[ ]      [ ]   [ ]
U2 — Love Comes Tumbling
Log in above to post your comment
Stingray
Posted: Mar 10, 2013 - 18:41
 

Wooow - so erly and sooo good!

NEARLY PERFECT!



Mystery Guest
(somewhere else)
Posted: Mar 10, 2013 - 18:40
 
Good song, although I prefer Bad from this album.
Alexandra
(PNW)
Posted: Mar 10, 2013 - 18:37
 
 dwlangham wrote:
Soooooo goood.
 
One of the best B-sides they ever had.

dwlangham
(Nowhere to be found)
Posted: Feb 07, 2013 - 09:50
 
Soooooo goood.

spiggy
Posted: Feb 07, 2013 - 09:49
 
I am bit of a u2 fan... But this song is a favourite...lovely guitar and soft intimate vocals...
sbegf
(Manchester, Maryland)
Posted: Nov 05, 2012 - 07:23
 
 Bosami wrote:
Obscure U2 - love it!
 
Funny, not at all obscure to me, played this album to death, along with most of their other stuff.  Obscure and good U2 to me would be something like Stories for boys... 

ziakut
(Right Here)
Posted: Nov 05, 2012 - 07:17
 
Quite simply my favorite U2 song. I don't have many...so this is a good thing.

AliGator
(The Bluegrass)
Posted: Oct 04, 2012 - 22:18
 
 johnjconn wrote:


All this talk of U2 vs Beatles is fine.   But to say Bon Jovi was bigger in the 80's than U2,,,  huh??????
I can easily see the Springsteen argument, both were huge in the 80's.

But Bon Jovi,,,,not sure where you were living in the 80's ( maybe bong land) but Bon Jovi couldn't carry the Edge's guitar pick.
 
Livin' on a prayer, DUHHH.

Stingray
Posted: Jul 02, 2012 - 11:41
 
 johnjconn wrote:


All this talk of U2 vs Beatles is fine.   But to say Bon Jovi was bigger in the 80's than U2,,,  huh??????
I can easily see the Springsteen argument, both were huge in the 80's.

But Bon Jovi,,,,not sure where you were living in the 80's ( maybe bong land) but Bon Jovi couldn't carry the Edge's guitar pick.

 

Please never-never-never-never mention U2 and Bon Jovi in one sentence!

NEVER!!!



caobhin
Posted: Jul 02, 2012 - 11:40
 
one of my favs from the day - never heard it before outside of my own CD/cassette tape/turntable ...

trissi wrote:

     ^^^^^^^^^^ uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, da, da, da . . .

 



Proclivities
(Carrboro, NC)
Posted: Jun 24, 2012 - 10:55
 
 johnjconn wrote:


All this talk of U2 vs Beatles is fine.   But to say Bon Jovi was bigger in the 80's than U2,,,  huh??????
I can easily see the Springsteen argument, both were huge in the 80's.

But Bon Jovi,,,,not sure where you were living in the 80's ( maybe bong land) but Bon Jovi couldn't carry the Edge's guitar pick.
 
It's not a matter of who you (or I) prefer, or who's carrying someone's guitar picks, Bon Jovi sold more records during the 1980s than U2 did; they had four number-one hits during that decade.  Since then, of course, U2 has sold many more records and (in 2011) averaged over $6.5 million per live performance, while Bon Jovi only averaged a paltry $2.8 million per show.

Easyrider
(Portugal)
Posted: May 31, 2012 - 13:46
 
Love this period but then.......

mauguima
(sewers)
Posted: May 31, 2012 - 13:44
 
 shakitten wrote:
When U2 was good...
 
Exactly

mabra70
(Stuttgart, Germany)
Posted: Mar 29, 2012 - 03:12
 
Great tune from a period in-between the experimentel phase of Unforgettable Fire to the more anthem-like songs of The Joshia Tree. Adams straight bass makes the foundation on which the layers of Edge's guitar can modulate. Bonos voice tumbles on top.
The Three Sunrises from Wide Awake is also great!

(former member)
(hotel in Las Vegas)
Posted: Jan 25, 2012 - 17:16
 


Everybody in my hotel room loves this song...

 

houston
(Tsawwassen B.C.)
Posted: Dec 24, 2011 - 23:32
 
Here it is, the very first time I totally enjoy a U2 song. Never thought it was going to happened 

trissi
(allupinya)
Posted: Oct 22, 2011 - 15:24
 
 Bosami wrote:
Obscure U2 - love it!
 
     ^^^^^^^^^^ uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, da, da, da . . .


jberko
(Franklin, TN)
Posted: Oct 22, 2011 - 15:14
 
This is simply AWFUL!

Mita
(Santa Fe, NM)
Posted: Aug 20, 2011 - 15:02
 
The ending of this song is brilliant - it tumbles and tumbles...

tutakea
Posted: Jul 20, 2011 - 06:25
 
this song has everything i hate about most U2-songs. a perfect "1 point" - no, it´s not even ho-hum, it´s 100% crap. 

MiracleDrug
(Earth)
Posted: Jul 20, 2011 - 06:23
 
the only Greatest Band In The World ever to IMPROVE over time...{#Notworthy}

Alexandra
(Hopefully, departing the Gem City VERY soon)
Posted: Jul 20, 2011 - 06:22
 
 robbeek wrote:

They still are...deal with it.
 

OMG—-THANK you!   They started out as teenagers for cripe's sake—-they are bound to want to try new things, musically, as time goes on. Only hardcore fans can appreciate the evolution. Their spirit/passion for music is still the same. People need only see them live to understand that. I know...I'm preaching to the choir with you....


robbeek
(the foothills above El Lay....)
Posted: Feb 12, 2011 - 14:19
 
 shakitten wrote:
When U2 was good...
 
They still are...deal with it.

shakitten
Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 07:50
 
When U2 was good...

motorichi
(formerly known as Owensmouth)
Posted: Oct 09, 2010 - 14:20
 
simple minds

lemmoth
(NYC)
Posted: Sep 07, 2010 - 13:47
 
 sarahbean26 wrote:
{#Good-vibes} love this song!!! Very different from what they do now............{#Tongue} which is not so great {#Grumpy}
 
Have you listened to No Line On the Horizons - other than the "Get Off Your Boots" single.

Much of the new record has a similar tone to songs like  Love Comes Tumbling.

I agree completely with AMG, when they say:

No Line on the Horizon is all austere grey tones and midtempo meditation. It's a record that yearns to be intimate but U2 don't do intimate, they only do majestic, or as Bono sings on one of the albums best tracks, they do "Magnificent." Here, as on "No Line on the Horizon" and "Breathe," U2 strike that unmistakable blend of soaring, widescreen sonics and unflinching openhearted emotion that's been their trademark, turning the intimate into something hauntingly universal. These songs resonate deeper and longer than anything on Atomic Bomb, their grandeur almost seeming effortless. It's the rest of the record that illustrates how difficult it is to sound so magnificent. With the exception of that strained middle triptych, the rest of the album is in the vein of "No Line on the Horizon", "Magnificent" and "Breathe," only quieter and unfocused, with its ideas drifting instead of gelling. Too often, the album whispers in a murmur so quiet it's quite easy to ignore - "White as Snow," an adaptation of a traditional folk tune, and "Cedars of Lebanon," its verses not much more than a recitation, simmer so slowly they seem to evaporate - but at least these poorly defined subtleties sustain the hazily melancholy mood of No Line on the Horizon.


johnjconn
(chicago land)
Posted: Sep 07, 2010 - 13:45
 
 Sasha2001 wrote:

Yes, that comment deserves an apology. The Beatles comparison is a real stretch.  U2 has a large following and is selling out small arenas by the time Unforgettable Fire comes out - they're definitely a big act. But they don't become the mega band we think of them as until after Joshua Tree comes out in 87 - and its still only the 13th best selling album of the decade. Bruce Springsteen and the E street Band are a bigger act in the 80s - so's Bon Jovi.
 

All this talk of U2 vs Beatles is fine.   But to say Bon Jovi was bigger in the 80's than U2,,,  huh??????
I can easily see the Springsteen argument, both were huge in the 80's.

But Bon Jovi,,,,not sure where you were living in the 80's ( maybe bong land) but Bon Jovi couldn't carry the Edge's guitar pick.



lemmoth
(NYC)
Posted: Sep 07, 2010 - 13:40
 
Wonderful song from a great EP.

kaybee
(Lost in the Wilds of Toronto)
Posted: Aug 06, 2010 - 18:53
 
Sasha2001 wrote:

Yes, that comment deserves an apology. The Beatles comparison is a real stretch.  U2 has a large following and is selling out small arenas by the time Unforgettable Fire comes out - they're definitely a big act. But they don't become the mega band we think of them as until after Joshua Tree comes out in 87 - and its still only the 13th best selling album of the decade. Bruce Springsteen and the E street Band are a bigger act in the 80s - so's Bon Jovi.
  
Droidac wrote:

If you're talking only about album sales, you might have a point. I think the original comment was referring to the influence of U2 in the 80's, in which case the comparison to the Beatles would be accurate, IMHO.
  Yes, actually, I was talking about album sales and and also U2's influence, not only in the 80's but in the decades following as well.

And the apology was not for the comparison to the Beatles, but to any repetition of comment I made on other postings. I never implied that they were as good as the Beatles (very few bands were) but I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that U2 were excellent in their heyday.



derekd
(Just Visiting This Planet)
Posted: Apr 01, 2010 - 11:38
 
Surprised at all the Bono-hating below. The guy has kept a band together for decades; remained with his one high-school sweetheart (now wife) for yers and raised a large family; he's deeply religious and spends hi free time doing more for the planet than most of us will ever do in our entire lifetime. All while being a rockstar. Is that so bad? U2 has created a tremendous number of anthems that have been the soundtrack to most of our lives. You don't have to love them or him. But he's not worthy of the bashing—if only out of general respect and decency.

Droidac
(Blacklight District)
Posted: Apr 01, 2010 - 11:35
 
 Sasha2001 wrote:

Yes, that comment deserves an apology. The Beatles comparison is a real stretch.  U2 has a large following and is selling out small arenas by the time Unforgettable Fire comes out - they're definitely a big act. But they don't become the mega band we think of them as until after Joshua Tree comes out in 87 - and its still only the 13th best selling album of the decade. Bruce Springsteen and the E street Band are a bigger act in the 80s - so's Bon Jovi.
 
If you're talking only about album sales, you might have a point. I think the original comment was referring to the influence of U2 in the 80's, in which case the comparison to the Beatles would be accurate, IMHO.



Bosami
(Deep in the heart of nowhere)
Posted: Apr 01, 2010 - 11:33
 
Obscure U2 - love it!

Sasha2001
(writing the great Canadian novel)
Posted: Feb 28, 2010 - 20:55
 
 kaybee wrote:
Apologies if I've said this elsewhere on RP, but we can say all we want about Bono being a real boner, but U2 was to the 80's what the Beatles were to the 60's.
 
Yes, that comment deserves an apology. The Beatles comparison is a real stretch.  U2 has a large following and is selling out small arenas by the time Unforgettable Fire comes out - they're definitely a big act. But they don't become the mega band we think of them as until after Joshua Tree comes out in 87 - and its still only the 13th best selling album of the decade. Bruce Springsteen and the E street Band are a bigger act in the 80s - so's Bon Jovi.

On_The_Beach
(Vancouver BC, Bud)
Posted: Feb 28, 2010 - 20:55
 
 kaybee wrote:
 . . . U2 was to the 80's what the Beatles were to the 60's.
 
No doubt (of course there wasn't a lot of competion in the 80s).
"War" through "Achtung, Baby" were all classic.



kaybee
(Lost in the Wilds of Toronto)
Posted: Jan 28, 2010 - 17:50
 
Apologies if I've said this elsewhere on RP, but we can say all we want about Bono being a real boner, but U2 was to the 80's what the Beatles were to the 60's.


tanyhon
(Home)
Posted: Jan 28, 2010 - 09:25
 
Outstanding!

Is it me or does their latest release miss the magic that they once had? {#Stupid}

ambrebalte
(Beijing)
Posted: Dec 27, 2009 - 22:51
 
Didn't hear this song for ....a very long time. Beautiful song, soft. Perfect for Monday afternoon at home when it's freezing outside.
Don't forget the Blue Moon ! Happy New Year to everybody :)

le_colonel
Posted: Jul 23, 2009 - 11:04
 
8 -> 9

There are some U2 songs I'm only beginning to fully appreciate now, even though I've known them forever. This is one of them.

Turning the volume WAY UP on this one helps, too...

peter_james_bond
(Lunenburg, NS)
Posted: Jul 23, 2009 - 11:04
 
 romeotuma wrote:
This song is good for the ears...
 
You must be referring to a little known study published in the obscure scientific journal - 'Aural Investigations' This study, called "Paradise for the Ears?", purports to show, among a group of test subjects, that long time listening to Radio Paradise, at moderate volumes, increases hearing acuity by up to 12%. I believe this study was funded by a Mr Bill G., whoever that is. {#Wink}

joseseng
(New York, NY.)
Posted: Jul 23, 2009 - 11:03
 
Wow, It took me back to seventh or eighth grade. It gave a weird sensation when we where all young and innocent. Love it.

sarahbean26
(waukegan,IL)
Posted: Jul 23, 2009 - 11:03
 
{#Good-vibes} love this song!!! Very different from what they do now............{#Tongue} which is not so great {#Grumpy}

(former member)
(hotel in Las Vegas)
Posted: May 20, 2009 - 22:07
 


This song is good for the ears...



lophrequa
(the very edge of the land)
Posted: Mar 18, 2009 - 18:04
 
 1wolfy wrote:
My favorite U2 track...can't get enough
 
love all around


lophrequa
(the very edge of the land)
Posted: Mar 18, 2009 - 18:01
 
a 10 for me... transporting

1wolfy
(Mission Viejo California)
Posted: Mar 18, 2009 - 17:59
 
My favorite U2 track...can't get enough

1wolfy
(Mission Viejo California)
Posted: Jan 14, 2009 - 12:24
 
wonderful song

alaken
(Missoula, MT)
Posted: Jan 14, 2009 - 12:21
 
Not bad, but there are so many better little-known U2 songs...

Bridieboo
(Halifax, NS)
Posted: Jan 14, 2009 - 12:20
 
This song is DELICIOUS {#Tongue}

LongGoneDaddy
Posted: Nov 12, 2008 - 08:41
 
a great EP...after the Unforgettable Fire but before Rattle and Hum...this is the U2 that stays with ya (like peanut butter!)

meadowwoods
(Southwestern Wisconsin)
Posted: Nov 12, 2008 - 08:36
 
{#Hearteyes}