60+ to sit behind the stage in the upper level at the United Center in Chicago for the Elevation Tour. I want to say it was $75.

Originally posted by callat703:

Originally posted by TheDirector217:

Originally posted by sweetcell:

Originally posted by TheDirector217:
U2 charges a fan-friendly $49.50 for GA floor seats, when a band of their stature could EASILY charge 4x that rate.

unfortunately my ticket stub collection is buried away in a box right now so i can't look it up, but i know for a fact that i paid more than than for their last show at verizon (november 2005?). i seem to remember a face price in the $75 range. it was a great show tho, totally worth it.

Trust me. It was $49.50 for floors plus service charges. I remember it like it was yesterday. Lower bowl seating went for $125 or $137.50. The rest (club & uppers) were cheaper than that. Uppers were $49.50 as well. BTW, the D.C. shows were Wednesday & Thursday. October 19th & 20th, 2005. I'll never forget those dates for the rest of my life.

Untrue. I paid $60+ to sit behind the stage in the upper level at the United Center in Chicago for the Elevation Tour. I want to say it was $75.

Talk about splitting the hairs of Bono's hairy ass…

Speaking of which, why aren't Ash as big or bigger than U2? They both come from Northern Ireland, one's great, one's awful. I guess it's a nature/nurture thing. Bono couldn't hold Tim Wheeler's jock.

Just listen to 30 seconds of "Envy."

Brian

The "look at me I am so good" attitude of Bone-Oh is getting way old. Its to the point that someone needs to tell him to just plain shut the hell up and go away. As for the band as a whole, they are all your average run of the mill musicians. MANY are better than every one of them. They may not fall into the class of 'suck' but not one of them added anything new to the playing of their respective instruments (one of the requirements for 'greatest' in my book). Their songs are like all the other pop rock songs of the generation. All kinds of really cool social messages and not a whole lot musically to it. U2 (much like a majority of the bands of the 80s) is by far one of the most over hyper bands ever, period…

Originally posted by TheDirector217:

Originally posted by miss pretentious:
I have never ever been able to 'get' U2 and Pink Floyd.
(Sorry Director!)

It's okay, sweety. I still like you in spite of your gaping, inherent flaws. Cool as a fan. Yes, without a doubt. Perfect, no. :D

Originally posted by RatBastard:

2) U2… Talent never visited these guys. Bone-Oh has an ego bigger than the spruce goose and they are all arrogant meglomaniacs. The fact that people give any creedence to his opinion on world matters floors me. Whats a no talent lead singer in a half ass pseudo rock band have to do with anything other than feeding his ego?

WHOA! WHOA! Pump your brakes here, fam. I understand that the "bombast" of what it is that U2 does turns some off. Nothing wrong with that. Sweeping, anthemic rock isn't necessarily some people's cup of tea. I respect that as well. But for you to say that they're talentless is purely fucking asinine. Larry & Adam are at LEAST a solid rhythm section, and The Edge is easily one of the greatest players to pick up an axe. In the interest of being objective, I'll keep my opinion on where Bono sits in the pantheon of lead singers to myself. I cannot deny that Bono definitely has an ego. But last I checked so did Mick Jagger & Dylan. Greatness tends to buy you a pass on that. But the caveat there is NEITHER of those two are feeding hungry children in Africa. Regardless of what you think about his "no-talent shitty pseudo rock band", those 4 men, not just Bono, have tirelessly dedicated to their time & effort to MANY humanitarian causes. How can you hate on people trying to leave the world in better shape than they found it???? You can't do bumps & fuck groupies all the time, can you??? There's only so much Jack Daniels to go around . . . :roll:

The Hold Steady
CYHSY


I like pavement alright but have no idea as to why people foam at the mouth over them.

Originally posted by distance:
daft punk – seriously, until the recent talk i had no idea that people still liked/cared about them or that they were even a big deal in the first place … ? it's not that i think that they are by any means bad or anything, but i just fail to see what makes them anything less than generic electronic dance music?

out of curiosity, who do you consider to make exceptional electronic dance music?

How many U2 albums have you ever sat down & actually listened to? Just out of sheer curiousity. And name me 5 of your favorite bands, just so I can a feel of what it is you consider "great." You don't have to like them at all, that it is your God-given right as a man. But a band that revered by critics, musicians, & fans alike can't be "run of the mill" musicians. FallOut Boy are run of the mill musicians. You've barely said ANYTHING about the music & simply ranted on & on about Bone-Oh being a self-righteous do gooder. It's well & good to have an opinion, but don't let it get in the way of fact. You don't become more or less the biggest (depending on who you talk to, the best) band in the world for the better part of 20 years by being "run of the mill" & a "pop rock 80s band". Furthermore, name me some bands from the past 25 years that "added something new" to their respective instruments. Just looking for a gauge here.

