U2 Delays Album Release In Light Of Trump Victory

CNN news, folks. I'm not sure which it think is worse...the band trying to somehow promote their album by making a statement on their disappointment in the President-Elect, or the fact that CNN decided that this is actually political news.

In the article U2's guitar player The Edge is quoted as saying, "the election (happened) and suddenly the world changed. We just went, 'Hold on a second, we've got to give ourselves a moment to think about this record and about how it relates to what's going on in the world.'"

If The Edge had come out right after the election and said "we've decided to put this album on hold", then I might start to believe that it might not be the band's attempt to say "hey...we've got this new album coming out...we're going to make a public deal out of something that doesn't have a damn thing to do with our album in an attempt to bring attention to the fact that we actually do have an album coming out". This is two freaking months later though. This is just ridiculous.

U2 delays album release in light of Trump victory - CNNPolitics.com

CNN has some serious issues. They are so slanted they make MSNBC look Alt Right.

Tens of people will be in an uproar over this. :lol2:

Shut up and entertain me.

Go fight with the IRA.

Doesn't bother me I wasn't going to listen to it anyway.

I'm still ticked about that horrible tune that they hardwired into my iphone, whatever the hell the name of that thing was.

The next U2 album I buy will be my first, just not a fan...I'd rather listen to the Dixie Chicks (without political commentary, as LA said, "Shut up and entertain me")

Have they ever released a song or album that did not have political cries in it?

Shut up and entertain me.

You seem to be saying that a lot lately Cat:)!

I really couldn't care less what U2 is doing/saying.

The Drive-by Truckers caught some flack for releasing a more political album this year in American Band (even though a lot of their usual stuff was also political, but I digress...)

I can't find the interview but I thought Patterson Hood said something I agreed with a lot. When asked about the whole "shut up and sing thing" his response was something along the lines of "if artists shouldn't express their point of view, then who should? Bankers? Lobbyists? Billionaires?"

I thought it was a good point. And besides, who likes distilled, generic, don't-ruffle-any-feathers artists anyway? Art should mean something or it's just elevator muzak.

When asked about the whole "shut up and sing thing" his response was something along the lines of "if artists shouldn't express their point of view, then who should? Bankers? Lobbyists? Billionaires?"

I would argue that when they don't shut up, we get Clint Eastwood talking to a chair. :lol2:

U2? Who cares? Their music sucks. Why would I care what their political view is if I can't even listen to their political message because I can't get through horrible singing and poorly written songs?

I would argue that when they don't shut up, we get Clint Eastwood talking to a chair. :lol2:

:lol2: Touche, salesman.

I would argue that when they don't shut up, we get Clint Eastwood talking to a chair. :lol2:

I'll take Clint anytime. No chair.