Skip

Fuck the Past, Kiss the Future!
February 12, 2011 10:25 PM   Subscribe

In 1993, after aid worker Bill Carter told them about the situation in Sarajevo, U2 wanted to play a concert there, but realized it would be impractical and dangerous for both the band and the people of Sarajevo. But Bono promised that U2 would play the city one day. (He also set up a satellite link to Sarajevo in the middle of Zooropa concerts.) On September 23, 1997, a year after the official end of the siege, U2 kept that promise.

The excellent Wikipedia entry on the concert.

Missing Sarajevo, a minidoc about the concert: part 1, part 2.

The setlist.

Unfortunately, there are only a few video clips available of the concert:
Intro, Mofo, New Year's Day
Even Better Than the Real Thing (static pictures with audio)
Pride, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
Sunday Bloody Sunday (first time it was played in years and first time acoustic)
Miss Sarajevo (first time played live, featuring Pavarotti on gramophone; song was written based on the Bill Carter doc)
Mysterious Ways

There are however excellent audio bootlegs because the show was broadcast on radio. One version available to download from Megaupload, via.

In 1995, Bono helped fund and produce a documentary by Bill Carter, Miss Sarajevo (excerpt), about a beauty pageant put on in the middle of the siege. The same year the band (in their Passengers guise) released the song "Miss Sarajevo".

Interview/mini-doc with Alma Catal, one of the main participants in the documentary Miss Sarajevo, from when U2 played Zagreb in 2009, their return to the Balkans. Part 2.
posted by kmz (49 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

 
Hadn't the citizens suffered enough?
posted by quarsan at 10:34 PM on February 12, 2011 [23 favorites]


ohhh...Bill Carter, I thought you meant Billy Carter
posted by Confess, Fletch at 10:57 PM on February 12, 2011


This post is unnecessary. I mean, we all know that Bono is Jesus by now, right?
posted by fearthehat at 11:01 PM on February 12, 2011


Civil war and genocide are about the only things that could make U2 seem "not all that bad".
posted by Ryvar at 11:07 PM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]


I like U2...why all the h8rz?
posted by hal_c_on at 11:10 PM on February 12, 2011


Haters gotta hate...flag and move on instead of threadshitting.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:11 PM on February 12, 2011 [10 favorites]


That's directed at the haters not you hal.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:12 PM on February 12, 2011


I am Sarajevan and lived there during the war. We Sarajevans felt the world was ignoring our situation - which it was. So any 'publicity' was considered a wonderful thing. I can honestly thank U2 for helping keep the siege in the public's awareness, and for keeping their promise to play. I'd left before they did play, to come to America.

That said, it has occurred to me that the whole U2 thing was constructed in a way that was going to benefit U2 as much (if not more) than it was Sarajevo. U2's always seemed opportunistic that way. As a friend once said, it's hard to believe U2 "cares" so much, when they can't even bother to make decent music.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 11:21 PM on February 12, 2011 [17 favorites]


I like U2...why all the h8rz?

If you stick around long enough you first become lame, then cool again. I remember when Johnny Cash was anathema... the recent Phil Collins thread suggests he might be due a revival. U2 just have to hang on another ten years, then do some stripped-down acoustic stuff.
posted by Leon at 11:32 PM on February 12, 2011 [3 favorites]


I remember seeing the satellite link in 1993 at a Zoorpoa concert. I think I was 17 or 18 and it definitely raised my awareness of what was going on at that time in Sarajevo.
posted by fshgrl at 11:41 PM on February 12, 2011


I like U2...why all the h8rz?

One very good reason to dislike U2 is that they persistently lecture us on giving (and by extension how much they give) while indulging in offshore tax avoidance schemes that would make many bankers blush.
posted by rhymer at 12:56 AM on February 13, 2011 [10 favorites]


If you stick around long enough you first become lame, then cool again.

Nah, it was the 2002 Superbowl halftime show that kind of tipped the scales on U2 past "your favorite band sucks".
posted by Ryvar at 1:08 AM on February 13, 2011


Dude, U2 at Tahrir Square was the bees AND the knees.
posted by nevercalm at 1:21 AM on February 13, 2011 [1 favorite]


...and not just the tax avoidance. You do have to wonder just how many people are close enough to Bono to let him know when something may be a bad idea for this to seem at all appropriate.
posted by calico at 1:56 AM on February 13, 2011


...ethical fashion...made-in-Africa...Proceeds to enterprise in the developing world...sustainable farming in Africa...Every journey began in Africa...donated their fees...Chernobyl Children's Project...

At first glance that's so ethically right-on it squeaks. What am I missing, calico?
posted by Leon at 2:05 AM on February 13, 2011


Erm, it doesn't seem at all weird to be generating publicity for the most labelly-label there is off the back of charity work in Africa? I'm struggling a little to articulate this; I think because it offends me on a level of taste rather than intellectually. It seems to me that charity work is great, less great is fashion advertising that plays on how Bono and Ali are off on a Grand Adventure while carrying stylish bags because, oh, they're in Africa to help those less fortunate than themselves.
posted by calico at 2:13 AM on February 13, 2011


I don't care what anyone says, U2 does anthem guitar rock better than anyone else. Those riffs still give me goosebumps.
posted by empath at 2:43 AM on February 13, 2011 [7 favorites]


while indulging in offshore tax avoidance schemes

So did the Beatles.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:37 AM on February 13, 2011


yes but the beatles didn't bang on and on at poor people about giving lots of money to charities.
posted by marienbad at 4:19 AM on February 13, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's all in the glasses.
posted by buzzman at 4:30 AM on February 13, 2011 [1 favorite]




"Hadn't the citizens suffered enough?"

It amuses me the number of MeFites who claim to dislike hipsters, yet emulate their every move.
posted by rain at 4:48 AM on February 13, 2011 [3 favorites]


Ian A.T. - I can almost give them a pass on shifting the manufacturing, but the bit about J.D. Salinger tucked away at the bottom is gold.
posted by Leon at 4:52 AM on February 13, 2011 [1 favorite]


It seems to me that charity work is great, less great is fashion advertising that plays on how Bono and Ali are off on a Grand Adventure while carrying stylish bags because, oh, they're in Africa to help those less fortunate than themselves.

You know, this is a commonly themed criticism of the Hewsons, to which I point out that the Hewsons' "less great" is leaps and bounds above virtually anyone else.

yes but the beatles didn't bang on and on at poor people about giving lots of money to charities.

I don't know which "poor people" you're talking about; the ones who attend their pricey concerts or charity events? The people who can afford albums, or a consistent enough stream of media to be annoyed by it? If you've not got 2 cents to scrape together, you should be aware enough that perhaps U2's message isn't for you to give from your pocket but rather give at the polls to people who can and will help out people less fortunate than yourself.
posted by dflemingecon at 7:02 AM on February 13, 2011


Since I bought their first record 30 years ago, for me U2 remains simply a band that makes pretty decent music. I couldn't care less about Bono's preaching, the bombastic tours with spaceship stages, 3D concert movies, Facebook investment...I just don't let all that poison my enjoyment of their catalog. Aside from a few blunders along the way, the albums are mostly good, with 2 or 3 that I'd call great.
posted by davebush at 7:08 AM on February 13, 2011 [1 favorite]


Just what I expected to find, unfortunately: Boring, predictable, vaguely-defined (and off-topic!) U2 hate. Sorry, kmz. It was a well-made post.

Seriously guys, we get it. You don't like U2. We get it because U2 detractors have an overwhelming urge to broadcast their dislike of U2 as quickly and emphatically as possible whenever the band is brought up. Thank you so very very much for sharing with everyone that you don't like U2! Because we care. Deeply. Bono too. He told me. He wears those aviator sunglasses to hide the gigantic crocodile tears that are constantly welling up in his eyes over it.

On preview: You know, this is a commonly themed criticism of the Hewsons, to which I point out that the Hewsons' "less great" is leaps and bounds above virtually anyone else.

This. What have you done lately, hipsters? Take all of the charity work you've done in your life. Magnify it ten-fold. You probably still haven't made a fraction of a fraction of the impact that Bono's philanthropic work has made. I guess if you think U2 sucks then fuck aid for Africa if it's being instigated by a shitty band, amirite amirite? And did you hear that Bono's... a tax dodger (gasp)? That just won't do. Not at all. Stop that philanthropy right this instant, U2. Causes for Africa should only be championed by worthy bands. Like Animal Collective and Girl Talk and stuff!
posted by kryptondog at 7:30 AM on February 13, 2011 [6 favorites]


Why, you're very welcome. Thanks for thanking us.
posted by nevercalm at 7:48 AM on February 13, 2011


Say what you want about Bono, it only makes his telekinetic powers stronger than the force of 1000 heartshaped moons!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:59 AM on February 13, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well, see, actually I don't mind U2. It's been some time since I would have rushed to buy their latest album but there were times in my life that I felt much more strongly about them than 'don't mind' and I'll always be fond of many of their songs. At least one of us here is not making the argument that you think we are, kryptondog. I am glad that the Hewsons carry out charity work in Africa, and I agree that they are a good example of giving where they need not. I do not think that criticism of Bono's activism is off-topic in a post framed around his activism in Sarajevo. The concert in Sarajevo does seem to me to have been a very human and positive thing to have done.

So I can get behind Bono completely up and until the point where an advert shows him getting out of a small plane carrying ludicrously expensive bags on his way to sort out Africa. It is not that Bono and Ali are in Africa. It is that they are using being in Africa to sell luxury bags.
posted by calico at 8:00 AM on February 13, 2011


Take all of the charity work you've done in your life. Magnify it ten-fold. You probably still haven't made a fraction of a fraction of the impact that Bono's philanthropic work has made.

Take all the philanthropic work that celebrities like Bono and Bob Geldof and all the rest have done. Magnify it ten-fold. Their contributions are still dwarfed by by those of a single NGO such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Take all the philanthropic work that all the NGOs have done. Multiply it ten-fold. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the foreign aid budget for, say, the United States of America.
posted by Ritchie at 8:17 AM on February 13, 2011


Take all the philanthropic work that all the NGOs have done. Multiply it ten-fold. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the foreign aid budget for, say, the United States of America.

Sure, but if you want to congratulate the $159.40 each of the 308 million Americans contributed to the $49.1 Billion foreign aid budget and call that, what, 100-fold what Bono has contributed, you go ahead and make that silly argument.
posted by dflemingecon at 9:01 AM on February 13, 2011


All the hate directed at Bono/U2 summed up amd explained in a joke that made the rounds circa the death of Steve Ray Vaughn.

SRV dies in the helicopter crash and goes to heaven. St. Peter takes him on a tour of heaven, introducing him to all the dead rock stars.
"Here's Elvis, and over there is Buddy Holly jamming with Janis Joplin & Jimi Hendrix. Let me take you over to where the rest of the gang is hanging out." While walking, SRV thinks he recognizes someone staring in at himself in a mirror. He says to St. Peter, "Is that Bono? I didn't know he was dead?" "Oh, that's not Bono," St. Peter replies, "that's God. He just THINKS he's Bono."
posted by KingEdRa at 10:17 AM on February 13, 2011


Clearly Bono should be above reproach. He's better than us! Even if he were to kick baby bunnies, he would still be better than us. He would need to kick 1,000 baby bunnies before becoming equal in impact to the 1 baby bunny I am kicking right now.
posted by Brocktoon at 10:58 AM on February 13, 2011


I suggest a rule on MeFi that anyone dumping on a band that is the subject of an FPP have the courtesy to name their preferred musicians so the rest of us can remember to show up and dump all over them when that musician's turn comes up. Musical tastes are subjective. Move on.

I'm a big enough fan of U2's music (have tickets to 3 concerts in 2011) that I'm rather indifferent to what they do when they're not recording or performing. Sure, Bono's speeches about poverty and social justice at concerts get tired. By the way, having listened to MANY of his speeches, I can report first hand that, with the exception of Live Aid, he has NEVER asked me to part with my money. What he's interested in is creating a critical mass of support for debt relief and aid programs among voters, so that presidents and prime ministers see there is broad-based public support for them.

Also, I think Bono's/U2's efforts on many things are flawed. The Red Campaign, Edun, the Spider-Man musical(!!), the hotel they bought in Dublin. They have made some huge mistakes. But I respect that they are willing to try, take risks, put themselves on the line. A hell of a lot more than I respect a bunch of whining, circle-jerking, desk jockeys.
posted by dry white toast at 12:22 PM on February 13, 2011 [3 favorites]


With respect to the actual subject of the FPP, what engaged Bono so much about Sarajevo was that what was essentially a genocide was taking place in Europe, on the doorstep of NATO, and France, Germany, and Britain seemed to be doing little to intervene. Even less than 20 years later, with the EU so well established, try to imagine something like that happening in, say, Hungary.

The satellite links weren't much, but Bono felt like he had to do something. They also knew it was total hypocrisy, given that the Zoo TV tour was an attempt to get away from the heart-on-their-sleeve earnestness of 80's U2.
posted by dry white toast at 12:35 PM on February 13, 2011


I like U2...why all the h8rz?

Well, recently there's Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark.
posted by foggy out there now at 2:08 PM on February 13, 2011


I suggest a rule on MeFi that anyone dumping on a band that is the subject of an FPP have the courtesy to name their preferred musicians so the rest of us can remember to show up and dump all over them when that musician's turn comes up. Musical tastes are subjective. Move on.

I heartily endorse this.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:55 PM on February 13, 2011


Wow. All the time, energy and bandwidth spent on this thread and the hundreds of edits to that Wikipedia article glorifying a rock show. And defending U2 from their many money, media and life choice hypocrisies.

Go do something instead. Like ask the old lady down the street if she needs some help without spraining your arm patting yourself on the back. Or even send a few bucks to a reputable charity, without the expectation of being lauded for it.
posted by songdogtech at 5:09 PM on February 13, 2011


I know huh? Like, imagine if everyone on MetaFilter stopped writing comments in threads about things they don't like and actually went out and DID something! That would be amazing!
posted by hippybear at 6:20 PM on February 13, 2011 [1 favorite]


With respect to the actual subject of the FPP, what engaged Bono so much about Sarajevo was that what was essentially a genocide was taking place in Europe, on the doorstep of NATO, and France, Germany, and Britain seemed to be doing little to intervene. Even less than 20 years later, with the EU so well established, try to imagine something like that happening in, say, Hungary.

U2 were actually pretty late to the game, regarding Sarajevo. I credit them with doing *something* - but reasonably, there's plenty of evidence that their interest was spurred only it became clear to anyone what the real deal was, and once it was commercially safe to take a stance. People discuss U2's hypocrisies, which are real and plentiful. I give a lot of my income to charities and humanitarian interests - likely a much higher percentage than anyone in U2 does. Not just that, but my time and energy, too. Obviously, because I lived through the war and lost my home and family, I have a more direct perspective here than most. So again, while I can't fault U2 as such, I can say that their motivations were a bit convenient and somewhat suspect. Most Sarajevans felt that way too. As Sartre said, appearances are evil, but appearances are everything.

Having lived through Sarajevo, I don't have a hard time envisioning the same thing happening there again. It could happen sooner than you'd think. The international community failed Sarajevo and didn't resolve any of the fundamental underlying problems. The collapse of part of the world economy could make trouble flare up anywhere in the region. Hungary, which you mention, has seen widespread campaigns of hate against their Roma population - houses set on fire, people shot as they run outside. Hungarian-speakers have been attacked in Slovakia. There is rampant anti-Roma and anti-ethnic Hungarian discrimination in Romania. Ethnic Hungarians have been attacked in northern Serbia - Hungarian businesses firebombed, allegations of false arrests against Magyar teens, etc.

The situation isn't equivalent to the former Yugoslavia in that Hungary isn't nearly as diverse a place. But ethnic Hungarians have a lot of problems in neighboring countries, and Hungarians have a poor historical record of tolerance themselves. What has probably staved off many problems in this region is the support of Western EU member states with things like money. But two years ago, when the economy went a bit south, it was astonishing how rapidly nationalism, discrimination and right-wing support took off. The policies and rhetoric of politicians at this time were familiar to me from my pre-war life in Sarajevo. One Hungarian politician (openly and without regret) called for concentration camps to house the country's Roma population, who would only be allowed out once they proved to be good citizens. Remind you of anyone?

America and other Western powers used to encourage Hungarians (and other nations under the yoke of Communism) to rebel, with promises of assistance. When the Hungarians did this in 1956, they were ignored by those same powers - who were (ironically) too concerned with problems around the Suez Canal.

One important point is that many Hungarian Roma feel that they are victims of a slow genocide, and they can make a decent case of it. So when you write "try to imagine something like that happening in, say, Hungary" . . . well, it's easy to do, actually.

It seems calm now, but if you think the basic causes of the genocide in Bosnia have changed, you're the sort of dreamer I only wish I could be.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 7:40 PM on February 13, 2011 [3 favorites]


but reasonably, there's plenty of evidence that their interest was spurred only it became clear to anyone what the real deal was, and once it was commercially safe to take a stance.

Can you back that up with any evidence? Honest question.

I give a lot of my income to charities and humanitarian interests - likely a much higher percentage than anyone in U2 does. Not just that, but my time and energy, too.

Well that's not really fair is it? Given that this claim is kinda unverifiable.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:18 PM on February 13, 2011


but reasonably, there's plenty of evidence that their interest was spurred only it became clear to anyone what the real deal was, and once it was commercially safe to take a stance.

Can you back that up with any evidence? Honest question.

Easily. With a prose poem! Bono's public interest in Sarajevo - by his and Bill Carter's own accounts - stems to early July, 1993.

By the time Bono started talking about Sarajevo, it had been months since my parents - and many others - were killed by a shell fired by Serb soldiers from the surrounding hills.

By the time Bono started talking about Sarajevo, it had been well over a year since forces had blockaded the city - making it impossible to access food, clothing, any other sort of supplies, not to mention essential services, like gas, clean water, electricity, phone service.

By the time Bono started talking about Sarajevo, I'd been starved long enough to drop 20 kilos (and I'm a skinny girl) and to start suffering the side-effects of severe malnutrition.

By the time Bono started talking about Sarajevo, the Serbs had taken control of the city's airport, destroyed nearly all of Sarajevo's large buildings and killed thousands of Sarajevans.

By the time Bono started talking about Sarajevo, I'd spent weeks in a coma and had been shot and hit by a sniper's gun for the first (but not last) time.

By the time Bono started talking about Sarajevo, the city's magnificent library had reduced to rubble, with thousands of ancient and unique books relating to the city's Jewish / Muslim / Christian cultural history turned to dust, which floated around Sarajevo for weeks.

By the time Bono started talking about Sarajevo, I had already put black "X" marks through more than half of my classmates' pictures from the previous year of school - those who'd been killed or those who escaped the country, never to return.

By the time Bono started talking about Sarajevo, thousands of journalists and witnesses from around the globe had given grievous testimony of the war crimes occurring there, and with accurate assessments of who, exactly, was to blame.

I give a lot of my income to charities and humanitarian interests - likely a much higher percentage than anyone in U2 does. Not just that, but my time and energy, too.

Well that's not really fair is it? Given that this claim is kinda unverifiable.

There are people who know me and know what I do. I hardly think that U2 has been so oppressed that strangers need worry about whether they're treated in a "fair" manner or not. They collected their acclaim and moved on, but when I visit Sarajevo, I still see people who can't afford a prosthetic leg - fifteen years later. Do U2 profit from their connection to calamitous world events more than they give back in return? Since they tend to wrap everything they do in the cloth of someone else's suffering, and since they are ridiculously wealthy, it's hard to say that they don't.

We live in a world where Lady Gaga-in-an-egg is instantly bigger news than burgeoning national revolutions - where the importance of celebrities is such that greater credence is given often to their ambiguous boasts of charity than to the eyewitness accounts of survivors. I'm delighted Bono mentioned Sarajevo at all, but again - he got something material out of it, and it was hardly a radical move. (Did you know I am against the Holocaust?) Someone once reckoned that U2 made more money from a morally suspect location-switch tax dodge than they're ever donated to charity. This is hard to calculate, but no evidence I've seen suggests it's a false assertion. How many social services were cut in Ireland, solely due to U2's tax dodge? Many millions of pounds worth, easily.

The Clash - more than 30 years ago - referred to bands "turning rebellion into money," and as I was just thinking about this the other day, I thought - well, those bands actually did something . . . TURNING rebellion INTO money. I suppose you could even see that sympathetically as a kind of beneficial attitudinal shift, flirting with and finally commercializing previously controversial mores.

U2 don't even go that far, do they? They just turn (other people's) suffering into money, and primarily for their own gain. Their records aren't as good as the Clash's, either.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 11:09 PM on February 13, 2011 [4 favorites]


Dee in all fairness that's just evidence that you had to endure hell and doesn't really speak to whether it was "commercially safe" to talk about Sarajevo. That's why I asked because it isn't like there's a metric that you can use to measure the concept. Especially 17 years after the fact.

One thing Bono has consistently done if nothing else is talk about things that the majority of people can comfortably ignore. I don't know Bono so I can't speak to his motivations, but I think its safe to say that Bono/U2 aren't in the position they're in because of what they talk about but rather because of the music they play.

U2 don't even go that far, do they? They just turn (other people's) suffering into money, and primarily for their own gain. Their records aren't as good as the Clash's, either.

Not a big The Clash fan myself, I'll take U2. Speaking of The Clash remember their album Sandinista!? Talk about turning rebellion into money and making a buck on other peoples suffering.

I really don't get the criticisms of Bono. He's kinda damned if he does and damned if he doesn't at this point. That Bono has used his position as a celebrity to advocate for the poor is kinda beyond debate at this point, but if you disagree with how he is going about it that's fine. I just think that it's kinda ridiculous to hate on a band because they aren't going about raising awareness/money in the way that you think they should.

I would also argue that it is specifically because U2 have found a way to "turn suffering into money" that they are able to make a difference. Last time I checked The Clash haven't been touring since 1986. So whatever the issues were that The Clash cared about they apparently weren't stable enough to convert that into commercial success giving them a platform from which to advocate. U2 is a completely different case. Their commercial success has given them(specifically Bono) a platform from which to at least attempt to raise awareness and make a difference. Bono convincing Bush II to increase aid to Africa in 2006 was not a small drop in the bucket. That is the definition of making a difference at least as far as a rockstar is concerned.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:17 AM on February 14, 2011


U2 don't even go that far, do they? They just turn (other people's) suffering into money

I'm not really quite sure what you're on about here, and while you're entitled to your opinion, I don't think this is actually going on.

U2 played Sarajevo and didn't make any money on it. I mean, they gained some publicity, but they're the worlds biggest rock band. Everything they do is publicity, and had been for at least a decade before that.

Bono was speaking out publicly about South African apartheid before Desmond Tutu organized his boycott of Sun City. The One Campaign brought awareness of AIDS in Africa into the minds of the average western music fan, and Bono's tireless meeting with world officials led to real changes in aid. Without the band's focus on Aung San Suu Kyi during their latest tour, I know I certainly wouldn't have noted the news of her release quite as I did. They've supported Amnesty International since very early on, and continue to do so.

What U2 does isn't make money off of other people's suffering. What they do is they take the blinders off the western world, which tends only to look at itself. They use their global megaphone to speak in clear terms about things which are going on that others should know about, hoping that change will happen once the word starts to spread. They try to do things which they think will make a difference, like starting up Edun (which, despite reports to the contrary in other sources, does actually maintain factories in Africa and is creating jobs and fostering trade with a continent which has largely only been stripped of resources).

They're not perfect. They've made business decisions that can be questioned. But when it comes to raising global awareness about causes in a way which communicates with the average person in language they can understand and shining sunlight into dark corners, they're very good at it.
posted by hippybear at 7:36 AM on February 14, 2011


Just a point of order:

Last time I checked The Clash haven't been touring since 1986.

Probably that's because they broke up, and then Joe Strummer died. Awesome as he was, I think a Clash reunion helmed by Zombie Strummer might be just a tad creepy.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:39 AM on February 14, 2011


Probably that's because they broke up, and then Joe Strummer died.

Yeah my point was that they weren't stable enough as a band to hold it together. One interesting tidbit is that shortly before he died Joe Strummer co-wrote a song with Bono.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:54 AM on February 14, 2011


My main problem with U2 is that they stopped making interesting music in the early 90s.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:17 AM on February 14, 2011


Actually, now I'm thinking that a Zombie version of The Clash would be something I'd be morbidly curious about seeing.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:02 AM on February 14, 2011


Sounds like someone has a tribute band project they're about to launch!
posted by hippybear at 10:04 AM on February 14, 2011


« Older Sabermetrician in exile   |   Seriously, who hasn't done this? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post