And name me 10 frontmen better than Bono while you're at it. (People like Bowie, Zappa, & Hendrix, etc. don't count cause they weren't techincally lead singers of band as opposed to singers WITH bands.) You said "MANY", so just name 10. I'll give you 2. Jagger & Plant. Now gimme 8 more.

Originally posted by RatBastard:
The "look at me I am so good" attitude of Bone-Oh is getting way old. Its to the point that someone needs to tell him to just plain shut the hell up and go away. As for the band as a whole, they are all your average run of the mill musicians. MANY are better than every one of them. They may not fall into the class of 'suck' but not one of them added anything new to the playing of their respective instruments (one of the requirements for 'greatest' in my book). Their songs are like all the other pop rock songs of the generation. All kinds of really cool social messages and not a whole lot musically to it. U2 (much like a majority of the bands of the 80s) is by far one of the most over hyper bands ever, period…

Originally posted by TheDirector217:

Originally posted by miss pretentious:
I have never ever been able to 'get' U2 and Pink Floyd.
(Sorry Director!)

It's okay, sweety. I still like you in spite of your gaping, inherent flaws. Cool as a fan. Yes, without a doubt. Perfect, no. :D

Originally posted by RatBastard:

2) U2… Talent never visited these guys. Bone-Oh has an ego bigger than the spruce goose and they are all arrogant meglomaniacs. The fact that people give any creedence to his opinion on world matters floors me. Whats a no talent lead singer in a half ass pseudo rock band have to do with anything other than feeding his ego?

WHOA! WHOA! Pump your brakes here, fam. I understand that the "bombast" of what it is that U2 does turns some off. Nothing wrong with that. Sweeping, anthemic rock isn't necessarily some people's cup of tea. I respect that as well. But for you to say that they're talentless is purely fucking asinine. Larry & Adam are at LEAST a solid rhythm section, and The Edge is easily one of the greatest players to pick up an axe. In the interest of being objective, I'll keep my opinion on where Bono sits in the pantheon of lead singers to myself. I cannot deny that Bono definitely has an ego. But last I checked so did Mick Jagger & Dylan. Greatness tends to buy you a pass on that. But the caveat there is NEITHER of those two are feeding hungry children in Africa. Regardless of what you think about his "no-talent shitty pseudo rock band", those 4 men, not just Bono, have tirelessly dedicated to their time & effort to MANY humanitarian causes. How can you hate on people trying to leave the world in better shape than they found it???? You can't do bumps & fuck groupies all the time, can you??? There's only so much Jack Daniels to go around . . . :roll:

Radiohead
Foo Fighters
The Smiths
Oasis
Guided by Voices
Smashing Pumpkins
U2
Portishead
Travis
Coldplay
Sigur Ros

folks need to let go of other people's inability to recognize the supposed brilliance of their favorite band… c'mon folks, everyone has faults :roll: there is no such thing as an objectively great band - none, don't ever try coming up with a witty reply.

i generally don't get jam bands, and i definitely don't get the grandfathers of the scene: the grateful dead. to me, they're passable bluegrass & rockabilly, but nothing all that special - and only barely psychedelic. the only possible appeal that i can rationalize is that they were an excuse to run away from mommy and daddy and go do a lot of drugs. on the right substances, anything is psychedelic. i supposed the "scene" becomes one with the music (just like all of the participant's senses…) but on it's own, the dead's discography has never impressed me at all. and yes, i've heard a decent portion of it through friends.

Originally posted by Barcelona:
Radiohead
Foo Fighters
The Smiths
Oasis
Guided by Voices
Smashing Pumpkins
U2
Portishead
Travis
Coldplay
Sigur Ros

ever the iconoclast, eh? i bet you don't "get" puppy dogs, ice cream and apple pie, either. :)

I stand by what I said. U2 is a group of your typical 80s musicians. Nothing about their music is outstanding by any means. Its OK but it is the same old generic music most bands of their era put out. Edge is a fair guitar player. He can out play a number of others, but It would be hard to list him in the top 50 of all time. Its laughable to even think he should be on such a list and a disgrace to those who really do. The rest of the band might as well be hired hands. There is ZERO special, fancy, hard, creative, etc about any of the work they do. Any bassist or drummer with average skills could play just as well. U2 is just way way over hyped.

As far as my favorite bands go, that does not necessarily mean I think that any one or all of them are the 'greatest' on their instruments. I listen to all kinds of music from folk (Arlo Guthrie) to Jazz (Chick Corea) to Motown (Funk Brothers) to rock (Aerosmith) to blue grass (Old Crow medicine Show) to metal (Sevendust) to punk (Sex Pistols) as well as others (Zappa, Via, Elvis Costellon, Eels, Joe Jackson, etc). My taste vary. I like the some of the music they all have released but Id be hard pressed to list more than a few on a list of 'greatest'.

