Side A will be great and side B will suck.What if it's medium length?
Side A will be great and side B will suck.What if it's medium length?
heh i was joking... no-one hates Glastonbury more than i do!
i like Stingray, EBW and North Star though (but could do without BFFTS)
Side A will be great and side B will suck.
Side A will be great and side B will suck.
They should release "Glastonbury" as the lead single from the new album and then call their tour "The Glastonbury Festival".
Without Fez, White As Snow, Cedars and to a lesser extent Breathe, you have a valid pointAlmost like NLOTH then!
*runs*
War or TUF part II?That sounds like a mullet!
War or TUF part II?
I know, but if the music is that good I approve.I only meant the haircut.
I'll see them once or twice if they come around here again. They do put on a good show and I can hear my favorite 90s songs again, but I'm done waiting for them to release new subpar music. I've been done for two years now.
Welcome to irrelevance U2
I'll see them once or twice if they come around here again. They do put on a good show and I can hear my favorite 90s songs again, but I'm done waiting for them to release new subpar music. I've been done for two years now.
Welcome to irrelevance U2
Welcome to irrelevance U2
I think U2 is "relevant" to all of the folks who caught their last tour and enjoyed it. I couldn't care less if they had a hit.
So, you think they're relevant in the same way the Rolling Stones are relevant?
U2 and the Stones are relevant to the personal soundtrack of my life. If they both continue to make/perform music that I find enjoyable, that will always work for me. They are both legends and both have their own unique place in rock and roll history.
I guess. I mean, the Doors will always be important to me, but only for what they did years ago. I want/hope/expect U2 to STAY important for years to come, not just for what they did years ago, but for what's to come. I think that's the difference. The Stones (nor the Doors) will be important for what they do in the future, only for the long long ago...
EDIT: Most bands lose their inspiration and fire and dry up before their first decade is up. But U2 managed songs like Moment of Surrender, Breathe, Fez, and the others as recently as the latest album. Then they went on tour and pushed the old songs, as if they were creatively over. I guess that's the disparity for me. I don't buy that the band is creatively dead or over, but they're acting like it.
Hang in there, dude! You've been to a shitload of shows. Hell, I've attended about 7 of the same ones. Admit it, secretly you really love Get on Your Boots.
Ouch.... but, yeah.
I feel like the longer they wait before releasing that next album, the less it matters. If you only release an album every 4-5 years there's no room for a bad first single choice or any kind of a misstep. The mistakes made selling NLOTH now mean it's been 7 years since U2 had a hit, and it will be at least one year more before the next album comes out. 8 years without a hit? No one could call that relevant.
The Stones have been around for 50 years. They do not have to do anything. They could have kicked back and retired. Them deciding to tour is mostly a gift to their fans who love to hear them bang out their hits as well as perhaps a new song or two.
When U2 toured in 2009, they played a decent amount of songs from NLOTH. When they toured again in 2011, they altered the setlist to feature more classic songs as well as their more recent tunes. I thought they did an excellent job of mixing things up. I see no evidence of U2 acting like they are creatively dead. NLOTH sounded like nothing I've ever heard before from U2 and I definitely mean that in a positive way. I do see evidence though of guys who are in their 50's taking their time when it comes to releasing a new album. They've got nothing to prove. They just did two tours that featured crowds averaging well over 70,000 people. People who paid a lot of money to hear, yup, you guessed it, the hits. Like I said, the 2009 tour featured more songs from NLOTH while the 2011 tour featured more classic songs that people paying over a hundred bucks wanna hear.
The Doors are great and all, but they were together for less time than Nirvana and Jim Morrison died over 40 years ago. They'll always be important I suppose, but I don't understand why you've mentioned them. I'm sure the surviving members of the band would have loved to have had the careers of U2 and the Stones. But, alas, Jim drank himself to death. Meanwhile, Keith Richards is still alive regardless of all the drugs and drink that he's imbibed.
I mention the Doors because the music they made decades ago is still important now. IMO much more so than the Stones. But, in both cases, we're talking about bands being important to us for what they did long ago, not for the work they're doing now.
I guess there's no point in going through this again, 360 was not a NLOTH-themed tour. By the end they played very little from the album, and now we're more than 3 years later without a follow-up. That's not how a band who's excited about their current work would/should act IMO. And, as I said, it's a shame because the last album was brilliant. I would have liked to see a No Line tour, and I would have liked to hear Songs of Ascent.
Wow, no matter how many times its worded, you're going to stick with this belief that 360 was not a NLOTH themed tour. 360(2009) was focused mostly on NLOTH while 360(2011) was more of a balance between new stuff and older material. You're correct that there is no point in going through this again because you don't seem willing or able to absorb this as a fact. One need only to observe the setlists as well the merchandise that was sold during the tour to realize this.
Lastly, a small reminder that you don't have to type "IMO" because we fully realize that it is indeed your opinion. In other words, its redundant.
Yes, they played 7 songs on 360(2009). That was the largest representation from any one album on their setlist. I'm not comparing previous tours. I'm only referring to what has been previously discussed.
Until it became the Awesome Achtung tour. I'd argue that the tour was largely unfocused setlist wise until they hit South America.