U2's downfall...

[BVS]

I'm laughing at no one. I'm laughing at the notion that some think they know a person's real feelings and they know when they are designed soley for "hits", especially when it comes to 'Sometimes', nothing about that song screams hit.

Secondly if you ever actually read my posts you would know I'm not a blind follower.

It's pretty pathetic when you have to actually defend that kind of thing in here.

I just don't believe in weak arguments, and this thread is full of them, in fact this thread was started on a weak premise.

But nice try.

 

[Salome]

Secondly if you ever actually read my posts you would know I'm not a blind follower.

It's pretty pathetic when you have to actually defend that kind of thing in here.

 

[Muldfeld]

Radiohead is good at what they do. But that's their thing, and U2 doesn't operate the same way.

I'd say though that U2 are in a different position to Radiohead because, unfair though it may be, the relevance of the truly massive mega-bands like U2 is judged both by the artistic merit -and- the amount of records they sell. Especially when the band in question is openly ambitious and not a reluctant or accidental kind of superstar.

It's true that U2 was always in a dialectic with the mainstream -- instead of trying to appease it, it was self-consciously trying to improve it on its own terms by making different music. However, I think the artistic integrity was the same, in many ways. Neither band wanted to do things to be popular if it meant a better song. Radiohead has stayed on that path, though they seem interested in some level of popularity if you look at Pablo Honey era videos; just look at Ed acting it up and Thom trying to act cool (poor guy jumps into a pool at the end but can't get out and was drowning, the story goes):
YouTube - Radiohead-Anyone Can Play Guitar(live at the MTV Beach House

Now, Radiohead has dispensed with the theatrics. Thom's crazy dancing is rooted in how he feels; it feels organic, not a set of coordinated moves designed to look sexy. Bono has always been very old-style rock, or at least a hybrid of '70s era rock stardom mixed supposedly with a more spiritual side, but the band has edged more toward appeasing the mainstream these days to sell seats to annoying bellweather fans who are intolerant of unpopular songs, even if they're great.

Apparently, in the early days of the Zoo TV tour, they refused to play any song from before 1984. That was awesome. Who wants to hear the same boring War songs over and over; it would be cool if they innovated "The Drowning Man" or "Like a Song", but its the same old "New Year's Day" and "Sunday Bloody Sunday" over and over.

 

[Muldfeld]

WhOah!!
Yo, Muldfeld: Are you aware that you will be crucified here by the U2-gestapo here?
You are not allowed to be critical at your favourite band even if your arguments are almost all facts!! Let me put it this way: apart from your point about Zooropa and POP and A Man And A Woman, I agree completely with you!
There's not one american band that campaigns more for America than U2! U2 Irish? Gimme a break! In the early years, yes... but in the last 20 years? 1 or 2 albums that deal with the "idea" of America is fine. It gave us JT and R&H. Very happy with that.. But from there on: songs about America, Bono kissing America's ass constantly, Bono yelling (The Saints Are Coming) "I am an Americaaaan", the jacket during the Super-Bowl, etc, etc,... I like America very much but it's enough now, Bono!
U2 have been bathing in so much stardom, glamour, celebrity, grandioso, ego, that they've become sloppy: during concerts Bono forgetting his own lyrics, on-auto-pilot playing, quick flat performances of passionate songs (Streets, One, etc..) There were numourous times that I crinched at Bono's cliché oneliners, his attitude..
Still I respect him very much for all the work his doing for the good cause! But this (all the time that goes in the good cause) combined with U2's bigger than life status for the last 10 years, have made them sloppy and less sharp. And because of that U2 became snowed under by all this stardom. It made them forget how to be subtile and passionate as they once were! Original, because they wanted to really say something with their music. Nowadays this all turned in to cheesiness!! In-your-face emotion on the ballads (you know which ones I mean..) And U2 being it's own tribute band! The best example of this cheesiness, U2 imitating U2 and indentity/midlife crisis is: City Of Blinding Lights! Just terrible! U2-unworthy...
The whole HTDAAB-album is U2 "clutching at straws" (great Marillion-album btw!) and recycled material:

Vertigo: good song but too much obvious Boy influences
Miracle Drug: sappy flat U2 song (U2 imitating U2 with a little Coldplay)
SYCMIOYO: over-the-top cheesy emo "your the reeeason I saaaing, your the reason wha-ha-ha-hay the opera is in me.."
LPOE: recycled Zoo-Station-ish tune with a little Depeche Mode flavour
COBL: no comment.. no wait:
ABOY: what a train-wreck!
AMAAW: soft lyrics, maybe.. but fantastic clear singing by Bono and original sounding music
One Step Closer: "The First Time" recycled.. just more boring (filler)
Crumbs: recycled chord-structures of "Walk On", terrible shrieking mixing, in the end: weak track
OOTS: forced U2 doing Beatles-track
Yahweh: great track! This sencere U2 feeling is here!

When it comes to artistic intergrity, Radiohead blows U2 right out of the water the last 5 years. No wonder: U2/McGuinuess is just going: "do we have big hit-singles, are we still the biggest? Can we (still) outsell Rolling Stones" Who cares if the music suffers!" Who cares if we become a sad residu of who we once were, who cares if we become a Disneyland band with only big stadium-sing-along tunes! We need to be the biggest and sell, sell, sell !!!"

Don't get me wrong: I think it's totally o.k. that the boys are rich and famous but the music seems to suffer for years now... the sharpness and originality seems snowed under by it all..
Even Larry stated about HTDAAB: it's just not good enough!
So on this new album they have to come from far!

Thanks, Onyourkneesboy. I also disagree with some of your song choices but agree with your argument.

My favorites are Miracle Drug (despite some awkward lyrics) and Original of the Species.

 

[Muldfeld]

I'll give you that they stated they wanted to compete for the charts and Adam and Larry balked at the 2003 version of Bomb because they felt the songs weren't there but they never said that they were specifically trying for uplifting which is what was originally stated. And I don't think there was evidence in the charts that uplifting music would be an automatic hit. Their aim was to get rock into the charts again against the predominance of rap, hip hop and boy and girl band cheese. ATYCLB did not conform to what was predominant in the charts at the time.

As for Mercy being to dark for Bomb, I find Crumbs much more cutting than Mercy. COBL sounds like Streets because on that song U2 was specifically trying to create a song that could replace Streets in the live shows. Looking to try to shed some of the older material so as not to end up a Greatest Hits band. The only reason they still used Streets on tour was after coming up with the flag video sequence segue from Pride into Streets which Bono felt finally made sense of a song whose lyric began in Ethiopia when he and Ali worked in the feeding camps.

The big problem I see is all the people that assume that just because U2 wants mainstream widespread success it is for money when their is ample evidence throughout their career that the motivation has always been to touch people's hearts. The only way to prove that in an unchallengeable way would be to perform for free for the rest of their lives but although they are idealistic they aren't fucking stupid. They know in their hearts what their motivation is and their is plenty of evidence of it available and if people choose not to see that then that is their problem, not U2's.

And for everybody who keeps trying to put U2 back in the cult, experimental band box when are you going to realize that they never wanted to be there in the first place. From the very beginning their stated purpose was to make music that touch peoples hearts, and had a cleansing healing effect on them. The last two albums did that in spades. If it's not your cup of tea that's fine but they still did what they wanted to do. The purpose of challenging Brittany wasn't to sell more records but to show that Rock music was still relevant and could still reach out and touch people. If U2 were truly as greedy as they've been criticized of being of late they'd be making a fucking fortune licensing their songs all over the place. For 30 years U2 has shown character and integrity and it astounds me that so many hardcore fans seem totally incapable of giving them the benefit of the doubt on anything but will immediately jump to the worst possible conclusions based on the flimsiest of information. I'd expect that of the general internet population but it still amazes me on a dedicated U2 board. I would have thought that fans would actually have some kind of trust in the band.

Dana

I actually think it is about the money as well as popularity. There's something to what Bono said about trying to reach people who wouldn't normally listen to obscure stuff. If I hadn't had older brothers or a university environment with great taste in music, I'd be screwed. However, more often than not, trying to reach such people in today's radio environment means dumbing things down to an unreasonable degree. It's one thing to alter a song for single status (The Cure have tended to do that, sometimes by improving on the track as they did with "Close to Me"), but the music has been purposefully written to be played on the radio. Imagine if U2 had this attitude when they wrote "Achtung Baby" and we never got "Acrobat" or "The Fly".

U2 is so irrelevant in arousing any genuine sense of political activism or real passion nowadays. Even if the song was well-intentioned and admirably aroused interest in Aung San Suu Kyi, "Walk On" is so cheesy and obvious ("a singing bird in an open cage who will only fly for freedom), especially the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqQEXouLH9A

Everything is so vague and radio-friendly because Clear Channel would probably ban their stuff if it were politically challenging of the US. U2 is more terrified of not being popular than saying what needs to be said or being true to their art. However, I don't think it's conscious of this. Even if I didn't like most of Pop, it had an identity that was completely stripped away to overly simplified melodies in the redone versions on the "Best of 1990-2000". The only cool guitar part of "Discotheque" was stripped away. Everything had to sound like turn-of-the -millennium U2. Edge had convinced himself that Pop was bad because it wasn't popular.

Also, U2 have tried to make a ton of money. Look at the poor quality of the deluxe DVDs and remasters. Joshua Tree was pretty cool, but the War remaster bonus disc is a joke. The Vertigo deluxe DVD is an insult; Milan was only represented with 10 songs to get us hardcore fans to buy a third best of album, but they're likely saving the concert for a future cash-in. The Zoo TV and Pop bonus discs are pretty lacking in using the maximum potential of the disc to be truly a great deal; how about full versions of the concerts they obviously have footage from; they didn't even film any stuff anew, so the costs of production were very minor, but these cost more than the Vertigo DVD. The deluxe version of HTDAAB lacked the album artwork and lyrics in -- I think -- a ploy to get fans to buy the regular album. Even if these aren't U2's ideas, they're letting Universal do this to us.

This is in stark contrast to the fact "Under a Blood Red Sky" was a specially-reduced price album when it came out; remember that?

Also, U2 has been selling their catalogue for questionable purposes to be "big". They let Mary J. Blige ruin their song; and they've also let ESPN use their music.

There's also a tackiness that wasn't there. I was listening to the "Window in the Skies" single, which I bought because it supposedly had a great version of "Kite". Bono ruins the song with his shameless attempt to ingratiate himself with celebrities by calling out Kate Blanchette's name. Way to ruin a song! I wonder if he'd have called her out if she'd only been in indie films and was unknown by Hollywood.

Let's not forget endorsing U2 politicians like Tom Lantos and Bill Clinton; he cares about Africa but attends a library opening for the man that prevented the UN from declaring Rwanda a genocide, so he wouldn't have to act? Let's not also forget Bono disagreeing with Rolling Stone in stating that the Bush administration, including Karl Rove and Cheney and Condie Rice, all honestly cared about helping Iraqis when they launched that invasion. Bono used to decry American neocolonialism in Latin America on "The Joshua Tree"; where's the modern response to present-day neo-colonialism toward the Middle East or even Hugo Chavez' Venezuela; are Bush-backed coup attempts alright with Bono; doesn't Bono sit on the board of a company that created a violent videogame in which the goal is to assassinate Hugo Chavez?

Is this the new U2?
I think the band can get back to artistic integrity and human rights integrity, but they have to get back to it to earn the level of respect I once had again.

 

[U2girl]

You don't think that happened in this forum ?

 

[devalera1]

Have to disagree with what you're saying . . .

No genuine sense of activism? So 2.4 million members of the ONE campaign don't count? $40 billion in debt relief doesn't count? Live 8 doesn't count?

And as for the Cate Blanchett point - she was at the show.

And, for the record, I don't think Bono has endorsed anyone - he's worked with politicians of all stripes.

 

[U2girl]

Battlestar Galactica could solve all of U2's "problems".

 

[JOFO]

I think you have some valid points.

I mean, at this point, you can't really be bigger or richer than they are, so it should be about something more; "Reaching out to a larger audience" is really not a plausible argument at this point....who on the planet doesn't know them? Even the 14 year olds are aware of them and consider them they're mom's music. I know because I teach 14 year olds.

Yes, the level of cheesiness has gotten a little bit too much at times. I mean, remember Bono's "fuck up the mainstream" thing at the grammies after Zooropa? Light years from where we are now......

At the same time I still love them and their music.

 

[U2girl]

Yes, coming off after the hugest tour of the year, as well as one of the biggest albums of the year. How very un-mainstream.

 

[JOFO]

Nah, I don't need them to be unmainstream or whatever, I just want good music and no pandering for an audience.

 

[last unicorn]

Have to disagree with what you're saying . . .

No genuine sense of activism? So 2.4 million members of the ONE campaign don't count? $40 billion in debt relief doesn't count? Live 8 doesn't count?

And as for the Cate Blanchett point - she was at the show.

And, for the record, I don't think Bono has endorsed anyone - he's worked with politicians of all stripes.

Mudfeld always tries to bring lengthy political arguments into a discussion about U2's MUSIC. These arguments are always the same pathetic blurb, beyond ridiculous and have nothing to do with the original topic of this thread.

This thread has become totally derailed. How many more of this kind will we have before the album will actually be released?

 

[last unicorn]

I think you have some valid points.

I mean, at this point, you can't really be bigger or richer than they are, so it should be about something more; "Reaching out to a larger audience" is really not a plausible argument at this point....who on the planet doesn't know them? Even the 14 year olds are aware of them and consider them they're mom's music. I know because I teach 14 year olds.

Yes, so what? For me, U2 have always been the most universal band on this planet. Maybe not for a couple of years in the 90s, but this was just a phase, they went back to who they really are some years ago. I don't see this as a bad thing. I want them to touch people young and old instead of catering to an elite.

Btw, I still know some people who have no idea who U2 is. Looks like the band has some more promo work to do.

 

[U2girl]

Nah, I don't need them to be unmainstream or whatever, I just want good music and no pandering for an audience.

Please. U2 wouldn't be where they are if they hadn't worked hard to get a break in the US, get a break worldwide, keep the popularity after the 80's and again after the 90's. The difference is they adapted to the new times in the music industry.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

This thread has become totally derailed. How many more of this kind will we have before the album will actually be released?

how long?

how long must we sing this song?

 

[Zoots]

Yes, the level of cheesiness has gotten a little bit too much at times. I mean, remember Bono's "fuck up the mainstream" thing at the grammies after Zooropa? Light years from where we are now......

Unless of course that was just an act... that speech... not to mention the whole 90s image and attitude, the "pop kids" quote, everything, if it was just an act and they were really always as concerned with the mainstream as they are now... maybe even us fans don't know who the real U2 is because they've changed their colors so often!

 

[UberBeaver]

how long?

how long must we sing this song?

TOO LONG!

 

[U2girl]

Btw, I still know some people who have no idea who U2 is. Looks like the band has some more promo work to do.

As proven by the new generation of fans after AB (now who on Earth wouldn't know about U2 after JT?) and last two albums (everyone knows about them after BD, right?)

 

[BVS]

U2 is so irrelevant in arousing any genuine sense of political activism or real passion nowadays.

In order to get some perspective, which musicians do you think have a genuine sense of political activism?

As for the rest of your post it's full of misunderstands, tired unsubstantiated theories, and really bad speculations.

 

[BVS]

You don't think that happened in this forum ?

I do, I'm laughing with you...

 

[last unicorn]

Unless of course that was just an act... that speech... not to mention the whole 90s image and attitude, the "pop kids" quote, everything, if it was just an act and they were really always as concerned with the mainstream as they are now... maybe even us fans don't know who the real U2 is because they've changed their colors so often!

Yeah, it's interesting how this one single sentence is chosen to be quoted over and over again by some people who believe this is the gospel, while so many other things about the band are dismissed. I'd like to know how some of you are chosing what is the "real" U2 and what isn't? And why isn't U2 as a band and as single human beings allowed to evolve, grow, mature, and - heaven forbid - change?

 

[Zoots]

I do, I'm laughing with you...

I can't believe U2girl thought you were laughing at her! LMAO

 

[Zoots]

Yeah, it's interesting how this one single sentence is chosen to be quoted over and over again by some people who believe this is the gospel, while so many other things about the band are dismissed. I'd like to know how some of you are chosing what is the "real" U2 and what isn't? And why isn't U2 as a band and as single human beings allowed to evolve, grow, mature, and - heaven forbid - change?

But nobody wants a change for the worse!

 

[BVS]

I just want good music and no pandering for an audience.

So then you've never liked U2?

The whole "fuck up the mainstream" line was just U2 appealing to anyone who prescribed to the term 'alternative', which was everyone back then.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

TOO LONG!

 

[JOFO]

I've always liked their music, every album, and I only feel that in the last couple of years have they really made a concious effort to reach an audience they didn't have.

 

[U2girl]

Yeah, it's interesting how this one single sentence is chosen to be quoted over and over again by some people who believe this is the gospel, while so many other things about the band are dismissed. I'd like to know how some of you are chosing what is the "real" U2 and what isn't? And why isn't U2 as a band and as single human beings allowed to evolve, grow, mature, and - heaven forbid - change?

I think all of it - the 80's, the 90's and now - makes U2. All of it was valid in the journey as a band.

I don't know what's next but we're ready. More importantly, so are they.

edit: I think this lack of hype and album promo from the band is a first hint something different is happening. Remember how much we'd hear in 2002 and 2003 and even early 2004 for Bomb ? And how much info we had in 2006, 2007 and now ? Also Bono seems to be around the studio more on this one compared to Bomb.

 

[Zoots]

I think all of it - the 80's, the 90's and now - makes U2. All of it was valid in the journey as a band.

Except it has made them quite possibly the most misunderstood band in the history of music! Everybody thinks U2 changed for the worse in some era or another, that they lost the "real U2"... except what is real U2? Nobody knows.

 

[JOFO]

You're right; we are ready......

as long as they don't play Vertigo twice.....

 

[Salome]

Nah, I don't need them to be unmainstream or whatever, I just want good music and no pandering for an audience.

I agree
it amazes me how many people on this forum are able to pinpoint when exactly U2 is pandering an audience and when not
I can't say I have this amazing gift