Originally posted by TheDirector217:
How many U2 albums have you ever sat down & actually listened to? Just out of sheer curiousity. And name me 5 of your favorite bands, just so I can a feel of what it is you consider "great." You don't have to like them at all, that it is your God-given right as a man. But a band that revered by critics, musicians, & fans alike can't be "run of the mill" musicians. FallOut Boy are run of the mill musicians. You've barely said ANYTHING about the music & simply ranted on & on about Bone-Oh being a self-righteous do gooder. It's well & good to have an opinion, but don't let it get in the way of fact. You don't become more or less the biggest (depending on who you talk to, the best) band in the world for the better part of 20 years by being "run of the mill" & a "pop rock 80s band". Furthermore, name me some bands from the past 25 years that "added something new" to their respective instruments. Just looking for a gauge here.

And name me 10 frontmen better than Bono while you're at it. (People like Bowie, Zappa, & Hendrix, etc. don't count cause they weren't techincally lead singers of band as opposed to singers WITH bands.) You said "MANY", so just name 10. I'll give you 2. Jagger & Plant. Now gimme 8 more.

Originally posted by RatBastard:
The "look at me I am so good" attitude of Bone-Oh is getting way old. Its to the point that someone needs to tell him to just plain shut the hell up and go away. As for the band as a whole, they are all your average run of the mill musicians. MANY are better than every one of them. They may not fall into the class of 'suck' but not one of them added anything new to the playing of their respective instruments (one of the requirements for 'greatest' in my book). Their songs are like all the other pop rock songs of the generation. All kinds of really cool social messages and not a whole lot musically to it. U2 (much like a majority of the bands of the 80s) is by far one of the most over hyper bands ever, period…

Originally posted by TheDirector217:

Originally posted by miss pretentious:
I have never ever been able to 'get' U2 and Pink Floyd.
(Sorry Director!)

It's okay, sweety. I still like you in spite of your gaping, inherent flaws. Cool as a fan. Yes, without a doubt. Perfect, no. :D

Originally posted by RatBastard:

2) U2… Talent never visited these guys. Bone-Oh has an ego bigger than the spruce goose and they are all arrogant meglomaniacs. The fact that people give any creedence to his opinion on world matters floors me. Whats a no talent lead singer in a half ass pseudo rock band have to do with anything other than feeding his ego?

WHOA! WHOA! Pump your brakes here, fam. I understand that the "bombast" of what it is that U2 does turns some off. Nothing wrong with that. Sweeping, anthemic rock isn't necessarily some people's cup of tea. I respect that as well. But for you to say that they're talentless is purely fucking asinine. Larry & Adam are at LEAST a solid rhythm section, and The Edge is easily one of the greatest players to pick up an axe. In the interest of being objective, I'll keep my opinion on where Bono sits in the pantheon of lead singers to myself. I cannot deny that Bono definitely has an ego. But last I checked so did Mick Jagger & Dylan. Greatness tends to buy you a pass on that. But the caveat there is NEITHER of those two are feeding hungry children in Africa. Regardless of what you think about his "no-talent shitty pseudo rock band", those 4 men, not just Bono, have tirelessly dedicated to their time & effort to MANY humanitarian causes. How can you hate on people trying to leave the world in better shape than they found it???? You can't do bumps & fuck groupies all the time, can you??? There's only so much Jack Daniels to go around . . . :roll:

I never was into the dead either. Just never saw the thrill. However I think it was a good thing for everyone during the era to attend ONE dead show. It was quite the experience.

Originally posted by sweetcell:
folks need to let go of other people's inability to recognize the supposed brilliance of their favorite band… c'mon folks, everyone has faults :roll: there is no such thing as an objectively great band - none, don't ever try coming up with a witty reply.

i generally don't get jam bands, and i definitely don't get the grandfathers of the scene: the grateful dead. to me, they're passable bluegrass & rockabilly, but nothing all that special - and only barely psychedelic. the only possible appeal that i can rationalize is that they were an excuse to run away from mommy and daddy and go do a lot of drugs. on the right substances, anything is psychedelic. i supposed the "scene" becomes one with the music (just like all of the participant's senses…) but on it's own, the dead's discography has never impressed me at all. and yes, i've heard a decent portion of it through friends.

I never saw much in the dead even while I was on a jamband kick.

Originally posted by SalParadise:

Originally posted by distance:
daft punk – seriously, until the recent talk i had no idea that people still liked/cared about them or that they were even a big deal in the first place … ? it's not that i think that they are by any means bad or anything, but i just fail to see what makes them anything less than generic electronic dance music?

out of curiosity, who do you consider to make exceptional electronic dance music?

now that you asked that, i had to think and i don't think i have an answer for that question. i think the electronic music that i like / have liked isn't exactly so… dance-y. i don't think i like electronic dance music i suppose. and i guess i was just surprised by the fact that there was so much attention given to them lately and i wasn't sure what that was necessarily based on.

I also find the popularity of The New Pornographers amazing.