U2: Band in Crisis?

[Dfit00]

People and bands change and develop overtime. Nobody can expect the same beats and themes from Boy to reflect onto NLOTH, it has been over three decades in which they have developed new and different styles into producing music. And even though anyone can criticize them both positively or negatively, they just can't expect them to stay as they were in the Joshua Tree or Rattle & Hum era.

What's even more pathetic is newspapers like the Independent putting on the headlines, "U2 must get back their roots and renew their bonds with Ireland", as if Ireland is the only place in the world where U2's roots haven't been renewed, or as though U2 is somehow required or obligated to do so with the "must".

Give it up, life is a constant change and change is good.

 

[doctorwho]

U2 have been a nostalgia act for a while. They've only recently decided to admit to such.

But couldn't that be said of any band that formed before 2005? The Black Eyed Peas can play "My Humps" and people consider it a classic. The internet created ADD in a big way - people forget anything more than a minute old. For example, the author forgets that U2 are still playing 4 or so songs every night from their last album. It seems like a nice mix of old and current music to me - with a few rare track thrown in.

 

[An Cat Gav]

Ireland loves to hate U2 but still want them despite all the "Bono's a wanker" talk you'd hear from someone on the street.

They are the national equivalent of the slighted little brother whose big bro has gone off and made something of himself, especially after the whole economy tanked.

This.

 

[U2girl]

Wait...a band with no "current album" to speak of is deciding to not waste time promoting an album that's fallen out of the public eye, but instead to celebrate the 20th anniversary and impending remaster of one of their most beloved LPs?

PANIC MODE ACTIVATED.

It's sad watching a band that used to play 7 songs off NLOTH, including opening the show with 4 of them, diving into (Zoo TV) nostalgia ever since S. American shows brought back Zooropa and EBTTRT, right down to opening with 5 or 4 AB songs.

They even used the old graphics at Glastonbury. At least on Vertigo tour the Zoo TV trio of songs had new images.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Some of the individual points he makes, or examples used or remedies suggested, are odd or wrong, but I think his overall reading is about right.

Does anyone here seriously think U2 are not in a similar position to late 80s/late 90s? I think they're in a bit of both. Both needing to re-engage with a lost demographic as per late 90s, and 'dream it all up again' as per late 80s. Add to that the fact that they don't have a lot of time left and that now they certainly would have one eye always on their legacy, and yeah, U2's next move has both a lot riding on it, and will be pretty interesting to watch play out.

 

[kramwest1]

NLOTH songs didn't stay prominent in the set because they never rolled out Stand Up Comedy. I still think that was Bono's chance to really whip the crowd into a frenzy.
IMHO.

 

[LemonMelon]

It's sad watching a band that used to play 7 songs off NLOTH, including opening the show with 4 of them, diving into (Zoo TV) nostalgia ever since S. American shows brought back Zooropa and EBTTRT, right down to opening with 5 or 4 AB songs.

It was also sad when they did the same thing on Popmart...and Vertigo...

Fuck U2, and all their ways. They've walked the road to destruction far too long now.

 

[joerags]

IMO, if U2 wants to play nostalgic songs, then why not play songs from Zooropa or Pop, like Dirty Day and Please. I know they played Zooropa, which was cool. But why not some other "lost" classics.

 

[kramwest1]

IMO, if U2 wants to play nostalgic songs, then why not play songs from Zooropa or Pop, like Dirty Day and Please. I know they played Zooropa, which was cool. But why not some other "lost" classics.

Never in a million years did I expect to hear Zooropa though.

If they were playing more dates this leg I could see them needing to change up the set more. But really, given the relatively static sets of U2 over the last 3 tours, this leg is changing up fairly well.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Umm opening with 4 straight NLOTH tracks and playing 7 total in a stadium tour doesn't scream of nostalgia act.

It does if nobody cares about the songs.

And that's the point. Many older acts still release albums. Those acts where everyone other than the diehard fans care about said albums? Yup.

And just to be straight... I happily go and see a few of these acts whom are considered nostalgia acts by the same u2 fans who can't face reality about what non u2 fans consider u2 to be.

And I'm fucking pumped about going to see u2 in Jersey in a few weeks. And love the current set list.

 

[Popmartijn]

If they were playing more dates this leg I could see them needing to change up the set more. But really, given the relatively static sets of U2 over the last 3 tours, this leg is changing up fairly well.

Hmm... I guess you mean static sets of U2 over the last 7 tours (going back all the way to The Joshua Tree Tour), right?

 

[doctorwho]

IMO, if U2 wants to play nostalgic songs, then why not play songs from Zooropa or Pop, like Dirty Day and Please. I know they played Zooropa, which was cool. But why not some other "lost" classics.

Because nothing on "Zooropa" or "Pop" is considered a "classic" outside of the die-hard circle?

"Please" doesn't really flow with the concert. However, "Dirty Day" would be fantastic. If I were to pick a "Pop" song, I'd go with "Mofo" or "Discotheque". And most fans do know "Staring at the Sun", so that could be a great sing-a-long.

