Ale87 Banned

I didn't reply because my computer was screwed up for a week. But I'm happy to respond to your rants: 1) I want to start by saying that I've listened to 8/10 of the group's discography, and I can agree with you regarding the first two albums, which, even though they didn't blow me away, weren't terrible either. However, starting from '87, I didn't like the direction the band took, both artistically and media-wise. I bought Achtung Baby, sponsored by friends who spoke very highly of the album. What was the result? A real piece of crap. Then came Zooropa and Pop, perhaps the only two albums I can listen to without cursing the band. The last albums really disappointed me, except for the good track "Beautiful Day." The truth is that when it comes to U2, the fans get touched in their pride because they firmly believe this is one of the historic bands in the global music scene of the last 50 years, supported (or sponsored) by a massive social campaign (crafted by design?). The reality is that the members know how to play their instruments (of course!), but they are far from being at the forefront of the evolution of music in the last 20 years. To put it bluntly, they haven't revolutionized anything, and when this group is discussed, opinions are positive by default. Nobody can express their opinion without being judged; in fact, those who don’t listen to the Irish band don’t understand a thing and can be stoned along with the artists they listen to. It’s telling that so far three compilations have been released: 80-90, 90-00, and the latest 18 Singles, which can be considered a commercial gimmick, especially due to the two previously unreleased tracks (one made with Green Day, the idols of twelve-year-olds) and the other "Windows in the Sky" (which, although nice, adds nothing to what has already been developed in almost 30 years). This means that Bono and company have never evolved, always clinging to pseudo-rock for the masses, occasionally flavored with electronic effects like "Discothèque," "Beautiful Day," "Elevation," etc. The conclusion is that U2 were indeed one of the most successful bands of the '80s and '90s, but their fame has often been accentuated by charitable campaigns that have influenced the objective judgment of people and critics. 2) I'm surprised that you take issue with music dictionaries, as 92% of them consider U2 the best rock band after the Beatles. The truth is that it's easier to speak well of this group (following "public opinion") than to go against the tide and express your own opinion (right or wrong). And I thank God for not falling into the trap that all U2 fans have fallen into. Regards.

My charity

@Senior86: One last thing, don't copy my greeting otherwise I'll charge you royalties and donate everything to charity.

U2 suck! And personally, I feel sorry for all the fans who are convinced that Bono is a god on Earth just because he does charity work (and that too is a publicity stunt to sell more records). Personally, if I were to do a good deed, I wouldn't publicize it, so I'm just giving Bono what he deserves. @Senior86: If you've listened to Violator and you don't like it, that's fine by me; after all, the music world is divided between those who understand music and those who can't tell shit from risotto. Senior and Deniel, go listen to your beloved U2, because maybe the 0.2% of the money you give will end up in humanitarian associations thanks to Bono.

What the hell are you talking about, deneil?

@Senior86: Are you really convinced that Achtung Baby is a pillar of music? Then where the hell do you place Violator, Low Life, Behaviour? And if you compare Dark Side... to the album from '91, you're just out of your mind.

I want Alan Wilder back!

Money get away
Get a good job with more pay and you're ok
Money, it's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar,

Do you have something against those who came out of the ass?!

I am objective!