No spoken words
Blue Crack Supplier
"I'm an Irish pitcher, I just got called up from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Like most cities, it has its good, and it has its bad.....this is a song called Bad"
U2: Band in Crisis?
- Thread starter redhill
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
popacrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Oh my God, I just totally lost it. I think I just woke up the neighbors.
nirniva
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
...You've just summarized the entire forum in a single sentence. Well done.
No kidding! I am willing to shoot video of said crisis.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
'Crisis' is ridiculous, and any complaints about where they're at live are ridiculous as well. I think it's safe to say that everyone would have liked more No Line representation and for that to hold for longer, but what they're doing now is absolutely fantastic. Anyone else get the feeling the final Moncton show is going to be a fucking monster? If I were a US or Canadian fan I'd be doing whatever I could to get there.
'Live' has nothing to do with it, and there's no 'crisis', but they certainly are at one of their pivot moments.
'Live' has nothing to do with it, and there's no 'crisis', but they certainly are at one of their pivot moments.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Which bands have even tried? Thought it was generally accepted around here that they're shooting off into fairly unique/uncharted territory now. I can't think of a band that has succeeded or failed... can't think of one that has tried.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Fair enough...
cobl04
45:33
I too have the feeling Moncton will be off the hizzle.
Dear cori,
Please refrain from posting like this in the future, as it makes me want to use the last money I have to fly overseas.
Thank you,
Friggin'
You know NOTHING about the concert business
you are awesome!
corianderstem said:
Dear cori,
Please refrain from posting like this in the future, as it makes me want to use the last money I have to fly overseas.
Thank you,
Friggin'
No spoken words said:
You know NOTHING about the concert business
Irvine511 said:
you are awesome!
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. Many people didn't like R & H, POP, NLOTH
2. Many different avenues they could pursue
3. But they want HITS badly
They responded with Achtung & ATYCLB. If they stick with their past comebacks they should be just fine as long as their idea of "hits" includes deep cuts that hardcore fans crave. U2 always goes through crisis.
1. Many people didn't like R & H, POP, NLOTH
2. Many different avenues they could pursue
3. But they want HITS badly
They responded with Achtung & ATYCLB. If they stick with their past comebacks they should be just fine as long as their idea of "hits" includes deep cuts that hardcore fans crave. U2 always goes through crisis.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
When U2 shifted from the 80s to the 90s, there was still a more mass-appeal element to music, with established radio stations for established genres that had established audiences. "Alternative," "Rap," "Rock," "Hard Rock," "Pop," etc. These labels all meant something.
Over the past decade, there has been a tectonic shift in music, not only in terms of delivery, but also in terms of audience. The old labels no longer fit. Everything's mashed-up. As a result, the audience for artists is smaller, not to mention audience for genres. Where does U2 fit into this landscape? It's a harder question now than it was at the end of the 80s, when U2 made a conscious choice to shift from its established role into a more "alternative" direction. They were prescient by seeing the changes in music, because they were able to anticipate that the underground alternative music would explode into the mainstream. But what to do in this new landscape, however? It's more complicated, not just from a business standpoint, but an artistic one. Artists are more resistant to labels now than they used to be, and even the labels themselves don't mean as much. The music industry has exploded, the labels have exploded, and to a certain extent, audiences have exploded -- more striated now than they used to be. I don't think there's the same kind of mass-appeal, 20-million-albums-by-a-single-artist phenomenon that there used to be. Even ten years ago, you'd see Backstreet Boys or NSync sell 10 million copies of an album.
To whit: in a list of best-selling albums of all time (20-50M copies), only five have come from the last decade (Britney Spears, Linkin Park, Backstreet Boys, Usher, and Norah Jones), and none since 2004. Compare that with 25 from the 90s, 17 from the 80s, and even 14 from the 70s. Sure, some of those are greatest hits albums, but even with that, the 00s should have seen bigger sales.
Instead, it's not that the screens got bigger -- the audiences got smaller.
What does U2 do in an era of increased audience striation? Who knows...
Over the past decade, there has been a tectonic shift in music, not only in terms of delivery, but also in terms of audience. The old labels no longer fit. Everything's mashed-up. As a result, the audience for artists is smaller, not to mention audience for genres. Where does U2 fit into this landscape? It's a harder question now than it was at the end of the 80s, when U2 made a conscious choice to shift from its established role into a more "alternative" direction. They were prescient by seeing the changes in music, because they were able to anticipate that the underground alternative music would explode into the mainstream. But what to do in this new landscape, however? It's more complicated, not just from a business standpoint, but an artistic one. Artists are more resistant to labels now than they used to be, and even the labels themselves don't mean as much. The music industry has exploded, the labels have exploded, and to a certain extent, audiences have exploded -- more striated now than they used to be. I don't think there's the same kind of mass-appeal, 20-million-albums-by-a-single-artist phenomenon that there used to be. Even ten years ago, you'd see Backstreet Boys or NSync sell 10 million copies of an album.
To whit: in a list of best-selling albums of all time (20-50M copies), only five have come from the last decade (Britney Spears, Linkin Park, Backstreet Boys, Usher, and Norah Jones), and none since 2004. Compare that with 25 from the 90s, 17 from the 80s, and even 14 from the 70s. Sure, some of those are greatest hits albums, but even with that, the 00s should have seen bigger sales.
Instead, it's not that the screens got bigger -- the audiences got smaller.
What does U2 do in an era of increased audience striation? Who knows...
bathiu
Refugee
re: thread title
what happened?
what happened?
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
if U2 releases an album next fall (2012) with a nice big lead single, anyone who has seen this 360 Tour ought to be jumping up and down to go buy/download it. This last leg of the tour especially, which is a drastic improvement over the 1st US leg.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Well, I have to say I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Lot's of thoughtful posts and a lot of wit. (It's great to see some of the FYM heavyweights bringing their genuis to the table here. . .hats off to you guys, you are brilliant). I'm trying to think whether I have anything to add to this thread that hasn't already been said and said better.
In regard to the issue of relevance: U2 has achieved timelessness--they live in the rarified world of the Beatles, Elvis, and yes, the Stones among a few others--artists that are of their time but transcend their time as well. That to me is the ultimate in relevance. The hit single, being of the cultural moment is mercurial--by definition it cannot last. The observations about the state of music today are astute, but in a sense it's always been this way--relevance by topping the charts has always been a short term thing--now, it's even more so. But if you can achieve the kind of permanent cultural relevance that U2 has achieved, well that is something.
For that reason, U2's so-called crisis is non-existent. Some of their FANS may be in crisis, but the band itself. . .I don't think they could do much to damage their ultimate legacy at this point. I agree with Earnie that this is an important pivot point for them though and I'm curious to see what happens next.
What do I want them to do next? They can either play it safe or take a risk. Either way there will be haters--there were always haters, there will always be haters. And a lot of them are fans. I should know, I was one in the 90's. I became a fan with AB in the early part of 1992 when I was a senior in high school. I loved JT, R&H. My freshman year in college a diehard fan introduced me to UF and the earlier stuff and I loved it all. But I was utterly bewildered by Zooropa, and at the outset of my fandom pretty much decided that the bands' best days were in the past. Pop did little to change my opinion--indeed it only confirmed it. For me U2 was like the Beatles, a great band that no longer existed. I wasn't until probably the mid-2000s that suddenly I "got it" with 90's U2 and Zooropa went from being an inscrutable, unlistenable mystery to one of my top three U2 albums of all time and the title track being one of my favorite songs ever. And despite all the flack it gets, I feel that Pop is one of the most interesting albums they've ever recorded.
I know that many U2 fans who came up with the band in the 90's were equally horrified by their shift with ATYCLB. The fact is that if the band takes risks and really changes things, it will upset some people. And if they play it safe and keep doing what they're doing that also upsets some people.
So in the end, I think they should take a risk--an artistic risk--they have a luxury that few stars in the world of entertainment have--the luxury to pursue their artistic interest and vision more or less at their leisure and more or less without consequence to either their liviliehood or their legacy. Sure they may piss off a bunch of people on the internet, but so what.
In regard to the issue of relevance: U2 has achieved timelessness--they live in the rarified world of the Beatles, Elvis, and yes, the Stones among a few others--artists that are of their time but transcend their time as well. That to me is the ultimate in relevance. The hit single, being of the cultural moment is mercurial--by definition it cannot last. The observations about the state of music today are astute, but in a sense it's always been this way--relevance by topping the charts has always been a short term thing--now, it's even more so. But if you can achieve the kind of permanent cultural relevance that U2 has achieved, well that is something.
For that reason, U2's so-called crisis is non-existent. Some of their FANS may be in crisis, but the band itself. . .I don't think they could do much to damage their ultimate legacy at this point. I agree with Earnie that this is an important pivot point for them though and I'm curious to see what happens next.
What do I want them to do next? They can either play it safe or take a risk. Either way there will be haters--there were always haters, there will always be haters. And a lot of them are fans. I should know, I was one in the 90's. I became a fan with AB in the early part of 1992 when I was a senior in high school. I loved JT, R&H. My freshman year in college a diehard fan introduced me to UF and the earlier stuff and I loved it all. But I was utterly bewildered by Zooropa, and at the outset of my fandom pretty much decided that the bands' best days were in the past. Pop did little to change my opinion--indeed it only confirmed it. For me U2 was like the Beatles, a great band that no longer existed. I wasn't until probably the mid-2000s that suddenly I "got it" with 90's U2 and Zooropa went from being an inscrutable, unlistenable mystery to one of my top three U2 albums of all time and the title track being one of my favorite songs ever. And despite all the flack it gets, I feel that Pop is one of the most interesting albums they've ever recorded.
I know that many U2 fans who came up with the band in the 90's were equally horrified by their shift with ATYCLB. The fact is that if the band takes risks and really changes things, it will upset some people. And if they play it safe and keep doing what they're doing that also upsets some people.
So in the end, I think they should take a risk--an artistic risk--they have a luxury that few stars in the world of entertainment have--the luxury to pursue their artistic interest and vision more or less at their leisure and more or less without consequence to either their liviliehood or their legacy. Sure they may piss off a bunch of people on the internet, but so what.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
No spoken words said:
You would be a douche not to buy out one of the many sections left haunted by U2 Crisis #2011.
Wonderfully stated. In fact, in beginning to craft a response, I found myself writing nothing but echoes of what you've written. Well said.
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
Not the Stones but:
First night of the Working on a Dream Tour
Last night of the Working on a Dream tour:
Songs in bold are from the album Working on a Dream
Point is, it happens.
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
An what the hell:
A Bigger Bang tour night one:
Last night of the tour:
A Bigger Bang tour night one:
Last night of the tour:
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Compare that to the first night and last night of POPMART or ZOOTV. I guess you're saying that it's cool for U2 to do it since its how the Stones do it? To my mind, calling U2 the Stones is not a compliment to U2. Yeah, the Stones wrote some damn good songs, but only about a dozen that I've gotten into. (No, that's not ignorance, that's my opinion.) And they've toured for a few decades now based upon nostalgia and not their current work. I liked "Mixed Emotions," but that's the most recent song of theirs that got my attention, and that was the 80s. The last thing I want U2 to do is to be like them. They're kind of a joke.
Look, as I've said, I do actually expect a massive come-back from U2 next time. They will find that hit single which connects the way they need it to AND release one of their better albums. But I think the reason why they will is they're smart enough to realize that at this moment they NEED to in order to continue being the artists they want to be.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
You mean the tour where they dropped 3 by the time they reached the end?
So they've only really dropped one more album cut on this tour. BUT they've given us how man new songs? How many never played(or only played few times) songs?
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
That's fuzzy math. U2 started out playing almost every song from each of those albums. Sure, they eventually dropped a few by the end, but the tour was still primarily about the new album, and they were still playing more than half of it.
Playing the SOA songs early was absolutely a great step in the right direction. Too bad they aren't doing it anymore. But even when they were, that was only 1-2 songs and they dropped NLOTH songs to add them.
coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
it's not really fuzzy math if it shows a trend.
serious question though, how many achtung baby songs played on night 1 of zoo tv were not played on the last night of the tour? i can only think of ultraviolet off the top of my head, and that was dumped for daddy's gonna pay.
but that points more to the structure of the tour and rigidity of the show rather than any distaste for the song. just looking at setlists without taking the actual tour into account is pointless. of course popmart had more pop songs by the end, the tour was built around the damn things.
serious question though, how many achtung baby songs played on night 1 of zoo tv were not played on the last night of the tour? i can only think of ultraviolet off the top of my head, and that was dumped for daddy's gonna pay.
but that points more to the structure of the tour and rigidity of the show rather than any distaste for the song. just looking at setlists without taking the actual tour into account is pointless. of course popmart had more pop songs by the end, the tour was built around the damn things.
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Right. That's my point. I prefer the new songs to be what the tour is built around. 360 was a celebration of U2's history with some new songs that they hoped the audience might accept. It's a major shift.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
That one and Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses.
Rachel D.
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
They had a new album out in the middle of ZooTV. I don't know how that factors into the conversation, but I wonder if most of the NLOTH songs would have stayed in if there was a companion album released during this tour, or would they have been replaced anyway?
theedgeu2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I think if they had a new album out that many of the NLOTH songs would've still been dropped. It would also depend on how the new album would be. If it's much like the NLOTH songs and don't catch on then it would prob be that way with both albums. That pretty much was the case with NLOTH.
corianderstem said:Well said.
After I don't know how many bitchy posts I directed at you lately (sorry, man), I think I'm finally realizing we're more or less on the same page.
Considering I'm the bitchiest one in all the lane, there is no need for apologies
Niceman said:
U2 should and would be honored to have the career that the stones have had.
By your logic... as in the stones have sucked since the 80's and have been a joke ever since... well, that was 20 years in for the stones. So anyone, and there's a lot of them, who feels u2 has been a joke since after the 90's, has the same opinion of u2 as you do of the stones.
Bottom line is both are amazing rock bands, and I feel honored to have seen both perform in person.
- Status
Similar threads
