U2's second chance

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Thank you!

We're all wondering what U2's next phase it going to be...I say bring the "U2 don't give a fuk" phase. I mean, seriously, how non-U2ish would that move be?

(Old U2 interview)

Reporter: So Bono, what's your new album like?
Bono: It's the greatest thing we've ever done. Edge is on fire. Prepare for this year, this will be OUR year! We are reapplying for biggest band in the solar system, yes again, for the 45th time this year.

(NEW U2 INTERVIEW)

Reporter: So Bono, what's your new album like?
Bono: I dunno. It's got songs. It's got words. It's got melodies. Yea, I dunno what else to tell you.
Reporter: (thrown for a loop, taken aback) Uhhhh...well, isn't this that point in the interview where you tell me you're reapplying for biggest band in the Milky Way?
Bono: Biggest band? Been there, done that. Honestly, that job kinda sucks. We'll let someone else take over that position. Maybe Coldplay, if they ever write a damn song that doesn't make me feel like slashing my fucking wrists using the same razorblade Chris Martin uses to shave his vagina.
Reporter: You don't like them i take it?
Bono: I don't like YOU! (spits in reporter's face)

...a boy can dream...

i am offended by this post.

chris martin does not shave his vagina. he goes au natural. everyone knows this.
 
And when it comes to the "act-your-age" I have to agree just partly.
I think it's great they still try and fiddle around with the latest technology etc... Although I think they could use it even more challenging and experimental IMO in their latest recordings.

I do however get more and more "squeezing my butt together & curling my toes" moments when I see Bono making "rapper-like" movements when performing with, for example Jay-Z and Rihanna. And swaying like a monkey performing "Kids" with Kylie.
I mean: look at some (sad) performances U2 and especially Bono already have on their account: One performed with Mary J. Blige (disgusting!) The way he says: ..."Mary-hhh.." before she starts singing::barf::yuck::yuck:.
Bono drooling alongside Alicia Keys, Bono and Kylie, Bono and Jay-Z & Rihanna...
I mean, where is this gonna end? Bono dueting with 50 Cent being tough rappers for world peace? Bono making dance moves along-side Justin Timberlake? Bono dueting with Paris Hilton and Ashley Simpson? All to keep up to pace with the "pop kids" but with the excuse: doing it for the good cause? This was probably when he said: "we might lose some of the pop-kids but we don't need them." This is getting more and more like: "we might lose some of our most loyal serious fan-base, but we don't need them.." And the irony is: he is probably right! More and more the real loyal (hardcore) fanbase is thinning out and your "big-joe-average crowd" is growing. So the days U2 starts acting like a real critical band again (WAR, Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby) and don't care what the overall public opinion thinks of them seem long gone...

In 2005 for the Hall of Fame Induction Acceptence Speech, Bono said: "That's what I'd like you to take away from tonight. I would like to ask the music business to look at itself and ask itself some hard questions. Because there would be no U2 the way things are right now. That's a fact." How creadible is he saying this when you see him kissing a.. with Jay-Z, holding hands with Rihanna, etc... who are all representatives for contemporary, throw-away pop tunes made or pop-kids!! Why the hell isn't he dueting with Thom Yorke, David Bowie, Morrissey, Kate Bush, Peter Gabriel, and with serious great bands from now: Editors, Keane. When he's pretending to be such a representative for "real" music, why isn't he pulling these kind of artists out of the shadow and into the full spotlights?

The contemporary music by Beyoncé, Rihanna, Mary J. Blige, Lady Gaga, Kelly Clarkson, Pussycat Dolls, Jay-Z, etc, can stand on it's own, sadly we all know that & nobody can avoid it. Everywhere you go you see/hear these "artists".

Bono: stop holding hands and puttting feathers up their a..... and by these means trying to be still hip and cool yourself! Ask yourself some hard questions and ACT as you say...

some of the artists you're grouping together shows a complete lack of knowledge on the genre's that you're attacking.
 
