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
Niceman said:
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...

I cut myself on the edginess of this post, good Lord.

The Stones have at least half a dozen good ALBUMS. And of course the Who have good songs. Don't try so hard.
 
Last edited:
U2 is one of the most succesful bands of the past 30 years. No doubt about that. I have to say here in The Netherlands. It's not always the case in other countries. What I can say is that there is always a focus on them, Whatever they do. But as I said in another threads: keep releasing!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Cool story, bro.

You stated some crazy ass things as if they were fact.

You are of course entitled to whatever batshit crazy opinions you'd like.
Click to expand...

I didn't post many "facts." Most of what I've said was simply opinion, quite a bit of it surrounded by the initials "IMO."

This may shock you to hear, but unless we are discussing sales, MOST statements anyone makes about music are simply opinions, whether couched between "IMO"s, followed by bowing and humbling oneself, or just stated flatly. When debating taste, it's all opinion. And the most borish thing anyone on a message board can do is accuse other posters of thinking their opinions are facts.
 
Niceman said:
I didn't post many "facts." Most of what I've said was simply opinion, quite a bit of it surrounded by the initials "IMO."

This may shock you to hear, but unless we are discussing sales, MOST statements anyone makes about music are simply opinions, whether couched between "IMO"s, followed by bowing and humbling oneself, or just stated flatly. When debating taste, it's all opinion. And the most borish thing anyone on a message board can do is accuse other posters of thinking their opinions are facts.
Click to expand...

Dude...no one said you weren't entitled to your opinion. And if you said something like "I think Bad is better than Acrobat" I doubt anyone would have said anything. But you can't come on a message board about music and say the absurd things you said about the Beatles and the Stones and not expect push back...and then whine (and talk about people's "outside lives") when you get it. You get to express your opinion. Other's get to disagree, sometime vehemently. That's how it works. What you don't get to do is bring people's personal lives into it.

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.
 
Nick66 said:
Dude...no one said you weren't entitled to your opinion. And if you said something like "I think Bad is better than Acrobat" I doubt anyone would have said anything. But you can't come on a message board about music and say the absurd things you said about the Beatles and the Stones and not expect push back...and then whine (and talk about people's "outside lives") when you get it.

People here are doing your a favour...if you took stuff like you've written here to any music message board other than a U2 one you'd be laughed out out of the place.
Click to expand...

Now who's crazy? :lol:

In any conversation I happen to have, online or off, if it comes up I will happily share my opinion that The Joshua Tree is better than any Beatles album, and that I think the Stones are the most over-rated band in existence. I HAVE shared these opinions often. Some people agree with one or the other, some disagree. No one has ever reacted in anger and pain and vainglorious fury, aside from this conversation.

You and I disagree about a few questions of taste. That's no reason to call each other fools or suggest we're adding to lists of lies the other has made up. We disagree, and that's all.

Had you wanted to change my mind, link a track or two on Youtube in case I hadn't heard those songs, I probably wouldn't have changed my mind, but I would have thanked you and given the tracks a chance. One poster asked me to clarify if I thought Guns in The Sky was a better song than Sympathy for the Devil, of course I did not. I also agreed that INXS isn't as influential as the RS.

You and I disagree about a few matters of taste. We may agree about some others. But if your reaction to my stating an opinion you disagree with is to attack, well I will follow.....

And yeah, when you told me that next time I should limit my comments to "U2 is my favorite band" you WERE telling me that I wasn't entitled to my opinion. You made that very clear.
 
Niceman said:
I didn't post many "facts." Most of what I've said was simply opinion, quite a bit of it surrounded by the initials "IMO."

This may shock you to hear, but unless we are discussing sales, MOST statements anyone makes about music are simply opinions, whether couched between "IMO"s, followed by bowing and humbling oneself, or just stated flatly. When debating taste, it's all opinion. And the most borish thing anyone on a message board can do is accuse other posters of thinking their opinions are facts.
Click to expand...

Yeah because phrasing things as a rhetorical question ("do they even HAVE a good song??" ) is a great way to put out an argument before it starts.

But yeah sure, you're welcome to feel however you want to.
 
You know who's crazy? Me! If I don't go crazy tonight!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
There's a lot more to Achtung Baby than just the funk influenced tracks, but I can agree that we might not have Mysterious Ways if not for Kick.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I'd put NLOTH and Spiderman in the "Third" ten years. Otherwise, yeah, you're right. They haven't been "productive" in any reasonable sense of the term.
 
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...

Yeah, it is really frustrating.
 
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.
 
Spiderman???

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

Similar threads

Achtung_Bebe
IO: It's been a while...
Replies
2
Views
664
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
746
lazarus
lazarus
W
Detective needed: Bono’s old car
Replies
0
Views
567
wjc1979
W

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom