U2 packing it in?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Edge_Orchestra said:
Productivity:



1979 to 1988 - The First Ten Years

  1. U2 Three (1979)
  2. Boy (1980)
  3. October (1981)
  4. War (1983)
  5. Under A Blood Red Sky (1983)
  6. The Unforgettable Fire (1984)
  7. Wide Awake In America (1985)
  8. The Joshua Tree (1987)
  9. Rattle and Hum (1988)



1989 to 1998 - The Second Ten Years

  1. Achtung Baby (1991)
  2. Zooropa (1993)
  3. Passengers: Original Soundtracks 1 (1995) - Not a U2 album but all 4 wre involved.
  4. Pop (1997)



1999 to 2008 - The Third Ten Years

  1. All That You Can't Leave Behind (2000)
  2. How To Dismantle And Atomic Bomb (2004)



2009 to 2018 - The Fourth Ten Years

  1. No Line On The Horizon (2009)
  2. Spiderman: Turn Off The Dark (2010) - And that isn't even a U2 album.



And then NOTHING.



I get that the album-ish a year of the 1980's isn't viable. One would burn out. Edge ended up divorced after that first decade. I get it. But they have produced less and less.



Then there is the trying to dip their feet into soundtracks. "Hands That Built..." and "Ordinary Love" were decent. But as Bono himself has said: Good is the enemy of great.



Since 1999 Bono has seemed more interested in charity work. Nothing wrong with that. But one can not serve two masters. Time not spent on U2 doesn't benefit the band.



Look at The Killers, Muse, Jack White, Black Keys, Arctic Monkeys. Like these bands or not, they are producing material regularly. U2? Not so much.



And now the bit we've heard about U2 shows being scheduled for Ireland in 2016? That doesn't tell me that they are in the final mixing stage of a new album - Even thought everyone from McGuinness has said that 'lie' for the past 16 months.



As a fan, it's frustrating. And as a fan it's disappointing. They don't have to breakup or whatnot. But be honest. "We have other interests, we haven't broken up but we are in no hurry to record or tour". That would be a far truer statement than anyone in the band, management and crew have issues in the past 5 years.



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.
Click to expand...


There was also the MDH material.

Having a rumour scheduled event in 2016 doesn't mean shit, most of their tours span over a couple of years and certain venues you have to book that far in advance.

I think it's funny that people blame Bono and his charity work. With the exception of ATYCLB that hasn't been the case. Bono is usually the one that wants to release more, I think a lot the blame is on Larry and Edge. Larry likes to stay home, and I think Edge may have some slight writers block.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
purpleoscar said:
They are productive but they have sessions with Rick Rubin, Red One, Danger Mouse, Will.i.am., Ryan Tedder, and Paul Epworth. There's also the new Carney movie soundtrack. We just haven't heard finished versions of these yet. Bono did mention 2 albums so the second ten years will be at least another 2 more which will match 1989 to 1998. I expect at least one more album before 2018 since they are getting old and there's also the scenario of the band quitting and the vaults being opened up. Plenty more material is coming.
Click to expand...

I hope so. I actually think that they are writing a lot, maybe as much as ever. They're just not publishing. It is very frustrating.
 
Edge_Orchestra said:
Look at The Killers, Muse, Jack White, Black Keys, Arctic Monkeys. Like these bands or not, they are producing material regularly. U2? Not so much.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Man, U2 really seems similar to a lazy non productive employee. We should maybe think about discussing this comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Niceman said:
The Beatles could never write Bad, Running to Stand Still, Bullet the Blue Sky, With or Without You, All I Want is You, Acrobat, Love is Blindness or anything as good as them.

Do I like the Beatles? Sure, I love them. But I just don't see that they did anything as good as U2's best work. No one has.

U2's peers were always the other popular and relevant artists of the current day. Yes, early on they were The Police, Simple Minds, INXS. Later it was REM, Faith No More, Guns N Roses, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Soundgarden. As time went on they outlasted them all and I think as of the 21st century you can only compare them to the upper echelons of Rock history: The Beatles, Floyd, Zeppelin.

IMO on their best days they wrote better songs than anyone else up there, they are a better live act, and they've outlasted them all.

I would rather have a new U2 album than a new Beatles, Stones, Floyd, Dylan, Who, or Zeppelin album, that's for sure!
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Beatles could never write a song like Helter Skelter or Happiness Is A Warm Gun, IMO. Both of those songs are some of the most complex compositions U2 has written.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Niceman said:
The Beatles could never write Bad, Running to Stand Still, Bullet the Blue Sky, With or Without You, All I Want is You, Acrobat, Love is Blindness or anything as good as them.

Do I like the Beatles? Sure, I love them. But I just don't see that they did anything as good as U2's best work. No one has.

IMO on their best days they wrote better songs than anyone else up there, they are a better live act, and they've outlasted them all.

I would rather have a new U2 album than a new Stones, Floyd, Dylan, Who, or Zeppelin album, that's for sure!
Click to expand...

In my opinion, no other band (no matter the success achieved) can be as influential or revolutionary as U2, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin.
 
prbiker15 said:
In my opinion, no other band (no matter the success achieved) can be as influential or revolutionary as U2, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin.
Click to expand...


You forgot Creed, Nickelback, and Puddle of Mud.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
mikal said:
You forgot Creed, Nickelback, and Puddle of Mud.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

I hope whatever up-and-coming bands that are influenced by Creed, Nickelback and Puddle of Mudd are better than Creed, Nickelback and Puddle of Mudd.

I can't deny that I like at least 1 song from each of those 3 bands.
 
BVS said:
There was also the MDH material.

Having a rumour scheduled event in 2016 doesn't mean shit, most of their tours span over a couple of years and certain venues you have to book that far in advance.

I think it's funny that people blame Bono and his charity work. With the exception of ATYCLB that hasn't been the case. Bono is usually the one that wants to release more, I think a lot the blame is on Larry and Edge. Larry likes to stay home, and I think Edge may have some slight writers block.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

I agree the rumor doesn't mean anything. And the MDH stuff, for the most part was a Bono and not U2 thing.

The original post is telling of decreased output.

As for the other comment that the bands I mentioned were in the 20's and 30's, that's not the point. Bono keeps saying they want to be relevant. Well, those bands are relevant and selling albums. Hence the comparison. Those acts are writing, recording and touring.

Blame Bono's charity work? That alone isn't the issue. But it isn't Edge alone that has writers block. They get scared by criticism. It happened after R&H and they ignore most of that material. Pop wasn't HUGE and they took that hard and barely play anything from that album. Same with NLOTH. By the end of the tour, they only played a few of the tunes, one of them a pre-recorded remix for the most part. That is hardly BELIEVING in one's songs - dumping as many from the setlist as they did, by the 201
and 2011 shows.

That said, look at the facts. The more Bono has gotten into One, RED and DATA... as well as meeting with politicians on a regular basis... that all started around 1999. And their output has decreased immensely since then. Coincidence? Perhaps but I think there is more to it.

I love U2. But they can't complain about relevancy if they are not producing albums and tours.
 
trevgreg said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Edge_Orchestra said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Edge_Orchestra said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :lol:). 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.
 
Nick66 said:
I'd put NLOTH and Spiderman in the "Third" ten years.
Click to expand...

:up:

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

plus this Carney thing, i dunno, it just feels like they're jumping on the bandwagon after the success of Once (particularly on Broadway)
 
trevgreg said:
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!
Click to expand...

I give you one word: Springsteen.
 
Nick66 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

:up:
 
CMIS said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Achtung_Bebe
IO: It's been a while...
Replies
2
Views
655
mikal
mikal
T
Hello from a U2 guitarist in Massachusetts!
Replies
2
Views
1K
bobbvis
B
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
743
lazarus
lazarus
W
Detective needed: Bono’s old car
Replies
0
Views
567
wjc1979
W

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom