shuttlecock XXIV: it's the little swings

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
"tonight we'd like to change things up a little - we've heard how much you aussies loved the lovetown tour, and we've been playing desire all tour but tonight we thought we'd go way out of the box and give you fans a special, rare treat. this is angel of harlem!"
 
“We had a great time touring after Rattle & Hum and playing those songs here during the Lovetown tour. But it’s not the only time we tried to recapture some of that classic rock and soul sound. This is In A Little While.”

(also plays Stuck)

ETA: literally just posted same sentiment as Headache
 
Does it make me a bad person if I get a text from someone saying they just left the hospital after being diagnosed with vertigo and my reply is a link to the Youtube video of U2's Vertigo?
 
Does it make me a bad person if I get a text from someone saying they just left the hospital after being diagnosed with vertigo and my reply is a link to the Youtube video of U2's Vertigo?

no, i don't think this in particular is what makes you a bad person. :wink:
 
So are we going to get an actual explanation from the band? The official PR statement is just the same bullshit from last time, when, you know, they seemed to be saying this kind of thing was an exception.

I hope some journalist asks why they opted against extending the tour they just finished last year and instead decided to be a legacy jukebox again.
 
Last edited:
So are we going to get an actual explanation from the band? The official PR statement is just the same bullshit from last time, where you know, they seemed to be saying this kind of thing was an exception.

I hope some journalist asks why they opted against extending the tour they just finished last year and instead decided to be a legacy jukebox again.



What exactly are you saying?
 
Keep using that lazy reaction because you can’t even discuss the topic.

How sad it is wanting your supposed favorite band frozen in time.

Ok, my proper response now I've got a moment...

I've been calling for this for years. So at least I've got the integrity of that. If I went back through my old posts I reckon for at least five years I've been saying that I would prefer a modern-day U2 -- if they keep up this ridiculous lust for relevancy and top-charting singles, which they have done -- that does what they do best: tour. And tour their old shit. They're all in their late 60s now. It's obvious they refuse to take the path of fellow artists of a similar vintage in Nick Cave, Bowie, Tom Waits, none of whom care(d) about relevancy or chart hits and have all released albums that comfortably rank among their best. They also don't follow the Springsteen mould of mass touring, huge sets, and even he is just about to release a new album, one that is, shock and horror, not a culture grab. If they followed either of these paths, then I'd love to see them doing a current tour, with new tracks, and I'd prefer it to JT32.

But it's clear they are going to do what they have been doing, which is release studio albums with some great songs here and there, but which are horribly compromised thanks to this ridiculous pursuit for relevancy, headlined by absolutely woeful single choices. And if that's the strategy they take, then I'm really not that interested. There are a million great artists out there. U2 will always be my favourite band, that will never change. But their best is clearly behind them, and I don't know why it's so hard to understand that I would prefer to see my favourite band playing their best stuff live, then watching my favourite band play shitty new songs that I don't care for. I understand every point you make on this topic, and I think you've got a completely valid point of view. Maybe you could try to understand where I'm coming from. :shrug:

The other point to make is that this announcement has absolutely lit up Australians this morning. The news is everywhere. People have been coming out in droves because of the nostalgia they have tied to The Joshua Tree. People are genuinely excited about this tour and it is the first time in a very, very long time that I can remember such positivity surrounding the band. It is so nice, and has made for a very lovely morning, seeing others express love for the band I hold so dear. I can guarantee, the response would have been about two-tenths as strong had they announced a continuation of the EI tour, or some sort of hodge-podge.
 
Ok, my proper response now I've got a moment...

I've been calling for this for years. So at least I've got the integrity of that. If I went back through my old posts I reckon for at least five years I've been saying that I would prefer a modern-day U2 -- if they keep up this ridiculous lust for relevancy and top-charting singles, which they have done -- that does what they do best: tour. And tour their old shit. They're all in their late 60s now. It's obvious they refuse to take the path of fellow artists of a similar vintage in Nick Cave, Bowie, Tom Waits, none of whom care(d) about relevancy or chart hits and have all released albums that comfortably rank among their best. They also don't follow the Springsteen mould of mass touring, huge sets, and even he is just about to release a new album, one that is, shock and horror, not a culture grab. If they followed either of these paths, then I'd love to see them doing a current tour, with new tracks, and I'd prefer it to JT32.

But it's clear they are going to do what they have been doing, which is release studio albums with some great songs here and there, but which are horribly compromised thanks to this ridiculous pursuit for relevancy, headlined by absolutely woeful single choices. And if that's the strategy they take, then I'm really not that interested. There are a million great artists out there. U2 will always be my favourite band, that will never change. But their best is clearly behind them, and I don't know why it's so hard to understand that I would prefer to see my favourite band playing their best stuff live, then watching my favourite band play shitty new songs that I don't care for. I understand every point you make on this topic, and I think you've got a completely valid point of view. Maybe you could try to understand where I'm coming from. :shrug:

The other point to make is that this announcement has absolutely lit up Australians this morning. The news is everywhere. People have been coming out in droves because of the nostalgia they have tied to The Joshua Tree. People are genuinely excited about this tour and it is the first time in a very, very long time that I can remember such positivity surrounding the band. It is so nice, and has made for a very lovely morning, seeing others express love for the band I hold so dear. I can guarantee, the response would have been about two-tenths as strong had they announced a continuation of the EI tour, or some sort of hodge-podge.

As someone who saw at least the first incarnation of i+e and the JT revival, there’s no comparison. The former had a lot more energy and vitality to it. And regardless, it’s not like you have to hear a new album in full, it’s still only like 1/3 of the set.

Sorry, but I don’t think your position is valid at all. It’s people like you that are helping to usher in the death throes of any credibility they had left. It pains me to see a band making a move like this when they had always stuck by their new material, with the exception of the last legs of 360, and even after that they went back to playing a healthy dose of SOI and SOE on their respective tours, record sales be damned. One JT anniversary tour was hard enough to stomach, but you could at least stretch yourself to take them at their word for why they were doing it. The show made a good case for the material still being relevant. 2 years later after they already released more new material? Not so much.

Maybe you think it’s cool that the band caters to your country that’s stuck in the past, but I think it’s sad. U2 coming to these more remote areas should always be a privilege and they shouldn’t have to package it any specific way. Every tour has received great reviews regardless of how well the albums did so it shouldn’t matter what the fuck they play.

I don’t understand why anyone who calls themselves a fan wants them to turn into this. If you don’t like the newer material, then just stay away. Yes they could have gone the route of some of the other older acts you mentioned, but being the world’s biggest band is a mantle they feel obligated to still carry, for better or worse. And they can still get enough media attention for their releases and draw big name collaborators to keep that partial illusion going. But the ambition has always been a big part of what has made them great, not cranking out the hits for the olds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom