Possible Directions for U2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckG8KpRCjHE

New direction for U2: Cheesy Vocal Pop Renditions of Spiritual Hymns :doh:

That guy has a very punchable face :p, but other than that I'm not really bothered by the cover. Not my cup of tea, I'll never listen to it voluntarily (again), but I wouldn't be upset if I'd happen to listen to it "accidentally".
I usually like people that like U2 enough to even make a cover of their songs...
 
Anything, only not ATYCLB type of record!!! That was the biggest, most shameful moment in U2 history. It is absolutely OK to have commercial flops like Passengers, Pop or NLOTH, but ATYCLB - submissive, radio friendly oportunistic kind of record intended to please the pop kids NEVR AGAIN PLEASE.
I´m happy and proud of the band with their latest record. I hope they will enjoy the tour and they will find inspiration for recording new material, despite the reactions to the last one is not what they expected. I hope they feel inside that the way they did the last record was the right one, the critics with their instant under the influence of the itunes scandal reviews were wrong and the band will follow their instincts in their music.

You're shameful
 
i say studio-era U2, and give touring a rest for a while. Then come back for one last tour, they'll be nearing their 60's. I'll probably be a father. We'll bond as the band kicks into their 90's medley. DO IT!
 
But what it they want to make 'hits' or songs that people might actually like? Why should we assume that they would automatically make songs that either don't have vocal hooks or prominent guitars on them if the commercial factor were no longer factored in?

Yes, a concept hard to grasp. They just won't turn into some fanboy niche band that churns out Passengers 2.0 ad infinitum and destroys the hits and only plays Zooropa/Passengers/Pop/rarities to no end on tour. Having the street cred of Pearl Jam (well, pre getting in bed with Ticketmaster on tour again) or Radiohead was never the aim.

They could use some awakening on the part of their guitar player, but otehrwise, SOI is a step in the right direction.
 
They should simply make the music they want to make without worry as to if it'll get a second of radio play... whatever that may be.

Pick a vision, stick to it

This thread was actually prompted by a lot of your posts over the years, referring to Springsteen's approach. And wondering, if they did do this, what would your ideal sound for them be? None of us have any influence on what they do, either way, but I just thought it would be interesting to hear other's opinions.

I actually don't have too much problem with their music or artistic direction.

Considering their music in the last 10 years, I consider all of the following to be of great quality and wouldn't mind them if they kept doing it:

*Mercy, Fez
*COBL, Breathe, Winter, EBW
*No Line, Volcano, Reach Me Now
*Cedarwood Road, Wolves
*MOS, SLABT, Troubles
*Crazy Tonight, Crystal Ballroom

I'd only wish that both they and the fans stopped caring so much about the public perception.

Between Bono and the band wishing to be hugely relevant again (which is not going to happen) and the fans wishing that U2 somehow become either some sort of a hipsterish underground respected band (which is not going to happen) or a huge massive popular act (which is not going to happen), the whole U2 community lives in constant frustration instead of enjoying what imho are really good songs that enriches the already great catalog of a great band like U2.


Oh, and I'd wish that as a consequence of that, they'd dare to release albums more often, even if they feel that they're not 100% ready.

I don't have a problem with what they're doing, either. I love SOI, to me, it's their best since the 90s. I am also pretty okay with ATYCLB and HTDAAB. I'm a little more lukewarm with NLOTH, but that's fine.

As to caring about their relevance and public perception, I really don't. But I think they do, and I really hope that doesn't impede their future output.

All I know is as long as they don't make music exactly the way I want it at exactly that moment of time they are selling out their souls instead of following their creative muse.
As their creative muse, obviously, completely coincides with my subjective take on music.
:up:

I don't care if they make music the way that I want it, this whole thread was supposed to be more of a thought experiment. I just want them to make what they want.

But what it they want to make 'hits' or songs that people might actually like? Why should we assume that they would automatically make songs that either don't have vocal hooks or prominent guitars on them if the commercial factor were no longer factored in?

I think that primarily, they do want to make hits. But they haven't been successful at it for 10 years now. I'm just saying, take the hits part out of the equation, would that change their direction? And if so, in a fantasy world, what would you want that direction to be?
 
This thread was actually prompted by a lot of your posts over the years, referring to Springsteen's approach. And wondering, if they did do this, what would your ideal sound for them be? None of us have any influence on what they do, either way, but I just thought it would be interesting to hear other's opinions.

I'm touched ;)

Well... Bruce is a man with an interest in many different genres, much like U2. So he'll just actually go out and do them all...

An album of folk songs? Sure.
Moody acoustic solo tracks? Ok.
Full band E Street goodness? Yup.
A gospel tinged song complete with a rap portion? Alright.
How about inserting the guitar player from Rage Against The Machine into the mix just to see what it sounds like? Fuck it, why not?

He apparently has an album's worth of gospel songs that he's just sitting on... because of course he does.

That's Bruce. If he feels it, he does it.

Now we get to U2. They also have an interest in a wide range of music. There was talk of three separate albums being recorded at one point, each with a different theme. But instead of just running with it, they get to a point where they try and mash it all together, and then white wash it to sound good for radio. And even then they're still forever tweaking.

I don't think a band like U2 HAS one direction. Their problem is that rather than embracing this and going for it, they shrink down in the name of "relevance" and hugeness... which to be fair has worked wonders for them for a long, long time, but now that they're at an age where pop relevance is all bit an impossibility for them, I'd just hope that they'd feel comfortable enough to simply release whatever they're inspired to release and not give two shits about how big it is.
 
I don't think a band like U2 HAS one direction. Their problem is that rather than embracing this and going for it, they shrink down in the name of "relevance" and hugeness... which to be fair has worked wonders for them for a long, long time, but now that they're at an age where pop relevance is all bit an impossibility for them, I'd just hope that they'd feel comfortable enough to simply release whatever they're inspired to release and not give two shits about how big it is.

There's many different ways to critizise U2 and their quest for relevance and hits, and imho the majority of them sound biased, over the top and unfair.
Not this one. Thanks for a balanced well thought out and worded post.
 
I'm touched ;)


Now we get to U2. They also have an interest in a wide range of music. There was talk of three separate albums being recorded at one point, each with a different theme. But instead of just running with it, they get to a point where they try and mash it all together, and then white wash it to sound good for radio. And even then they're still forever tweaking.

I don't think a band like U2 HAS one direction. Their problem is that rather than embracing this and going for it, they shrink down in the name of "relevance" and hugeness... which to be fair has worked wonders for them for a long, long time, but now that they're at an age where pop relevance is all bit an impossibility for them, I'd just hope that they'd feel comfortable enough to simply release whatever they're inspired to release and not give two shits about how big it is.

:up:

Their exploration of genres is a huge part of what made them my favourite band. Bands that put out the same album over and over again bore me. And I'm not saying that I want them to drop the search for relevance and hits and then embrace only one genre for the rest of their lives. All I'm saying is: hypothetically, if they decided to just make albums of music that interested them, without being concerned about hits and relevance, what would you like their first album in that vein to sounds like? Their second?

I mentioned in the first post the MDH Soundtrack. Other than that, I would like to hear more songs that are atmospheric and alternative, kind of a continuation of SLABT and the Troubles. I hope the latter is what is in the cards for SoE (if that even comes to fruition)...but if it isn't, I'm confident I'll be good with whatever they put out.
 
There's an "I'm pretty sure we've all been touched by VP at one point or another" joke here somewhere...but I don't want to get punched in the nose in July :yikes: :D



Sent from my ass crack

Hahahaha, nice!

I mean...you owe me a drink for besmirching my reputation, dude. :madwife:

But seriously, I don't think I would have been able to resist that opening, either. It was too good to let go. :wink:
 
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
I don't think a band like U2 HAS one direction. Their problem is that rather than embracing this and going for it, they shrink down in the name of "relevance" and hugeness... which to be fair has worked wonders for them for a long, long time, but now that they're at an age where pop relevance is all bit an impossibility for them, I'd just hope that they'd feel comfortable enough to simply release whatever they're inspired to release and not give two shits about how big it is.

Age should not be the whole reason this relevance thing works or doesn't work.

Maybe going full Danger Mouse would have been the way to go. Leave the other circus of producers behind. Just go with it. Im sure this has been said before, and often.

Maybe Songs of Experience will live up to its name. Maybe.
 
I sorta touched upon this in another thread...

Does anyone ever really push the '2 to stick with a direction? Are these producers that they bring in just so honored to be working with U2 that they yes them to death. "Sure Bono! That's a wonderful idea! (reaping the benefits)." I know DM was a tad sore over the project, but did he really push them to stick with it, or was he just passive-agressive about it?

I feel like, if they're going to "go for it" again, they need a collaborator who shares a similar vision but knows how to keep them in line, and will stop things from getting too "poppy" and confusing.
 
This is a band that did the post-punk new wave thing, ambient experimental, roots rock flirting with country, alternative, dance, POP, modern contemporary and did it all very well. The only thing left for them to do is create animated alter egos of themselves and fuse trip hop with sparse electric beats and have guest musicians appear on albums.
 
Age should not be the whole reason this relevance thing works or doesn't work.

Not the whole reason, but age is a main factor regarding relevance and popularity. The demographics that determines which music is cool is not really interested in a bunch of 50 year old guys. Bono marching with a white flag, or coming into the stage in full Fly costume, are images that atracted a huge following, with young people identifying with them or becoming plebans or both, and those images are long gone.
There won't be any armies of young people trying to "look like Bono" not even in a subconscious level.

Also, after you had your popularity peak, you usually are allowed to get one comeback.
Your first comeback you're welcomed, your second comeback people is wondering what are you still doing around. U2 has already have 3 or 4 of those... they're old not in age (that's arguably) but more important they're an old act, a really old act. They're the music that was there before you were already born (for the young crowd, I mean) and that hasn't been relevant since you were in grade school. They won't become that interesting now.

And I don't have a problem with the music they're making right now, I love that music, I don't think their age affects the quality of their music... but I believe that it surely affects the way it's perceived by the young people.
 
Not the whole reason, but age is a main factor regarding relevance and popularity. The demographics that determines which music is cool is not really interested in a bunch of 50 year old guys. Bono marching with a white flag, or coming into the stage in full Fly costume, are images that atracted a huge following, with young people identifying with them or becoming plebans or both, and those images are long gone.
There won't be any armies of young people trying to "look like Bono" not even in a subconscious level.

Also, after you had your popularity peak, you usually are allowed to get one comeback.
Your first comeback you're welcomed, your second comeback people is wondering what are you still doing around. U2 has already have 3 or 4 of those... they're old not in age (that's arguably) but more important they're an old act, a really old act. They're the music that was there before you were already born (for the young crowd, I mean) and that hasn't been relevant since you were in grade school. They won't become that interesting now.

And I don't have a problem with the music they're making right now, I love that music, I don't think their age affects the quality of their music... but I believe that it surely affects the way it's perceived by the young people.

Young people. They really don't fucking know anything though, do they? The whole world is their oyster and most of them are too naive to realize it. They have enough energy to fuel an entire city but they burn it all up trying to paint the town instead. Damn kids...life is grand though...isn't it?
 
Young people. They really don't fucking know anything though, do they? The whole world is their oyster and most of them are too naive to realize it. They have enough energy to fuel an entire city but they burn it all up trying to paint the town instead. Damn kids...life is grand though...isn't it?

They're old enough to know what's right but young enough not to do it.
They're wise enough to win the world but fool enough to lose it.
 
Young people. They really don't fucking know anything though, do they? The whole world is their oyster and most of them are too naive to realize it. They have enough energy to fuel an entire city but they burn it all up trying to paint the town instead. Damn kids...life is grand though...isn't it?

If I give that impression I didn't expressed my point correctly.

I don't mean that they don't know or can't appreciate good music or whatever, I just mean that -specially in "massive" terms- they already have enough bands or artists which they can identify themselves with and admire way more than what U2 could offer to them.

Specially in "massive enough to be really relevant and popular" terms
 
If I give that impression I didn't expressed my point correctly.

I don't mean that they don't know or can't appreciate good music or whatever, I just mean that -specially in "massive" terms- they already have enough bands or artists which they can identify themselves with and admire way more than what U2 could offer to them.

Specially in "massive enough to be really relevant and popular" terms

No worries on what you said. Thats just my take. Often times i see chemtrails and anticipate there was a perfectly good airplane that created them. Other times, however, i wonder if superman was flying overhead and ate some bad sushi. It's all possible really...i think.
 
I sorta touched upon this in another thread...

Does anyone ever really push the '2 to stick with a direction? Are these producers that they bring in just so honored to be working with U2 that they yes them to death. "Sure Bono! That's a wonderful idea! (reaping the benefits)." I know DM was a tad sore over the project, but did he really push them to stick with it, or was he just passive-agressive about it?

I feel like, if they're going to "go for it" again, they need a collaborator who shares a similar vision but knows how to keep them in line, and will stop things from getting too "poppy" and confusing.

I guess it was Epworth the one who said that they gave him the tracks and told him something like "do your stuff and then most likely we'll discard it anyway and make things differently... are you interested?", so yeah, the producers don't have much of a final word when it comes to U2.

But despite that, it doesn't really matter because whoever the producer is, or whatever the direction is, there would be people complaining anyway. There's plenty of people loving what you'd consider crap and viceversa, so who the producer is would be just a Moo Point (Joey dixit).
 
Now we get to U2. They also have an interest in a wide range of music. There was talk of three separate albums being recorded at one point, each with a different theme. But instead of just running with it, they get to a point where they try and mash it all together, and then white wash it to sound good for radio. And even then they're still forever tweaking.

I don't think a band like U2 HAS one direction. Their problem is that rather than embracing this and going for it, they shrink down in the name of "relevance" and hugeness... which to be fair has worked wonders for them for a long, long time, but now that they're at an age where pop relevance is all bit an impossibility for them, I'd just hope that they'd feel comfortable enough to simply release whatever they're inspired to release and not give two shits about how big it is.
Good God, we need to copy this word-for-word and write it on giant poster-boards. Then, express-deliver it to U2 at their studio or chateau in south-France where they're sitting cocktails or whatever, and make them read it over and over (like Alex in A Clockwork Orange, if necessary) until they recognize the sheer truth of it.
 
Did this part really need to be said?

Yes.

The way you said your previous point (specially in the other thread -I don't remember which one it was), you make it sound (or that's how I read it myself, sorry if that's not the case) like someone needs to tell them something like "we all agreed that you're doing x and y wrong, so you need to stop doing that and do p and q instead! That's so obvious!", and I find that really far from the truth... maybe you and several other members agree on that, but then there's other several members that believe the exact opposite, that what they need to do is stop doing p and q and do x and y again and in a more extreme way and also think that that's obvious, so in the end nothing is obvious.

For some people Breathe is one of the worst 3 songs in NLOTH, for some others is one of the best 3 songs, both opinions are equally valid and pretending that one or the other is the obvious choice is a bit arrogant.

Any direction you believe is the obvious choice, there will be people who believes that the opposite was the obvious one. Not everyone agrees that what they're doing now is wrong, so why would that people want them to change?

In the end, it doesn't really matter because whoever the producer is, or whatever the direction is, there would be people complaining anyway.

(tl;dr: my point was not complain about people complaining, just saying that whatever they do, someone will like it and someone won't, nobody holds the whole truth).
 
In terms of the eternal 'relevance' issue... would we really know any different if they didn't give interviews and just released songs instead? Part of me does wonder if fans would be just as critical of certain songs if the band didn't give interviews where they talked about making an album that reaches a wide audience.

Whatever the case, I just can't imagine them avoiding guitars and vocal hooks like they're cooties just in the name of some hipster significance.
 
Yes.

The way you said your previous point (specially in the other thread -I don't remember which one it was), you make it sound (or that's how I read it myself, sorry if that's not the case) like someone needs to tell them something like "we all agreed that you're doing x and y wrong, so you need to stop doing that and do p and q instead! That's so obvious!", and I find that really far from the truth... maybe you and several other members agree on that, but then there's other several members that believe the exact opposite, that what they need to do is stop doing p and q and do x and y again and in a more extreme way and also think that that's obvious, so in the end nothing is obvious.

For some people Breathe is one of the worst 3 songs in NLOTH, for some others is one of the best 3 songs, both opinions are equally valid and pretending that one or the other is the obvious choice is a bit arrogant.

Any direction you believe is the obvious choice, there will be people who believes that the opposite was the obvious one. Not everyone agrees that what they're doing now is wrong, so why would that people want them to change?

In the end, it doesn't really matter because whoever the producer is, or whatever the direction is, there would be people complaining anyway.

(tl;dr: my point was not complain about people complaining, just saying that whatever they do, someone will like it and someone won't, nobody holds the whole truth).

I'm sorry, where did I proclaim something to be the whole truth?

Also, there's no obvious choice or direction. Just a longing to see them follow something, whatever it may turn out to be, through to the end. Surely, you must have noticed the late album tinkering in regards to NLOTH and SOI.
 
I'm sorry, where did I proclaim something to be the whole truth?

The way you said your previous point (specially in the other thread -I don't remember which one it was), you make it sound (or that's how I read it myself, sorry if that's not the case)

Arguing over internet is not very productive, since we keep nitpicking and misinterpreting what the other one tried to say.

My "nobody holds the whole truth" was not directed at you, it was just a statement trying to make my point more clear, obviously it didn't work that way.

Again, the way I read it in the other thread -sorry if that was not the case- sounded like "yes, we all agree on something obvious right here, someone needs to tell them" (it was something about not being a dinosaur act, but I'm not arguing about that). I'm just pointing out that even if you and I and 1000 other fans agree on something, there'll be another 1002 fans saying the opposite. Just that.

My point doesn't deserve more than a couple of posts because is not that groundbreaking. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding on my side.

Also, there's no obvious choice or direction. Just a longing to see them follow something, whatever it may turn out to be, through to the end. Surely, you must have noticed the late album tinkering in regards to NLOTH and SOI.

I agree with the first two lines.

I'd like them to release albums more often and not worry about the final product that much (if they had tinkered with TUF or War that much we would've been lucky to have a couple of the songs we know).

But in the end, I really liked the final product. I really like NLOTH (except for the track list, imho they suck doing that*) and SOI, so I don't really mind if they keep doing things the way they've been doing it now.

---

*to further my point, I hate their tracklist and many fans hate it too... but we would never agree on which would be the right tracklist, so if they did it the way I love it, many people would've hate it anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom