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

johnpatrick81

I think Coldplay are their only true successors to that "supergroup" title. Definitely something seemingly very soon to be extinct.

Sonny678

johnpatrick81 wrote:

I think Coldplay are their only true successors to that "supergroup" title. Definitely something seemingly very soon to be extinct.

The problem is Coldplay. If you take talent and imagination away from U2 you are left with Coldplay. They are poor poor man's U2 on a very bad day. There first few albums had a couple of cracking singles eg Yellow The Scientist. But the albums were patchy. But the last few albums are just so boring. They are such a dull band. When you compare them to The Clash The Jam or The Who . Coldplay are not a rock band. And they are a dull pop band at that. Rock music is dying and Coldplay are a symbol of everything that is wrong with bands. Dull derivative unimaginative. Imagine Coldplay writing album like Achtung Baby and Pop. Imagine Chris Martin writing a a song like So Cruel or a great dance rock tune like Mofo on pop.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Sonny678 wrote: »

The problem is Coldplay. If you take talent and imagination away from U2 you are left with Coldplay. They are poor poor man's U2 on a very bad day. There first few albums had a couple of cracking singles eg Yellow The Scientist. But the albums were patchy. But the last few albums are just so boring. They are such a dull band. When you compare them to The Clash The Jam or The Who . Coldplay are not a rock band. And they are a dull pop band at that. Rock music is dying and Coldplay are a symbol of everything that is wrong with bands. Dull derivative unimaginative. Imagine Coldplay writing album like Achtung Baby and Pop. Imagine Chris Martin writing a a song like So Cruel or a great dance rock tune like Mofo on pop.

Might be some life left in Rock music

*Cheeky plug for my own band*

Sonny678

Then we come to U2 and the UK.

U2 have a massive following in the UK. And consistently massive in the UK. No one has been bigger consistently over the last 30 years. They have their supporters like Noel Gallagher Chris Martin and Chris Evans. But like Noel Gallagher said they do not get the same acclaim in the UK as the US. Their is allot of criticism towards U2. Holland tax and now paradise papers make allot of people unhappy in the UK. But George Harrison was giving out about the taxman in the 60s. The Stones moved to France in the early 70s for tax reasons. And in the 80s many British pop bands lived in Dublin for tax reasons. The problem is of course Bonos work with the third world. Means he is criticised. But Take that were also involved in a tax scheme. Barlow does charity work. And yet the criticism was mild.

I feel U2 get analysised heavily while other cool indie British bands are let off the hook in the UK. Take example The Smiths. One of the greatest bands of the 80s. But they had a sound. Kept to this sound. And never really changed. Something U2 achieved. Take the stone Roses. Not a great band. Yes they did produce the one of thegreatest debut album ever and a classic it is. But their songs before that album were average. And their second album was good in parts. But was The Stone Roses rippling off Led Zepplin. And that's it. 1 album. Yes 1 great album . But for me a really band is one that produce many great albums. And a truly great band are innovative and are able to change their sound and direction successfully.

The best example of this was The Beatles. U2 achieved this also. When they went from roots Americana rock influenced by the blues gospel Dylan and BB King to an more beat dance rock type music influenced by David Bowie and Manchester in 1991. They pulled it off. That's the sign of greatness.

But indie bands like Blur would be given a bye seen as been better then U2 even though their back catalogue is much inferior to U2. If u look at U2 in UK it's very interesting. The best way to look at below chronologically the reaction they got from.critics and music public outside their loyal massive base.

1980 U2 release boy. Album is well received in UK. U2 have allot of good press. Even NME champion U2.

1981 1983 By War you can see their is now criticism with U2. U2 are uncool.

1984 Unforgettable Fire. Involving Lanois and Eno is a masterstroke. The reaction to the album and live Aid performance is really good

1987 U2 were never as big or acclaimed. The Joshua Tree was seen a great album at a time of really bad music. You would hear at the time over and over again in the UK that U2 were the best band in the world

1988 89 Rattle and Hum. A serious backlash. U2 are seen as a joke in certain quarters in UK. To serious and po faced. To pompous.

1991 92 93 The return of U2 with Achtung baby and Zooropa and live shows like Zoo TV means the critics are more complimentary of U2. But the band still has it detractors

1995 96 97. At the height of Britpop U2 again are very uncool. Alot of Britpop bands slag U2.

1998 to 2002 Something Happens British artists like Noel Gallagher Chris Martin Radiohead Muse and Elbow talk about U2 as influences. U2 are again more cooler. Popular singles like Beautiful Day means their is less criticism of the band

2005 2006. U2 in mid 00s have never been so acclaimed in UK. You have to go back to 1987. Vertigo goes down a storm. Again Live Aid U2 are a sucess. And U2 are now being labelled a great band in the UK.

2007 to now. Since mid noughties U2 stock has fallen again. That is down to U2 long run of great singles has dried up. They are more a parody of themselves now. Also Holland tax issue has added to the unpopularity. And U2 again are unpopular again and uncool for many.


So why does the UK have such a relationship with U2 and the USA have a more positive one. I think it's gotta to do with U2 being Irish. Let me say it's not an anti Irish thing. It's all about image. Simply put U2 are not cool. The Brits are very big into image. You look at Bowie or any British artist. Image is just as important as the music. U2 have always been a bit gauche. Also being political doesn't help either. Rock n Roll is sex drugs and rock n toll.. U2 are probaly the opposite to the excess of the Stones. U2 also have many athems and are labelled a stadium band. Both not cool.

Most of greats in music come from Uk and the US. So someone from Liverpool or Memphis is automatically seen as cool. They have the right image
Bono particularly is a great showman but he can be an awkward Irish man at times. I don't think Brits see the Irish as cool. They see the Irish as funny and entertaining and engaging even friendly people . Look at the sucess of Terry Wogan Graham Norton Dara O Brian and many Irish comedians in Britian. I think the Irish are not see as having cool image wise as say Bowie or Presley or a T Rex or a Cash. Only Phil Lynott was really cool. Take for example Van Morrison. A musical genius. But he looks like a bricklayer.

And sorry image is very important in music. And the Brits are very self conscious of image and coolness. Memphis is cool so is Manchester. Anything outside this not as much. Look at say how Australian artist are acclaimed in UK. Nick Cave has been one of the greatst songwriters of the last 20 years or so. Yet I don't he thinks he gets the acclaim in Britian that Paul Weller does. And yes Weller was great artists in the Jam . But in the last 20 years he has been going through the motions. Look at another great Australian the go Betweens. A band as good if not better then the Smiths or Joy Division. Yet rarely mentioned in the UK.

Simply put the Brits see us a good comedians storytellers and entertainers. But not cool rock stars. And with rock stars image is as important as their music in British music. In American U2 are more exotic . They come from Europe. The Yanks are more open to idea that U2 are cool.

Sonny678

Another thing about U2 is they are an influential band. Something that is rarely recognised. Take for example The Velvet Underground people said everyone one who bought their album formed a band . They are seen and rightly so as an influential band. Pistols are seen as an influential band.

You hear allot of Indie bands influencing other bands eg The Pixies. But U2 are just as influential. U2 have been the biggest band in the world for 30 years and they have had an influence on artists during that time. The Edges guitar sound has been very popular in the last 15 or 16 years. You hear so many even indie bands that have that U2 sound. One of the things about U2 is that they have a very modern sound in the 80s and 90s. Their music has dated really well. When you compare it to some of the synthesiser muck of the 80s and other dreadful 80s music. Even some great music from the 60s and 70s has dated poorly. U2 80s sound hasn't. Also their 90s sound also sounds very modern and fresh.

U2 have had an influence particularly in the UK. If you take all the most sucessful bands in UK in the last 20 years they are all massive U2 fans and influenced by U2. For example artists like Noel Gallagher ( Oasis), Radiohead, Muse, Elbow and Coldplay have been the biggest bands in Britian and all r U2 fans and influenced by U2. When you think of it all the sucessful bands in the UK they are not influenced by Manchester or thr Pistols. But by U2. Something that is rarely acknowledged. U2 influence on younger artist. They also have influence on American music. Arcade Fire and War on Drugs have a U2 sound at times and so do so many Americans bands. While everyone from Justin Timberlake to Axl Rose to Michael Stipe are massive U2 fans.

Sonny678

People expecting U2 to produce another Joshua Tree or Achtung baby would be like Brian O Driscoll producing performances like he did in 2009 in his 50s and 60s for Ireland. Or like Messi producing performance like he is now in his 50s. Sport men go into decline the further they go into their 30s. So do rock bands . And most musician. Can anyone name a rock masterpiece an All time rock album produced by a band in there 40s and 50s. Can anyone name an All time great album produced by an artist in 50s. I'm talking about an artist producing an What's going On or Hunky Dory or a Astral Weeks or Blonde on Blonde after their 50s even their 40s. To expect U2 to produce great music in their 50s is not rationale. Actually some of the songs they have produced in the last 10 12 years as they passed the mid age mark is as good as many younger bands have produced in recent times. Someone of it has been as good as some bands half their age. Remember this is a dreadful period in rock music. It is an art form that seems to be dying and on its final legs.

UsedToWait

^ Good man Sonny, you're like the Anti-Nal - good to see some positivity and a genuine assessment of the band's achievements.

I don't think anyone can argue that their later output hasn't been patchy, with only occasional flashes of that thing that U2 have - when they tap into something transcendent.

I can understand that many people don't like them because they just don't like that type of music - the stuff of bands like Arcade Fire and James, powerful, soul-baring stuff.

But people who don't like them because they think Bono's a dick or because of their accounting arrangements, that's just like, your opinion, man.

The Nal

Sonny678 wrote: »

Can anyone name an All time great album produced by an artist in 50s. I'm talking about an artist producing an What's going On or Hunky Dory or a Astral Weeks or Blonde on Blonde after their 50s even their 40s.

Loads and loads. Ragged Glory, Bitches Brew, Time Out of Mind, Tom Waits Orphans.

Theyre just albums Ive listened to in the last few days.

Not looking for Acthung Baby 2 from the lads but something other than a soundtrack to corporate America would be nice!

johnpatrick81

The Nal wrote: »

Loads and loads. Ragged Glory, Bitches Brew, Time Out of Mind, Tom Waits Orphans.

Theyre just albums Ive listened to in the last few days.

Not looking for Acthung Baby 2 from the lads but something other than a soundtrack to corporate America would be nice!

You’re absolutely clueless. Comparing U2 to Tom Waits is like comparing Die Hard with Schindler’s list

Chivito550

Really enjoying the album. I got the standard version with the 13 songs as I hate bonus tracks bringing down the quality of a record. Am I missing much with those 4 bonus tracks?

johnpatrick81

Chivito550 wrote: »

Really enjoying the album. I got the standard version with the 13 songs as I hate bonus tracks bringing down the quality of a record. Am I missing much with those 4 bonus tracks?

Book of your heart is decent, as is the strings mix of lights of home, but no, not missing a whole lot!

Deank

Sonny678 wrote: »

PS I know some people will say Radiohead. But me personally after OK Computer Radiohead went up their own backside. Produced pretentious boring prog rock. The Bends and OK Computer were both great albums and thats when they where a quality rock outfit.

Nail on thead, but don't forget about Pablo Honey, that was a classic too, possibly a better album than The Bends, OK Computer was meh.

Listening to SoE now and really enjoying it, there's a lot of nostalgia in it, Red Flag Day brings me back to the first time I saw them in Croke Park in 1985 :eek:

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Deank wrote: »

Nail on thead, but don't forget about Pablo Honey, that was a classic too, possibly a better album than The Bends, OK Computer was meh.

Listening to SoE now and really enjoying it, there's a lot of nostalgia in it, Red Flag Day brings me back to the first time I saw them in Croke Park in 1985 :eek:

It's very War but, a great track I have to say.

Shocked at Summer of Love tbh. Defo was not expecting something like that.

Deank

Tomas White Suspect wrote: »

It's very War but, a great track I have to say.

Shocked at Summer of Love tbh. Defo was not expecting something like that.

No and I'm still on the fence on that one and The Showman, someone described that song as Marmite :pac:

A few more listens required methinks.

weadick

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

i won't be buying any more U2 live DVDs unless they are old releases. The new shows from U2-360 seem painfully bad in comparison to the older tours.

Some of the new youtube videos are of such high quality now that they make live concert dvds kind of pointless.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Deank wrote: »

No and I'm still on the fence on that one and The Showman, someone described that song as Marmite :pac:

A few more listens required methinks.

The Showman appears to be him taking the piss out of himself haha. Again with this album, the choruses get stuck in my head!

Summer of Love.. I really like the drum and bass on this. They come to the front on this album quite a lot and shows their capabilities I think. I love Edge's riff.

MadYaker

Tomas White Suspect wrote: »

I have it but, prefer owning something physical.

It's the romantic side of me

I get that too. Get a turntable and start buying vinyl, it's not just the sound quality either, there's just something really nice about buying a new record and playing it for the first time.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

MadYaker wrote: »

I get that too. Get a turntable and start buying vinyl, it's not just the sound quality either, there's just something really nice about buying a new record and playing it for the first time.

Exactly!

I have my father's turntable and Hi Fi system. Sound is amazing but, the feeling of carrying it home under your arm, putting the needle down and sitting back with a beer in one hand and a smoke (used to smoke, not anymore. Pack of crisps these days) is the best thing ever to me.

It's the romantic side of loving music. It's a way of switching off from the world and focusing your attention on other things I believe.

Unless it's Quo, Rory, ACDC etc. Then it's about rocking the **** out ha

Deank

Tomas White Suspect wrote: »

The Showman appears to be him taking the piss out of himself haha. Again with this album, the choruses get stuck in my head!

Summer of Love.. I really like the drum and bass on this. They come to the front on this album quite a lot and shows their capabilities I think. I love Edge's riff.

And a flat out solo from the Edge in Lights of Home :eek: I thought the start was dodgy until it fed into the rest of the song, Edge and solo's don't happen too often, one of the better songs on the album.

Sonny678

The Nal wrote: »

Loads and loads. Ragged Glory, Bitches Brew, Time Out of Mind, Tom Waits Orphans.

Theyre just albums Ive listened to in the last few days.

Not looking for Acthung Baby 2 from the lads but something other than a soundtrack to corporate America would be nice!

Firstly your wrong
The artists you mentioned above you didn't mention not one band . Yes solo artist the greats like Dylan Lou Reed Neil Young Tom Waits Springsteen Johnny Cash and Cohen have produced interesting and quality music in their later years. Solo artist can. Bands cannot. Even though solo artists still produce their best work in their 20s. Dylans best albums are the mid 60s and blood on the tracks. Springsteen best album are from Born to Run to Tunnell of love. But yes solo artists can produce quality work in latter years. Some of the albums you mentioned are good. But there is another level , the truly bona fide classics eg Revolver Pet Sounds Whats going on London Calling Never Mind the Bollocks Dark Side of the Moon Nevermind The Joshua Tree Thriller Blonde on Blonde. Those albums are created by artists in their 20s. That's when most songwriters our at their peak best.

Bands don't. Name 1 band that has produced an all time great album after 40 years of age eg Nevermind or a London Calling or The Queen is Dead. It doesn't happen. Rock is a young mans game. 100 best rock albums of all time I cannot think of one band or one album produced by a group in 40s and 50s. Bands particular U2 size just play the greatest hits and the odd **** album.

U2 have yet to produce a crap album. With the exception of October, where they suffered second album syndrome. since October U2 have not made a bad album. They produced 2 masterpiece eg The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. A near masterpiece in The Unforgettable Fire. And a very good debut album in Boy. While War and All that you cannot leave behind were good solid records. Rattle and Hum , Zooropa, Paasengers and Pop were all interesting records mixing the good with the bad but overall those four albums were strong albums. How to dismantle an Atomic bomb had a couple of cracking singles. But did have a filler on side 2. And that has been the story of the last two albums 5 or 6 good songs and the rest filler. Atomic Bomb No Line on the horizon and Songs of Innocence they were becoming parody of themselves and the singles dried up. They are still good records. Especially for a band at the stage of their career. The standard of their later albums are uniquely good.

I haven't got the new album. I'm buying it at the weekend. But what I have heard, its a continuation of the last few albums but overall could be stronger and the best work since Pop. For band in their 50s that is unheard in the history of rock music.

But truthfully I think if they called it a day, it would be for the best. Their stature would increase in time. U2 have been so long the biggest band in the world. They need to disappear for a while. And like everything they will come back into fashion.

Because when you go through their back catalogue and listen to songs on the albums ( for their best songs are not always the singles). Songs like 11 O Clock tick Tock, Wire, Running to a Stand Still, Angel of Harlem, God Part 2 , So Cruel, Acrobat, The Wanderer, Your Blue room, Gone, Mofo, Please ,In a little while, Moment of Surrender,The Troubles and Blackout and great b sides like Love comes Tumbling Down all show the unique talent and diverse songbook of U2. They are simply one of the great rock bands with of the greatest back catalogue. To say anything else would be wrong. And people who slag U2 are criticize them it is usually out of ignorance to the songs they have written and a bias based on Bono personality or other issues outside music. U2 are simply one of the greatest rock bands of all time. And the last great supergroup. a That is a fact.

Deank

Sonny678 wrote: »

Firstly your wrong
The artists you mentioned above you didn't mention not one band . Yes solo artist the greats like Dylan Lou Reed Neil Young Tom Waits Springsteen Johnny Cash and Cohen have produced interesting and quality music in their later years. Solo artist can. Bands cannot. Even though solo artists still produce their best work in their 20s. Dylans best albums are the mid 60s and blood on the tracks. Springsteen best album are from Born to Run to Tunnell of love. But yes solo artists can produce quality work in latter years. Some of the albums you mentioned are good. But there is another level , the truly bona fide classics eg Revolver Pet Sounds Whats going on London Calling Never Mind the Bollocks Dark Side of the Moon Nevermind The Joshua Tree Thriller Blonde on Blonde. Those albums are created by artists in their 20s. That's when most songwriters our at their peak best.

Bands don't. Name 1 band that has produced an all time great album after 40 years of age eg Nevermind or a London Calling or The Queen is Dead. It doesn't happen. Rock is a young mans game. 100 best rock albums of all time I cannot think of one band or one album produced by a group in 40s and 50s. Bands particular U2 size just play the greatest hits and the odd **** album.

U2 have yet to produce a crap album. With the exception of October, where they suffered second album syndrome. since October U2 have not made a bad album. They produced 2 masterpiece eg The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. A near masterpiece in The Unforgettable Fire. And a very good debut album in Boy. While War and All that you cannot leave behind were good solid records. Rattle and Hum , Zooropa, Paasengers and Pop were all interesting records mixing the good with the bad but overall those four albums were strong albums. How to dismantle an Atomic bomb had a couple of cracking singles. But did have a filler on side 2. And that has been the story of the last two albums 5 or 6 good songs and the rest filler. Atomic Bomb No Line on the horizon and Songs of Innocence they were becoming parody of themselves and the singles dried up. They are still good records. Especially for a band at the stage of their career. The standard of their later albums are uniquely good.

I haven't got the new album. I'm buying it at the weekend. But what I have heard, its a continuation of the last few albums but overall could be stronger and the best work since Pop. For band in their 50s that is unheard in the history of rock music.

But truthfully I think if they called it a day, it would be for the best. Their stature would increase in time. U2 have been so long the biggest band in the world. They need to disappear for a while. And like everything they will come back into fashion.

Because when you go through their back catalogue and listen to songs on the albums ( for their best songs are not always the singles). Songs like 11 O Clock tick Tock, Wire, Running to a Stand Still, Angel of Harlem, God Part 2 , So Cruel, Acrobat, The Wanderer, Your Blue room, Gone, Mofo, Please ,In a little while, Moment of Surrender,The Troubles and Blackout and great b sides like Love comes Tumbling Down all show the unique talent and diverse songbook of U2. They are simply one of the great rock bands with of the greatest back catalogue. To say anything else would be wrong. And people who slag U2 are criticize them it is usually out of ignorance to the songs they have written and a bias based on Bono personality or other issues outside music. U2 are simply one of the greatest rock bands of all time. And the last great supergroup. a That is a fact.

Chivito550

Sonny678 wrote: »

Firstly your wrong
The artists you mentioned above you didn't mention not one band . Yes solo artist the greats like Dylan Lou Reed Neil Young Tom Waits Springsteen Johnny Cash and Cohen have produced interesting and quality music in their later years. Solo artist can. Bands cannot. Even though solo artists still produce their best work in their 20s. Dylans best albums are the mid 60s and blood on the tracks. Springsteen best album are from Born to Run to Tunnell of love. But yes solo artists can produce quality work in latter years. Some of the albums you mentioned are good. But there is another level , the truly bona fide classics eg Revolver Pet Sounds Whats going on London Calling Never Mind the Bollocks Dark Side of the Moon Nevermind The Joshua Tree Thriller Blonde on Blonde. Those albums are created by artists in their 20s. That's when most songwriters our at their peak best.

Bands don't. Name 1 band that has produced an all time great album after 40 years of age eg Nevermind or a London Calling or The Queen is Dead. It doesn't happen. Rock is a young mans game. 100 best rock albums of all time I cannot think of one band or one album produced by a group in 40s and 50s. Bands particular U2 size just play the greatest hits and the odd **** album.

U2 have yet to produce a crap album. With the exception of October, where they suffered second album syndrome. since October U2 have not made a bad album. They produced 2 masterpiece eg The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. A near masterpiece in The Unforgettable Fire. And a very good debut album in Boy. While War and All that you cannot leave behind were good solid records. Rattle and Hum , Zooropa, Paasengers and Pop were all interesting records mixing the good with the bad but overall those four albums were strong albums. How to dismantle an Atomic bomb had a couple of cracking singles. But did have a filler on side 2. And that has been the story of the last two albums 5 or 6 good songs and the rest filler. Atomic Bomb No Line on the horizon and Songs of Innocence they were becoming parody of themselves and the singles dried up. They are still good records. Especially for a band at the stage of their career. The standard of their later albums are uniquely good.

I haven't got the new album. I'm buying it at the weekend. But what I have heard, its a continuation of the last few albums but overall could be stronger and the best work since Pop. For band in their 50s that is unheard in the history of rock music.

But truthfully I think if they called it a day, it would be for the best. Their stature would increase in time. U2 have been so long the biggest band in the world. They need to disappear for a while. And like everything they will come back into fashion.

Because when you go through their back catalogue and listen to songs on the albums ( for their best songs are not always the singles). Songs like 11 O Clock tick Tock, Wire, Running to a Stand Still, Angel of Harlem, God Part 2 , So Cruel, Acrobat, The Wanderer, Your Blue room, Gone, Mofo, Please ,In a little while, Moment of Surrender,The Troubles and Blackout and great b sides like Love comes Tumbling Down all show the unique talent and diverse songbook of U2. They are simply one of the great rock bands with of the greatest back catalogue. To say anything else would be wrong. And people who slag U2 are criticize them it is usually out of ignorance to the songs they have written and a bias based on Bono personality or other issues outside music. U2 are simply one of the greatest rock bands of all time. And the last great supergroup. a That is a fact.

Angel and Harlem and Please were both singles. Angel of Harlem was one of their bigger hits in the USA.

Sonny678

Chivito550 wrote: »

Angel and Harlem and Please were both singles. Angel of Harlem was one of their bigger hits in the USA.

I know. And both were great singles. Angel of Harlem is a cracking single. U2 at their most soulful .Have never really sounded that real soulful since. And within three years they were incorporating music influenced by the Happy Mondays and Madchester. That jump from roots Americana Blues gospel inspired by Dylan Cash and Memphis to playing more modern beat dance influenced rock music inspired by The Stones Roses and co and Bowie in Berlin. That transformation from Angel of Harlem to Mysterious Ways is really impressive. Something a Coldplay or even an Oasis Blur Travis Foo Fighters Pulp or Echo and The Bunnymen couldn't even dream off. The ablitly to revinvent ones musically is the sign of true greatness eg The Beatles Bowie and U2.

Elvis Costello does a great cover version of Please. He considers it one of the best songs he heard in the 90s. Costello would know a thing or two about songwriting. Being one of the greatest songwriter UK have ever produced.

johnpatrick81

Good man Sonny (Bono) :pac: x

johnpatrick81

P.S. I’d rate October above HTDAAB. Love the raw passion of that album.

Deank

Sonny678 wrote: »

I know. And both were great singles. Angel of Harlem is a cracking single. U2 at their most soulful .Have never really sounded that real soulful since. And within three years they were incorporating music influenced by the Happy Mondays and Madchester. That jump from roots Americana Blues gospel inspired by Dylan Cash and Memphis to playing more modern beat dance influenced rock music inspired by The Stones Roses and co and Bowie in Berlin. That transformation from Angel of Harlem to Mysterious Ways is really impressive. Something a Coldplay or even an Oasis Blur Travis Foo Fighters Pulp or Echo and The Bunnymen couldn't even dream off. The ablitly to revinvent ones musically is the sign of true greatness eg The Beatles Bowie and U2.

Elvis Costello does a great cover version of Please. He considers it one of the best songs he heard in the 90s. Costello would know a thing or two about songwriting. Being one of the greatest songwriter UK have ever produced.

Ah now take the Foo's off that list, they're the only band on the planet that are better live. Just about.

johnpatrick81

Not bad for a washed up bunch of desperados

MadYaker

It's odd that they're at the top of itunes but nowhere near the top on any other charts that I can find. You'd think if people are dling it on itunes it'd be charting on spotify and other charts like taylor and ed sheeran are

Wooderson

Sonny. Switch to decaf.

innuendo141

Anyone get their album delivered yet?