Coming to accept that U2 is an aging rock band

[powerhour24]

anyway, as much as I like BOMB and ATYCLB, I'm still hoping Bono will find that "special" spark that starts the fire's for the next album.

So much agreed!

 

[silvrlvr]

I wasn't a fan during what some people on this board seems to consider their "glory days" so I don't have that version U2 hovering over my view of the band now. I'm attracted to the band precisely for their maturity and their expertise. It is really a treat to watch four men who know their craft, turn that into art and work together as a team. They definitely have not reached the tipping point between relevance and cliche.

If they start phoning it in or skipping performances, then it would be time to stop but that's not happening yet.

 

[dietcokeofevil]

Gotta agree with Silvrlvr on the point that while I liked the "Glory Days" stuff... it's not this religious type epiphany or anything. As a whole, I find their "masterpieces" over-rated and their lesser known stuff as under-rated.

I think that everall, being a superfan of anything can be toxic to your view of the very thing you adore. It eventually all crumbles under the weight of expectation and yes, mortality.

Nah, I am not struggling with the aging of U2. Now when I look in the mirror, THAT'S a different issue.

 

[DILETTANTE]

I think that U2's music has grown and evolved as they have. And maybe the challenge is for us as fans to grow and evolve along with them -- which for some of us may take a while! I don't mean that you can't have a favorite era -- or dislike the direction of their current music, but the creativity of teenage artists is different from the creativity of adult artists. The creativity of a new group is probably different from the creativity of a long-established group. Similarly, the music we relate to as young adults may be different from what we are able to appreciate when we're -- em -- more seasoned.

 

[doctorwho]

Yes, U2 to me is like an aging athlete (a Brett Farve for instance.) They have their moments but as a whole they lack the patience or ability to create the kind of music that could even be considered an average U2 song or album. The passion is there but as they get older the commitment isn't.
I think anyone who isn't seeing the band as an aging entity is fooling themselves. The band progressed and became more daring on every album until what the band saw as the failure of Pop. Since then, the band has stopped trying to improve on their albums. U2 doesn't have that fire anymore. I'm sure people are going to passionately disagree with that but you can't honestly believe that the band has been writing a lot of creative music in this decade. ATYCLB and Bomb are embarrassing steps backwards. Fans need to realize that they don't have the youth to change their current direction. Canadiens brings up something that should be apparent in every fan's mind.

Why does it always come down to this "failure of 'Pop'" issue? "Pop" is not a failure. Yes, by U2 standards, it didn't sell as well in the U.S. Maybe the tour took some bashing - unfairly - for not selling out every *stadium* show.

But the numbers tell a different story. U2 members have said that "Pop" has sold 7 million worldwide. Even if this is a bit generous, just about every artist out there would dream of those types of numbers. The tour still sold more tickets than any other U2 tour. They had a top 10 hit worldwide. It was a #1 album in 30 something countries, including the U.S. The album wasn't a failure. It simply wasn't up to the enormous success of usual U2 albums. It happens. Even Madonna and Mariah don't have huge selling albums with each release.

But after a decade of experimentation, where 4 albums, including OS1, were released, I think the world was ready for another U2 change. I think this is why OS1 was pretty much overlooked. This is why "Zooroopa" and "Pop" actually have very similar sales numbers. AB was great, but as U2 explored more, their originality actually DECREASED. Yes, decreased. The first three "Pop" songs were emulating the dance-techno sounds in Europe of the time. Rare is it for U2 to copy a sound. Inspired by a sound? Yes - U2 readily admit that. But this was U2 pretty much doing what other bands do. And if anything, that was the true "failure" of "Pop".

So after almost a decade of exploring other sounds and trying not to sound like U2, they returned to explore their own sound. And I have no problem with that. What's wrong with a band sounding like, well, themselves? The overwhelming majority of artists out there never deviate from their sound. It's what makes them unique. And the few that do are often flat out rejected by fans or have hits and misses. Even U2's misses were big hits, but not at the level of their past success. So U2 decided to explore what makes U2 sound like U2.

As a result of that, and perhaps their age, where they are now husbands and fathers, the songs are more mellow. Gone are the angry young men rebelling against the "powers that be". Instead are the diplomats who realize that if they truly want to change the world, it has to start with them.

Still, this has led to some great music. Songs about moving on, songs of acceptance, songs of the tragedies of war, songs of being lost, songs of loss - and yes, slow love songs. But U2 have always had their versions of love songs. So now they may be a more "adult contemporary". It could be argued that even "One" and "With or Without You" have that adult contemporary sound - in fact, these stations usually play those U2 hits.

While I too am hoping for more rocking songs on the next album and a lot less "A Man and a Woman" and "One Step Closer" type of songs, to say that U2 changed because of the "failure of 'Pop'" seems erroneous. Just because U2 felt the album was rushed and wished they had more time, it doesn't mean that they think it was a failure either. It's just not quite the album they wanted to release. We all have been there. We've all turned in rush assingments at school or done rush work at our jobs. Sometimes it isn't our best. If only we had more time. But it doesn't make the work we did a failure.

 

[U2isthebest]

Why does it always come down to this "failure of 'Pop'" issue? "Pop" is not a failure. Yes, by U2 standards, it didn't sell as well in the U.S. Maybe the tour took some bashing - unfairly - for not selling out every *stadium* show.

But the numbers tell a different story. U2 members have said that "Pop" has sold 7 million worldwide. Even if this is a bit generous, just about every artist out there would dream of those types of numbers. The tour still sold more tickets than any other U2 tour. They had a top 10 hit worldwide. It was a #1 album in 30 something countries, including the U.S. The album wasn't a failure. It simply wasn't up to the enormous success of usual U2 albums. It happens. Even Madonna and Mariah don't have huge selling albums with each release.

But after a decade of experimentation, where 4 albums, including OS1, were released, I think the world was ready for another U2 change. I think this is why OS1 was pretty much overlooked. This is why "Zooroopa" and "Pop" actually have very similar sales numbers. AB was great, but as U2 explored more, their originality actually DECREASED. Yes, decreased. The first three "Pop" songs were emulating the dance-techno sounds in Europe of the time. Rare is it for U2 to copy a sound. Inspired by a sound? Yes - U2 readily admit that. But this was U2 pretty much doing what other bands do. And if anything, that was the true "failure" of "Pop".

So after almost a decade of exploring other sounds and trying not to sound like U2, they returned to explore their own sound. And I have no problem with that. What's wrong with a band sounding like, well, themselves? The overwhelming majority of artists out there never deviate from their sound. It's what makes them unique. And the few that do are often flat out rejected by fans or have hits and misses. Even U2's misses were big hits, but not at the level of their past success. So U2 decided to explore what makes U2 sound like U2.

As a result of that, and perhaps their age, where they are now husbands and fathers, the songs are more mellow. Gone are the angry young men rebelling against the "powers that be". Instead are the diplomats who realize that if they truly want to change the world, it has to start with them.

Still, this has led to some great music. Songs about moving on, songs of acceptance, songs of the tragedies of war, songs of being lost, songs of loss - and yes, slow love songs. But U2 have always had their versions of love songs. So now they may be a more "adult contemporary". It could be argued that even "One" and "With or Without You" have that adult contemporary sound - in fact, these stations usually play those U2 hits.

While I too am hoping for more rocking songs on the next album and a lot less "A Man and a Woman" and "One Step Closer" type of songs, to say that U2 changed because of the "failure of 'Pop'" seems erroneous. Just because U2 felt the album was rushed and wished they had more time, it doesn't mean that they think it was a failure either. It's just not quite the album they wanted to release. We all have been there. We've all turned in rush assingments at school or done rush work at our jobs. Sometimes it isn't our best. If only we had more time. But it doesn't make the work we did a failure.

That is a brilliant post!! I agree with everything you said. I love "POP" and "AB" and "Z" as well, but I'm glad they're done w/that direction. And I actually wouldn't mind a couple more songs like "AMAAW" and "OSC", and especially "Window", which is already one of my favs. just a couple. I want the new album to too.

 

[RobH]

Amen to this whole thread. A big reality check was needed for a lot of people on here. And whether or not some people want to admit it, Pop was the turning point in their career. But let's not let this devolve into another Pop thread. U2 are aband on the decline, unfortunately for us fans, but undeniably true. They may have one decent effort left in them, a la Tattoo You, but I hold no hope for anymore masterpieces. And sorry, Brau, but you are way off base with the older and wiser theory. It's simply not true for the vast majority of musical artists, U2 included. Rock and Roll is for the young, by definition. I would love another incredible U2 album as much as anyone. But I'm not going to pretend the mediocre crap they've been releasing for ten years is in any way, shape, or form as powerful as the earlier stuff. Doesn't change my love for this band. That's forever. But the writing's been on the wall for a while now. Some just choose not to read it.

 

[MrBrau1]

And sorry, Brau, but you are way off base with the older and wiser theory. It's simply not true for the vast majority of musical artists, U2 included. Rock and Roll is for the young, by definition.

Bullshit.

Music is not just "for the young" or "by the young."

Give in to such limiting lines of thought.

It's your loss.

 

[RobH]

You're right...music's not just for the young. Rock and Roll is. (Please get the quote right) My loss started ten years ago and has slowly, sadly hung on. Every once in a while my friend wakes up and recognizes me. But mostly, he just lays there while I remember the fun we had.

 

[MrBrau1]

You're right...music's not just for the young. Rock and Roll is. (Please get the quote right)

Tell that to Neil Young and Paul Weller.

I'd much rather see some old fucker playing guitar, than some 23 year old who's been in love once, and never had a real broken heart.

And call it rock. Nobody really plays rock n' roll anymore.

It's far too "old school."

 

[RobH]

Tell that to Neil Young and Paul Weller.

And call it rock. Nobody really plays rock n' roll anymore.

It's far too "old school."

Are you kidding with those examples? I go to The Bridge School Benefit just about every year, and Neil is by far the least relevant musician on the bill. And if I hear one more star-studded jam of "Rockin' in the Free World", I think I'll put an ice pick through my ears. But I digress. NONE of his recent stuff (and by recent, I mean, like, the past 15 years) holds a candle to his ealier stuff. As for Weller, was never much of a fan now or then. Can't really tell the difference.

As for the second part of your reply...??????

 

[MrBrau1]

Are you kidding with those examples? I go to The Bridge School Benefit just about every year, and Neil is by far the least relevant musician on the bill. And if I hear one more star-studded jam of "Rockin' in the Free World", I think I'll put an ice pick through my ears. But I digress. NONE of his recent stuff (and by recent, I mean, like, the past 15 years) holds a candle to his ealier stuff. As for Weller, was never much of a fan now or then. Can't really tell the difference.

As for the second part of your reply...??????

Your wrong. You hold against older artists. That's your problem.

Grendale is brilliant. As was Harvest Moon. Sorry you missed them. But you never heard them cause Neil is old and shitty in your mind.

RHCP are in their mid/late 40's and put out their best album this year.

Bob Dylan is in his 60's and has been on a fucking ROLL for the past decade. His last 3 records rank with his best.

U2 are in their mid 40's and put out their 3rd best album ever in 2004.

Tom Petty is fucking 56 and "Highway Companion" is the one of the best albums released this year.

Aimee Mann is 46 and released the best album of 2005.

Then there's Willie Nelson & Johnny Cash. But they're old, so they suck.

And as for Paul Weller, why am I talking to you?

Go back to your shit "it" bands of the moment.

 

[MrBrau1]

and there's more.

Neil Diamond latest record is great. He's 65. Go, listen to it.

Springsteen. 56. Do I even have to go there?

Green Day? I hated that band. They hit their mid 30's and put out a fine record in American Idiot.

Older and better.

 

[RobH]

Holy crap...just how stuck in the past are you? If you're going to accuse me of not liking bands only because they're old, I'll accuse you of only liking bands that are old, no matter what drivel they release. However, for the purposes of this thread, I'll confine my reply strictly to the "U2..third best album" comment. (Though I'd really like to take a crack at that Bob Dylan comment). So here goes...what the fuck? How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb is U2's third best album? What are the first two? Pop and Rattle & Hum? That cobbled-together, re-hashed, recycled, "album" from two years ago was nothing more than an excuse to go out on tour. Let's see...when they toured for Achtung Baby, they opened with eight straight (eight!) from the new album. And played NOTHING from the first three albums, at a time when their catalog only had 7 albums. And rocked every number while the audience went crazy. Know what would happen if they tried that shit again? There'd be a fucking riot. And they know it. So they play the old stuff. The good stuff. While everyone goes and takes a piss or smokes a joint during Love and peace or Else and Miracle Drug. Don't insult me by trying to tell me I'm some sort of rock ageist. I know good music when I hear it, and that aint it.

By the way, I like these little tiffs we get into every nine months or so, Brau. Gets my juices flowing. And somehow you get me to curse more than on any of my other posts combined.

 

[indra]

RobH -- how old are you?

 

[RobH]

Don't even talk to this Jersey native about Springsteen's best stuff. You have much to learn grasshopper.

 

[RobH]

Hey indra...I'm 39. We've talked before. I think we share some similar opinions, if I recall. I'm not really Mr. angry guy, but like I said, Brau brings it out of me. In a good way though.

 

[MrBrau1]

Stuck in the past?

These are great albums released in the past 2 years. You won't listen to them cause they're "older artists who can't possibly be good."

Yes, I buy my Petty, Springsteen, and Cash records. At the same time I buy my Broken Social Scene, My Morning Jacket, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club,and Velvet Teen records.

As for HTDAAB, it's the 3rd best U2 album, after AB, and JT. I said so. I love it. It's great.

And the Dylan stuff, lets go at it. I've sat with 40 year Dylan fans and had them say "Modern Times" is the best he's ever sounded. I'd almost agree.

And I love potty mouth. I love saying potty mouth.

 

[MrBrau1]

Don't even talk to this Jersey native about Springsteen's best stuff. You have much to learn grasshopper.

how would you know what Springsteens latest records sound like?

He''s old. So it sucks. You wouldn't even bother to listen to it.

 

[indra]

Hey indra...I'm 39. We've talked before. I think we share some similar opinions, if I recall. I'm not really Mr. angry guy, but like I said, Brau brings it out of me. In a good way though.

Actually I'm wondering why at 39 you are worried about what is rock and what isn't. After all, you are getting up there buster, rock and roll is for the young. You shouldn't be listening to it anyway.

 

[RobH]

I let the music, not the age of the artist, speak for itself. And what the music says is "Sorry I look so terrible. I just woke up. Can I get you a cup of tea? Excuse me, but I need a nap now."

 

[indra]

I think of music as a lot like sex.

Sometimes "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" is fine and dandy. But most of the time you want someone who knows what he's doing. And "knows what he's doing" just doesn't describe most young guys. So while the enthusiasm and energy of youth is great, it's damned boring after a while. A little creativity goes a long way, if you catch my drift.

Same goes for music. I think you are sometimes confusing energy for talent. I like talent. No matter what age.

 

[RobH]

Actually I'm wondering why at 39 you are worried about what is rock and what isn't. After all, you are getting up there buster, rock and roll is for the young. You shouldn't be listening to it anyway.

I know. I just can't help myself and all. What with all those dials and buttons on that thingy in my car. But the ice pick option seems extreme. Guess I'll have to find some middle ground. And I'm not worried about what rock is and isn't. That seems to be Brau's domain. I know what rock is. And it sure as hell isn't "Stuck in a Moment."

 

[RobH]

how would you know what Springsteens latest records sound like?

He''s old. So it sucks. You wouldn't even bother to listen to it.

Oh, believe me Brau...I hear it all. But I guess your rationalization for me calling it what it is....mediocre to embarrassing.....is that I "didn't listen to it" Cause if I listened to it, I'd "see the light" right? Stick to the topic and don't insult me by accusing me of things you know nothing about. The easy way out is to just say "You don't listen" or "You just don't get it" (Much like the Pop apologists) No, I hear. And what I hear is older artists without passion or spark. Can't blame them. They're old for crying out loud! Is it cold in here? I think I need a shawl.

 

[MrBrau1]

have you listened to any of the albums/artists i've listed?

What are your opinions on them?

Perhaps you should stop trolling high schools for musical inspiration?

Sorry.

ROCK music inspiration.

 

[MrBrau1]

Meet one of my points.

You've dodged every one.

Let's go. I can do this all nite.

 

[MrBrau1]

Perhaps you're busy watching MTV, looking for the next great rock music maker.

Being MTV plays youthful, relevant, rock music makers.

None of that geezer stuff.

 

[Sarcastic Sid]

1) AB. 2) JT 3)HTDAAB

Hey, my ratings, too. MrBrau1 gets an "Amen"

javascript:smilie('')

 

[U2isthebest]

I'm with the boys themselves on this one...I put "HTDAAB" at number one along with being my fav. album period. *prepares for cyber attack*

 

[RobH]

Meet one of my points.

You've dodged every one.

Let's go. I can do this all nite.

No, it's you that's resorted to name calling and unfounded accusations. But I know you. That's your style. I see you let the whole rant on HTDAAB slip by without any reply, to concentrate on other artists. And in your mind, I only listen to MTV and "it" bands. Again, all YOUR words. I've heard new Springsteen, new Petty, new Aimme Mann. For Christ's sake--that song she did for "Melrose Place" 12 years ago was better. The original point of this thread was that U2 is an aging band with subpar recent songs. And they are. As are most other recent releases by older bands. These guys are mailing it in and you know it. Or maybe you don't. Your gonna sit here and tell me that a cover of "Froggy's Gone A Courtin" is as vibrant and passionate as "The River"? Why don't YOU make a case for the newer stuff? All I see is a list of older artists and their current releases. All of which pale in comparison to their back catalogs.