NJS

From the outside looking in he was right in what he said when he joined. The remarks in the People are also fair enough (if accurate) imo.

I think you can recognise Keegan's "success" for us as well as admitting his failings - and there were a few which have been evident elsewhere since. However his ending at Man City would suggest to me that talk of a comeback is complete bollocks and is simple nostalgia like you have for an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend where you're sure the old "magic" can be regained.

"Got rid of flair players" makes it sound like an extensive clearout. One player who couldn't be arsed too many times and one who would have left when Owen was signed. Mass clearout.

I think Keegan's vindictive sale of Barry Venison was a lot lower than Souness' sale of Bellamy.

Good point Craig but the reply will be "Keegan wouldn't have been stupid enough to have substituted him. Ever.". You can't win against the Bellamy is God/Souness is Satan crowd.

He looked good for the most part against the Mackems but generally I'd agree.

Its a shame Christianity is so fractured as it would be good if she could get a universal "Christian of the year" award for actually demonstrating what it should be all about and shaming millions of them.

Won a few trophies in Scotland when the rivals were struggling and a league cup in England - hmm - sounds familiar. I've always disliked O'Neill - i think he's what I call a football murderer in how he plays the game. This can be effective but I don't think it would "suit" Newcastle. The same apllies to Allardyce. Another point I'd make is that the "Geordie nation" posts claiming Freddie will favour Shearer ignore the fact that the last shortlist consisted of Irishmen, Scots and Mancs. That doesn't mean he'll go foreign of course but I think the Shearer case is overstated.

I'd add 5 years to Barton's sentence for owning an Ice Pick.

Playing Devil's advocate for a second, Dalglish did alright in similarish circumstances. 63283[/snapback] But didn't Dalglish simply maintain the high success of the Paisley/Fagan era, and then quit as the inertia of that success ran out ? 63284[/snapback] I think Fagan had had a "fallow" season which prompted him to step down but in general they were still the top boys. Its also true he still had Paisley/Fagan/Evans to "assist".

Playing Devil's advocate for a second, Dalglish did alright in similarish circumstances.

I'm starting to feel that way but maintain that a replacement of Shearer/Bruce/O'Leary would be worse. I'm encouraged that Hitzfeld has re-appeared on the radar with his Hearts/Man U comments but its still a forlon hope imo.

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?