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.
Yes, contracts are meaningless. As much as I love hearing new material and seeing them live, I think it may be time for U2 to pack it in and earn their place in history as the greatest rock and roll band of all time. The Stones, I think, have diminished their role in history by continuing so long. Don't be the Stones.

Bono's voice is better than ever. He couldn't sing a song like Magnificent or Ordinary Love 25 years ago. Invisible was a fantastic song. My 7 year old twins sing it constantly, but it had zero impact on the pop charts. There's only one reason for that: they're too old. And they've become everything they've always railed against. They've become too precious with their music and their image. Everything has to be JUUUUUUUST right or it doesn't see the light of day. Is that how Elvis recorded? Or Buddy Holly, Dylan, the Velvets, the Ramones, the Clash, or anyone they've ever respected?

They only way U2 will make it back is by letting their balls hang out in their music. I just don't think they're capable anymore.

I'm afraid U2 of 2014 has become—or is very close to becoming—the Rolling Stones of the 90s, a band who would release an album of mostly solid material, no one would even notice, and then they'd go on a long, well attended, mostly nostalgia-themed stadium tour.

OK, thank you very much; I'll go every time. I've been a fan since I saw you guys singing on a barge in Dublin on MTV 32 years ago. If yer 65, I'm buying a ticket. But is this what YOU had in mind?

The Stones get unfairly maligned. They are still one of the very best live acts you could possibly see, they release the odd new tune, and most importantly they seem to be enjoying themselves. They aren't continually tying themselves into knots of anxiety over what they should or shouldn't do, nor are they under any illusions (delusions?) they can conquer the pop charts which are dominated by artists who are younger than their own children. U2 have become far, far too concerned with protecting their precious legacy and whether they are still "relevant", to the extent that it's suffocating practically anything and everything that they do. Frankly, being a U2 fan these days is exhausting when you know that they will scupper plans in the blink of an eye if they feel that everything isn't "just right" as you said. At least the Stones don't spend every waking hour worrying about market trends and what the "kids" are listening to these days.
 
But what you are glossing over is that The Stones went through a phase very similar to this in the 80s.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Is that how Elvis recorded? Or Buddy Holly, Dylan, the Velvets, the Ramones, the Clash, or anyone they've ever respected?

To be fair, Elvis and Holly were both dead by the time they reached the age U2 is at now. And they recorded in different eras altogether.
 
Yes, contracts are meaningless. As much as I love hearing new material and seeing them live, I think it may be time for U2 to pack it in and earn their place in history as the greatest rock and roll band of all time. The Stones, I think, have diminished their role in history by continuing so long. Don't be the Stones.

Bono's voice is better than ever. He couldn't sing a song like Magnificent or Ordinary Love 25 years ago. Invisible was a fantastic song. My 7 year old twins sing it constantly, but it had zero impact on the pop charts. There's only one reason for that: they're too old. And they've become everything they've always railed against. They've become too precious with their music and their image. Everything has to be JUUUUUUUST right or it doesn't see the light of day. Is that how Elvis recorded? Or Buddy Holly, Dylan, the Velvets, the Ramones, the Clash, or anyone they've ever respected?

They only way U2 will make it back is by letting their balls hang out in their music. I just don't think they're capable anymore.

I'm afraid U2 of 2014 has become—or is very close to becoming—the Rolling Stones of the 90s, a band who would release an album of mostly solid material, no one would even notice, and then they'd go on a long, well attended, mostly nostalgia-themed stadium tour.

OK, thank you very much; I'll go every time. I've been a fan since I saw you guys singing on a barge in Dublin on MTV 32 years ago. If yer 65, I'm buying a ticket. But is this what YOU had in mind?

U2 will never be the greatest rock band of all time.

The fact is people won't care even if U2 lets it hang out. NLOTH was just the beginning of general audience not caring about ageing band's new output. It's a miracle they nailed a hit late in the game with BD/Vertigo as it is.

That said, I consider everything after ATYCLB/Elevation comeback as icing on the cake. They could stop making new music and release compilations with odd new song and tour a la Stones (they are a good live show, mostly thanks to Jagger's energy). This isn't the route they chose.
Another alternative is shorter tours/no touring at all and thus a faster output of music. Barring medical issues or one of them quitting, this isn't happening either.
Their legacy is already there; they're onto uncharted teritorry. What's the rulebook for a 50 year old band with original lineup and their popularity ?
 
Well, that's probably their objective: to them, they now have the chance of being the greatest rock band of all time.

As ridiculous as an objective as that may be.
 
No. In what capacity can they get ahead of Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd ?

Sales ? Influence ? Songwriting ?
 
Well, yeah. If they actually produced quality albums more than once every 5 years or whatever, sure, they could get up there as far as songwriting, sales, etc.
Would it be in the panthenon of "top 5 greatest rock bands of all time"? No.
No one will ever top the Beatles or Zeppelin.
The Who and Stones are nothing now but their past was immense.
Do I see U2 doing this? No.

But it COULD be their objective at this point.
 
U2 aren't respected enough by their peers or by "cool" people to be considered one of the greatest bands ever. But they're definitely one of the most popular and successful bands of all time.
 
U2 aren't respected enough by their peers or by "cool" people to be considered one of the greatest bands ever. But they're definitely one of the most popular and successful bands of all time.



Deep down, everyone loves them and wants to be them. Everyone.

The issue is irritation with Bono, their professed desire to be the biggest/best, and their ability to consistently pull it off since 1985.

So people slag them off. But they shed a tear when "one" comes on, and again when they get a glimpse of humanity's potential during "streets."

Everyone loves some U2.


Sent from
 
No, he's right; Dylan, Stones, REM, Radiohead, Patti Smith, Bruce and everyone else hated U2.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Deep down, everyone loves them and wants to be them. Everyone.

The issue is irritation with Bono, their professed desire to be the biggest/best, and their ability to consistently pull it off since 1985.

So people slag them off. But they shed a tear when "one" comes on, and again when they get a glimpse of humanity's potential during "streets."

Everyone loves some U2.


Sent from

I don't know about everyone wanting to be them. But I agree that people don't find it cool to talk about U2 when discussing the greatest of music. Maybe it's just human insecurity and hypocrisy and jealousy etc etc. But even still, it's stuff that is getting in the way of acknowledging their contribution to music in a fair way.

To answer BVS, I'm defining this by my entire life experience of being a U2 fan and noticing throughout the years that whole lotta people (A) Don't consider U2 a serious band, or (B) Don't want to admit to their liking of U2.

The Beatles, Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Dylan, The Clash...these are acts people scream their love from the rooftops for. U2 is enjoyed secretly. There's an embarrassment about loving U2. Maybe someone hates The Stones, hates The Clash, but they won't pick on someone mercilessly for liking any of those groups. U2 is different. They are unique, I admit it.
 
I don't know about everyone wanting to be them. But I agree that people don't find it cool to talk about U2 when discussing the greatest of music. Maybe it's just human insecurity and hypocrisy and jealousy etc etc. But even still, it's stuff that is getting in the way of acknowledging their contribution to music in a fair way.



To answer BVS, I'm defining this by my entire life experience of being a U2 fan and noticing throughout the years that whole lotta people (A) Don't consider U2 a serious band, or (B) Don't want to admit to their liking of U2.



The Beatles, Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Dylan, The Clash...these are acts people scream their love from the rooftops for. U2 is enjoyed secretly. There's an embarrassment about loving U2. Maybe someone hates The Stones, hates The Clash, but they won't pick on someone mercilessly for liking any of those groups. U2 is different. They are unique, I admit it.


You're either blind or full of shit.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
U2 is still at it. The others are basically done, and understood. Desth's have happened. They are fully heritage acts.

U2 isn't quite there yet. Also, Bono is polarizing.

But I will argue that everyone loves some U2. And if you were born in the 70s you own at least 2 of their albums.


Sent from
 
U2 is still at it. The others are basically done, and understood. Desth's have happened. They are fully heritage acts.

U2 isn't quite there yet. Also, Bono is polarizing.

But I will argue that everyone loves some U2. And if you were born in the 70s you own at least 2 of their albums.


Sent from

I'm not arguing that everyone doesn't love them some U2. I agree that there is probably a world of closet U2 fans.
 
No anger, just amused that you always have a hard time backing up your comments.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Whoa, take it easy there Smugface.

It's just my opinion. You're not going to find Ozeeko's correct answer in any textbook on this subject.
 
Perhaps. We'll see...


In don't think we can underestimate how much Bono irritates people. And I love the guy.

He was cool in '85. Annoying in '88. Cool in '92. Annoying in '97. Cool in '01. He crossed over back to annoying sometime in '06 and hasn't come back yet. The tax issue really is kind of a thing.

Still, he is their creative life force and I think his singing continues to get better. Even some of his lyrics too. He's just gotten too Princess Di for the rock world.


Sent from
 
Back
Top Bottom