EXP
Active topics
  1. Fuck NME. That article is such a bunch of immature bullshit. Taking jabs at them for no reason.
  2. NME haven't always hated U2, they loved them up until the end of ZooTV, then they just liked them, now they 100% loathe them – all because the newer generation of music journalists that work for NME are aimlessly and amateurishly critical. Full of hipster journalists that like the same 10 bands and will only talk about them: Oasis, The Smiths, Arctic Monkeys, Radiohead etc. They can barely string an article together, and when they do it is full of irrelevant pish.

    I'll point out that U2 used to be on the front cover of NME. They actually followed U2 around on tour during ZooTV.

    I agree thoroughly, though, it's nonsense. But I won't let that happen, I'll change NME when I graduate! Ha, dream on, Kieran, dream on...
  3. in an interview a ways back Bono said we do acoustic every night at our shows. Witch is true. We all know that. I think an acoustic gig is not a good idea. If you want to do an acoustic set do MTV Unplugged i would pay for that.
  4. No self respecting U2 fan should bother with the NME. In their October 2000 issue, they were happy to use an image of U2 on their front cover to shamelessly increase circulation whilst also having a review of Beautiful Day in the singles section of the same issue where the reviewer suggested that someone should "do a Mark Chapman" on Bono except aim lower. Fact. Nothing but a rag full of puerile asinine content.
  5. What a bunch of a-holes.
  6. Click bait. Just ignore it and deny them the web traffic they are craving.
  7. I won't even mention the name of that dogshit carved into the form of a magazine.


    Instead, I bring you this. From the writer of the book U2 En España, who is quite possibly the Spanish guy who's met U2 the most times ever. He's had drinks with them and Bono calls him by name. Something like the Spanish U2Brother, if you get me. So quite a reliable source:

  8. Oh yes! It begins....
  9. Five shows in one place? That means at least 100 shows in a full European tour. Don't think so.

  10. How about there are just six cities, like the original rumour and similar to the US rumour. That means 30 shows, which could work well.
  11. Originally posted by Remy:[..]

    How about there are just six cities, like the original rumour and similar to the US rumour. That means 30 shows, which could work well.

    No.

  12. It doesn't work well as for reaching as many fans in as many places as possible, but could be a good kickstart to a huge tour
    London, Amsterdam, Paris, Barcelona, Milan and Berlin or something.