How to deal with new album expectations

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
You can like any album you want because music is subjective. However, it should be clear to everyone that the band isn't up to the standard they were from 1984-1995. Musically and lyrically they aren't there anymore.

In your opinion.
 
music is subjective. However, it should be clear to everyone
:lol:

it should be clear to anyone that All that you can't ... is their best album since Unforgettable Fire
because music is subjective and it's a very nice day outside and Adam is in no way related to me
 
Screwtape2:You can like any album you want because music is subjective. However, it should be clear to everyone that the band isn't up to the standard they were from 1984-1995. Musically and lyrically they aren't there anymore.
spot on! :up: imo i would include POP too. one of their best lyrics ever!
 
:lol:

it should be clear to anyone that All that you can't ... is their best album since Unforgettable Fire
because music is subjective and it's a very nice day outside and Adam is in no way related to me

While music is subjective you can through objective observation see certain things about an artist. In this case you can see their prime and track their rise and fall. Subjectively you can say an album is great or song is great but when objective you can see that it isn't up to the standard of their earlier work.
 
Actually I think Boy is light years better than the last two albums and even Pop. I'd say the same about Edge's guitar playing. I'm not U2'd out. They just aren't up to their standards.

I really don't see what Coldplay, Radiohead or Bob Dylan have to do with anything. :shrug:

What I mean is that the STANDARD, if not in U2, isn't anywhere else I can hear. Try listening to other bands as much as U2 and see if you can take it. I can tell that anyone who is on this board must listen to U2 a lot since they are willing to offer opinions and criticize.

Try listening to Viva la Vida or Death and all his friends as much as your favorite U2 albums and see if it holds up to the STANDARD.

You mentioned before that Coldplay's new album is loved and that people are expecting U2 to be better. U2's last 2 albums compete with all of Coldplay's albums. Why wouldn't people expect it to be better? They are U2 fans.

I wish this STANDARD was applied to every other band. If U2 quit now there would be a black hole in rock 'n roll for sure.
 
If you look at it objectively most people would reach the same conclusion. :shrug:

if people would look at it objectively they would reach the conclusions that i make.

i, afterall, know all things in the realm of (subjective) taste in music. it is all subjective except when i look at it, then it is objective. so you are all knowing when it comes to something as subjective as taste in music?

do you even listen to yourself?

wow.
 
Even if we are harsh with U2 and like only 6 tracks from the last 2 albums, that would be a higher ratio than most bands can get from me. If I like 3 songs on an album then that's a pretty above average ratio.

To be honest with most U2 albums including October I like at least 6 - 10 songs. When you multiply that by the number of albums, including ATYCLB (10 songs), HTDAAB (11 songs), you get a lot of songs compared to all bands ever. Even Passengers has about 5 to 6 tracks I can enjoy today.
 
What I mean is that the STANDARD, if not in U2, isn't anywhere else I can hear. Try listening to other bands as much as U2 and see if you can take it. I can tell that anyone who is on this board must listen to U2 a lot since they are willing to offer opinions and criticize.

Try listening to Viva la Vida or Death and all his friends as much as your favorite U2 albums and see if it holds up to the STANDARD.

You mentioned before that Coldplay's new album is loved and that people are expecting U2 to be better. U2's last 2 albums compete with all of Coldplay's albums. Why wouldn't people expect it to be better? They are U2 fans.

I wish this STANDARD was applied to every other band. If U2 quit now there would be a black hole in rock 'n roll for sure.

Okay, I see what you are saying. I don't think it is possible to hold one artist's standard to anothers. When we do it takes us back to subjectivity. For example, some people think Coldplay's best work is better than U2's. Some people don't. When subjectivity comes into play there is no way to get an answer to the comparison.

To your question in the third paragraph, they were saying that the new U2 album would be better because of Coldplay. They think the new album will be amazing because they want to remain dominant over bands like Coldplay.
 
if people would look at it objectively they would reach the conclusions that i make.

i, afterall, know all things in the realm of (subjective) taste in music. it is all subjective except when i look at it, then it is objective. so you are all knowing when it comes to something as subjective as taste in music?

do you even listen to yourself?

wow.

That's not what I said. I have subjective tastes but when I and most people look at the band objectively they'll reach the same conclusion as I have.
 
Boy thru Pop is indeed better than the last 2 albums (IN MY OPINION) but if somebody else feels differently, their opinion is just as valid. There is no place for the word objective here. Everything is subjective!
 
Not really. I use objectivity more than most people.

where is it written in stone that one U2 album is better than another or one phase of their career was more creative than another?

You can show me album sales and release dates and concert attendance numbers - these are facts and numbers but creativity cannot and WILL NEVER be measurable.

Therefore, you can state that their creative output from 1980-1994 was much higher than what it is today AS YOUR OPINION, NOT FACT.

I agree with you for the most part by the way but to say that you are objective about this is like saying the colour of this website is bright pink with a neon green flower pattern...
 
This thread has become rather silly. I think its fair to say that our appreciation of music is subjective and that we can give slightly more objective reasons for why this is--although these "objective" reasons will still be interpreted subjectively, meaning that I can say that New Year's Day is the best song (subjective) because of the thumping, innovative bass line (subjective interpretation of objective aural reality).

Hence, people can have the complete opposite feelings toward the exact same thing--Bono's voice being a good example. His voice is the same pitch etc. to both people, but one hates it and the other loves it and each gives many reasons why. Neither are being more or less subjective or objective than the other...yet they have completely different beliefs.

That said, I think it would be much more pleasant if people backed up their opinions with strong reasons so that we could have higher-minded discussions.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with whoever said that taking (a long) time off from U2 and then revisiting them is mindblowing. These remasters have got me into a U2-mania. I hadn't really listed to them (besides a few songs here and there) in over a year. No album listen-throughs at all. I've listened to a lot of good music in that time...but man. U2 still really gets, and I was worried that I was maybe permanently losing my interest/getting tired of their music.
 
Yeah, that's fair. I think his style has definitely become more ordinary and boring, particularly on HTDAAB (ATYCLB definitely has some innovative and interesting bits). But I think that it probably boils down to which style you like more rather than any technical ability or even creativity. They wanted to write direct songs and the guitar backs that up. But I think he's still got it in him, and we will here it very soon. But I agree with you that Edge is best when he's painting textures and soundscapes--most notably on UF and JT (I think here he is at his most innovative, where he developed a sound that is uniquely his in the history of rock).

And yet this, one of the most valid points - and IMO the key to the "weaker" output - of the last decade of U2, rarely is brought up. The key element of U2's sound was - call it lack of inspiration, I call it a break from having to find new sound for each new album - not quite up there so why should anyone else in the band be ? I don't expect the lyrics to be about the same themes as they used to be, because the lyricist is at a different place (though he's the other member that needs to step up). Sometimes it feels like this is Bono Springsteeen or Bono Dylan the way the lyrics get talked about. Yes he can write good lyrics, but he'll never be considered one of the greats - what sets him apart is the ability to deliver and sell lines on record.

Coldplay/Chris Martin comparisons - the logical comparison is either first 4 albums by both bands or the output by both bands/songwriters by Coldplay's current age. :hmm:

If the standard is War-AB period (ignore Rattle and Hum), that's their best work so yeah, nothing else in their catalogue compares (and I say that with the Eno/Lanois/Lillywhite hype in mind). If the standard, however, is the immediate predecessor, most consider Bomb an improvement over All that. And it sounds like LP 12 will do the same, and then some.
 
where is it written in stone that one U2 album is better than another or one phase of their career was more creative than another?

You can show me album sales and release dates and concert attendance numbers - these are facts and numbers but creativity cannot and WILL NEVER be measurable.

Therefore, you can state that their creative output from 1980-1994 was much higher than what it is today AS YOUR OPINION, NOT FACT.

I agree with you for the most part by the way but to say that you are objective about this is like saying the colour of this website is bright pink with a neon green flower pattern...

You aren't understanding me. When you are objective and make an analysis it isn't an opinion it is a factual conclusion. The difference is that it can be proven to another person with an objective mindset.
 
You aren't understanding me. When you are objective and make an analysis it isn't an opinion it is a factual conclusion. The difference is that it can be proven to another person with an objective mindset.

With some things, perhaps. But with music this statement is simply untrue.
 
With some things, perhaps. But with music this statement is simply untrue.

Actually music and art are fairly easy to view objectively and make conclusions about. By looking at the human life you can see the common changes in expression and instrumentation. You know the common events and period of life for those events that have an effect on art. So it is pretty easy to chart different things about an artist.
 
You aren't understanding me. When you are objective and make an analysis it isn't an opinion it is a factual conclusion. The difference is that it can be proven to another person with an objective mindset.

:lol:

You aren't understanding me. Making a "factual conclusion" about something that is subjective is an oxymoron and completely ridiculous...
 
:lol:

You aren't understanding me. Making a "factual conclusion" about something that is subjective is an oxymoron and completely ridiculous...

Subjectivity and objectivity are ways of viewing things. Subjectivity is used for taste. Objectivity is used to make conclusions. Music is subjective because it is using taste. However, the artist can be viewed objectively because you can make factual conclusions about them and their work. Art relies on interpretation but the artist is a human being able to be plotted, understood and explained. I can't make it any clearer than that.
 
Subjectivity and objectivity are ways of viewing things. Subjectivity is used for taste. Objectivity is used to make conclusions. Music is subjective because it is using taste. However, the artist can be viewed objectively because you can make factual conclusions about them and their work. Art relies on interpretation but the artist is a human being able to be plotted, understood and explained. I can't make it any clearer than that.

well you better try harder then :huh:

What FACTUAL conclusions can you make about their last 3 albums that will prove to another person that their creativity has diminished?

In fact, give me one fact, just one solid incontrovertible fact that will prove this without a shadow of a doubt.
 
well you better try harder then :huh:

What FACTUAL conclusions can you make about their last 3 albums that will prove to another person that their creativity has diminished?

In fact, give me one fact, just one solid incontrovertible fact that will prove this without a shadow of a doubt.

A lack of the ethereal.

Every artist has a thing in their music that is theirs. For U2 it is the ethereal. An artist's prime usually ends when they go away from that thing. U2 would go deeper and deeper into atmospheres and taking us into the intangible. That peaked with Passengers. It isn't the sound of the band anymore. You can hear it from TUF through to Passengers. The lack of the ethereal is one reason they are out of their prime and why their stuff afterwards isn't up to standard.
 
Are you talking about atmosphere? Because every album has at least one atmospheric track!

Boy - Ocean
October - Scarlet/October
War - Drowning Man/Surrender
UF - Several!
JT - Several!
RH - Heartland
AB - UTEOTW, Ultraviolet
Zooropa - title track
Pop - Velvet Dress, IGWSHA, WUDM
ATYCLB - When I Look..., Grace
Bomb - OSC, Yahweh (to an extent)
 
A lack of the ethereal.

Every artist has a thing in their music that is theirs. For U2 it is the ethereal. An artist's prime usually ends when they go away from that thing. U2 would go deeper and deeper into atmospheres and taking us into the intangible. That peaked with Passengers. It isn't the sound of the band anymore. You can hear it from TUF through to Passengers. The lack of the ethereal is one reason they are out of their prime and why their stuff afterwards isn't up to standard.

This is your standard of course. Maybe U2 want to do something different. The emotion on HTDAAB was palpable as well as in ATYCLB. Partly they were reacting to the fact that people thought they were lost on POP. Usually U2 has to change it up every so often because albums like Passengers or even Achtung Baby can be criticized for being "too ethereal" if they stay on a certain path too long. I don't find too much ethereal with All I want is you, Desire, Hawkmoon, much of the first 3 albums, but they are good nonetheless.

I do love Passengers though. I hope they will make do on their promise for a Passengers sequel. Even if it is just b-sides with nice instrumentals on album singles. That's okay with me.
 
A lack of the ethereal.

Every artist has a thing in their music that is theirs. For U2 it is the ethereal. An artist's prime usually ends when they go away from that thing. U2 would go deeper and deeper into atmospheres and taking us into the intangible. That peaked with Passengers. It isn't the sound of the band anymore. You can hear it from TUF through to Passengers. The lack of the ethereal is one reason they are out of their prime and why their stuff afterwards isn't up to standard.

:|

You don't see it do you? How can a concept such as "ethereal" be quantified? I understand what you are saying and believe it or not, I kind of agree with you but that doesn't change the fact that you are still stating opinion as fact.

On top of that, this is your definition of creativity and since at its very nature, creativity is SUBJECTIVE it may not be anyone else's definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom