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
Irvine511 said:
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
Click to expand...

Bono is definitely polarizing. In a Rock Music class in college (yes I took a Rock Music class, easiest 3 credits I ever earned), we watched The History of Rock n Roll 6-part documentary. Every time Bono came on the screen (and he did a lot) there was a collective groan all around the classroom, except from me and one other kid who had similar taste, and the teacher at the end of one of classes said "I noticed you all really seem to hate Bono." You should have heard the uproar, it was hateful. Of course I, not giving a shit, said "They have a lot of great stuff if you give it the time of day." This comment did not move mountains.

Anyway, while that's just one example, it's pretty much symbolic of my experience being a U2 fan.

I think rock is too tied up in the blues, and since U2 don't necessarily stem from that background, there's a kind of softness that's associated with them, like they're just pop fluff. There's not enough blood on the tracks. But at the same time, they're not dark enough or cynical enough or hard enough or innovative enough or just plain cool enough to make up for that lack.

Maybe if they retired or if they died tragically in a plane crash after AB we'd be singing a different tune, but I dunno, the damage seems almost irreparable at this point. Maybe in 20 or 30 years their early output will be recognized for the brilliant weirdness it is. But not anytime soon.

That said, they are an enormously successful and popular band. Sure, they've been together for a long time, longer than most, but they haven't released anything really in 5 to 6 years. Any band can say "hey we're still together" and go on not releasing anything. I don't think points should be given for the amount of years U2 has remained intact. Especially considering the gaps between albums.
 
ozeeko said:
The Beatles, Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Dylan, The Clash...these are acts people scream their love from the rooftops for.
Click to expand...

There is only one of those bands that was a manufactured band. For all the hipster douche revisionist history about The Clash, that's often left out.

But there is little doubt that U2 will never be considered 'greater' than those other five bands by adept fans, critics or even their peers. Nor should they.

But who fucking cares?

Non-thinking people tend to hate U2. That's always been true.
 
U2DMfan said:
There is only one of those bands that was a manufactured band. For all the hipster douche revisionist history about The Clash, that's often left out.

But there is little doubt that U2 will never be considered 'greater' than those other five bands by adept fans, critics or even their peers. Nor should they.

But who fucking cares?

Non-thinking people tend to hate U2. That's always been true.
Click to expand...

I don't fucking care at all. Whether they become "greater" than those bands is a matter which means nothing to me. But the subject of closet U2 Fandom I find to be kind of interesting. I'm not going to write a book about it, but it was a funny thing to discuss for a post or two.
 
U2DMfan said:
There is only one of those bands that was a manufactured band. For all the hipster douche revisionist history about The Clash, that's often left out.

But there is little doubt that U2 will never be considered 'greater' than those other five bands by adept fans, critics or even their peers. Nor should they.

But who fucking cares?

Non-thinking people tend to hate U2. That's always been true.
Click to expand...

Word. U2 are my favorite. I don't really care what anybody else thinks about that. A lot of people like them, some people loathe them. Whatevs.
 
ozeeko said:
Bono is definitely polarizing. In a Rock Music class in college (yes I took a Rock Music class, easiest 3 credits I ever earned), we watched The History of Rock n Roll 6-part documentary. Every time Bono came on the screen (and he did a lot) there was a collective groan all around the classroom, except from me and one other kid who had similar taste, and the teacher at the end of one of classes said "I noticed you all really seem to hate Bono." You should have heard the uproar, it was hateful. Of course I, not giving a shit, said "They have a lot of great stuff if you give it the time of day." This comment did not move mountains.

Anyway, while that's just one example, it's pretty much symbolic of my experience being a U2 fan.

I think rock is too tied up in the blues, and since U2 don't necessarily stem from that background, there's a kind of softness that's associated with them, like they're just pop fluff. There's not enough blood on the tracks. But at the same time, they're not dark enough or cynical enough or hard enough or innovative enough or just plain cool enough to make up for that lack.

Maybe if they retired or if they died tragically in a plane crash after AB we'd be singing a different tune, but I dunno, the damage seems almost irreparable at this point. Maybe in 20 or 30 years their early output will be recognized for the brilliant weirdness it is. But not anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I mean...
 
U2 are the greatest band on earth. But...... then they have to release. If the new album isn't done, then so be it. But there is a lot of stuff to release (pop documentary 'a year in pop' , the rattle and hum remaster with a lot of outtakes and the Love Town concert on blu-ray/dvd, U2 3d in 3d on blu-ray, the sessions with Rick Rubin etc. etc..) Ordinary love and Invisible aren't enough for another 2 or 3 years of nothing. At least they could have released both songs on cd with a few remixes on it, so than a lot of fans the songs can put in their record/cd collection (I mean no limited releases, where you have to pay more than 100 euros for one song).

In the meantime, we're ready for almost another u2.com gift. U2.com is the only U2-related organisation that have improved over the last years (the cd's and the books are brilliant).
 
ozeeko said:
Bono is definitely polarizing. In a Rock Music class in college (yes I took a Rock Music class, easiest 3 credits I ever earned), we watched The History of Rock n Roll 6-part documentary. Every time Bono came on the screen (and he did a lot) there was a collective groan all around the classroom, except from me and one other kid who had similar taste, and the teacher at the end of one of classes said "I noticed you all really seem to hate Bono." You should have heard the uproar, it was hateful. Of course I, not giving a shit, said "They have a lot of great stuff if you give it the time of day." This comment did not move mountains.

Anyway, while that's just one example, it's pretty much symbolic of my experience being a U2 fan.

I think rock is too tied up in the blues, and since U2 don't necessarily stem from that background, there's a kind of softness that's associated with them, like they're just pop fluff. There's not enough blood on the tracks. But at the same time, they're not dark enough or cynical enough or hard enough or innovative enough or just plain cool enough to make up for that lack.

Maybe if they retired or if they died tragically in a plane crash after AB we'd be singing a different tune, but I dunno, the damage seems almost irreparable at this point. Maybe in 20 or 30 years their early output will be recognized for the brilliant weirdness it is. But not anytime soon.

That said, they are an enormously successful and popular band. Sure, they've been together for a long time, longer than most, but they haven't released anything really in 5 to 6 years. Any band can say "hey we're still together" and go on not releasing anything. I don't think points should be given for the amount of years U2 has remained intact. Especially considering the gaps between albums.
Click to expand...



and then we wonder why it takes them so long to make albums.

there's a lot to consider, and to get right, and 30 years to try not to ruin.
 
Irvine511 said:
and then we wonder why it takes them so long to make albums.

there's a lot to consider, and to get right, and 30 years to try not to ruin.
Click to expand...

I think they're going to ruin it if they keep trying to be the U2 of the past. They're perpetuating the problem by being so concerned with their legacy and popularity. I mean, they're U2. They can release a crap album and still fill every arena around the world. Getting really deep into their art would be a really good move, in my opinion. Would maybe improve matters on the U2 hate. But when they're always campaigning to be the biggest, again and again and again, it's off-putting. It's like, you've proved it already, go away!
 
ozeeko said:
I think they're going to ruin it if they keep trying to be the U2 of the past. They're perpetuating the problem by being so concerned with their legacy and popularity. I mean, they're U2. They can release a crap album and still fill every arena around the world. Getting really deep into their art would be a really good move, in my opinion. Would maybe improve matters on the U2 hate. But when they're always campaigning to be the biggest, again and again and again, it's off-putting. It's like, you've proved it already, go away!
Click to expand...




Which is easy for someone who isn't in U2 to say.


Sent from
 
ozeeko said:
Well, you implied that their legacy will be fine anyway after they retire, when all the closet fans emerge. So then how are they anyway in a position to ruin it?
Click to expand...


Maybe they agree with all your friends about being embarrassing.


Sent from
 
Irvine511 said:
Maybe they're trying to make up for that with this next album.

Though 80s cowboy Bono is pretty embarrassing as well.


Sent from
Click to expand...

Lol, look I have never been embarrassed to be a U2 fan. I'll defend them til the day I croak, even though they're the band who wrote Stand Up Comedy. I thought I was just stating an obvious earlier. Sure they're one of the biggest best bands of all time. To answer what BVS jumped on last night, I didn't mean that U2's peers "hate" them, I said they don't respect them "enough" to be seen in that upper echelon of classic rock music. They aren't seen as re-inventing the wheel musically, or as a band born out of rock's roots. They're a standalone act. No one will argue as to their level of success, but that they're so big to the point of being irritating gets in the way of recognizing their contribution. That's all I was saying.
 
ozeeko said:
Lol, look I have never been embarrassed to be a U2 fan. I'll defend them til the day I croak, even though they're the band who wrote Stand Up Comedy. I thought I was just stating an obvious earlier. Sure they're one of the biggest best bands of all time. To answer what BVS jumped on last night, I didn't mean that U2's peers "hate" them, I said they don't respect them "enough" to be seen in that upper echelon of classic rock music. They aren't seen as re-inventing the wheel musically, or as a band born out of rock's roots. They're a standalone act. No one will argue as to their level of success, but that they're so big to the point of being irritating gets in the way of recognizing their contribution. That's all I was saying.
Click to expand...


I think you're projecting. Saying their peers don't respect them is a pretty easy statement to back up if true. So I was curious if you had examples? Because I know I could give you a long list of peers that have collaborated, showed public respect, or expressed admiration.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
BVS said:
I think you're projecting. Saying their peers don't respect them is a pretty easy statement to back up if true. So I was curious if you had examples? Because I know I could give you a long list of peers that have collaborated, showed public respect, or expressed admiration.


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

I think the word peers has got me in trouble here. Thinking it over and realizing I'm kind of wrong for saying that. I'll admit it.
 
popacrobat said:
Word. U2 are my favorite. I don't really care what anybody else thinks about that. A lot of people like them, some people loathe them. Whatevs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't get this conversation on a U2 message board with supposed "fans" claiming U2 isn't AT LEAST one of the greatest bands in history. For my money, they're obviously THE greatest band in history and that's that. I couldn't care less whether the current crop of hipsters want to rank them above or below the Rolling Stones (who have only written a half dozen good songs), The Who (Did they write ANY good songs?) or any of the others.

U2 became the best band in the world, in my judgement in 1987. Their work throughout the next 13 years cemented that. They laid an egg with ATYCLB but have been on an upswing ever since.

That's how I see it, and if I'm honest I see those who disagree as plain crazy! :wink:

Am I annoyed with Bono's extracurricular work? You bet. Am I exasperated with them not releasing an album in 5 years? Gods, yes! But no other band has ever written anything as good as The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby.
 
I dunno. All this "where would you rank U2" on a list is weird because we're all obviously fans.
I mean, I use to consider U2's "peers" as The Police, R.E.M., Simple Minds, The Cure, Depeche Mode....
Then I started to think Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Oasis...
These days I have no idea....
You can't put them up there with The Beatles (objectively....personally you can put them anywhere you want), hard to say they are as important as Led Zeppelin (they're not), nowhere as "big" as Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson overall...not as "relevant" (ha!) these days as fucking Coldplay....

I'd probably start by comparing them with Springsteen in terms of faithful fan base and longetivity, although obviously Bruce has a few years on them.

Tough one. I really think this next album in a way decides where they land on the next "greatest bands" lists or whatever. Another NLOTH? Somewhere in the teens or 20's spots. Another "AB"? Somewhere just under the top ten.
 
JOFO said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. They'd have to have albums every 2 years with JT level sales each time.

Songwriting ? Bono and Edge are not up there with Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Page/Plant, Townshend and Waters as writers. Influence and amount of classic songs/albums are not on U2's side either. And outside of Stones, their careers were far shorter than U2's.

It was never their goal to have the chance of being the greatest rock band of all time..
 
JOFO said:
I dunno. All this "where would you rank U2" on a list is weird because we're all obviously fans.
I mean, I use to consider U2's "peers" as The Police, R.E.M., Simple Minds, The Cure, Depeche Mode....
Then I started to think Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Oasis...
These days I have no idea....
You can't put them up there with The Beatles (objectively....personally you can put them anywhere you want), hard to say they are as important as Led Zeppelin (they're not), nowhere as "big" as Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson overall...not as "relevant" (ha!) these days as fucking Coldplay....

I'd probably start by comparing them with Springsteen in terms of faithful fan base and longetivity, although obviously Bruce has a few years on them.

Tough one. I really think this next album in a way decides where they land on the next "greatest bands" lists or whatever. Another NLOTH? Somewhere in the teens or 20's spots. Another "AB"? Somewhere just under the top ten.
Click to expand...

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!
 
U2girl said:
Songwriting ? Bono and Edge are not up there with Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Page/Plant, Townshend and Waters as writers.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I think that's debatable.

U2girl said:
It was never their goal to have the chance of being the greatest rock band of all time..
Click to expand...

Right; they wanted to be the greatest of all time, never mind having a chance at it.
 
Niceman said:
Yeah, I don't get this conversation on a U2 message board with supposed "fans" claiming U2 isn't AT LEAST one of the greatest bands in history. For my money, they're obviously THE greatest band in history and that's that. I couldn't care less whether the current crop of hipsters want to rank them above or below the Rolling Stones (who have only written a half dozen good songs), The Who (Did they write ANY good songs?) or any of the others.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

LOL. What a bunch of straw man arguments.

For one thing, as far as I can see NO ONE is saying that U2 is not "at least one of the greatest bands in history". I imagine most, if not all, the people participating on the board would agree with that. So let's dispense with that straw man foolishness right away.

Secondly, it's not the "current crop of hipsters" who would rank, say the the Rolling Stones, above U2. It's most of the the musical world, critics and fans alike. And when you say the Stones have only a "half dozen good songs" you're only embarrassing yourself (again). And I say this as someone who isn't a particularly big Stones fan. You comments about The Who are equally facile and again, you're showing your musical ignorance on a board that has a pretty fair number of people very knowledgeable about music. I won't even get into your Beatles remarks.

U2 is my favourite band. And IMO their legacy as one of the greatest rock bands ever is secure, and nothing they can do now can really diminish that. But please, if you're going to make your point, please just say "U2 is my favourite band" and and leave it at that. And if you must inform your comments with comparative rock history, at least make sure they're informed.
 
Nick66 said:
LOL. What a bunch of straw man arguments.

For one thing, as far as I can see NO ONE is saying that U2 is not "at least one of the greatest bands in history". I imagine most, if not all, the people participating on the board would agree with that. So let's dispense with that straw man foolishness right away.

Secondly, it's not the "current crop of hipsters" who would rank, say the the Rolling Stones, above U2. It's most of the the musical world, critics and fans alike. And when you say the Stones have only a "half dozen good songs" you're only embarrassing yourself (again). And I say this as someone who isn't a particularly big Stones fan. You comments about The Who are equally facile and again, you're showing your musical ignorance on a board that has a pretty fair number of people very knowledgeable about music. I won't even get into your Beatles remarks.

U2 is my favourite band. And IMO their legacy as one of the greatest rock bands ever is secure, and nothing they can do now can really diminish that. But please, if you're going to make your point, please just say "U2 is my favourite band" and and leave it at that. And if you must inform your comments with comparative rock history, at least make sure they're informed.
Click to expand...

You know, you have consistently been a belligerent poster since I first noticed you on this board. I can only imagine your life outside of it is very difficult, so I won't worry myself that you are yet again diving in desperate for a fight.

Reading over the last few pages I see more than one poster suggesting they are not in the pantheon with the Beatles, the Stones, etc. There's no straw-man involved in my calling that foolishness what it is.

I have an opinion when it comes to the Stones, and it is that they are the most over-rated band in history. I've lived a long life filled with music and it is my considered opinion that the Stones have maybe 6 songs which are anything above mediocre, and only 2 or 3 great ones. IMO I would take INXS' KICK over the entire Stones catalog 8 days out of 7. That's my opinion. It's not an objective statement. There can be no debate.

(And, strangely, I'm actually NOT embarrassed to share it publicly!) ;)

I don't like The Who. I've been told my who life that they were great, often even by Bono, and I don't get it. They're not for me. I don't hate them. I simply don't see anything interesting about them. They certainly have never written anything I would want to pay money for.

No, I won't limit my comments to "U2 is my favorite band." I will also share any other thoughts I care to, without fear that grumpy ol' Nick might get his feelings hurt by someone expressing an opinion on art which is not the same as his.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Achtung_Bebe
IO: It's been a while...
Replies
2
Views
569
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
734
lazarus
lazarus
W
Detective needed: Bono’s old car
Replies
0
Views
563
wjc1979
W

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom