U2 is numero uno.
Could it be any other way?
People say this about them a lot. There's truth to it, but you can say the same of any band that has a sound: Rush, U2, Aerosmith, etc.exelis wrote:Yeah, I must be old, too. That list means nothing to me, really.
As for U2, they might be awesome performers live, but I can't see paying money to hear the same three chords repeated over and over again live on stage. (sorry AB)
Old U2 was better, you're right. They've really gotten monotonous, though.smash wrote:People say this about them a lot. There's truth to it, but you can say the same of any band that has a sound: Rush, U2, Aerosmith, etc.exelis wrote:Yeah, I must be old, too. That list means nothing to me, really.
As for U2, they might be awesome performers live, but I can't see paying money to hear the same three chords repeated over and over again live on stage. (sorry AB)
It's their sound, is all I can counter with. I'm much more into the lyrics and the overall sound of the set of instruments, rather than one in particular.
A final counter point: same three chords? Really? Even during the Bono MacPhesto years? I don' t think so.
Geddy Lee has a distinct voice, and that always gives it away, but I guarantee you that I could choose many obscure pieces and if I were to cut out the voice track you would not know it was Rush. A distinct sound is OK, anyway, it's when you hear nearly the same song over and over that it gets cheesy.smash wrote:No offense intended, but Rush has a distinct sound. Whether its the vocals or the riff... I can spot a rush song a mile away.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests