U2 Experience + Innocence Tour **Discussion Only // No Ticket Sales or Requests**

Sonny678

eviltimeban wrote:

McCartney doesn't sound like Ram. Ram doesn't sound like Band on the Run. Band on the Run doesn't sound a bit like London Town. London town sounds nothing like McCartney II. McCartney II sounds nothing like Flowers In The Dirt. FITD sounds nothing like Flaming Pie. Flaming Pie sounds nothing like Chaos and Creation in the Backyard.

eviltimeban wrote:

And so on.

eviltimeban wrote:

No, he wasn't. And if you want to talk about patchy solo albums, listen to anything Lennon made after Imagine. In fact, there's some dodgy tracks on Imagine. Lennon only really made one good solo album. I know he didn't make as many as McCartney got to, but if "Double Fantasy" was any indication of where Lennon's 80s was going to go, it would've been very safe, MOR, stuff.

eviltimeban wrote:

McCartney II (not for everyone, but it's great) Flowers In The Dirt Flaming Pie Rushes (Fireman, but he still made it) Chaos and Creation in the Backyard Electric Arguments New

They are not great albums. Sorry but McCartney has not made a great album since Band on the Run. A proper great album. Nothing in the league of the Beatles. Or even remotely close to Band on the Run. His solo output has been average and at times downright poor.

He didn't change his sound dramatically. It's not like he went from Jazz to grime in a couple of albums. And Lennon being MOR in Double Fantasy well that's what Paul has been doing consistently since Band on the Run.

Listen Mcartney is talented. One of the time greats. But Lennon was a greater talent. Lennon had a touch of genius. Yes his solo stuff had its poor moments and at times was patchy also. But solo lennon songs like Imagine ,Jealous Guy, Working Class Hero, God, Isolation, Mother and Instant Karma where just a different class to anything Mcartney post Beatles . Like John and Yoko Ono Plastic band solo album is an extraordinary piece of work with songs like God Working Class Hero Isolation and Mother.

Sonny678

Paul's songs like Helter-skelter and Hey Jude and Penny Lane are great. Classics. But the oh bla di bla da ( whatever it was called) Yellow Submarine and Maxwell Silver Hammer were just simplistic enough songs , which lacked substance. He has tendency to do that. He has a great sense of melody and probaly a better all round musician then lennon. But Lennon could tap into something that I don't think any artist has been able to do with exception of Brian Wilson and Jimi Hendrix and Bob Dylan. Songs like Rain ,Tomorrow Never Knows, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Come Together, In my Life, Dear Prudence, Across the Universe, I am the Walrus where just a different class. Take Strawberry Fields Forever is a piece of art. Extraordinary song.

I think in the 70s after to many LSD trips Heroin addiction and primal scream therapy Lennon I think mentally was never the same. But he stil produced moments of genius eg Jealous Guy , God etc. And remeber he stopped recording from 75 to 79. So he took a massive break also.

delbertgrady

This has got way off topic, but all the Lennon songs you reference are from two albums, the latter of which was released in 1971, and one standalone 1970 single. Hardly a case for career superiority. Championing Plastic One Band and Imagine - two albums Lennon made in the immediate aftermath of the Beatles demise, and with nothing close to them for the rest of the decade - is no more valid than anyone praising McCartney (the man) based on McCartney (the album) and/or Ram and/or Band on the Run.

Sonny678

But Lennon took five years off. And in two albums produced better songs then Mcartney did in 10. Place a best of lennon solo v best of Mcartney solo and you will see the difference. Lennon solo stuff could be patchy. But some of the solo albums mid 72 to 75 was underrated. But even The wheels keep Turning was great in its own way on Double Fantasy . Compare it to Mcartney awful dirge the Mull of Kyntre , there's no comparison.

Wooderson

McCartney twice the artist IMO. Lennon had his moments, sure. But to belittle McCartney here is just ignant.

Sonny678

Well George Harrison was closed to the two of them. And in his words Lennon was a genius. I Mcartney is very talented. Lennon was a genius. There's a difference.

Sonny678

Help
A Hard Days Night
Rain
In my Life
Tomorrow Never Knows
I am the Walrus
A Day in the Life ( Lennon's part)
All you need is Love
Strawberry Fields Forever
Dear Prudence
Sexy Sadie
Across the Universe
Happiness is a Warm Gun
Hey Bulldog
Come Together
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
God
Imagine
Jealous Guy
Working Class Hero
Mother
Isolation
Gimme some Truth
How do you Sleep
Fame
Whatever gets you thru the Night
Give Peace a Chance
Happy Xmas
The Wheels keep Turning
Mind Game
# 9 Dream
Oh my love
Woman
Power to the People
And many many more, All lennon songs above.

I walk away now. Drop the mic. Case closed. Lennon was a genius.

Wooderson

Sonny678 wrote: »

Well George Harrison was closed to the two of them. And in his words Lennon was a genius. I think most polls list of greatest artists of all time. I know music is not a competition. I have seen maybe 30 or 40 all time greatest artists lists in magazines or elsewhere. I have yet to see Mcartney been placed ahead of lennon. I think in British music the only artist people consider to close to lennon would be Bowie. Mcartney is talented. Lennon was a genius. There's a difference.

Sonny, everything you post on this thread has a competitive angle.

Lennon was a beatcombo rock 'n roll guy. Bar 15/20 songs, majority of his post Beatles stuff is lumpen and below par. He has whole albums with few highlights. I adore the man, don't get me wrong, but lets not go OTT. Lennon had no ambition to match Kate Bush or Costello or Bowie, even Albarn.

McCartney has dozens of classics post Beatles. Solo/Wings/Collabs/Classical/Jazz/Instrumental/Experimental and the rootsy rock 'n roll Lennon churned out in the 70s.

Sonny678

Wooderson wrote:

Lennon was a beatcombo rock 'n roll guy. Bar 15/20 songs, majority of his post Beatles stuff is lumpen and below par. He has whole albums with few highlights. I adore the man, don't get me wrong, but lets not go OTT. Lennon had no ambition to match Kate Bush or Costello or Bowie, even Albarn.

Wooderson wrote:

Sonny, everything you post on this thread has a competitive angle.

Wooderson wrote:

McCartney has dozens of classics post Beatles. Solo/Wings/Collabs/Classical/Jazz/Instrumental/Experimental and the rootsy rock 'n roll Lennon churned out in the 70s.

You accuse me of being competitive. Then you say Bush and Albarn lacked lennons ambition. Your being competitive now urself. I think Damon Albarn would be shocked if anyone said to him he had more ambition then lennon.

Albarn ripped off the Kinks with the very overated Blur. Even Bowie early stuff was glam rock he did not changel til Heroes. Costello a great talent. Even Costello.would laugh at the idea that he had more ambition then lennon. I know you really don't like me Woody. And this is a chance to get back. Because I have gone on another rambling outburst. But to say lennon had no ambition it would be like saying Pele had no football skill. The man changed the face of music along with Mcartney. I think that is a fact. That nearly all musicians great or poor would agree with that. Lennon had no ambition. He is the biggest rock band in the world and he becomes an a avant garde artist appears naked on an album cover and joins up with other counter culture figures to end Vietnam war. And happened to write some of the greatest songs ever in his spare time.
Ambition.

Listen to the ambition on the ground breaking Tomorrow Never Knows or Rain or Strawberry Fields or I am the Walrus or God or Mother. Lennon has no ambition. That's extraordinary things to say about one of the most talented and ambitious talents ever of the 20th century.

Sonny678

I'm going Christmas shopping now Woody. I got presents to buy for my loved ones. You can argue with yourself. Lennon was a genius. Full stop.

Wooderson

Dude I wasnt personal. Youve made this one personal here. I hold no animus to you WHATSOEVER. Your posts here are entertaining, if slightly dull and predictable.

I never said Lennon wasnt a genius, btw. He's John Lennon! A manic genius. But a man stuck within an idiom for most of his career. Self-acknowledged I might add.

You started taking snide shots McCartney and telling us in the same breath that Weller is one to look at. Madness.

Wooderson

Lennon did lack ambition. This is a fact.

No touring and his solo output was patchy both in volume and quality. He was always getting distracted and caught up in pointless conflicts. With himself, women, Paul, the US Government, religion. Wasted so much fcking time.

Paul im sure had similar challenges but has had a work ethic since '67 that dwarfed his old pal.

Sonny678

Woody woodpecker you accuse me of taking snide comments at McCartney. Have you not taken snide comments at lennon. What's the difference.

You still seemed to ignore all the amazing songs lennon wrote. One of music's most ambitious songwriters and this seems to be something you don't take into account when you talk about John lennons ambition.

Ok I will answer you above regarding urwrongful comments. Of course Mcartneys output dwarfs lennons. Firstly lennon died in 1980. Mcarthy has had 40 years extra to work on his music then John. Lennon also took a 5 years break at the end of the 70s. Lennon packed so much into his 40 years.

No touring - he didn't like playing live. Everytime he played live he got sick beforehand. He preferred to the studio. Without the Beatles Lennon seemed to be to nervous to tour on his own.

His solo work was still better then Paul's. If lennons was patchy well then Mcartneys is very poor.

These pointless conflicts you talk about
Firstly women . What about Paul and Heather Mills . Was that a pointless conflict?.

The US government. Where trying to deport him. He was being watched by the CIA and FBI. They saw him as a threat to America. If the CIA and FBI where monitoring you . Any person would be freaked out. American government yes the full force of the American government was watching lennon and trying to kick him out of America. Because he was one of the leaders of the peace movement in the USA. Trying to defend yourself against the most powerful government in the world while trying to protest against the Vietnam War. Ye that would be considered a pointless conflicts alright.

Well fights with Paul. If you have read any background to the beatles after 1970 the whole thing became a legal nightmare. They were all suing each other. It's pretty obvious with Ringo hanging out with John in 70s allot. And Harrison recording How do you Sleep at night with Lennon. Whose side they were on. Lennon was complicated individual. Who was to honest and yes had a nasty streak. But Mcartney was also a complicated individual and Paul was no saint either. From 1970 onwards the beatles were at war. Court case after court case. Again that would not be considered pointless conflict. Even after lennons death. There was serious bad blood between Harrison and Ringo on one side and Mcartney on the other. Just watch you tube of Harrison and a Ringo picking up music hall of fame award. And no McCartney. You could see Ringo and Harrison were very unhappy. When they got together in 94 for Anthology it was for money. The conflict in the beatles was as much Paul's fault as it was John's.

If you look at the court cases and all the legal matters. They were not pointless conflicts. Epistein had tied the beatles with dreadful contracts. It took the beatles years and years to sort out those contracts.


If John lennon wasted time. Well I think we are all wasting time. He packed more into his 40 years. It was and is an amazing story. Showbusiness greatest sucess story how the beatles conquered the world. And Lennon was central to this story. A man according to Woody woodpecker was a very unambitious individual.

don corleone

Reading through the thread to see what peoples opinion was on the latest u2 album and stumble across a Lennon v McCartney fight :D . Lennon will always be top dog for me in that one FWIW


Aaanyway

This album is excellent. Best they have produced this and last decade IMO. My favs

1.Little things
2.Land Lady
3. Lights of home
4. Get out of your own way
5. Red flag day.
Cannot wait to see what they do with the tour. Mixing the old with this new gem of an album will be something else! Usually do the Dublin gig plus one overseas. Did Amsterdam last year and London the time before that. Caught a gig or two in the states previous to that when there with work. from reading earlier posts in the thread it seems Glasgow is highly recommended, may well look into that.

Sonny678

Thanks Don. At long last a man speaks the truth. For I'm sick and tired of hearing things by neurotic psychotic pig headed politicians all I want is the truth Gimme me some Truth.
And what about God Part 3
Woody carved like a woodpecker
Instant Karma going to get him if I don't get him first.
If you U2 fan and Beatles fan you will understand.
Woody I throw in the towel. McCartney was great. I just think lennon was better. A bona fide genius. Listen we will call it quits. And if I went to far I apologise wholeheartedly. I respect your and everyones opinion here. We will agree to disagree. We will all have simply wonderful Christmas time. Happy Xmas Woody The War is over.

Wooderson

Good grief.

Sonny678

Wooderson wrote:

Good grief.

I thought that was quite witty. Almost Lennonesque in parts.

Sonny678

Anyway I am definatly giving this boardsie up. How in God's name did I start talking about U2 reinventing themselves and then ended up in a arguement over who has a better solo career lennon and Mcartney. I haven't really got the hang of this music forum thing. It's like I go for a few drinks in the local. A few quite drinks with the locals. Instead I get mad drunk start a massive brawl in the bar with all the regulars and then get thrown out and barred after making a complete show of myself. That's kind of me in a nutshell on boards ie music forum. I seem to start world war 3. So I am definatly taking a break this time for good. I dont seem to be able to get the hang of it. My return was shortlived.

Anyway I have enjoyed immensly everyone comments it has been very informative and very enjoyable. Anyway take care everyone one and all
Have a happy Christmas and very Happy New year
From
John lennons number 1 fan.
Sonny

PropJoe10

Currently listening to Pop and getting good enjoyment out of this discussion/argument! Keep going, folks!

The Nal

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

Then realize you are the biggest joke of all, and Bono laughs his ass off at suckers like you on the one hand slagging him but on the other lining his pockets.

I haven't sent any money U2s way in well over a decade.

Interesting about lining his pockets though, as thats his number one priority. He can take the cash you spend on the albums and gigs and invest it into another Lithuanian shopping centre. They can name the trolley stand after you maybe.

johnpatrick81

The Nal wrote: »

I haven't sent any money U2s way in well over a decade.

Interesting about lining his pockets though, as thats his number one priority. He can take the cash you spend on the albums and gigs and invest it into another Lithuanian shopping centre. They can name the trolley stand after you maybe.

So you’ve not listened to any U2 on Spotify? Or watched 1 single U2vevo on YouTube?

Crawl back into your troll hut Nally.

The Nal

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

So you’ve not listened to any U2 on Spotify?

A few yeah, but as they earn an average of 0.005 cent per tune I don't think its a big contribution. Id say my total plays may have ended up at less than 0.1 of a cent.

Buying a U2 album or concert ticket these days would be like donating money to the TV evangelists in America or the guys who created the Crazy Frog. You just know they're slipping into their Mulberry silk sheets at night giggling to themselves at the gullibility of their audience.

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

Or watched 1 single U2vevo on YouTube?

I have not.

johnpatrick81

Every little helps.

Congrats. Yet you continue to discuss a band you have disliked since 97. Stockholm syndrome in reverse. It’s kinda hilarious but mainly tragic and pathetic.

eviltimeban

The best thing about U2 for me, was that it was always "what direction are they going to go in now??" So they make Achtung Baby. I can remember there was talk of a tour EP, but then they made Zooropa and that took that AB concept even further. And it's one of my favourite U2 albums. And after that? What's next? An album of imaginary soundtracks, featuring Pavarotti? Great! And Pop - so many layers to Pop. It's an album you can still hear new things in, 20 years later.

Now, one can almost expect what each new U2 album will sound like. I remember the crushing disappointment when I heard "You're the best thing", as they had stepped out of the shadow of U2 a little bit on SOI, but stepped right back into it with that song (it's also not a great song).

I did like a few songs on the new album, but I got what I could take from it in one listen. Nothing was dragging me back. And I haven't listened to it since that one time. I'm sure I'll listen to it again, and I might even enjoy it, but I'll always have a feeling of "oh well, maybe next time..."

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Still listening to the new album.

It's a belter imo

johnpatrick81

bclar12 wrote: »

Still listening to the new album.

It's a belter imo

It's getting better rather than worse for me. Fantastic stuff.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

eviltimeban wrote: »

The best thing about U2 for me, was that it was always "what direction are they going to go in now??" So they make Achtung Baby. I can remember there was talk of a tour EP, but then they made Zooropa and that took that AB concept even further. And it's one of my favourite U2 albums. And after that? What's next? An album of imaginary soundtracks, featuring Pavarotti? Great! And Pop - so many layers to Pop. It's an album you can still hear new things in, 20 years later.

Now, one can almost expect what each new U2 album will sound like. I remember the crushing disappointment when I heard "You're the best thing", as they had stepped out of the shadow of U2 a little bit on SOI, but stepped right back into it with that song (it's also not a great song).

I did like a few songs on the new album, but I got what I could take from it in one listen. Nothing was dragging me back. And I haven't listened to it since that one time. I'm sure I'll listen to it again, and I might even enjoy it, but I'll always have a feeling of "oh well, maybe next time..."

I like how you said "Me" and "I" in that post and didn't try make a sweeping statement, like you were speaking for everyone.

Pop was ahead of it's time. No question about that. Again though, you're a musician. Why choose to write and record songs if you have no interest in following that path?

tritriagain

eviltimeban wrote: »

The best thing about U2 for me, was that it was always "what direction are they going to go in now??" So they make Achtung Baby. I can remember there was talk of a tour EP, but then they made Zooropa and that took that AB concept even further. And it's one of my favourite U2 albums. And after that? What's next? An album of imaginary soundtracks, featuring Pavarotti? Great! And Pop - so many layers to Pop. It's an album you can still hear new things in, 20 years later.

Now, one can almost expect what each new U2 album will sound like. I remember the crushing disappointment when I heard "You're the best thing", as they had stepped out of the shadow of U2 a little bit on SOI, but stepped right back into it with that song (it's also not a great song).

I did like a few songs on the new album, but I got what I could take from it in one listen. Nothing was dragging me back. And I haven't listened to it since that one time. I'm sure I'll listen to it again, and I might even enjoy it, but I'll always have a feeling of "oh well, maybe next time..."

I genuinely don't know how you can judge an album on one listen . It's not a criticism just don't how you could decide after hearing it once. Most of my favourite albums grow on me rather than capture me straight away. I definitely think this is one of those . Loving it now and I think theres going to be great live versions after watching the BBC special.

PTH2009

Cat Deeley is still a fine bird even at 41

her and Edge seem very close

eviltimeban

tritriagain wrote: »

I genuinely don't know how you can judge an album on one listen . It's not a criticism just don't how you could decide after hearing it once. Most of my favourite albums grow on me rather than capture me straight away. I definitely think this is one of those . Loving it now and I think theres going to be great live versions after watching the BBC special.

But I haven't "judged" it as such. I gave it one listen and could immediately tell it didn't sound the way I wanted it to sound. I could tell that on first listen. I'm sure I'll listen to it again, and form a proper opinion, in fact I did say that I might even enjoy it eventually.