Did U2 Jump The Shark?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Sweetest Thing remix in 1998. They made an old song slightly poppier to increase sales for a Greatest Hits. Those bastards. :tsk:
 
Well at least I learned something new today. Learning what Jumping the shark means after it jumped the shark, that pretty lame of me :hmm:

To be on topic: I'd say this question has been asked many times before in different forms and the answer will obviously be different per person...
 
The spirit of Jumping The Shark is going to extremes to keep a dying show alive. U2's career is winding down and burning out but while they are doing anything to sell records and win awards they haven't really done anything that drastic. The band is lost right now in my opinion but a lot of shows get that way towards the end of their run. They just have to go out with a bang. You know a great series finale that reminds you of why you loved them in the first place.

"Five card stud, nothing wild, and the sky's the limit." :up:
 
david said:
do we really need another "so do you think U2 sucks now?" thread.
Click to expand...

I think "jump the shark" sounds much nicer and more interesting than "suck". I wouldn't go into a thread that has "U2" and "suck" in the title, but I go into a thread that has "jump the shark" in the title, because it sounds like a funny game to me. :hyper:
 
There is a distinction between jumping the shark and sucking. Let's go back to the source of the phrase: The Fonz on Happy Days jumped the shark in the fall (autumn) of 1977. This was, to date, a low point in the series, but the show remained in the Nielsen top 5 for two full years after that, and was still hovering around the top ten about 4-5years later. So, Happy Days did not, so to speak, "suck" after the Fonz jumped the shark -- there were still several memorable episodes mixed in with the drivel. This is to be distinguished from the verb "to suck", which is defined as "to be incorrigibly horrid, to resemble, aesthetically, a cesspool of noxious slime." You will also find a picture of Bon Jovi under "suck" in the Dictionary.

Now, if you know me from this forum, you will know that I love U2's 00s work, so I certainly don't think they suck or have jumped.

The real question is -- for those who think they have jumped -- are they, now, "packing the magnet"?
 
You are only as good as your last album and U2's last album won the Grammy for Album of The Year.
 
Thanks for the responses to my thread. This was not intended to be a 'does U2 suck' thread. I am glad some of you got it. I would say U2 has jumped the shark, and then recovered, a few times. First jump was the Rattle and Hum / Lovetown stuff. I didn't like the whole blues/c&w tint of that era. I never understood how that music was their 'roots' seeing as how they were coming from the 70's in Ireland. The whole BB King thing was silly. The straw hats and suspenders and hillybilly clothes didn't help either. They recovered in every way with AB and Zooropa. Totally awesome records, tour, everything (except for the silly stage outfits). Then they sort of jumped again with Pop. Dance music? Come on... Then, they recovered again with ATYCLB. Not because it is an awesome album, because it isn't. But because they pretty much dropped the 'act' and just assumed their roles as mature, intelligent, musicians. Sure the songs are midtempo and a little sappy, but at least U2 is doing its 'own' thing again. HTDAAB is a slight jump in a few ways - "All Because of You" is an attempt at a real 'garage rocker' but it just has a weak chorus and sounds awkward coming from them. Why load up a guitar track with effects on one song and then gratuitously 'strip it down' for another? Silly.

Anyway, someone back there said my threads are transparent but I disagree. They actually perpetuate for weeks and get tons of replies. So just because I don't just write about how, like, With or Without You is like, my favoritest song ever, that doesn't mean I am 1. not a fan and 2. not thinking critically about this band. Blah blah blah
 
"Every review should have, below the name of the critic, their 10 current favourite works in the medium. That way you have some chance of seeing their prejudices."
-- Brian Eno, 1996
 
Jon Seidman said:
Anyway, someone back there said my threads are transparent but I disagree. They actually perpetuate for weeks and get tons of replies. So just because I don't just write about how, like, With or Without You is like, my favoritest song ever, that doesn't mean I am 1. not a fan and 2. not thinking critically about this band. Blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Tons of replies doesn't mean a thing here, just look around. And no where did I say you weren't a fan or you don't think critical...

Just transparent. Did they jump the shark, how much plastic surgery have they had, does their religion reflect upon their intelligence, etc... You aren't very interested in talking about the music as much as you are about stirring things...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
U
Hey there! I finally made an account here!
Replies
2
Views
274
U2_family365
U
T
Hello from a U2 guitarist in Massachusetts!
Replies
2
Views
1K
bobbvis
B
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
753
lazarus
lazarus
Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
826
zoo skis
Z

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom