U2: Band in Crisis?

[doctorwho]

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.

There were just two setlist examples from Springsteen and the Stones where maybe 4-6 songs off a new release started the tour. By the end, they played one song from their respective new albums.

In contrast, U2's last few tours started with seven songs from the new album. The 360 setlist bounces a bit, but usually still has four songs (GOYB, Magnificent, Crazy and MOS). So really, only three songs were dropped and NLOTH still has a fair representation.

Furthermore, being compared to The Stones is NOT an insult. The Stones are wildly successful, masters of touring, and are legends.

Lastly, U2 members are 50-ish. When one is a pre-teen, one rarely dives into music by 50 year olds. The fact that U2 can still connect with pre-teens, teens and 20-somethings is very impressive.

Therefore, I simply do not get your complaint.

 

[No spoken words]

Therefore, I simply do not get your complaint.

Nobody does.

But, seriously, when sometimes refers to the Stones as a "joke", don't you consider their credibility eroded to the point where there's no real point dealing with them on this topic anymore? I'm not even a huge Stones fan, but don't wear blinders strong enough to preclude me from recognizing their legendary status and ability to still put on a great show.

 

[Rachel D.]

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.

And then that raises the question: If NLOTH had been more successful, would U2 have been more likely to release a companion album during the tour?

 

[Irvine511]

U2 has never had, and will never have, the same cultural impact that The Stones had in their heyday.

i think if you asked 10 people on the street, and 10 rock critics, virtually all of them would say that The Stones are the better band.

 

[corianderstem]

Is it okay if I really don't give a rat's ass what the Stones do or don't do on their tours?

 

[coolian2]

Is it okay if I really don't give a rat's ass what the Stones do or don't do on their tours?

yes, your majesty.

Spoiler

spoiler to note my post isn't meant to read as being confrontational

 

[corianderstem]

That's the kind of respect I like to see around here, god damn it.

Spoiler

yes, I caught up on that thread first tonight.

 

[Irvine511]

Is it okay if I really don't give a rat's ass what the Stones do or don't do on their tours?

no. no it isn't. music is a competition.

 

[coolian2]

That's the kind of respect I like to see around here, god damn it.

Spoiler

yes, I caught up on that thread first tonight.

eeexcellent.

no. no it isn't. music is a competition.

and those stones fans are backing the wrong team.

makes me wonder how long it'll be until u2 sack their coach, with all of this crisis.

 

[lemonfly]

I don't think anyone is knocking the Stones legendary status, or their ability to fill stadiums. But they have been musically irrelevant since the mid-eighties. Is that what we really want for U2? Would it be OK with us for them to make another three Bombs and do three more record breaking tours before they retire? Does that equal relevance and exciting music? Clearly some people think as long as the tour cash registers keep ringing, U2 are doing fine. And I agree there is no big 'crisis' at the moment. But I'm amazed fans seem happy for U2 to go down the Stones route of musical redundancy.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Didnt nloth hit number 1 in over 30 countries? And even though it only sold about half of what bomb done, there really isnt that many other people who could match that, so to me thats still pretty relevant

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I don't think anyone is knocking the Stones legendary status, or their ability to fill stadiums. But they have been musically irrelevant since the mid-eighties. Is that what we really want for U2? Would it be OK with us for them to make another three Bombs and do three more record breaking tours before they retire? Does that equal relevance and exciting music? Clearly some people think as long as the tour cash registers keep ringing, U2 are doing fine. And I agree there is no big 'crisis' at the moment. But I'm amazed fans seem happy for U2 to go down the Stones route of musical redundancy.

Again with this phony sense of relevancy.

If everything a band releases goes instantly to the top of the charts, and they sell out massive venues with ease... most would consider that fairly relevant. That includes the stones and u2.

Relevancy is in the eye, or ear, of the beholder. Mick Jagger, Bono, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Vedder... all guys who are not exactly teen idols, but all highly relevant to my own musical taste. And in the end, that's the only relevancy that matters.

U2 shouldn't give a rat's ass whether or not they're hip and cool with the kids. When you try so hard to grasp on to this illusion of relevancy, you end up looking like a lame version of yourself.

 

[LemonMelon]

Relevancy can't be quantified, so it's not really worth getting worked up over. If you get off on arguing points down to a nub though, the topic is one hell of an aphrodisiac.

Anyway, why are we talking about the Rolling Stones when it's the U2 that's in crisis? Mick Jagger will never be fat, but Bono most certainly is.

 

[nielsgov]

At least Bono isn't a skeleton (yet).

 

[Niceman]

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.

The 90s ended in 1999, 12 years ago. But yeah, anyone can think anything they want. That doesn't effect my opinion of the post-70s Stones.

And yes, both bands have histories worth being very proud of. But there is something sad about a band who stops having a present they're even prouder of. I hope next time out, U2 is more excited by songs we haven't heard yet than Walk On, Pride, and One.

 

[Niceman]

There were just two setlist examples from Springsteen and the Stones where maybe 4-6 songs off a new release started the tour. By the end, they played one song from their respective new albums.

In contrast, U2's last few tours started with seven songs from the new album. The 360 setlist bounces a bit, but usually still has four songs (GOYB, Magnificent, Crazy and MOS). So really, only three songs were dropped and NLOTH still has a fair representation.

Furthermore, being compared to The Stones is NOT an insult. The Stones are wildly successful, masters of touring, and are legends.

Lastly, U2 members are 50-ish. When one is a pre-teen, one rarely dives into music by 50 year olds. The fact that U2 can still connect with pre-teens, teens and 20-somethings is very impressive.

Therefore, I simply do not get your complaint.

4 songs is NOT a fair representation from the newest album. It isn't even the album they are playing the most off of.

Being compared to the Stones in the 70s is a great compliment. Being compared to The Stones circa 2011? It means a has-been living off of past glories. It means the death of art.

 

[Niceman]

I don't think anyone is knocking the Stones legendary status, or their ability to fill stadiums. But they have been musically irrelevant since the mid-eighties. Is that what we really want for U2? Would it be OK with us for them to make another three Bombs and do three more record breaking tours before they retire? Does that equal relevance and exciting music? Clearly some people think as long as the tour cash registers keep ringing, U2 are doing fine. And I agree there is no big 'crisis' at the moment. But I'm amazed fans seem happy for U2 to go down the Stones route of musical redundancy.

Exactly.

 

[bono_212]

Nobody does.

But, seriously, when sometimes refers to the Stones as a "joke", don't you consider their credibility eroded to the point where there's no real point dealing with them on this topic anymore? I'm not even a huge Stones fan, but don't wear blinders strong enough to preclude me from recognizing their legendary status and ability to still put on a great show.

Shut up, you abandoned the band in their hour of need.

But there is something sad about a band who stops having a present they're even prouder of.

Truth. I'm grateful for all of the gifts I receive.

Being compared to the Stones in the 70s is a great compliment. Being compared to The Stones circa 2011? It means a has-been living off of past glories. It means the death of art.

I was actually trying to point out the opposite. By the end of a LONG LONG tour when the album isn't even quite relevant anymore, U2 are still playing around 4 songs from the album. In comparison, the Stones and Springsteen (who, let's face it, released that album as an excuse to continue touring) had dropped all but one song from their ending sets. It's not like NLOTH's a double album. I'd be much happier if I got four songs from EVERY album in the band's catalog than 8 songs from their most recent one.

 

[Niceman]

I was actually trying to point out the opposite. By the end of a LONG LONG tour when the album isn't even quite relevant anymore, U2 are still playing around 4 songs from the album. In comparison, the Stones and Springsteen (who, let's face it, released that album as an excuse to continue touring) had dropped all but one song from their ending sets. It's not like NLOTH's a double album. I'd be much happier if I got four songs from EVERY album in the band's catalog than 8 songs from their most recent one.

I'd rather have 8 from the new album, both as someone going to the show (each night is someone's first night of the tour,) and to listen to on bootleg later. Was Achtung not relevant at the end of ZOOTV? Was POP not relevant at the end of POPMART? No, they weren't any less relevant.

 

[doctorwho]

I'd rather have 8 from the new album, both as someone going to the show (each night is someone's first night of the tour,) and to listen to on bootleg later. Was Achtung not relevant at the end of ZOOTV? Was POP not relevant at the end of POPMART? No, they weren't any less relevant.

I hear what you're saying. And on the surface, it does appear that U2 booted NLOTH - because it wasn't a hit - for music that clearly was a hit.

However, I do not feel this is what U2 did.

By the time the tour resumed, NLOTH's time on the charts had ended. It had a semi-decent run, but wasn't one of U2's big sellers. They took a risk with GOYB, just as they did with "Discotheque". In both instances, this lead single backfired and hurt the album.

So do they continue to push NLOTH or do they revisit some of their past works? Some nights have less NLOTH songs, but on average, they still play 3 or 4 songs - so the album isn't completely ignored. But now they tap into their entire career. They showcase some AB songs (perhaps for the upcoming remaster release) and what a treat that may be for those who never heard some of those songs live.

You can be bitter about this and claim that U2 is rejecting their present. That's your view, and I can see why you may feel this way.

In contrast, I feel that U2 have found a way to incorporate the past into the present. The concert features the big hits, songs off their current album and a few rarities. It makes for a great set list and a great show. Having seen a recent show, I was wildly impressed. I'll even say I liked the recent show a bit more over the older 360 shows where some of the NLOTH tracks didn't really fit in ("Unknown Caller"). This was a good mix and it works for me.

But all of this is moot. The tour is winding down. U2 will have a new album out at some point (most likely fall of 2012) and a subsequent tour. And I'm sure they will feature at least 7 songs from their new album on that tour. Then your worry about them relying on only the old will vanish.

 

[cobl04]

I'd rather have 8 from the new album, both as someone going to the show (each night is someone's first night of the tour,) and to listen to on bootleg later. Was Achtung not relevant at the end of ZOOTV? Was POP not relevant at the end of POPMART? No, they weren't any less relevant.

Are you saying that you would prefer to hear eight songs from NLOTH than more from AB, JT, etc? If that's what you're saying, then I will quietly bow out of the thread as I couldn't possibly disagree more.

 

[bono_212]

I'd rather have 8 from the new album, both as someone going to the show (each night is someone's first night of the tour,) and to listen to on bootleg later. Was Achtung not relevant at the end of ZOOTV? Was POP not relevant at the end of POPMART? No, they weren't any less relevant.

No, but it seems maybe U2 just enjoyed touring those albums more.

Just one more comparison for you, a contrast for the Springsteen stats I posted earlier.

Gypsy Biker
Out In the Street
Radio Nowhere
The Promised Land
Spirit in the Night
Wooly Bully
(Sam the Sham & The Pharaohs cover) (Premiere: Tour debut)
Darlington County
You Can Look (But You Better Not Touch)
Darkness on the Edge of Town
Youngstown
Murder Inc.
She's The One
Livin' In The Future
Mary's Place
Working on the Highway
Out In the Street
The Rising
Last To Die
Long Walk Home
Badlands
Encore:
Seven Nights to Rock
(Moon Mullican cover)
4th of July, Asbury Park (Sandy)
Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out
Glory Days
Born to Run
Rosalita (Come Out Tonight)
Bobby Jean
American Land
Thunder Road
Dancing in the Dark
Born To Be Wild
(Steppenwolf cover) (Premiere: Tour debut)

That's the last night of the Magic tour. If you're touring an album, if you're enjoying it, and the crowd's responding, you're not going to drop as many songs.

By the time the tour resumed, NLOTH's time on the charts had ended. It had a semi-decent run, but wasn't one of U2's big sellers. They took a risk with GOYB, just as they did with "Discotheque". In both instances, this lead single backfired and hurt the album.

Oh, and of course: This.

 

[Niceman]

Are you saying that you would prefer to hear eight songs from NLOTH than more from AB, JT, etc? If that's what you're saying, then I will quietly bow out of the thread as I couldn't possibly disagree more.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

 

[partygirl43]

^:applause: I second your opinion Niceman. I feel the 360 tour set does not lend itself to NLOTH, so it was doomed from the start. I could listen to the whole of NLOTH, but I think a more intimate setting work better. At this point U2 is starting to feel like the boring boyfriend who just wants to do the same old stuff and I might need to break up for a while ...but I'll do it after Pittsburgh

 

[KUEFC09U2]

I dunno, we got to hear all the NLOTH songs on the first few legs, i dont know how anyone who proclaims to love AB and ZooTv cant enjoy what they are doing now

 

[Niceman]

I dunno, we got to hear all the NLOTH songs on the first few legs, i dont know how anyone who proclaims to love AB and ZooTv cant enjoy what they are doing now

No, we didn't.

Anyway, I went to 2 ZOOTV shows. I've spent 20 years listening to the bootlegs. I don't want U2 to keep doing the same thing over and over. Playing the same songs again and again decade after decade seems very un-U2. They've always been a band obsessed with the new.

Yeah, I would have loved to hear Wire live back in the day, or Two Hearts Beat as One, but I missed those shows. Time moves on. It's cool that they bring back a classic or two every once in a while like Electric Co., but that shouldn't be the focus of the show.

"New ideas, new colors, you know..."

People keep bringing up Springsteen and the Stones. I've never been interested in seeing either of them live. I want U2 to expand my world, to take me to places I've never been before. That's what they've always wanted to do. It's only recently they've been more interested in the past than the future. Partygirl43 put it well.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Well i got 7 NLOTH songs in Cardiff, plus UF and UV, am sorry your not liking what they are doing, but the reviews are saying different,

and just out of curiosity, when was the last time the US got Zooropa, UF, Scarlet, All i want is you, UV, and i know EBTTRT was played during Elevation on some shows, but it certainly wasnt a regular, so that plus what they played the first couple of legs isnt the same as the last 3 tours.

 

[Niceman]

Well i got 7 NLOTH songs in Cardiff, plus UF and UV, am sorry your not liking what they are doing, but the reviews are saying different,

and just out of curiosity, when was the last time the US got Zooropa, UF, Scarlet, All i want is you, UV, and i know EBTTRT was played during Elevation on some shows, but it certainly wasnt a regular, so that plus what they played the first couple of legs isnt the same as the last 3 tours.

Look, I'm not jumping up and down and calling them "crap." They did a lot that first leg which was amazing. YBR and UF were very welcome. It's great that they're finally playing Zooropa. I actually expected EBTTRT to turn up this tour. But this leg is simply not about the latest album.

They gave up on NLOTH faster than Obama gives in to the Republicans.....

What are they, playing 3 songs from NLOTH now? Add in 2 songs from HTDAAB and they're only playing 5 songs that are less than 10 years old. I have a problem with that. If the next tour isn't any different, I think they will have a problem - and that problem will be they are resting on their laurels. This is how you turn into the Stones.

 

[Niceman]

Well i got 7 NLOTH songs in Cardiff, plus UF and UV, am sorry your not liking what they are doing, but the reviews are saying different,

btw, I got 6 songs in Boston. I never got to hear Breathe. The highlights of the show for me were NLOTH, MOS, UF, YBR, Unknown Caller.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

btw, I got 6 songs in Boston. I never got to hear Breathe. The highlights of the show for me were NLOTH, MOS, UF, YBR, Unknown Caller.