I'm afraid I lost you at 'serious great bands from now: Editors, Keane'.
 
i always took the 'steel wheels" idea/reference, not as a good or bad album, just that its offical a band is old and everything they do from this point, is calculated and , and just like, yea these are the twlight years and its whatever happenens happens. Its either a comeback album, a bad album, or just a album with risks only a old band would take. For me, the stones came to symbolize the great old band trying for one more big run, with either a back to roots album or the complete reverse. its menopause for bands. lol. I mean geez, its 30 years since thier first album. If anything,"steel wheels" means its time to stop counting the years.
 
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Radiohead has more pressure in this regard. Unlike U2, they're especially famous for their avante-gardish experimentation. Like U2 (with Achtung Baby), their envelope-pushing albums are widely considered their greatest (OK Computer and Kid A).

Not from what I gather...

Here's the thing, I see it all the time in here and other forums of the like...

I see people say "why can't U2 still be experimenting like Radiohead or Depeche Mode?" What? Radiohead haven't really experimented in awhile. They found their sound, but because no one else is quite doing it Radiohead is considered "experimental" despite the fact they been using the same approaches for four albums now. And DM??? :doh:

It's a term that gets misused probably more than any other word in here... If U2 had stuck with their sound they did in the 90's there would still be fans in here that would praise them for being "experimental".

I think In Rainbows is a great album, but not really a departure from the last two... I just have to laugh at those that tell me Radiohead is still this great experimental band. I don't see their fans calling for it, I just don't. I just see a very stuck mentality when it comes to how "experimental" a band is... U2 were being more experimental with Wild Honey than Radiohead were being with House of Cards, but most in here wouldn't recognise that.
 
I don't care about experimentation. I just want to hear interesting music. I want to hear melodies that surprise me and don't wear thin after a couple listens. It could be a stark, minimalist production...it could have the kitchen sink thrown in....i just want to hear interesting music.
 
I want to hear melodies that surprise me and don't wear thin after a couple listens.

And how would you define this? What makes a melody suprising vs thin?

Because I can think of a lot of U2 songs from every decade, many of which you state you like that I would never label as "suprising" melodies.
 
And how would you define this? What makes a melody suprising vs thin?

Because I can think of a lot of U2 songs from every decade, many of which you state you like that I would never label as "suprising" melodies.

I never said U2's back catalougue was filled with surprising melodies. I said I would like to hear surprising melodies. By surprising melodies I mean melodies that are unpredictable and surprise you. Melodies that don't seem bound by a song's chord progression (an example of a predictable melody bound by a chord progression- Original Of The Species, at the part where it goes - "and you feeeeeel, like no one before, and you feeeel" -

But whatever, this is just what i'd like to hear. I'm sure this explanation wasn't good enough for you. You're a technical person who wants technical explanations, and I'm just going by "sound" and "feel". So the melodies he sings in MOS continue to grow on me and surprise me, while the melodies he sings in CT wear thin and get old after a couple listens. Explanation? I don't know, you tell me what you want to hear....
 
It's a term that gets misused probably more than any other word in here... If U2 had stuck with their sound they did in the 90's there would still be fans in here that would praise them for being "experimental".

I think "experimental" generally refers to a particular kind of music, rather than an artist experimenting with the sounds/styles that are new to them. If, for instance, Bjork made a country album tomorrow no one would describe it as experimental despite the fact that it would be a radical departure from her previous work. As such, I think "experimental" is more of a description and not automatically a point of praise.
 
GOYB or Vertigo and even Elevation would have been 10x better if the lyrics were'nt so crap.... like 25% of the lyrics of each song is either too weird for the general public to like or just plain stupid anyway.
 
Not from what I gather...

Here's the thing, I see it all the time in here and other forums of the like...

I see people say "why can't U2 still be experimenting like Radiohead or Depeche Mode?" What? Radiohead haven't really experimented in awhile. They found their sound, but because no one else is quite doing it Radiohead is considered "experimental" despite the fact they been using the same approaches for four albums now. And DM??? :doh:

Well, I agree that Radiohead found their sound in "In Rainbows" But does that mean they are not experimental? Compare Kid A and In Rainbows and the argument that the same approach is hearable in both albums doesn't hold imo. Musically but also lyrically these albums are very very different. I see it as developing their sound.


It's a term that gets misused probably more than any other word in here... If U2 had stuck with their sound they did in the 90's there would still be fans in here that would praise them for being "experimental".
But the problem is that the terms reinvention and experimental are exchanged while people can look at it in a different way. If U2 would record an album with folk songs, does that mean they are experimenting? Or are they re-inventing their sound? Or just doing something different?

I think In Rainbows is a great album, but not really a departure from the last two... I just have to laugh at those that tell me Radiohead is still this great experimental band. I don't see their fans calling for it, I just don't. I just see a very stuck mentality when it comes to how "experimental" a band is... U2 were being more experimental with Wild Honey than Radiohead were being with House of Cards, but most in here wouldn't recognise that.

But Wild Honey is not unique in its style, songs like House of Cards are imo.

I really like both bands. The difference is that Radiohead is really doing what they want. And they are not judged by lower sales, since they are considered more 'underground'
I have the feeling U2 works always under the pressure of what people are expecting from them. People want indeed that U2 comes up with a re-invention/experimentation every time. I think this was your point and I have to agree with that. From the other hand, critics also 'demand' this high commercial succes from them. It's almost impossible that these two things coincide. Look at NLOTH. The reviews were amazing when the album came out. It was general considered as a great creative album again, maybe the ebst after JT, AB, UF... Now you hear negative stories, cause the expected commercial succes stayed away (although I don't agree with that, but it's the general comment you hear everywhere). It's really too bad that this may be a reason for U2 to come back with a more 'hit single' album. In that way, they give themselves over to what others want.

I would say, stop wanting to be the biggest band in the world. Do what you really feel like doing with the music. Don't worry about losing a part of your fanbase (this happened to Radiohead when they came up with OK computer, and also when they came with KidA).
 
Well, I agree that Radiohead found their sound in "In Rainbows" But does that mean they are not experimental? Compare Kid A and In Rainbows and the argument that the same approach is hearable in both albums doesn't hold imo. Musically but also lyrically these albums are very very different. I see it as developing their sound.

I agree Kid A was much more experimental than In Rainbows. In Rainbows was just finely tuning the sounds they've been playing with over the last three records.


But the problem is that the terms reinvention and experimental are exchanged while people can look at it in a different way. If U2 would record an album with folk songs, does that mean they are experimenting? Or are they re-inventing their sound? Or just doing something different?
Well sure they would be experimenting, but it would depend on what they did with it if it was a re-invention or not.

But Wild Honey is not unique in its style, songs like House of Cards are imo.
But right here you are proving my point. You're saying House of Cards is unique? Structure wise, lyric wise, etc it's pretty much a pop song song with the Radiohead sound they've been doing for years. It's probably the furthest from "experimental" that Radiohead has done in years, but still a good pop song. But I ask you to find me something else that U2 has in their back catalog that had Wild Honey's approach? This is why I don't get people's description to "back to basics" as meaning U2 going back to their 80's sound, that's not what they meant at all...


I really like both bands. The difference is that Radiohead is really doing what they want. And they are not judged by lower sales, since they are considered more 'underground'
Well they also give away their albums and don't release any sales numbers, so it's hard to determine... I think it's hard to say that Radiohead is really doing what they want and U2 aren't, because then we get into the game of playing mind reader... I don't like that game.

I have the feeling U2 works always under the pressure of what people are expecting from them. People want indeed that U2 comes up with a re-invention/experimentation every time. I think this was your point and I have to agree with that. From the other hand, critics also 'demand' this high commercial succes from them. It's almost impossible that these two things coincide. Look at NLOTH. The reviews were amazing when the album came out. It was general considered as a great creative album again, maybe the ebst after JT, AB, UF... Now you hear negative stories, cause the expected commercial succes stayed away (although I don't agree with that, but it's the general comment you hear everywhere). It's really too bad that this may be a reason for U2 to come back with a more 'hit single' album. In that way, they give themselves over to what others want.

