I think the reason for a lot of Victoria's waffling and the singing bits are so that they can edit to make sure the missing vowels round is always the same length (as it has been this series)
Waffling is only a problem if you eventually get the right answer. They didn't.

The majority? You cannot be serious. Even at its peak (10m listeners) Radio 1 trailed behind Radio 2 and once Classic FM came on air in 1992 it was basically curtains. And it's not as if U2 were ever the kind of popstars that would pop up (no pun intended) all over the place on telly. I'd be prepared to warrant that a lot of pop devotees who spent their youth never more than a foot from a speaker would have struggled just as much with this question.

Eh? Radio 3? More listeners than Radio 1?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36320673

Oops. Make that 2.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing stupid points with you.
The majority of people have listened to music based radio at some stage. Believe it or not, Radio 1 is not the only music based radio station in the UK.
Listenership figures for any station are irrelevant. U2 have been played on every local BBC station, every local independent station plus Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 4 at some stage.
Contrary to what you think, they've actually been on TV quite a lot over the years. Their videos get plenty of airplay on the various channels.
How do you think they're one of the biggest bands in the world ever?

Do you honestly believe that only a small percentage of people (those who have listened to a U2 album) would recognise a U2 single

"It's before my time" syndrome.

All of those tracks are well known. New Years Day gets played every year at about the same time. Can't figure out why
Desire gets plenty of airplay on certain old music video channels. Hate that track but still it gets played.

I think most of the viewers, and contestants, of Only Connect are not of the "i pod" generation who haven't heard of something simply because it's not on their "play list".

Peak listening figures in 1993 were over 16 million. And almost certainly greater a decade earlier.

Not that syndrome as such but you base your argument on radio plays and looking at two of that team U2 would have featured on the mainstream radio stations before they were born or were very young.

However, you make it sound as if they knew absolutely nothing. They did know about U2 and immediately picked out Sweetest Thing and New Year's Day. They weren't sure of the others and wen't off in other directions trying to find the other connections. They certainly are not ignorant.

As it happens, I wasn't referring to the team. I was commenting on the reaction here.

I know they, the team, recognised a couple of the songs. They said so. I was surprised therefore that they didn't even attempt to stab at the remaining clues. Nothing to loose.

I'm still astounded that they didn't pick up on Smartfones.

A poor team who were lucky to win.

I guess general knowledge quizzes are not your forte.

Definitely.

In their day the Beatles were popular (or at least known) by a wide range of people so many can still remember many of their songs. U2 have never had a wide range of fans, they might sell plenty of their recordings but it is to a narrow market. To most people U2 is just the pop group with the funny bloke in coloured glasses who lectures everyone about poverty and the environment whilst seemingly spending much of his time flying around the world in jets and who avoids tax by basing his company in the Netherlands.

Yes. I've probably heard a lot of U2 over the years, and maybe I'd even be able to sing along to one or two of them. But the fact is overall the band has made very little impression on me and if you asked me to name their albums or songs I would struggle.

And as mentioned above, I am the enforced owner of a U2 album and I can't even remember what that one is called and can't name any songs on it.

Depends on what you class as general knowledge.

Most of the stuff on quizzes isn't general knowledge - i.e. the kind of thing the majority of people know. The majority of people know what enables them to lead and enjoy their normal lives. The question on quiz shows are just that - questions on quiz shows for people who know a lot of trivia. Listening to music on the radio isn't something I and a lot of others do. Even in my car I have the local BBC radio station on, not music.

Does anyone call her Vicky?

I suppose Dave might?

Does anyone call him Dave?

Vicky does, I should imagine.

I highly doubt either of these are regular occurrences.

Looking back I suppose you were. I obviously took it as you were commenting on just the teams. Point still stands though. Like many others, I'm not surprised at a general lack of in-depth U2 knowledge for the reasons that have been mentioned. Plus Bono's preaching...no thanks!

Again, smartfones aren't everyone's cup of tea. When you quite easily get all the butterflies correct it doesn't surprise me their technology knowledge isn't as strong.

Funnily enough, I did get the butterflies all right, but they were guesses based on what I could make fit. Given the position they were in, I'd have probably thought it worth a guess, too...

There were a couple of things I was surprised at no-one knowing on Monday. Can't remember what they were, though.

Ha. Good point!

Says someone who's arguing stupid points with me!

Ever watched Pointless? See what percentage of people remember the names of singles on there from the so-called 'biggest bands in the world'? Do you know what being the 'biggest band in the world' actually means in terms of reach? I can forgive you for being unable to handle the reality of large numbers. Most human beings are crap at that! But the delusion that what you know equates in any way to universal knowledge, given that you watch quiz shows where the opposite is proven over and over again is just ridiculous. Nobody is lesser than you because they couldn't give a damn about the recordings of a scruffy bunch of has-been oiks who were legends in their own lunchtime. Indeed one could argue the exact opposite!

You really think that everybody, including their espoused, is forced to use their full names on every occasion? She's referred to on the poker circuit by her nickname, Teacup. It hardly smacks of compulsory formality!

Many people prefer their full names at all times.

I started off calling a new work colleague a matey Jim or Jimmy, till I was told by him " my name is James ".

At the risk of making myself look like more of an idiot, I wonder if any of you good folks can explain something to me. A number of weeks ago the programme was on but I was not paying much attention to the screen, preferring to listen. When I turned to the screen, Victoria was in shot but behind her I saw a figure standing in one of the spaces in the scenery behind her. This figure was dressed in a red and white striped nightshirt with a night hat complete with a pom pom. The character was a young man with fair hair and an enormous smile, who waved at the camera.

Now, DID I see this?

Am I going mad?

Should I go to specsavers?