U2 packing it in? - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Where The Album Has A Name - Songs of Experience
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-20-2014, 11:50 PM   #226
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
trevgreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,591
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge_Orchestra View Post
You are missing the point. Age isn't the point. U2 say they want to be relevant. The bands I mentioned are relevant. They are releasing albums and doing tours far more than U2.

If they want to be an every 4-5 years lets tour for some money - like the Stones, well, that's fine. But that ain't relevant. It's a cash in.
Your post was mainly about the 'production' aspect until the very end, hence why I commented on that part mainly.

In terms of relevancy though, I'm not even sure if a lot of those other acts you mentioned would see the amount that U2 would have if they decided to release just about anything. The Killers haven't had a truly massive single in years, and most of the other acts probably couldn't match in terms of sales or touring potential (although it's debatable how much a new album would sell with the time that's passed since NLOTH). They are pretty much in a league of their own there, unless you bring up one of the few exceptions or some of the pop acts out there.

Coldplay might be a more valid comparison since they do tend to release something every few years and have comparable sales and touring potential. But that argument's been brought up countless times in the past anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge_Orchestra View Post
And enough of the cliches. You want to be relevant? Write, record and release a great album built up on your OWN merits and not trying to keep up with Coldplay or Maroon 5 or whatever the issue is all about.
And maybe that's explaining the wait here. I can get frustrated just as much as anyone else, don't get me wrong. But even if they were releasing stuff every two years, I'm sure there'd still be people saying how it's "safe" or "not up to par." Maybe there would even be some people that were sick of all the new releases and wish they'd just release all the good tracks on one album (and that would be the 'bizarro' Intereference world right there ). I'm sure they were happy with the last three albums when they released them as well. But for whatever reason, they're putting more time into this one, and hopefully it's one that will please most people in the long run and create that relevancy in the form of solid songs.
__________________

trevgreg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 01:24 AM   #227
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Apartment of Surrender...
Posts: 5,629
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynmike View Post
I'm sure plenty will disagree, but this is a phenomenal post. Every point spot on.

As to your first point, nobody covers the range of emotion that U2 has. Not even close. That counts for a whole lot in my book.
Thank you!
__________________

Niceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 01:41 AM   #228
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,277
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
I'd put NLOTH and Spiderman in the "Third" ten years.


that makes us half way thru the next 10 years and nothing to show for it

plus this Carney thing, i dunno, it just feels like they're jumping on the bandwagon after the success of Once (particularly on Broadway)
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 03:15 AM   #229
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,023
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trevgreg View Post
To be fair, it might be a bit much comparing acts still in their 20s and 30s to men in their 50s now. Not that those other guys don't have families and whatever, but it's not like a bunch of acts from 1979 are still releasing albums every 2-3 years (or are even still together at this point).

If the Arctic Monkeys are still releasing albums every two years in their 50s though, fair game!
I give you one word: Springsteen.
AndrewCowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 05:57 AM   #230
Refugee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,078
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post

People here are doing your a favour...if you took stuff like you've written here and your "opinion" to any serious music message board other than a U2 one you'd be laughed out out of the place.
You said something interesting there, and you are right. 'Anywhere other than a U2 message board'. I have to agree.. have been on a few other boards. I am abundantly ashamed to say that I frequented a wrestling board in my early teens and that place was batshit crazy. Flame wars every where. I've been on sports boards, and its not much better.
Which is part of why I think that U2 are in the highest echelon of rock acts -- for that seems to have become the defacto topic . Forgive the presumption of this opinion but I find that u2 fans are mostly decent people and that the band have a deeper effect on their faithfuls -- of which there are millions -- than most. But that is a sentimental opinion. Now for more musical(ly ignorant maybe) ones.
I think Jofo said Led Zep were more influential. Maybe, but I dont think it's as clear as day and night. Zep had huge impact on how rock music would be played for years to come and that is huge. But U2, and particularly Edge also had that kind of impact. I think they democratised music a little. To me they were the band that said you dont have to be outright virtuosos to be great artists and that invited a lot of other bands to take the leap, and I think that probably made pop music more plural, for better or worse. And I find edge's influence in most rock bands today (killers coldplay, KOL)
As for comparing them to led zep, beatles and the who in terms of quality of output, I frankly dont think there is much in it. I think what confuses the matter is that their careers have been longer than all of them. If we take the average span of a band's peak as seven to ten years then I would put U2's peak between UF and Zooropa. And songs like UF, Bad, Pride, ASOH, WTSHNN, ISHFWILF, WOWY, BTBS, OTH, RTSS, AIWIY, Desire, AOH, One, MW, The Fly, LIB, EBTTRT, Lemon and Stay over that period can hold their own against most. Not to mention the albums they produced, but the casual fans remember songs. And the awesome thing is, on this board many will disagree with the list of songs and period I nominated because such has been the quality of ther output. But in my opinion those are the songs that have had the most mass appeal.


Sent from my GT-I9300 using U2 Interference mobile app
CMIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 08:15 AM   #231
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewCowley View Post
I give you one word: Springsteen.
Springsteen could never write a song like Party Girl.
Nick66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 09:09 AM   #232
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Edge_Orchestra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: * The Edge's Guitar Storage Room *
Posts: 8,565
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Even Bruce Springsteen has had more productivity over the past 15 years. And he is older.

That isn't to say every album is 'Born to Run' huge. But he gets it right most of the time. The records do well. The tours do well. And he does both regularly.

I think the issue is that the band do not take criticism well. I pointed out Rattle and Hum, Pop and not NLOTH on an earlier post.

Seems like post Joshua Tree, if the album isn't huge, they recoil and begin to second guess themselves. I think that is was paralyzes them somewhat.
Edge_Orchestra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 09:19 AM   #233
War Child
 
Reg McGowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: A Heart that Is Opened
Posts: 984
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge_Orchestra View Post
Even Bruce Springsteen has had more productivity over the past 15 years. And he is older.

That isn't to say every album is 'Born to Run' huge. But he gets it right most of the time. The records do well. The tours do well. And he does both regularly.

I think the issue is that the band do not take criticism well. I pointed out Rattle and Hum, Pop and not NLOTH on an earlier post.

Seems like post Joshua Tree, if the album isn't huge, they recoil and begin to second guess themselves. I think that is was paralyzes them somewhat.
Reg McGowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 09:20 AM   #234
War Child
 
Reg McGowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: A Heart that Is Opened
Posts: 984
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
Springsteen could never write a song like Party Girl.
and U2 could never write a song like Hungry Heart
Reg McGowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 09:40 AM   #235
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,420
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Bono could not have written Moonlight Sonata. But Beethoven could not have heard Beach Sequence.
ozeeko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 09:50 AM   #236
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
trevgreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,591
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewCowley View Post
I give you one word: Springsteen.
True, which is why I added 'a few exceptions' in the second post. Whether all his stuff is considered 'great' among the fans or 'relevant' though is another matter (personally, I'm not sure).
trevgreg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 10:02 AM   #237
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMIS View Post
I think Jofo said Led Zep were more influential. Maybe, but I dont think it's as clear as day and night. Zep had huge impact on how rock music would be played for years to come and that is huge. But U2, and particularly Edge also had that kind of impact. I think they democratised music a little. To me they were the band that said you dont have to be outright virtuosos to be great artists and that invited a lot of other bands to take the leap, and I think that probably made pop music more plural, for better or worse. And I find edge's influence in most rock bands today (killers coldplay, KOL)
As for comparing them to led zep, beatles and the who in terms of quality of output, I frankly dont think there is much in it. I think what confuses the matter is that their careers have been longer than all of them. If we take the average span of a band's peak as seven to ten years then I would put U2's peak between UF and Zooropa. And songs like UF, Bad, Pride, ASOH, WTSHNN, ISHFWILF, WOWY, BTBS, OTH, RTSS, AIWIY, Desire, AOH, One, MW, The Fly, LIB, EBTTRT, Lemon and Stay over that period can hold their own against most. Not to mention the albums they produced, but the casual fans remember songs. And the awesome thing is, on this board many will disagree with the list of songs and period I nominated because such has been the quality of ther output. But in my opinion those are the songs that have had the most mass appeal.


Sent from my GT-I9300 using U2 Interference mobile app

I think you are overstating U2's influence compared to Zep, but that's just my opinion.
I also think your list of U2's songs that had most mass appeal is off.
JOFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 10:17 AM   #238
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 59,921
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Bruce Springsteen is a songwriting freak of nature. Comparing anyone to him is simply not fair.

The guy shits out 12 songs a day.

What you can compare between him and u2 is that Bruce long ago stopped caring about what will "play" on the radio, and simply does whatever project he wants whenever he wants. He's content with himself, doesn't ignore his less successful albums, and just goes with whatever feels right to him.

That is a fair criticism when comparing U2 and Springsteen.

Songwriting? Bruce has always written at a faster pace than just about everyone of his peers, so that this continues into his 60s is not exactly a shock.

Most older acts don't produce albums and material at the same pace they did in their earlier stages. Bruce is merely an exception to that rule, because again... he's a freak.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 10:26 AM   #239
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 07:24 PM
U2 could never write a song like Tom Sawyer.

Sent via owl
Nick66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 10:30 AM   #240
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,991
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewCowley View Post
I give you one word: Springsteen.
He will apply for comparison when he does as much activism as Bono and the entire E Street Band gets to vote on the songs.
__________________

U2girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com