 

[kramwest1]

Hmm... I guess you mean static sets of U2 over the last 7 tours (going back all the way to The Joshua Tree Tour), right?

I said relatively static, especially per leg.

I'm not knocking the band. Given this history, the recent set changes are great (and somewhat unexpected).

 

[doctorwho]

It does if nobody cares about the songs.

And that's the point. Many older acts still release albums. Those acts where everyone other than the diehard fans care about said albums? Yup.

And just to be straight... I happily go and see a few of these acts whom are considered nostalgia acts by the same u2 fans who can't face reality about what non u2 fans consider u2 to be.

And I'm fucking pumped about going to see u2 in Jersey in a few weeks. And love the current set list.

U2 are playing some of the liveliest NLOTH songs right now. GOYB may not have been a big hit, but people know it and react positively to it (despite the songs inauspicious beginning). The "Crazy" remix just rocks and is a fun concert moment. Kudos to U2 for playing "Moment of Surrender" as the closer. This is one of the best U2 songs ever - I hope they stick with it on future tours. "Magnificent" deserved to be a huge hit. It's a beautiful pop song and I love hearing it. I'd still love hearing NLOTH and Breathe, but I'm happy with these 4 new songs.

And what's this nonsense about staring the show with only AB songs? I went to the Oakland show in June. Here are the first 10 tracks:

1. "Even Better..."
2. "I Will Follow"
3. GOYB
4. "Magnificent"
5. "Mysterious Ways"
6. "Elevation"
7. "Until the End..."
8. "All I Want Is You"
9. "Stay"
10. "Beautiful Day"

In honor of the 20 years of AB, there were three AB songs in the first 10. But then we didn't hear another AB track for the rest of the show. As you can see, the first 10 also featured two NLOTH songs, one "Boy" track, one "Zooropa" track, two ATYCLB tracks, and one R&H song. If that isn't a great mix of U2's entire career - in the first 10 songs - then what is? The remainder of the show included HTDAAB songs, more "Zooropa" and NLOTH tracks, JT songs, more ATYCLB songs, "War","October" and OSI songs and a one-off single. This is quite a mix of old and new, with classics and rarities performed. I'd say that was a good mix and perfect for where the tour is right now.

But of course, people see what they want to see to spin silly stories about U2's supposed decline.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Just the fact that they can put on a record breaking tour off the back of a failure of an album should alone prove how much new material factors into the public consideration when it comes to U2. Not. At. All. And I think 360 is less of a Greatest Hits tour, and more of an Event Tour. That has greatest hits wrapped in (ie the size of U2's back catalogue), but the sheer size of it all is/was the big draw. The success or failure of No Line was not a factor. It's failure didn't hurt it, and success couldn't have possibly made it any bigger or better (from a bums-on-seats point of view.)

So that is where they're at. And they'll probably continue to be that way from here on out. As long as they manage the market right - don't turn up in town too often - they'll forever more be able to float huge tours (in scope at least) whenever they want, and new material... whatever.

Bono has this silly wish to float U2 songs up in the charts, seemingly equating this alone to 'relevancy', so if he's still got that bee in his bonnet there are sure to be more cock ups to come, but really, as far as their legacy is concerned, all they need to do is close the respect/credibility gap. In other words, they just need to release stuff that is good. That's it. Continuing to keep pushing on this desperate Vertigo-Boots-Hit Single line will just continue to widen that gap, even though it's success or failure will have no impact on Really Big U2 and the Really Big U2 Tours. Look at No Line. Great album. A few shit songs. Three of them were singles, tanks the reputation of the whole album (and along with it 'current' U2 seen as being over it), but it has absolutely no effect on their business. What difference would a naff hit single make versus a naff dud single? Not a lot. Maybe a Grammy? Look at Vertigo. Hit single. Worked. Get them anything? In reality, or on balance, not that much more or less than the failed Boots.

 

[doctorwho]

Just the fact that they can put on a record breaking tour off the back of a failure of an album should alone prove how much new material factors into the public consideration when it comes to U2. Not. At. All.

Bono has this silly wish to float U2 songs up in the charts, seemingly equating this alone to 'relevancy'.

I'd say GOYB was a "failure" as it was to be the "big single" to launch the album. Instead, people reacted negatively towards it. That's the chance artists take with their work.

In contrast, I wouldn't all NLOTH a "failure". It went Platinum in the U.S. Given the illegal downloading and recession, I'm not sure how much more the album would have sold. It was one of the top selling albums in 2009 in the U.S. and in the Top 3 worldwide (if I recall). Even if GOYB had been a "Vertigo" like hit, I would say the best U2 could have obtained with NLOTH is 2x Platinum (in the U.S.). That's the sad state of music at present.

So Bono may have shifted away from selling of albums and now hopes to have hit singles on iTunes. Fair enough. U2 just have to find that right song.

This, of course, all ties into your ultimate post. U2 may still have a few big hits in them. They may still generate a few more Platinum selling albums. And the new material will help keep them relevant (not a nostalgia act). But their back catalog is so strong that I cannot see U2 really doing much different in concert than they are now. They'll play some new material, but they'll have to play some big hits, some of their favorite songs (that blend with the theme of the show), and perhaps a few rarities. How to pick just 20-25 songs from all that they've done probably is a challenge. And it's that catalog, along with perhaps any new big hit U2 has, that people want to hear. So they will always put "butts in the seats". Their reputation as a live act is monstrous - it truly is an event to see U2.

 

[corianderstem]

It's sad watching a band ....

Yeah, I cried the whole time because it was so awful.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Wouldnt mind but arent the shows getting good reviews?

 

[corianderstem]

That's the thing - it's hard to make an argument about how they're "irrelevant" or somehow doing something wrong when the shows have been as good as they have been.

I think I've seen a few comments on this site from people who were disappointed with a show here or there (I think there was a comment to that effect about Baltimore?), but it seems to me that they're resulting in overwhelming raves, including some comments about a show being "one of the best I've ever seen" from fans who have seen eleventy gajillion shows.

 

[MikeyJB]

I'm pretty sure the recent Rolling Stones tours got great reviews but does that make them any more relevant as a band creating fresh, exciting music??

 

[KUEFC09U2]

I'm pretty sure the recent Rolling Stones tours got great reviews but does that make them any more relevant as a band creating fresh, exciting music??

But U2 had to go and do these shows, if we had been going on the orginal time table they probably would still be playing songs from NLOTH, but what did people want them to do? totally cancel the shows because of Bonos back?,

i mean they are going to go away, make a new album and play a shitload of songs from that like they always do, so i really cannot see how you can compare them to the stones just because of a couple of legs of a tour.

 

[corianderstem]

My point is, if you're a U2 fan and even if they're not playing new songs (or new songs that you like, or as many new songs as you'd like to hear), you're still going to get a really good show. And isn't that the point of going to see them live?

If you're only interested in seeing bands who meet your definitions and standards of "relevancy," then you have to make that call as to whether or not it's worth it to go see U2.

I don't really have an opinion on comparing them to the Stones, because they're a completely different band. They're comparable because they're both bands who have been around a hell of a long time and still can pull in big bucks for touring. I don't really care if they're releasing new material or not - I'd like to see them someday, because I'd like to see them.

And I'm sure there are Rolling Stone diehards who have the same conversations that we have re U2. Or hell, maybe not. Maybe their fans are just thrilled they're all still alive and touring every so often.

 

[BVS]

"relevance" is defined differently by everyone. Therefore it really means very little.

 

[corianderstem]

I think that's the next big question for the band. They say they want to be "relevant." Well, they need to figure out what that means in this environment, and then once they do (IF they do), they need to figure out if that's what they really want, or if the agreed-upon definition is something they don't actually want, in which case hopefully they'll just say 'fuck it' and do whatever they want without concerns of relevancy.

 

[doctorwho]

Yeah, I cried the whole time because it was so awful.

Ha!

I think that's the next big question for the band. They say they want to be "relevant." Well, they need to figure out what that means in this environment.

What is really relevant? Black Eyed Peas have tons of big hits. They dominate iTunes sales. Do I want U2 to sound like them? No offense, but hearing Bono sing "My Humps" isn't my idea of great music.

If U2 cater to the charts - and they almost never do - they'll fail. They want to be "competition" with groups like Coldplay and The Killers. Fair enough, but while Coldplay has the hits (for some inexplicable reason), U2 can do so much better. U2's slow songs (like WOWY, "All I Want..", "One") are so much more powerful. I hate to think that songs like "Sometimes..." or "Crazy" are inspired by U2 wanting to have a Coldplay-esque track.

At this point, I think U2 should stick with what they have been doing for 20+ years. If they stumble upon a catchy track, like "Pride" or "Desire" or "Vertigo" - have at it. It may or may not be a big hit they hope it will become, but it could still be a great lead single.

Then follow what made NLOTH so brilliant. Keep up with songs like "Breathe", NLOTH, "Moment of Surrender", etc. And slow down with songs like "Crazy" that cater to the "adult top 40" crowd. There's only so much of "Stuck..." or "Sometimes..." or "Crazy" I can stand. The remix in concert though - . Now that's fun!

 

[popacrobat]

I would like to ban the words nostalgia and relevant from all threads going forward

 

[No spoken words]

I don't think any of you are taking U2's crisis seriously enough.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

And 'classic' 'experimental' 'safe' and 'commercial.'

Relevancy to the band is pretty easily measured, I think. Size and scope. When Bono talks about it, you know he wants their music out there and up there. Radio, charts, heard coming out of shops and cars, everywhere. That stuffs measurable, and that's how he judges 'relevancy'.

Whether or not there's any point in chasing that anymore, and/or whether or not they have any serious chance at successfully doing so, is a different argument.

But again, it's got nothing to do with either their touring brand or touring approach, which has become a wholly separate beast.

 

[corianderstem]

I don't think any of you are taking U2's crisis seriously enough.

Should we release the hounds?

 

[No spoken words]

We shouldn't release the hounds until November.