Has U2 Peaked?

[monsieur fly]

If a moderator wants to 'evaluate' a thread, they have every right to.

Lets get this thread back on topic now and if anyone has further issues with other members it needs to be taken up with them in private via PM.

Are you therefore suggesting that if a moderator disagrees with the premises upon which a thread is based (regardless of its content), he or she can offer a running commentary? Incidentally, I will now proceed back to topic- there could be no better tribute to the interesting points BSB Bono raises.

 

[monsieur fly]

Who can ever be so sure that any future U2 album wont be critically acclaimed? so IMO how can we ever define when U2's "peak" will be? nothing is ever certain.

To an extent I agree. All we can go on is the recent past. In my opinion, that does not offer grounds for unguarded optimism, but Glastonbury and North Star sound encouraging.

 

[BVS]

I am baffled because I do not think you should be judging the 'timing' of other people's threads.

The OP posted an opinion hinged on the first performance of two road tested songs, and I posted my opinion about the timing of such judgement.

I don't see the confusion.

 

[U2387]

Again, you're probably right, but I find the comparison of U2 to Exxon Mobil rather disturbing.

Frankly, I don't judge music by how much money it makes, nor does anyone I know. I couldn't care less how many people the tour plays to or how much it grosses. I couldn't care less where U2 is in the charts, or even how popular they are.

As someone noted above, their legacy will be determined by their recorded output more than anything. I don't think many people will care about how big or technologically wonderful "the claw" was in 50 years -- such toys will appear old-hat in a few years, and will be outdone by younger, bigger artists signed to bigger corporations. What people will remember is the music.

I'm not saying that big, famous groups should move into a hole and come out once a year to play a pub-gig. I'm just saying that IF U2 wanted to, they could easily play to 12,000 people a night in a no-frills concert setting, with little or no corporate sponsorship -- much like they did in the mid 80s -- and still break even or make a profit.

But, as you rightly point out, they clearly don't want to do that. They want to be as BIG as possible, as much as they want to make great music or be great musicians. Which I don't understand, but that's just me.

U2 and ExxonMobil are both businesses and neither "need" more money from a traditional standpoint. Thats as far as it goes!

I should have clarified that.

Shoot me in the head if I ever, ever come close to making the 2 out to be comparable in terms of business practices, ethos, etc.

Good posts, however
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the argument that has taken over this thread, I don't have the reputation for the coolest head. As someone who has made the latest contribution to the banned members list, I have some wisdom to impart here!

Life is too short to personally attack people on forums, and no one will get anywhere attacking the moderators here.

I really have seen good points made by people who are at each other's throats in this thread. Monsieur Fly and 65980 take different sides than BVS, but all have made interesting posts in this thread.

As far as triggers for personal back and forths go, this one was pretty damn minor. No one ever suggested that U2 sucked or asked that they be judged on 1 night and 2 new songs in Torino, and by the same token, no one ever suggested that people could not make a thread or express their opinions.

I think we argue about enough here(myself included certainly) to let irrelevant, petty squabbles like this bring a great thread down to personal attacks.

I am not trying to be a moderator or step on the mods toes in any way here, just sharing what taking things too seriously and personally has taught me in the recent past.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back on topic.

My 1st post on the topic mentioned 1984-1993.

I briefly touched on the Elevation tour and ATYCLB as a resurgence, but I want to highlight that and ask a question:

With the band members all around 50(The Stones, Tina Turner, John Fogerty, McCartney, Bruce all being a lot older) and having plenty of gas left in the tank, what do we think about the chances of U2 having another album and era as big and relevant as ATYCLB/Elevation?

I think they are pretty damn good.

Obviously, North Star and Glastonbury are not sure fire anythings, never mind hits or even singles. We do not know what they are doing with the various projects. However, if they are writing songs similar to either, I could easily see something catching on!

 

[soctheo]

There's no doubt U2 has reached its peak both in the studio and live.

U2 keeps bragging about the attendance records they are breaking on this tour but the only statistics that stick out is the limited amount of shows they are playing and the large gaps between legs. Maybe they are calling it the 360 tour for the amount of days off they have on tour. 9 shows in August? 3,4 and 5 days between gigs on average. Aren't they touring with 2-3 stages/crews? They are flying to gigs. That's pretty lame in my opinion. Forget about Bono's back, this tour was going to drag on regardless.

Regarding the 4 albums Bono said they were working on, they are probably all compilations. I smell another best of around the corner. I question their motives for hitting the studio with a producer to work on Grace

 

[corianderstem]

I question their motives for hitting the studio with a producer to work on Grace

That actually turned out to be not true.

 

[BSBONO]

Well this sure turned into an interesting thread. Anyway I appreciate the ones that stuck to the essence of what a forum should be which is discussion and opinion which is subjective and therefore really shouldn't be deemed as right or wrong. It was great to see some differering opinions that were logically thought out as I certainly learned some things and have some different perspectives to ponder. There were really some great posts in here.

Regarding timing honestly as others stated I don't understand why that is relevant. This is a forum and if people waited to share opinions to fit a specific time than there wouldn't be much conversation now would there be.
As I stated these thoughts have been brewing in me for a long time and being I am a diehard fan and always will be not matter what I chose to voice them. Some things about opening night did spark me to finally voice that opinion but again that is irrelevant.

As a fan since my teens my life has changed over the many years so certainly things about the band that resonated with me years ago may not anymore. We are all different, our lives all change over time, and certainly our feelings and perceptions change. None of this changes the fact that I love this band and much like they have stated in the past I hope "They Dream it up all over again" and "Dream out loud". I want nothing more than to live to see more real magical moments with them that really resonate with me personally. But as I stated a few days ago at this time period, August 10, 2010, I have resigned myself to the fact that may not happen. But I am OK with that and i still greatly look forward to seeing them next year in Philly. Hey I am a fan, I have high expectations, and I am greedy when it comes to my favorite band...so sue me.

 

[Utoo]

I've said this before, but I think the issue all comes down to tension. The best U2 songs have a palpable tension, and the greatest (aside from Streets) never release it. Bono's lyrics aren't as dreamy or passion-driven----there's a difference between love and sex, and nowadays all he knows about is love; in the past it was about the combination of the two. Together, there's a pining that pulls you in by the heartbeat. But that's essentially a factor of maturity. Musically, Edge's current issue is evident in any of the current hits. Vertigo, Boots, Elevation---they all have a riff, but then there's nothing special going on in the rest of the song. Listen to Achtung and there's a riff, a great solo, AND interesting stuff during the verses. And there's musical tension, too. I actually think that aside from Streets, Bad, WOWY, and Beautiful Day, Electrical Storm is perhaps the culmination of what makes U2 great---and may be the last absolutely superb piece they've done in a while.

Yeah, I think that anyone who's really being honest will agree that '87-93
was their best period. They haven't tanked or anything since, its just that
that was the period where their youthful drive to be the best met their
musical maturation, all at a time in their lives when sex and passion and
relationships were central issues. It was a time that just can't be matched,
no matter how brilliant of musicians they have become since. They've put out
some works that have been technically great or emotionally great, but
nothing since has been 100% spot-on for both. But hell, I've still enjoyed everything they've ever put out, and I'd take any of their albums as my own any day!

 

[BSBONO]

I've said his before, but I think the issue all comes down to tension. The best U2 songs have a palpable tension, and the greatest (aside from Streets) never release it. Bono's lyrics aren't as dreamy or passion-driven----there's a difference between love and sex, and nowadays all he knows about is love; in the past it was all about sex or the combination of the two. Together, there's a pining that pulls you in by the heartbeat. Musically, Edge's problem is evident in any of the current hits. Vertigo, Boots, Elevation---they all have a riff, but then there's nothing special going on in the rest of the song. Listen to Achtung and there's a riff, a great solo, AND interesting stuff during the verses. And there's musical tension, too. I actually think that aside from Streets, Bad, WOWY, and Beautiful Day, Electrical Storm is perhaps the culmination of what makes U2 great---and may be the last absolutely superb piece they've done in a while.

Yeah, I think that anyone who's really being honest will agree that '87-93
was their best period. They haven't tanked or anything since, its just that
that was the period where their youthful drive to be the best met their
musical maturation, all at a time in their lives when sex and passion and
relationships were central issues. It was a time that just can't be matched,
no matter how brilliant of musicians they have become since. They've put out
some works that have been technically great or emotionally great, but
nothing since has been 100% spot-on for both. But hell, I've still enjoyed everything they've ever put out, and I'd take any of their albums as my own any day!

Sharp post, I think you are on to something. As I said people change over time and its natural. They did have different mindset and different environment then. The biggest difference I think to me is before they were really focused on making the best music they could and now I think they are more focused on trying to please the most people and stay relevant. That is a big difference I think. Its like they have a chip on their shoulder about being older and have the need to appeal to the most people. That is where I think the music suffers and its frustrating as a long time fan because I know what they are capable of and to me its all about where they are focused. If you heard Adam's interview on U2.com today he even states how they are focused on basically putting out singles and not on a big record. He even mentions EP. Yes I understand that is what is conducive to the times right now and screams to their need to keep up and stay relevant. The problem is that is not necessarily conducive to making their best music. In the past they were pretty much the trend setters for their genre and now they appear to be following the trend. Again a huge difference.

 

[BVS]

There's no doubt U2 has reached its peak both in the studio and live.

There's no doubt? Really? Listen some folks still think they are amazing live, don't try and speak for others... Listen to the folks in here, everyone is all over the place as to which tour they prefer, I would say that raises a lot of doubt.

U2 keeps bragging about the attendance records they are breaking on this tour but the only statistics that stick out is the limited amount of shows they are playing and the large gaps between legs. Maybe they are calling it the 360 tour for the amount of days off they have on tour. 9 shows in August? 3,4 and 5 days between gigs on average. Aren't they touring with 2-3 stages/crews? They are flying to gigs. That's pretty lame in my opinion. Forget about Bono's back, this tour was going to drag on regardless.

Where is U2 constantly bragging about attendance? Of course they are limited, they are touring stadiums. Have you paid attention to the industry and the economy lately? Why is it lame that they are flying to gigs? This argument is pretty lame in my opinion.

Regarding the 4 albums Bono said they were working on, they are probably all compilations. I smell another best of around the corner. I question their motives for hitting the studio with a producer to work on Grace

Not one compilation was mentioned and the other was a lie... 2 strikes...

 

[BVS]

The biggest difference I think to me is before they were really focused on making the best music they could and now I think they are more focused on trying to please the most people and stay relevant. That is a big difference I think.

U2 has ALWAYS been about relevance and being big, do not ever convince yourself otherwise.

He even mentions EP. Yes I understand that is what is conducive to the times right now and screams to their need to keep up and stay relevant. The problem is that is not necessarily conducive to making their best music. In the past they were pretty much the trend setters for their genre and now they appear to be following the trend. Again a huge difference.

The album is dead, should you evolve or U2? Think about it... How does EP scream anything?

 

[U2387]

I've said this before, but I think the issue all comes down to tension. The best U2 songs have a palpable tension, and the greatest (aside from Streets) never release it. Bono's lyrics aren't as dreamy or passion-driven----there's a difference between love and sex, and nowadays all he knows about is love; in the past it was about the combination of the two. Together, there's a pining that pulls you in by the heartbeat. But that's essentially a factor of maturity. Musically, Edge's current issue is evident in any of the current hits. Vertigo, Boots, Elevation---they all have a riff, but then there's nothing special going on in the rest of the song. Listen to Achtung and there's a riff, a great solo, AND interesting stuff during the verses. And there's musical tension, too. I actually think that aside from Streets, Bad, WOWY, and Beautiful Day, Electrical Storm is perhaps the culmination of what makes U2 great---and may be the last absolutely superb piece they've done in a while.

Yeah, I think that anyone who's really being honest will agree that '87-93
was their best period. They haven't tanked or anything since, its just that
that was the period where their youthful drive to be the best met their
musical maturation, all at a time in their lives when sex and passion and
relationships were central issues. It was a time that just can't be matched,
no matter how brilliant of musicians they have become since. They've put out
some works that have been technically great or emotionally great, but
nothing since has been 100% spot-on for both. But hell, I've still enjoyed everything they've ever put out, and I'd take any of their albums as my own any day!

Tension!!!!

There is the 1,000,000 dollar word!

Ask any of those love and sex experts out there(to the extent that there can be experts in that fuc**d up world) to sum the entire thing up in one word and they will probably say "tension."

So music, when it relates these passions, is best when it has a kind of tension to it. Bad, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, WOWY, and great job including Electrical Storm. We never quite find out what happens in that song- we know that there is some kind of pining driving the character or Bono crazy "in my mind, all the time, I know that's not enough" then the "if the sky part" is repeated until the end. We are then left with "electrical storm" repeated over and over again. Not much of a resolution there- just get the sense that he's still mulling it all over while watching a 3 AM lightning storm, no closer to a conclusion then when he started thinking hours ago.

I can't believe some on here think Electrical Storm is some kind of throw away 2000s U2 trash. It comes pretty damn close to the tension/moodiness of the great U2 tracks.

I see North Star as somewhat in the same vein, though of course, we have not heard a studio version of it to truly judge. I should maybe say the outline of North Star suggests it has that potential to put it better. "I can't wait any longer for your love" looking for some kind of light to guide him, we get the sense of longing, and its not resolved in the end.

In fact, I have been messing around with playlists for the 1st time in a long time(oh, the idle days of summer!) and this has been working extremely well for me of late:

Bad(Zoo TV Vegas 1992)
Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses(Boston 5-28-05)
North Star(Torino 8/6/10)

Can I just state for the record how brilliant Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses Is?


So to tie this back to the U2 peaked or not peaked discussion, songs like Electrical Storm, No Line On The Horizon and North Star(probably) show that they still have that potential for greatness. Provided we are taking your suggestion that tension plays a key role to heart, which I most certainly do!

Great Post!!

 

[U2387]

U2 keeps bragging about the attendance records they are breaking on this tour but the only statistics that stick out is the limited amount of shows they are playing and the large gaps between legs. Maybe they are calling it the 360 tour for the amount of days off they have on tour. 9 shows in August? 3,4 and 5 days between gigs on average. Aren't they touring with 2-3 stages/crews? They are flying to gigs. That's pretty lame in my opinion. Forget about Bono's back, this tour was going to drag on regardless.

I would say that setting attendance records at the biggest stadiums in the world, with 100% in the round, all seats sold is noteworthy. So would many others. And it has been thus noted in many places.

You would be hard pressed to find any band member on record bragging about it. I would like to see that.

This was the only way to do it given the economy this time around and their desire to do stadiums. They needed to be able to tier ticket prices to make it affordable to the average person and still make money.

An arena tour of multiple nights in the same city, with markets in close proximity to one another(examples, Buffalo/Toronto, Portland/Seattle, La/Anaheim, Boston/Hartford, NY/East Rutherford) just would not work in this economy as those sell outs of multiple nights in all venues largely hinge on fans traveling to see them. In the economic climate today, the die hards and the casual travelers would opt to see a show or 2 at home and not go anywhere else.

If they don't need to play multiple nights to fill the demand for a market, and they can draw from multiple markets with one show(remember, many venues are fitting 5 times what they did on arena tours), why not the rest between shows? What's the big deal? Its not like touring/performing gets any easier for them with age. Either way, taking more time between stadium gigs and doing less shows on a stadium tour is not something unique to U2.

Plus, I don't see the big deal with flying between gigs- U2 has done that for a very long time even on the arena tours. It is my understanding(and someone else jump in here because I am not sure) that they have been flying to cut down on travel time/increase rest/preparation time ever since they could afford it. When's the last time a picture of a U2 tour bus surfaced??

Don't know what you mean by dragging on......the Boy and TUF tours were quite long, as were Zoo TV, Vertigo and to a lesser extent, Popmart. The only real concise, non dragging tours were Elevation, JT and Lovetown.

 

[monsieur fly]

I've said this before, but I think the issue all comes down to tension. The best U2 songs have a palpable tension, and the greatest (aside from Streets) never release it. Bono's lyrics aren't as dreamy or passion-driven----there's a difference between love and sex, and nowadays all he knows about is love; in the past it was about the combination of the two. Together, there's a pining that pulls you in by the heartbeat. But that's essentially a factor of maturity. Musically, Edge's current issue is evident in any of the current hits. Vertigo, Boots, Elevation---they all have a riff, but then there's nothing special going on in the rest of the song. Listen to Achtung and there's a riff, a great solo, AND interesting stuff during the verses. And there's musical tension, too. I actually think that aside from Streets, Bad, WOWY, and Beautiful Day, Electrical Storm is perhaps the culmination of what makes U2 great---and may be the last absolutely superb piece they've done in a while.

Another excellent post. It really annoys me when Bono boasts that U2s essence is 'joy'. Like you, I beg to differ. I think that the best songs have emerged out of tension, or at least out of ambivalence. As you say, Electrical Storm is perhaps the last song to arrive this way. I can really feel the post- 9/11 discord in the air when I listen to that. Too many of their recent songs lack ambiguity.

 

[monsieur fly]

U2 has ALWAYS been about relevance and being big, do not ever convince yourself otherwise.

Passengers? Just to play Devil's Advocate with you.

 

[65980]

don't try and speak for others...

do not ever convince yourself otherwise.

Hypocrite much?

 

[65980]

...a time in their lives when sex and passion and
relationships were central issues.

I think you're on to something here.

"Has U2 peaked?" The one thing I can say with certainty is that Adam peaked more often than the other three in the 80s.

 

[BVS]

Passengers? Just to play Devil's Advocate with you.

There's a reason they left their name off that project...

 

[BVS]

Hypocrite much?

Buy a dictionary.

 

[snugglemedoctor]

I think he is in the genre of Cimex lectularius because there is a particular tension associated with being consumed while relatively helpless asleep in the security of ones own bed.Adept at circumventing our defenses.They not only attack while we sleep but also inject anesthetics so as not to awaken us when sucking on our skin.Global travel and the internet has opened a world of possibilities for a species that cant get very far on his own six legs.

 

[BVS]

You said it!

 

[U2Fan101]

U2 peaked with POP - musically, lyrically and significantly.

After POP, to me (and it's all subjective), U2 started the decline with All That They Should Have Left Behind and How To Dismantle a Great Album. No Line on the Horizon was little-too-late, and even though it was their best output of the 00's, it still lacked in terms of being a full, great, solid album.

 

[snugglemedoctor]

Unlike the flea that gives us plague lice that give us typhus a tick gives lyme mosquitoes and malaria the bedbug does not spread disease when it bites it does give something so tell me what it is

 

[corianderstem]

They are flying to gigs. That's pretty lame in my opinion.

Would you prefer it if they walked?

 

[monsieur fly]

There's a reason they left their name off that project...

Yes, because Eno was more directly involved, that's all. If U2 were permanently focussed on being big, they would not have made that record and I don't care under what name.

 

[monsieur fly]

Hypocrite much?

Just delicious! 'I must be an acrobat...'

 

[nielsgov]

Yes, because Eno was more directly involved, that's all. If U2 were permanently focussed on being big, they would not have made that record and I don't care under what name.

If U2 hadn't cared about being big they wouldn't have cared that Pop and Popmart were relative failures.

 

[monsieur fly]

If U2 hadn't cared about being big they wouldn't have cared that Pop and Popmart were relative failures.

You miss my point. I think that since 1997, U2 did care about being big. They cared before then for sure, but not to the same extent, not to an extent that prevented them recording Passengers; not to an extent that prevented them from recording Pop!

 

[nielsgov]

But I think that after ZOO TV they thought they could do almost everything and still be big. Then they found out they couldn't and made ATYCLB to be "the biggest band in the world" again.

 

[snugglemedoctor]

Yes Im itchy and scratching my skin 50% of the time and the other 50% I think Im talking to myself.