Age should no longer be an excuse for U2.

[Zoots]

This is just one of the typical threads that pops up everytime a rock veteran releases an album. I still remember those threads when Depeche Mode, Pearl Jam and RHCP released their last albums. Everything gets compared to U2 nowadays. I guess it's because the fan base is so divided on their material. But really, come to think of it, the DM and RHCP releases had their own weaknesses. Everyone has their own weakness. The Pearl Jam album was pretty damn near perfect though! And this REM one is really good... but tis still early days yet! Let's see if it has staying power.

As for whether age is an excuse for producing sub par music, no it is not. BUT the problem here is that the band does not think they're producing sub par music. The band thinks HTDAAB is one of their best albums if not THE best. It's only one section of the fan base that is disappointed in the album. Meh. <-- to this whole thread!

 

[U2girl]

But that's what the band always say about their new album. I would hope they still stand behind, and believe, in their current work.

 

[roy]

BUT the problem here is that the band does not think they're producing sub par music.

Ok but is that not YOUR problem as it's your opinion that they are producing sub-par music?

 

[Zoots]

But that's what the band always say about their new album.

True. And that's my point. It's not like they're giving excuses for HTDAAB. Why should they? They like what they made.

Ok but is that not YOUR problem as it's your opinion that they are producing sub-par music?

I'm not saying I have a problem with their opinion of their own album. I'm just saying all this talk of excuses doesn't make sense cos it's not like the band is going... "Uhh sorry the Bomb sucked. It's cos we're old."

 

[Utoo]

Haha...."age is not an excuse." For a second, I thought we were going to find out the real reason why Adam's engagement broke off.....

 

[ndmaxfield]

It has probably been noted here already, but...

...until Funplex, it had been FIFTEEN YEARS since the B52's released a full album.

Whether you like U2's latest body of work or not, they've had a RELATIVELY steady flow of music coming out (at least when you compare them to the B52's!).

 

[Salome]

AC/DC

 

[the tourist]

I think U2 should make a stripped down album with only acoustic guitars, upright bass, lounge piano, and lounge drums.

 

[Moser]

When has U2 ever made an excuse for their music for being old?

(Watch...someone is actually going to dig real hard for some quote...)

 

[Visiongfx]

My dream is when U2 gets old enough that they can't tour, and old enough to not care what direction of music they go in, they should try doing a post rock album (with few vocals), or go into a very expiremental instrumental (bono playing some instruments too isntead of singing) direction.

 

[mofo82]

Everything gets compared to U2 nowadays...

The Pearl Jam album was pretty damn near perfect though! And this REM one is really good... but tis still early days yet! Let's see if it has staying power.

As for whether age is an excuse for producing sub par music, no it is not. BUT the problem here is that the band does not think they're producing sub par music.

You're right on Zootlesque about the comparisons coming from every direction. Plus, I loved PJ's last album too- it was a monster that deserved a lot more attention than it received. Had the original poster not gone after U2 making age as an excuse, and said that maybe they've gotten comfortable at the age they're at, then I'd probably agree. He had some good intentions, mainly because those groups, including Pearl Jam and RCHP were and still are contemporaries. But, U2 have never followed anyone else's blueprints. I think it's coincidence that some of these groups decided to plug in and play a little harder. U2 are sort of off in their own corner I think.

I wouldn't expect U2's next album to be anything near what Pearl Jam and REM's latest works. What I do expect is that they will push themselves as those bands have and not let age stop them from being creative enough to forge a fresh sound that isn't reminiscent of their own past, ala REM's rut of their previous 2 albums. REM has admittedly gotten in a rut mainly because of the frustrations of losing Bill Berry and having two very different identities- live band vs. studio band. What they've just done with Accelerate is what U2 did with ATYCLB. They cut out the fat, made a lean, well written album, and learned from their excursions away from their usual selves. U2 don't have that problem right now what so ever, because they've already been there. They are in a musical period that sees them maturing while trying to remain relevant in pop music's culture, not their own aging.

This thread is all over the place, I've tried my best to say what I'm trying to say, just too many comparisons at once I think.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Well put, Mofo!

 

[doctorwho]

The B-52's re-emerged with a huge hit album in 1989/1990 with "Cosmic Thing". Before that, they were best known for their late 70's hit "Rock Lobster". Since that "Love Shack" inspired album, The B-52's have released two studio albums - this new one being their second. And people complain about how slow U2's releases are! I guess if you wait a 15-ish years between releases, you might pull together some good songs.

REM released a series of very ballad like albums this decade. After those all pretty much flopped (decent sales for a small artist, but not good sales for an artist signed to a $70M contract!), they are re-emerging hoping to catch fire again with a sound they had in the late 80's and early 90's.

U2's biggest hit, JT, is hardly some "rocking" album. Yes, there are guitars, but the sound is very atmospheric (typical of Eno) and the songs are hardly pop. It's a bit of a mystery how JT became such a huge hit, especially given the time. My guess is that it was so different to everything else out there - plus U2 had the perfect lead single. Still, stating that U2's more recent work isn't "rocking" suggest their past work did rock - and that's hardly true. Even "Pop" didn't rock much. There were more experimental and slow tracks on "Pop" than on many U2 albums.

Lastly, I have never heard anyone from U2's camp state that the band's sound has mellowed due to age. All the quotes I've read over the past few years revolved around Edge re-discovering the guitar or him being on fire, etc. Granted, there are a lot of mellow moments on ATYCLB and, to a lesser extent, HTDAAB, but that appears to be where U2 were at this point in time.

Will U2's new material be different? Perhaps. But again, U2 have always had a lot of mellow moments on their albums along with more atmospheric sounds. This is their nature and the nature of Eno/Lanois. If Eno/Lanois have a bigger influence on this new release, I expect, if anything, more of a UF type of sound: some moments of rock, but mostly a more introspective sound.

 

[andyuk]

shell we compare REM and B52's last two albums before their new released ones. Well U2 produced Beautiful Day, Walk on, Stuck, Elevation, Vertigo, Sometimes, City of blinding lights

Rem and B52 urmmmmmm........ can't remember!

Sorry this is a bad post!

 

[U2387]

REM and B-52's, as many have already said better than me, are completely different than U2 and if you ask me, are not fit to tune U2 guitars. I do not see the point- since when does 'rocking' define good?? And I am a little skeptical of REM being used as an example of 'rocking' over U2. Losing my religion? End of the world as we know it? Radio Free Europe? Supernatural, superserious? All are pretty mid tempo songs, debatable for rockers. Dont know which would shake a stadium, will not experience REM live until June I believe, but I doubt any would Contrast that with U2's rockers: I will follow, another time another place, out of control, electric co, an cat dubh, a day without me, twilight, gloria, SBS, NYD, Pride, Wire, Streets, Exit, Bullet, IGC, God Part II, Hawkmoon 269, EBTTRT, Fly, Zoo Station, Ultraviolet, UTEOTW, MW, dirty day, zooropa,LNOE, Gone, MOFO, Hold me thrill me,....kill me, BD, Elevation, Vertigo, ABOY, COBL, and a bunch more I am sure I forgot, not to mention b-sides such as lady w/ the spinning head. Are these hard rock?? Not in the least bit, do they rock as much or more than REM or B-52s, for sure! And like everyone else said, when the hell was the last time we heard from either one of these bands? Supernatural superserious, I think I would rock out to that over The Fly or Electric co any day... just kidding! HTDAAB had plenty of rock, the next should have more. U2 has done great rock, great ballads, great mid tempo, great everything and done it consistently. They have not rocked all the time since their early days(until 1983) but have rocked plenty since on each album. REM has their ballads as well- everybody hurts or something like that, cant remember now! since. Where U2 has had sustained brilliance and success, REM, B-52s have had flashes of brilliance and success, good bands- nothing more, nothing less. Overall, the great band, the more 'rocking band' is U2!

 

[Rob33]

Will U2's new material be different? Perhaps. But again, U2 have always had a lot of mellow moments on their albums along with more atmospheric sounds. This is their nature and the nature of Eno/Lanois. If Eno/Lanois have a bigger influence on this new release, I expect, if anything, more of a UF type of sound: some moments of rock, but mostly a more introspective sound.

i hope so

although, now that i think about it, I haven't heard anything about Eno...

 

[Needle_Chill]

Dont know which would shake a stadium, will not experience REM live until June I believe, but I doubt any would Contrast that with U2's rockers: I will follow, another time another place, out of control, electric co, an cat dubh, a day without me, twilight, gloria, SBS, NYD, Pride, Wire, Streets, Exit, Bullet, IGC, God Part II, Hawkmoon 269, EBTTRT, Fly, Zoo Station, Ultraviolet, UTEOTW, MW, dirty day, zooropa,LNOE, Gone, MOFO, Hold me thrill me,....kill me, BD, Elevation, Vertigo, ABOY, COBL, and a bunch more I am sure I forgot,

No no... I think you got them all!

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

U2 has never used age as an excuse, I really don't remember they ever using it. And even the press hasn't been hard on them about it. Hopefully they won't have to answer age questions in every interview they do like The Rolling Stones have for the last 20 years.