Album cover leaked! Not a joke!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Same old patronizing, condescending bullshit in every. single. post.

It's always dejà vu with this guy.
 
I think it's safe to say that THIS might be the only thing we can all agree on.

Not necessarily, no. ;)

Yes my fellow Blue Crackers, I sincerely wouldn't be crushed if U2 never released a new album again.
 
Not necessarily, no. ;)

Yes my fellow Blue Crackers, I sincerely wouldn't be crushed if U2 never released a new album again.

Agreed. I was actually hoping they would retire because I have an awful feeling about this album.
 
Not necessarily, no. ;)

Yes my fellow Blue Crackers, I sincerely wouldn't be crushed if U2 never released a new album again.

Agreed. I was actually hoping they would retire because I have an awful feeling about this album.

I honestly couldn't give a shit if they never release another one. I'm certain I'll get excited if they do announce one, but I'm not fussed either way.
 
It is a pretty bold statement to make... whether I would be fine with them not releasing anything after No Line On The Horizon. Of course, we know that something is on its way, otherwise we wouldn't even be getting those little bits of info from Larry or Adam. Hinting at things and not delivering at all would likely cause a huge backclash in their core fan base I would imagine... not that it will necessarily hurt them sales wise at this point.

But honestly thinking about it... they've given us a lot of variety so far, haven't they?.. the early to mid 80s post punk and politically charged rock, the experimental soundscapes of Unforgettable Fire, the epic that is the Joshua Tree, blues influences and classic rock in Rattle and Hum... the sound of a new generation Achtung Baby, the total mindfuck of Zooropa and Pop, the soulful pop phase of ATYCLB and HTDAAB and the moroccan sounds of NLOTH. Would it still hurt if they never released anything else and just broke up? It probably would for me... atleast for a while. Only because that tiny glimmer of hope that they will stop worrying about chart success and simply make a mature album as elder statesmen of rock... is still there somewhere in my head.
 
To be honest, I don't look forward to U2 releasing an album. I have such a nice life right now, calm, and enough money. All of that will change when they bring out the album. Oh, the stress :no:




:wink:
 
Not necessarily, no. ;)

Yes my fellow Blue Crackers, I sincerely wouldn't be crushed if U2 never released a new album again.

I am so curious about this. What is it like to love a band well enough to hang out on their fan board, yet wish that they would stop working?

This reminds me a little bit of Bono's comments about rock and roll being a death cult, how rock culture believes that age means inevitable decline in a way that it doesn't for something like architecture or painting. What do you think- is it true? Radio hits aside, is it impossible for the creative juggernaut to keep going? Is it better to "die young", so to speak? Are U2 destined to recycle and become the Rolling Stones?
 
I am so curious about this. What is it like to love a band well enough to hang out on their fan board, yet wish that they would stop working?

Actually, I mostly come to Interference to discuss music by other bands. A big chunk of Interference actually has little to do with U2. But some discussion on U2 does motivate me to go back and listen to their music, which is always a rewarding experience, although this also has to do with the fact that I tend to avoid their work of this century.
 
I am so curious about this. What is it like to love a band well enough to hang out on their fan board, yet wish that they would stop working?

This reminds me a little bit of Bono's comments about rock and roll being a death cult, how rock culture believes that age means inevitable decline in a way that it doesn't for something like architecture or painting. What do you think- is it true? Radio hits aside, is it impossible for the creative juggernaut to keep going? Is it better to "die young", so to speak? Are U2 destined to recycle and become the Rolling Stones?

ah never heard/read that (re Bono)...

actually the elder statesmen iof rock are more like Townshend, Daltry, Springsteen...... Jagger

and Zeppers.... i suppose


Pete has definately thought about rockers getting older....

but look at other music Genres Blues, R&B, Soul, Latin, various Traditional Music (thinking particulalry African and Arabic) and their fusion/Wolrd Music counterparts....
all those don't make fun of older/elder musicians etc

But as someone said- R&R was born in Youth Culture- so it's an exploration for those musicians/singers/songwriters to break that stereotyping and fans as well.
 
By becoming the Rolling Stones I meant, recycling themselves, failing to grow as musicians and capitalizing on past brilliance rather than pushing on to new creativity. Maybe some folks on this forum would disagree but I don't think U2 is there.

And you're right that other genres don't make fun of their elders- but they also don't expect continual innovation out of them so much as continuing virtuosity. Rock does, or rather it expects continual innovation in the genre and assumes that artists can only keep that up for so long, and that the shelf life of a rock musician as "cool" is very short in relation to their actual life span. We really idolize the early brilliance/flame out early heroes like Kurt and Janice and Jimi. I'll go back and listen through some old interviews to find the quotes I'm thinking of. I know the series but not the particular segment, so it may take a day or two.
 
Perhaps that's a problem that rock fans should get over...

To expect bands and acts going on 30 to 40 years in the business to constantly reinvent themselves is a bit unrealistic.

Frankly, i don't want musicians old enough to be grandfathers trying to copy 20 year olds in an effort to stay hip. It often tuns out to be quite pathetic.
 
No, I agree about copying 20 year olds. But I'm a little offended by the idea that because a musician ages he automatically comes to the end of his artistic growth and becomes lame, a self caricature. Of course many do, but it's not inevitable. Earlier in this thread I heard a lot of comments that seemed to suggest that U2 should have packed it in some time ago, which I find sad.
 
There's a lot to admire about the Stones, like their stamina, their work ethic and the integrity of their sound. But on the "Doing what we're great at really well" versus "Sticking our asses out doing something profoundly uncomfortable and challenging to us" continuum, I do think they fall closer to the first.
 
By becoming the Rolling Stones I meant, recycling themselves, failing to grow as musicians and capitalizing on past brilliance rather than pushing on to new creativity. Maybe some folks on this forum would disagree but I don't think U2 is there.

And you're right that other genres don't make fun of their elders- but they also don't expect continual innovation out of them so much as continuing virtuosity. Rock does, or rather it expects continual innovation in the genre and assumes that artists can only keep that up for so long, and that the shelf life of a rock musician as "cool" is very short in relation to their actual life span. We really idolize the early brilliance/flame out early heroes like Kurt and Janice and Jimi. I'll go back and listen through some old interviews to find the quotes I'm thinking of. I know the series but not the particular segment, so it may take a day or two.

It would be a sad day if Bono said things like this:

Mick Jagger claims fans don't like new Rolling Stones material | News | NME.COM
 
There's a lot to admire about the Stones, like their stamina, their work ethic and the integrity of their sound. But on the "Doing what we're great at really well" versus "Sticking our asses out doing something profoundly uncomfortable and challenging to us" continuum, I do think they fall closer to the first.

What if they simply like what they're doing? Why does something have to be uncomfortable and profound?

Shit... Tom Petty and Neil Young haven't changed their sound in 40 years... there's nothing wrong with just doing good old fashioned rock and roll. Not everything has to be innovative and mind blowing. Just being entertaining is pretty valuable as well.
 
What if they simply like what they're doing? Why does something have to be uncomfortable and profound?

Shit... Tom Petty and Neil Young haven't changed their sound in 40 years... there's nothing wrong with just doing good old fashioned rock and roll. Not everything has to be innovative and mind blowing. Just being entertaining is pretty valuable as well.

Exactly. From day one the Stones were never about innovation or experimentation. If you ask Keef, he will tell the Stones are not even a rock 'n' roll band. He will probably say they are a rhythm and blues group.

They tried something "innovative" sometimes during their long career (stuff from Undercover, Bridges to Babylon come to mind), but their forte is the non nonsense straight blues-rock music.
 
Back
Top Bottom