The new songs news you've been waiting for...

[lemonfly]

Well, look on the bright side. The world is ending in 20 days time, so we will avoid the inevitable disappointment

 

[BVS]

I find it funny how Interference erupts when a news snippet like this comes out.

I say, take it with a grain of salt. We don't know if it's new songs, just reworking one or two, or even how many.

Hell we're not even sure how reliable this news is...

Don't fret my friends.

 

[bonocomet]

But Interference just loves a good reason to erupt.

 

[Axver]

I seriously think U2 -- once a rock band, but now not so much -- have lost the plot, more-or-less, since about 2005 or 2006.

This Onion article pretty much sums up how I think U2 feel about themselves nowadays: 'I Am A Brand,' Pathetic Man Says | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I think maybe they are so trapped in their own belief in being "big" and "relevant", and are so totally stuck in the "release-big-studio-album-and-flog-it-to-death-with-massive-world-tour" cycle that they've always adhered to (the one exception being late 1989), that they simply can't conceive of doing something small-scale. In reality, if the 4 of them went into a cheap studio next week and spent 6 days bashing out the tunes they've been working on for four years, gave it to a producer to mix in two days, and released it the next week on the Internet, it would probably be their best album in 20 years. But they just can't let go of the idea of doing everything big and as corporate as possible, so instead of face the fear of another big project, they prefer to spread themselves out and waste time on superhero musicals.

You and I have had our disagreements, but I'll happily second this post. Well put.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Axver what are you doing in WTAHNN you should get out while you still can.

 

[U2girl]

I seriously think U2 -- once a rock band, but now not so much -- have lost the plot, more-or-less, since about 2005 or 2006.

This Onion article pretty much sums up how I think U2 feel about themselves nowadays: 'I Am A Brand,' Pathetic Man Says | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I think maybe they are so trapped in their own belief in being "big" and "relevant", and are so totally stuck in the "release-big-studio-album-and-flog-it-to-death-with-massive-world-tour" cycle that they've always adhered to (the one exception being late 1989), that they simply can't conceive of doing something small-scale. In reality, if the 4 of them went into a cheap studio next week and spent 6 days bashing out the tunes they've been working on for four years, gave it to a producer to mix in two days, and released it the next week on the Internet, it would probably be their best album in 20 years. But they just can't let go of the idea of doing everything big and as corporate as possible, so instead of face the fear of another big project, they prefer to spread themselves out and waste time on superhero musicals.

Such is the price of a stadium rock band. They tried doing it in 2 weeks with ATYCLB (I think Eno especially pushed for it) but ultimately passed on it. All of their best work took time.

Unless this soundtrack is a complete overhaul and they're writing from scratch, we don't know that this means anything re: 2013 album.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I seriously think U2 -- once a rock band, but now not so much -- have lost the plot, more-or-less, since about 2005 or 2006.

This Onion article pretty much sums up how I think U2 feel about themselves nowadays: 'I Am A Brand,' Pathetic Man Says | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I think maybe they are so trapped in their own belief in being "big" and "relevant", and are so totally stuck in the "release-big-studio-album-and-flog-it-to-death-with-massive-world-tour" cycle that they've always adhered to (the one exception being late 1989), that they simply can't conceive of doing something small-scale. In reality, if the 4 of them went into a cheap studio next week and spent 6 days bashing out the tunes they've been working on for four years, gave it to a producer to mix in two days, and released it the next week on the Internet, it would probably be their best album in 20 years. But they just can't let go of the idea of doing everything big and as corporate as possible, so instead of face the fear of another big project, they prefer to spread themselves out and waste time on superhero musicals.

I mean ya can't blame them for being complacent.

Pop at least scared them, because the album AND tour didn't sell to their standards. No Line wasn't to their standards, but 360 was the biggest tour of all time. And in 2012 they did exactly dick and still made 78 million dollars.

Would you be in a rush to so anything if you made 80 million dollars doing nothing?

 

[The Panther]

No Line wasn't to their standards, but 360 was the biggest tour of all time.

By which you mean biggest-grossing tour of all time, not the biggest in terms of popularity, relevance, or importance -- at which the recent U2 tour would rank about #78,402.

Obviously, with inflated concert-prices in the past ten years, every rock tour prior to about 2002 is immediately discounted from competition in such a list. U2 "won" it on the strength of their brand name (hence my Onion.com link), and not on the strength of their cultural relevance, musical influence, or general popularity, in 2009. A U2 concert is now a safe item to be consumed by the masses.

And in 2012 they did exactly dick and still made 78 million dollars.

Would you be in a rush to so anything if you made 80 million dollars doing nothing?

The point is not to be in a rush. They could be forgiven for taking years (many of them now) between albums, as they're an older band now with nothing to prove. The point, however, is that if you're going to make good rock'n'roll music, it should be visceral and of the moment. Deadlines are good. Pressure is good. Re-recording songs in 34 studios, with six producers, over a five year period, and coming back to where you started, is not good, in my opinion.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

By which you mean biggest-grossing tour of all time, not the biggest in terms of popularity, relevance, or importance -- at which the recent U2 tour would rank about #78,402.

Obviously, with inflated concert-prices in the past ten years, every rock tour prior to about 2002 is immediately discounted from competition in such a list. U2 "won" it on the strength of their brand name (hence my Onion.com link), and not on the strength of their cultural relevance, musical influence, or general popularity, in 2009. A U2 concert is now a safe item to be consumed by the masses.

ahhh yes, the ole heaping pile of bullshit that is the "cultural relevance/musical influence" argument... Which hasn't been a valid point of view probably since the early 90s. I feel like I'm in a Rolling Stones debate thread now...

So on that, 360 was less relevant than, oh, Justin Bieber's last tour.

In reality 360 was not only the highest grossing tour of all time in actual gross... Its also still the highest grossing tour when adjusted for inflation... And the highest attended tour of all time... And the highest average attendance of all time...

So, yea. 360 was the biggest tour in music history in every way, shape or form, and it's not really up for debate.

So popularity? Yea, check. Relevance? I'd say that it was fairly relevant. Important? You can have that one. 360 will prove to be important for the technology used, and for the staging industry, and for showing exactly how far you can go when putting on a mega tour... but as far as breaking any new musical ground or being some huge cultural changing thing? Nope. You win there. But really... How many world tours are remembered by the masses? Epic individual shows? Sure. Tours? Not many.

The point is not to be in a rush. They could be forgiven for taking years (many of them now) between albums, as they're an older band now with nothing to prove. The point, however, is that if you're going to make good rock'n'roll music, it should be visceral and of the moment. Deadlines are good. Pressure is good. Re-recording songs in 34 studios, with six producers, over a five year period, and coming back to where you started, is not good, in my opinion.

So was Achtung Baby a bad album, because it clearly was not "of the moment?". Was Pop better because they had a deadline?

The point is to be good. The process of getting to good is different for everyone. U2 has always worked this way. As they've gotten older and richer, they've taken even more time.

If anything the band's problem is that they've tried too hard to be live up to this bullshit theory that you need to be on radio to be "relevant."

 

[LemonMelon]

The only thing less relevant than U2 is the relevancy argument.

 

[LadySpinHead]

 

[purpleoscar]

We don't know shit so lets wait...and wait...and wait.

 

[The Panther]

If anything the band's problem is that they've tried too hard to be live up to this bullshit theory that you need to be on radio to be "relevant."

I absolutely agree, as my first post should have made clear -- maybe you didn't see it.

Understand: I'm not saying that U2 need to be relevant. I'm simply saying that the 360 tour was not relevant to anything/anyone I care about, despite U2's spending a billion dollars and three years of their lives on it. Justin Bieber might have thought it was the greatest thing he's ever seen -- I don't know.

I'm not bothered about the statistics of concert attendance. If that's your standard of what is important and relevant, then fine -- no wonder you think U2 are managing their career well. Here's the thing: If you walk out on to the street and poll the first random 100 music fans you meet, and ask then what was the biggest, most important concert tour of all, not a single one is going to say the 360 Tour, including people who attended it.

 

[No spoken words]

Out of sheer curiosity, how do you personally gauge relevance? I wouldn't know how to judge or quantify it. Is it asking those same 100 people to name the biggest, most important concert tour of all? That might be as scientific as it gets with such a nebulous (and by mutual agreement here) meaningless category.

 

[Niceman]

God, it sucks being a U2 fan.....

 

[trevgreg]

Here's the thing: If you walk out on to the street and poll the first random 100 music fans you meet, and ask then what was the biggest, most important concert tour of all, not a single one is going to say the 360 Tour, including people who attended it.

Is there even a tour that would claim that title though? Unless there's one that stands out above all in public opinion AND had a huge turnout, I have a feeling you'd close to 100 different answers for each person you asked.

 

[BVS]

Understand: I'm not saying that U2 need to be relevant. I'm simply saying that the 360 tour was not relevant to anything/anyone I care about,

Well I'm glad you admitted that this is about you.

If you walk out on to the street and poll the first random 100 music fans you meet, and ask then what was the biggest, most important concert tour of all, not a single one is going to say the 360 Tour, including people who attended it.

Can you conduct this poll and please post your findings...

Thanks in advance.

 

[Niceman]

It's difficult for best of tours to be very relevant or important, no matter how well performed......

 

[mama cass]

i don't really care about 360 being the biggest tour of all time or whatever, never given a shit about figures... plus the fact that U2 did that whole grandad-at-the-disco Crazy Tonight rave thing just ruins it for me - that's what's stuck in my mind re. 360

 

[mama cass]

isn't a tour about where an artist is right now? e.g. Radiohead - they don't appear to be doing a greatest hits tour at the moment - they've kind of found themselves at this place, discovering new sounds and rhythms, and that's what they're wanting to share with their audiences... it's very much of the moment, where they are creatively... and i think that's pretty beautiful...

 

[mama cass]

tbh U2 seem ever so distracted right now what with all their personal side projects - it's like they're being pulled in different directions...

 

[lemonfly]

It's difficult for best of tours to be very relevant or important, no matter how well performed......

This is correct. If you have to seriously question whether a tour was relevant, then it probably wasn't. I would define relevance as something that captures the zeitgeist and becomes synonymous with an era within the shared memory of a particular culture. To that end, Zoo TV was a more relevant tour than 360. So was Elevation. Relevance does not necessary equate with highest grossing. For instance, The Rolling Stones had tours in the Seventies that were undeniably relevant but don't feature in any highest grossing lists. Their recent tours are super commercially successful, but as Niceman correctly opined, a greatest hits tour very rarely makes a blip on the cultural radar.

 

[mama cass]

This is correct. If you have to seriously question whether a tour was relevant, then it probably wasn't. I would define relevance as something that captures the zeitgeist and becomes synonymous with an era within the shared memory of a particular culture. To that end, Zoo TV was a more relevant tour than 360. So was Elevation. Relevance does not necessary equate with highest grossing.

very well put

definitely agree re. Zoo TV and Elevation...

 

[Niceman]

This is correct. If you have to seriously question whether a tour was relevant, then it probably wasn't. I would define relevance as something that captures the zeitgeist and becomes synonymous with an era within the shared memory of a particular culture. To that end, Zoo TV was a more relevant tour than 360. So was Elevation. Relevance does not necessary equate with highest grossing. For instance, The Rolling Stones had tours in the Seventies that were undeniably relevant but don't feature in any highest grossing lists. Their recent tours are super commercially successful, but as Niceman correctly opined, a greatest hits tour very rarely makes a blip on the cultural radar.

Yeah, and you make a good example with Elevation. In my opinion, it was a low point for the band. Bono's voice was unquestionably the weakest it's been in his life. BUT there's no denying that what they were doing was tied into where the US was in 2002 and the show was important.

 

[The Panther]

tbh U2 seem ever so distracted right now what with all their personal side projects - it's like they're being pulled in different directions...

Yes, but I have no issue with them being pulled in different directions. They've been at this game as long as I've been alive, and they've earned the right to dabble in whatever side-project they want.

What I take issue with is EVERY frickin' album having to be a super-huge, arduous project that takes 6 years to finish off. It's been 20 years since Zooropa (which wasn't even recorded that quickly, but lighting-fast by their snail-pace standards). In those almost twenty years, they've managed to deliver 4* short LPs.

*(Yeah, 5 if you count the Eno-with-U2 album that nobody but a few obsessives on this forum are actually aware exists.)

 

[mama cass]

Yes, but I have no issue with them being pulled in different directions. They've been at this game as long as I've been alive, and they've earned the right to dabble in whatever side-project they want.

yeah sure, what i meant was it must be hard for a band to focus properly on an album when they have so much other stuff going on... but who knows, for all we know, maybe the album is finished and they're just waiting for the right moment to release it - we have no clue really and can only speculate!

 

[The Panther]

maybe the album is finished and they're just waiting for the right moment to release it

What you have just described is the Paul McGuinness effect -- "We could release the album and please millions of long-suffering fans... or we could hold it back to the Sept. 2013 period and make an extra $6000 in sales!" (rubs palms together in glee)

 

[mama cass]

exactly! it's depressing isn't it! lol

 

[digitize]

God, it sucks being a U2 fan.....

No it doesn't. We're all very lucky to have what U2 music we have. And if we didn't feel that way, we wouldn't be posting here.

 

[LemonMelon]

God, it sucks being a U2 fan.....

I always think this after NSW says something.