NJS

Corrected for FACT. By the way Cahill is all of the above but as a general rule most competitive sports people are all looking for that "edge" and unfortunately professional sport has decided that is one way to get it. It is just a fuck that the Australian ones stand out, maybe because wankers like Hewitt and Warne get more exposure than Henman, etc. 63116[/snapback] Accepted and agreed. At least you recognise it rather than blindly defending it on the ground of patriotism.

Is your definition of patriotism to defend the indefensible? Like too many Aussie sportsmen, Cahill is a nasty, whingeing, over-competitive, cheating shitbag (but a good player).

If the shitbag pleads not guilty then I expect a 6 game ban. Getting banned for handbags is ridiculous and I'll be watching for other similar incidents including any involving Man U and Arsenal players being treat the same.

I don't care about this insider thing and I still think its the best site of its type out there. As I've said before I know its not "PC" to say it but Biffa goes to all the matches (plus reserves) and therefore has more "right" to a respected opinion than a lot of other fans imo.

The Pope asking for a rubber? - thats your place in hell confirmed 61745[/snapback] Fine then an eraser but it was a class joke and you know it. 61746[/snapback] Agreed but I couldn't resist.

The Pope asking for a rubber? - thats your place in hell confirmed

Theres well paid demand for mathematical wizards in banking in the city (ie london)- if you could combine with computer skills the world would be your lobster.

I quite like the Yarbirds and was suprised to hear they turned into The Birds. Thing is you've had me looking for Birds CDs and I can't find any that includes a previous member of the Yardbirds. Can you suggest an album? Thanks. You seem to think I'm arguing that U2 are the most influencial band ever and no other group has been as influential. U2 haven't done half what the Beach Boys have in terms of originality. I think we're both wrong on the Paul Weller thing (which is what you said originally, not The Jam) he was probably most influential in the 90's (Oasis, Ocean Colour Scene etc.). I don't think it applies to Mariah Carey, no. If I hear a Mariah Carey song I haven't got a clue if it's her, Christina Aguelera, Britney Spears or whichever other pop poppet is flavour of the month. When I hear a U2 song I know it's them, without hearing Bono open his mouth. U2 have a sound that's instantly recognisable. The reactive argument was just what I might feel after hearing a U2 song, I also recognise though that a lot of people would love it and try to incorporate that sound. Why must everything be so black and white? The Beatles are the pacesetters and they influenced EVERYONE since with their stunning originality. U2 are pisspot boyband who've got lucky and released nowt but derivative shit. Neither of these statements are true and if you think they are it's a very blinkered attitude. There's no need to get shirty about it either boys. I think it's a bit harsh (Sammy) to call NJS' view simplistic when it seems to be your stance that musical originality started somewhere around 1963 (I guess that's not your opinion, but your fixation on the Stones, Beach Boys, Beatles, Doors etc as the be all and end all puts it accross this way). Also, just because someone mentions Brecht I don't see why it makes them a wanker. 60658[/snapback] I didn't call Sammy a wanker I just said that talking about Brecht was student wank - subtle differnce but one I stand by - I just think Sammy is as much a U2 hater as I'm a U2 lover - he's wrong but its nowt personal. For the record I think the Beatles were shit but I recognise and respect their place in the scheme of things.

See right up until that first line I thought you might be a music fan and not a U2 worshipper, obviously I was wrong. Intellectual student wank hey? I take it you don't know a lot about film production either? Brecht is one of the biggest turning points in media (theatre and film) and yet you call it intellectual student wank! From him german expressionism, french new wave, even hollywood westerns grew - and you think U2 are post modernist! Mate I can't be bothered discussing it with you any more, obviously you just "love" U2 more than your ability to actually go out and listen to other music. As for your Rolling Stones comment, that is just beyond belief. They might not have written anything of substance since the early 70s but what they produced in their time has and will influence and shape music far more than any pap U2 will ever produce. Open your ears, longevity is not a reason to argue a band is great. my bloody valentine released 2 lps and 4 eps and yet what they left behind in 4 short years U2 will never be able to even comprehend. 60531[/snapback] I'm a normal music fan who has no interest in the technical side of arts and theatre. I see now that means I'm not clever enough to discuss anything with you. Fair enough.

How is collaborating with another artist on a couple of records ripping them off? Apart from obvious punk/new wave influences on their very early stuff I'd say that even the most adamant "disliker" would admit that U2 have always been pretty original in their own way even if you don't like it. 60521[/snapback] No they haven't. See NJS that's why we are discussing this at such length. Your musical knowledge only seems to lead you to U2 but believe me, nothing they have done is original. From their Zooropa stadium shows which were merely a rip off of Bertold Brecht's theatre from the 1930's to the "collabortation" with B.B King. If you really want to disect their music Brian Eno was the reason they moved away from their early sound, do you know who Eno is? By the way their early sounf was neither Punk or New Wave, it was rock pure and simple and Bono in his leather pants was just an Irishman trying to be Jim Morrison just like Michael Hutchence was an Australian trying to do the same thing on the opposite side of the world at the exact same time both influenced by the Doors, same age, same stage of musical development. Gol, yes the stones have been around for longer than 25 years, that is what I've been trying to explain to NJS! 60526[/snapback] So now a bit of showmanship is a rip-off of some intellectual student wank? See you ignored how writing a song together is a rip off as well. Yes I know who Eno was. The Stones have not moved on musically since the late 70s/80s - I don't know much about them I'll admit but I get the impression that since then they've just toured the hits and certainly won't have continued to influence anybody other that those they did originally. Have you heard the pre Boy demos? - they were very New Wave. I forgot to add that if you take it far enough nothing is "original" because of all the influences but good artists make it seem so - I can't name many other bands as long lasting as U2 who have varied what they;ve done yet are sill so "recognisable" - thats wha I was getting a.

How is collaborating with another artist on a couple of records ripping them off? Apart from obvious punk/new wave influences on their very early stuff I'd say that even the most adamant "disliker" would admit that U2 have always been pretty original in their own way even if you don't like it.

I'm actually a big Joy Division fan as well - the list I gave off the top of my head in a rush is not the entire extent of my collection and I recognise many other influences in other bands I like. The "ancestors" of any band are not as simplistic as either you or I have argued in this thread for effect - they tend to be much more multi-faceted but I'd still maintain that U2 have a place high up in a lot of "good" music. The period you dismiss for U2 for examples includes The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby - two albums I have read being mentioned by loads of other musicians as being big influences.

Exactly, it all down to personal taste, and it's pointless arguing about it really. Now personally, I respect U2 but somehow could never bring myself to waste time listening to them, unless they were played at a pub/club/wedding do etc. They are just too bland and don't suit my tastes. I've never particularly minded Bono though, although again I would never listen to an interview with him if I could avoid it. 59465[/snapback] THis what I'm getting at - its not so much about liking or disliking them its about degrees of respect. I like HM quite a lot and Black Sabbath are one of my faves. Its recognised that Sabbath along with Led Zep and Deep Purple are "founding fathers" of the genre. As it happens I've never liked Led Zep's music but I still "respect" their place in the scheme of things. More than 95% of the music I listen to is guitar based. Even if I don't like a particular band/artist the fact that they use guitars "properly" means I consider them as having a good start and worthy of a base level of respect. To use phrases like "wipe their existence from history" for any guitar based band is just something I couldn't contemplate. I save any contempt I have for artists and genres who don't "bat for my team" like mainstream dance which I find painful to listen to and manufactured pop. 59787[/snapback] What absolute bollocks! You are saying that U2 ARE THE INFLUENCE on all contempary guitar based bands. What you think they invented stadium rock??? You think that because Bono strutted around in leather pants Michael Hutchence decided to follow? NJS you seem like a person with more musical knowledge than that but obviously that's not the case. I'm amazed at people's complete lack of knowledge or is it just ignorance? Jim Morrison, Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, Zepplin, Purple, bowie, the birds, the stones, the who, the 60's psychedelic, the blues masters, glam rock, the whole English punk movement, new wave, fuck even Paul Weller are far bigger influences on contempary guitar bands than the U2. I give you this U2 are good as a point of reference for contempary bands as to how successful they are in comparison for record sales and gig sizes. But is that really anyway to measure music??? No, I think not. 59849[/snapback] There a lot of modern bands for which U2 are a major influence and there a lot of other bands for which they are AN influence. To reject the notion so positively shows your ignorance imo. I also don't accept that most British based guitar bands have any nos to the like of Morrison, Pop and Reed. There was an explosion of "u2" type rock and related indie in the very early 80s - if your named influences hold why did it not exist previously?

Exactly, it all down to personal taste, and it's pointless arguing about it really. Now personally, I respect U2 but somehow could never bring myself to waste time listening to them, unless they were played at a pub/club/wedding do etc. They are just too bland and don't suit my tastes. I've never particularly minded Bono though, although again I would never listen to an interview with him if I could avoid it. 59465[/snapback] THis what I'm getting at - its not so much about liking or disliking them its about degrees of respect. I like HM quite a lot and Black Sabbath are one of my faves. Its recognised that Sabbath along with Led Zep and Deep Purple are "founding fathers" of the genre. As it happens I've never liked Led Zep's music but I still "respect" their place in the scheme of things. More than 95% of the music I listen to is guitar based. Even if I don't like a particular band/artist the fact that they use guitars "properly" means I consider them as having a good start and worthy of a base level of respect. To use phrases like "wipe their existence from history" for any guitar based band is just something I couldn't contemplate. I save any contempt I have for artists and genres who don't "bat for my team" like mainstream dance which I find painful to listen to and manufactured pop.

Just a quick addition - to echo what HF said there is an "admission" of influence that people may or may not make depending on whether they want to kiss arse/be honest (see Oasis and The Beatles) but I was more talking about a general influence that U2 and other bands who started at that time have on modern indie/non-metal rock. TBH I don't know much about American music in the 70s but from a UK pov guitar melody driven music that I like mainly stems from the late 70s/early 80s scene which had roots in both punk and HM. U2 are a huge factor in that. My point wasn't that everyone should like U2 - just that I find it strange that people can in general terms shape their taste on similar lines yet sneer so much at such an important part of that genre (used in very general terms).

Will do a full reply later but... Listen to Boy and October then listen to Pablo Honey and The Bends (don't care about later knob twiddling twattery) and spot the obvious. INXS may have alreay existed but Hutchence based their entire "succesfull" period on U2 and himself on Bono so much he could have sued. Green Day have moved on from punkish roots to beone of the biggest "stadium" bands in the world by becoming more mainstream - sound familiar?

Who and who? 59245[/snapback] If you mean who I think has generally decent taste then Steve and Alreetlike - I don't know enough about your taste. As for influenced I'd say most guitar driven rock from the 80s onwards can said to occasionally give nods to U2 - ranging from their early punk based stuff to later flirtations with dance I'd name glancing through my track collection: Ash, Big Country, Bloc Party, Bush, Coldplay, Deacon Blue, Doves, Elbow, Feeder, Foo Fighters, Green Day, Idlewild, INXS, James, Jet, Jimmy Eat World, Keane, Manics (post Richey), Mercury Rev, Muse, Oasis, Placebo, Pulp, Puressence, Radiohead, Simple Minds, Smashing Pumpkins, Snow Patrol, Stereophonics, The Charlatans, The Cure, The Killers, The Verve, Travis.

There are people who've posted in this thread who I know like decent guitar based music so I find it strange that such contempt is shown for a band who have influenced so many of that genre, consistently produced good music for more than 25 years, always toured committedly when other bands give up and as a sidleine have a lead singer who despite being a bit of a wanker "off the pitch" has actually done more "good" in the world in practical terms than anyone on here could ever dream of. As an aside a hip-hop fan accusing anybody of not being able to sing is one of the most laughable music based comments I've ever read.

So if any Charlton fans are aressted at any match they'll voluntarily ban their own will they? I agree with Gemmill but I'd relegate Charlton for shit like this. KCG - they've warned us before - who do you think they'll pick on next if Man U are banned?

I don't agree - though a lot more comedians are around compared with comediennes I think there are a few decent ones. I don't mind Jo Brand in small doses and find her infinitely more funny than Lee Evans or Jimmy Carr. I never liked Victoria Wood but thought the Roseanne TV show was generally quality though I'm unfamilar with any of her other work. If I watch the Stand up shows on paramount I find the quality to be variable but gender does not seem to be a factor in that.

"Shit" I can take - just the gay thing for those two shows is a bit off

You've just lost any credibility you had on here tbh. 57165[/snapback] I think you'll find Papa Lazaru is big fan as well. 57226[/snapback] Christ! This place gets more lavender by the minute. 57233[/snapback] Have you actually watched Angel? Name another TV series where the DVDs are 18s because of the violence (The Sopranos and The Shield are the only ones that spring to mind). Do you have any idea how much top tottie was in Buffy?

You've just lost any credibility you had on here tbh. 57165[/snapback] I think you'll find Papa Lazaru is big fan as well.

I'm a huge Buffy and Angel fan and I thought it was pretty good but not as good as other fans thought it was. I enjoyed it but it didn't really grab me. I watched the movie last week and found myself not really caring about the characters enough. I do agree its cancellation was criminal though.

Very sorry to hear that. RIP