I would say, stop wanting to be the biggest band in the world. Do what you really feel like doing with the music. Don't worry about losing a part of your fanbase (this happened to Radiohead when they came up with OK computer, and also when they came with KidA).
I agree and disagree. Honestly I think U2 damage themselves too much by what they say rather than what they do... Bono mentions "hit single" and everyone groans, but AB was filled with hit singles. One, Light My Way, Mysterious Ways, Horses, all very straight-forward pop song structures. You say wanting to write a hit is doing what others want, but how do you know it isn't what they want?
 
I never said U2's back catalougue was filled with surprising melodies. I said I would like to hear surprising melodies. By surprising melodies I mean melodies that are unpredictable and surprise you. Melodies that don't seem bound by a song's chord progression (an example of a predictable melody bound by a chord progression- Original Of The Species, at the part where it goes - "and you feeeeeel, like no one before, and you feeeel" -

But whatever, this is just what i'd like to hear. I'm sure this explanation wasn't good enough for you. You're a technical person who wants technical explanations, and I'm just going by "sound" and "feel". So the melodies he sings in MOS continue to grow on me and surprise me, while the melodies he sings in CT wear thin and get old after a couple listens. Explanation? I don't know, you tell me what you want to hear....

Well I think you came to the crux of the situation. For the most part we can't describe in words what makes this song better than this song to us because you're right, it comes down to a feeling.

I think the majority of this board can't really describe what they are looking for in music, they just know it when they hear it.

Your explanation of what a suprising melody is doesn't make sense, for all melodies are defined by their chord structures.

And then using your two examples I would honestly say I think the opposite. I like MOS much much more than CT, but I think CT has the much more unique melody for U2...
 
Hmm, this Radiohead vs. U2 version 46.0 isn't very interesting and I apologize for taking the bait initially. So BVS, when you antagonize U2 fans for hoping for new sounds and pick apart all of their terminology is this because you're hoping the band sticks to the middle-of-the-road formula? I'm just a little confused about your MO here. Is it to try and pick holes in every post and therefore grind every conversation to a halt or turn it into some sort of band comparison game? Obviously, I don't think this is what you're trying to do, but your posts frequently have this effect. What are YOUR ideas about what the band should do? It seems you don't like anyone else's (except U2's--which are currently unknown to us anyway).
 
Hmm, this Radiohead vs. U2 version 46.0 isn't very interesting and I apologize for taking the bait initially. So BVS, when you antagonize U2 fans for hoping for new sounds and pick apart all of their terminology is this because you're hoping the band sticks to the middle-of-the-road formula?

Antagonize? Where has my tone been antagonizing in this conversation?

I'm not engaging in this debate because I don't think anyone should hope for new sounds from U2, I'm just trying to put a little bit of context into the situation. I think those that are calling for a new "reinvention" or saying U2 HAS to do this or do that need a little perspective, no other band has or has been called on to make as many transformations over the years.

"Sticks to the middle-of-the-road" formula? What does that even mean? Regardless of what you think about these songs; Vertigo, Wild Honey, Elevation, Stuck, MOS, GOYB, etc were not middle of the road formulaic songs for U2, I don't know how this became such a common idea?! Some of these may not be my favorite songs, but at least I have the objectivity to recognize when U2 are being formulaic or middle of the road. So you may have to explain to me what you mean by that term.

And the only reason I "pick apart" their terminology is that it's usually the loudest that use the same languange over and over but don't really think about what it means. They basically use it to describe songs they just don't like, but instead of admitting the reason they don't like it is a subjective one they talk about things they usually know little about.

I respect your opinion if you say "I just don't like Wild Honey". But don't tell me, "I can't stand Wild Honey because it's U2 doing the same old formulaic U2 sound and trying to win over the Britney Spears crowd", because this sentence(which I've actually seen in here) holds absolutely no water.


I'm just a little confused about what your MO is here. Is it to try and pick holes in every post and therefore grind every conversation to a halt or turn it into some sort of band comparison game? Obviously, I don't think this is what you're trying to do, but your posts frequently have this effect. What are YOUR ideas about what the band should do? It seems you don't like anyone else's (except U2's--which are currently unknown to us anyway).

I like those that make sense in their analysis'... There are several folks that I don't always agree with, but I respect their thought out analysis, Earnie being one.

For years I've seen a lot of the same arguments, but they don't make any sense but it's one of those things that if it's repeated enough people start to believe it.

Where would I like to see U2 go? Gosh, there's a lot of directions I'd like to see them explore. One thing about the 00's is that it's been fairly eclectic. I'd like to see them explore some of the ideas they were doing with the Million Dollar soundtrack, the Fast Cars/ Crazy Tonight rythmic ideas, MOS MOS MOS :drool:, only time will tell. I'm just not going to pretend to know the direction SHOULD go.
 
That's what I'm talking about! Great post.

I think the one part I take issue with is the suggestion that people calling for reinvention "need a little perspective". I don't think that's true--I just think they (or more accurately, we) have a different perspective. That said, I don't think the reinvention needs to be severe. They could accomplish this with your final suggestion about pursuing MDH ideas or some of the more lasting, unique material on NLOTH (MOS, FBB). Actually, my ideal 'reinvention' would simply be to release the more Morocco-influenced tracks that have already been recorded. I.e. Give us SOA as it stands. I like the sound of Kingdom and I like the descriptions of the tracks that are out there.
 
I think the one part I take issue with is the suggestion that people calling for reinvention "need a little perspective". I don't think that's true--I just think they (or more accurately, we) have a different perspective.

And the only thing I mean about needing perspective is that it's not as easy as saying "U2 need to reinvent themselves or they'll lose their relevance...".

Not many bands have reinvented themselves as many times as U2. Not many bands are called upon to do so. Plus you have to keep in mind what a reinvention would do to the overall legacy of U2. And what I mean by that is things can go either really well or really bad when making a big departure... maybe the songs won't fit in with their back catalog, it makes leave U2 on a sour note, etc...

I think you are much more realistic in your perspective that U2 can do something that doesn't have to be severe. But I think most want something severe when they hear "reinvention" I think U2 did make a pretty big departure with the majority of NLOTH, but I still hear "where was this reinvention that Lanois was talking about?" I think NLOTH is a two song difference from being a great album, not JT or AB masterpiece but great. They were almost there.
 
Well I think you came to the crux of the situation. For the most part we can't describe in words what makes this song better than this song to us because you're right, it comes down to a feeling.

I think the majority of this board can't really describe what they are looking for in music, they just know it when they hear it.

Your explanation of what a suprising melody is doesn't make sense, for all melodies are defined by their chord structures.

And then using your two examples I would honestly say I think the opposite. I like MOS much much more than CT, but I think CT has the much more unique melody for U2...

Forget I mentioned "melody" at all. Because even a halfway decent melody can be spoiled by the music surrounding it. Let's just say that some songs, as a whole, wear thin sometimes after several listens. I'm sure you've had that experience in your lifetime. Some songs just lack replay value. And when it comes to my personal taste, it seems to be in that style of optimistic squeaky clean arena rock that U2 have being churning out this decade where the songs get old. CT, Breathe, COBL, SUC, Vertigo, OOTS, SYCMIOYO... I find both the melodies and musical arrangements in these types of songs boring. So i guess it's a personal taste thing. And despite what Bono believes, I think U2 are at the top of their game creatively when they're not going out of their way to be "uncool". I think with songs like MOS, F-BB, WAS...it's not that they're trying to sound "cool" or "dark" or whatever, it's that they're just letting the songs do the talking. It's just some songs telling stories. No pretense or anything.

I'm sure ill have a lot of explaining to do here. Lol
 
You have to wonder how much is u2 is the subject of debate over on radioheads message boards. Are thier posts like , "yea, i hate thier last album, why can't it be more like u2's wide awake in america!" or threads like "Sail to the Moon vs big girls are best"
 
Well, I don't blame U2 when they have a hit single. It's just that I have the feeling that the 'lack of commercial success' of NLOTH will make them decide to not bring out that "more meditative album on the theme of pilgrimage" 9 songs were written?

In october in the Guardian, U2 explained their disappointment on the 'lack of commercial success' of NLOTH and that they did not provided that hit single...
End of december it was stated by Mc Guinness that probably june 2010 around the start of the new tour the new album would come out..
Beginning of January Edge had that conversation with Dave Fanning where he talked about the band's uncertainty over what to do next: the SOA material?, Rick Rubin material?, or the Spider-Man songs?

My gut feeling says they will put SOA on hold, come out with more mainstream Rick Rubin material, or an EP/single for the start of the Tour.

The problem is also that U2 (Bono) talks a lot and too much. Bringing all kinds of expectations finally not holding true.
 
I think NLOTH is a two song difference from being a great album, not JT or AB masterpiece but great. They were almost there.

I completely agree. My criticisms of NLOTH are very minor, even compared with those of my very favorite U2 albums. The main problem I have with NLOTH is something that isn't even related to the music--it's the way in which the album has perceived by the world and, most importantly, by the band. This is what concerns me. What they think the problems with the album are and what I think they are quite different. They wanted the hit...and I wanted them to leave off some of the more striving-for-hit sounds.

In the end, I think I'd like U2 to be willing to take a big risk. Rather than keeping the progressions minimal and heading into a trend of diminishing returns in almost every respect, I'd to see them remain as artistically adventurous as possible. Even if it doesn't work out in terms of popularity, I actually think it's their only chance to improve their legacy over and above what they've already achieved. And if they fall into a Rolling Stones pattern, I for one will feel like they're doing damage to their brand.
 
I completely agree. My criticisms of NLOTH are very minor, even compared with those of my very favorite U2 albums. The main problem I have with NLOTH is something that isn't even related to the music--it's the way in which the album has perceived by the world and, most importantly, by the band. This is what concerns me. What they think the problems with the album are and what I think they are quite different. They wanted the hit...and I wanted them to leave off some of the more striving-for-hit sounds.

In the end, I think I'd like U2 to be willing to take a big risk. Rather than keeping the progressions minimal and heading into a trend of diminishing returns in almost every respect, I'd to see them remain as artistically adventurous as possible. Even if it doesn't work out in terms of popularity, I actually think it's their only chance to improve their legacy over and above what they've already achieved. And if they fall into a Rolling Stones pattern, I for one will feel like they're doing damage to their brand.

I'm totally with you on NLOTH. I also feel it was just short of being a great album. I've said it before on this forum, I feel like 7 songs on this album sound like a new U2, but every so often the U2 from HTDAAB drops in to say hello. It's like "Who let you in here?!"

There's an argument out there that U2 need to deliver in both the commercial and the creative. I don't think anything's written in stone. I think the band can do whatever they want at this stage in their career. For instance, and just bear with me, the Rolling Stones' last album, to my knowledge, didn't spawn any hit songs (at least i never heard of any), but they're still selling out all over the world wherever they play. Where am i going with this? I'm saying that U2 don't have to be so worried about having a smash hit single, because they already have a reputation of being one of the best live acts around. They will always have people to play for.

And I know they want another huge hit. Fair enough, I can understand it. But I don't think it's the kind of hit they can force. Like ISHFWILF, WOWY, One... they just gotta be patient and let the magic happen. Or they can keep writing more CT's and GOYB's. I vote the former.
 
I'm totally with you on NLOTH. I also feel it was just short of being a great album. I've said it before on this forum, I feel like 7 songs on this album sound like a new U2, but every so often the U2 from HTDAAB drops in to say hello. It's like "Who let you in here?!"

There's an argument out there that U2 need to deliver in both the commercial and the creative. I don't think anything's written in stone. I think the band can do whatever they want at this stage in their career. For instance, and just bear with me, the Rolling Stones' last album, to my knowledge, didn't spawn any hit songs (at least i never heard of any), but they're still selling out all over the world wherever they play. Where am i going with this? I'm saying that U2 don't have to be so worried about having a smash hit single, because they already have a reputation of being one of the best live acts around. They will always have people to play for.

And I know they want another huge hit. Fair enough, I can understand it. But I don't think it's the kind of hit they can force. Like ISHFWILF, WOWY, One... they just gotta be patient and let the magic happen. Or they can keep writing more CT's and GOYB's. I vote the former.

good call on the "HTDAAB drops in" comment. it's very evident in SUC. that's why i prefer my alternate version that replaces SUC with the Linear version of Winter.
 
Not to beat on a dead horse...but I will.
For me, the best possible option for the band going forward would be recapturing their adventurous focus and enjoying themselves making records they would play over and over again as music fans, not trying to meet everyone´s expectations.
God I hear Zooropa and, to me, it sounds so fresh I almost can´t believe it was done almost 20 years ago. I´d love to hear Edge producing now.
As other posters have said, it's not about a drastic change anymore, it´s about creating a record that you can loose yourself into.
 
Not to beat on a dead horse...but I will.
For me, the best possible option for the band going forward would be recapturing their adventurous focus and enjoying themselves making records they would play over and over again as music fans, not trying to meet everyone´s expectations.
God I hear Zooropa and, to me, it sounds so fresh I almost can´t believe it was done almost 20 years ago. I´d love to hear Edge producing now.
As other posters have said, it's not about a drastic change anymore, it´s about creating a record that you can loose yourself into.

exactly. i just don't understand why at their age, they're so concerned about what other people think about them. a couple pages back, i had compared the U2 i would like to have to current David Byrne....he just seems happy and comfortable in his own skin.
 
"u2 should do this"
"u2 should do that"

It all boils down to what the real message is. "U2 should do what I want them to do." Everyone thinks they know what's best for them. The only thing U2 should do is... crazy idea... what THEY want to do. They don't owe me anything. And when that stops being interesting to me, I'll move on. Reading some of the posts around this site day in and day out, it seems like there are people who have reached that point, but for whatever reason, can't come to grips with it. Probably because U2 have been a part of their life for so long, they don't want to admit that the music that was once a perfect fit for them, is no longer a perfect fit.
 
"u2 should do this"
"u2 should do that"

It all boils down to what the real message is. "U2 should do what I want them to do." Everyone thinks they know what's best for them. The only thing U2 should do is... crazy idea... what THEY want to do. They don't owe me anything. And when that stops being interesting to me, I'll move on. Reading some of the posts around this site day in and day out, it seems like there are people who have reached that point, but for whatever reason, can't come to grips with it. Probably because U2 have been a part of their life for so long, they don't want to admit that the music that was once a perfect fit for them, is no longer a perfect fit.

you know, this is another one of those posts that just kills me and only damages the integrity of this place. :down:

this thread, for the most part, has been an intelligent and positive conversation. have you even read this thread before making that comment? U2 is and always will be my favorite band, though there are some things that i wish they would have done differently. this is a U2 message board, and this is the appropriate place to discuss these things.


edit. i apologize for being harsh, but i'm just starting to wonder if it's possible to have intelligent conversations here (that sometimes may involve criticism) without offending people.
 
Whoever was in charge of U2’s image for NLOTH and the promotion should be fired. Remember Bono with the eyeliner and talk of taking on characters for the tour. It seemed U2 wanted to do something different but backed out resorting to the general U2 image/promotion of this decade. Pictures of the band members (see ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and NLOTH), and seen everywhere on TV (Letterman (which was cool), Good Morning America, BBC). Even the last few videos for U2 have been similar. U2 are doing the same poses for GOYB & Vertigo. Crazy Tonight was a welcome to the U2 video formula. Then the release of the 2nd single went totally unnoticed.

The general audience just might be tired of "seeing" U2 the same way every 3-4 years.

Its like U2 had the music for change but didn’t want to take the risk of being too different from the last few albums. I know this is kind of minor but these are thing the general public look at.
 
Back
Top Bottom