Honest Question - Are U2's best days behind them?

[One Tree Still]

Some of you guys crack me up.

I'm not a fan because I question if U2's best days are over? That's an interesting perspective.

Maybe I should counter with the notion that anyone who thinks ATYCLB is on-par with the U2 classics isn't a real fan because they don't really understand the weight and significance JT and AB had. Maybe they were still listening to their Alvin and Theodore Chipmunks cassette on their Playskool "My First Cassette Player" when I was a senior in high school getting blown away by JT and the U2 back catalogue. Would it be fair for me to say that?

I've been a fan since 1984 and when I am plugging a disc into my dashboard, I still reach for U2 before I reach for anything else. All that to say, I am a true fan and will continue to be a true fan.

My being a fan, or not, has no bearing on whether or not U2 is past their prime. If they are, they are.

To those of you who are so weary of my once-every-three-month question - I'm really sorry to "clog" up your message board with such a silly notion. Please forgive me.

Sheesh.

BTW - thanks to those of you who gave an honest, polite reply (regardless of your postion on the question). It's good to hear what people are thinking.

 

[wertsie]

Some of you guys crack me up.

I'm not a fan because I question if U2's best days are over? That's an interesting perspective.

Maybe I should counter with the notion that anyone who thinks ATYCLB is on-par with the U2 classics isn't a real fan because they don't really understand the weight and significance JT and AB had. Maybe they were still listening to their Alvin and Theodore Chipmunks cassette on their Playskool "My First Cassette Player" when I was a senior in high school getting blown away by JT and the U2 back catalogue. Would it be fair for me to say that?

I've been a fan since 1984 and when I am plugging a disc into my dashboard, I still reach for U2 before I reach for anything else. All that to say, I am a true fan and will continue to be a true fan.

My being a fan, or not, has no bearing on whether or not U2 is past their prime. If they are, they are.

To those of you who are so weary of my once-every-three-month question - I'm really sorry to "clog" up your message board with such a silly notion. Please forgive me.

Sheesh.

BTW - thanks to those of you who gave an honest, polite reply (regardless of your postion on the question). It's good to hear what people are thinking.

I'm not one of those who says, "Well, if you don't like **** then you're not a true U2 fan." That's bull. I mean, who is anyone to say what does and does not constitute a "true" fan, right?

I'm one of those people who can't help but like virtually everything U2 produces. I don't think this makes me a better or worse fan than anybody else. I guess one possible flaw is that I just don't take U2-related criticism well.

For one reason or another, it seems to be a natural instinct in our society to focus on the negative side of things. You aren't fond of this particular point in the band's career? Fine. But why stress about that? Why not remember the parts that you did/do like!

 

[One Tree Still]

Thanks for your reply Wertsie - that is totally reasonable.

I'm not stressed about U2, but if I'm totally honest, maybe I am a bit bummed because I think I'm seeing the twilight of a band that has meant so much to me (not that much relative to the really important things) for so long.

Believe me, I am always one who has given U2 the benefit of the doubt over the years - but I'm not compelled to any more. Doesn't mean I'm not a fan, just not a fan of what they are doing right now. Maybe the new album will change my mind?

It's kind of like watching Michael Jordan these days - he's still good, but not like he was - and you sort of don't want this stint with Washington to taint his magical time with the Bulls.

 

[daisybean]

One Tree...If you are right...at least they had a hell of a run, and great music that will always be great. Most musical acts are lucky if they get one hit.

*edited to be more concise*

 

[Zoomerang96]

well said daisy, wertsie and one tree hill. all very respectable opinions.

 

[Salome]

I agree that not liking one album or even one period in a band's career doesn't make you any less a fan
I'm still not sure I need to hear about every few weeks
but I'm pretty sure I don't need to hear it at a regular basis at a U2 forum (and - frankly - I can't even remember seeing a positive post by some of the criticasters in this thread re. U2)

I can understand it must be hard feeling your fav. band slipping away from you, but I don't get why some are not able to focus on the things you do like about this band and move on

 

[flaming june]

I agree that not liking one album or even one period in a band's career doesn't make you any less a fan
I'm still not sure I need to hear about every few weeks
but I'm pretty sure I don't need to hear it at a regular basis at a U2 forum (and - frankly - I can't even remember seeing a positive post by some of the criticasters in this thread re. U2)

I can understand it must be hard feeling your fav. band slipping away from you, but I don't get why some are not able to focus on the things you do like about this band and move on

I agree with you on this.

 

[Zoomerang96]

but I don't get why some are not able to focus on the things you do like about this band and move on

i dont know either. maybe cause its all been said already. i really dont know.

 

[U2girl]

I just wish people would say "I don't like ... (insert the album name)" PERIOD instead of "...... (insert album name) sucks". No need for insults.

Personally I admired the amount and diversity of the songs that were played on the last tour. (yet there will always be those who say "I hated what they played")

 

[wertsie]

I agree that not liking one album or even one period in a band's career doesn't make you any less a fan
I'm still not sure I need to hear about every few weeks
but I'm pretty sure I don't need to hear it at a regular basis at a U2 forum (and - frankly - I can't even remember seeing a positive post by some of the criticasters in this thread re. U2)

I can understand it must be hard feeling your fav. band slipping away from you, but I don't get why some are not able to focus on the things you do like about this band and move on

Just smile and pop in Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree or whatever suits your fancy.

 

[Saracene]

I still don't see why people need to raise alarm, so to speak, just because they don't like what U2 have been doing in the last year or two, namely one album and a couple of songs that don't play that much significance anyway. It sort of reminds of what Bono mentioned in an interview once: if a director makes a film or two that people find less than stellar, they simply look forward to the next one, but if a band makes an album that people do not like, then it's obviously past its prime, etc.

And I don't get this notion that, unless the next U2 albums are on par with JT and AB, U2 aren't doing that good a job. I mean, U2 have got -eight- other albums besides these two which are not generally considered to be as "significant" as AB and JT. Does it make them failures? I don't think so.

 

[One Tree Still]

Everyone makes good points here on page 5!

I guess I am a bit confused as to why some people think that only warm fuzzies should be passed around on a discussion board.

I happen to think (some of you will see this as self-centered - and I don't mean it that way) that I grew up at the perfect time for U2 - in other words, I was at the perfect age to appreciate their work in the context of when it was released. Does that make sense to anyone else? It's just a luck thing, nothing of my doing, but I really feel that way.

So, all that to say, people my age - or within a few years of my age either way (32) probably have a better perspective on U2's music than someone who discovered U2 with POP when they were 12 or 15.

I know some of you are going to come in guns-a-blazing on this one but please understand I am not minimizing your U2 experience, just maximizing the experience that those of us who are in our late 20's or early 30's had.

Where am I going with this - well, if you're one of the latter, you probably are more likely to share my sentiments. Does anyone confer with me on that? Am I nuts?

 

[STING2]

I became a fan of U2 in 1987. While it is true that SOME new fans may not appreciate the early albums, it is also true that there are SOME old fans that fail to appreciate the new albums. Some people are unwilling to look beyond what they loved when they were in highschool and college somtimes. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think they would find more music to enjoy if their taste were not always in a box. Same goes for new fans. Take another look and don't be so quick to render a judgment.

 

[daisybean]

I happen to think (some of you will see this as self-centered - and I don't mean it that way) that I grew up at the perfect time for U2 - in other words, I was at the perfect age to appreciate their work in the context of when it was released. Does that make sense to anyone else? It's just a luck thing, nothing of my doing, but I really feel that way.

So, all that to say, people my age - or within a few years of my age either way (32) probably have a better perspective on U2's music than someone who discovered U2 with POP when they were 12 or 15.

I know some of you are going to come in guns-a-blazing on this one but please understand I am not minimizing your U2 experience, just maximizing the experience that those of us who are in our late 20's or early 30's had.

I understand what you are saying....hearing and understanding JT or AB when it first came out is much different than getting the back catalog and listening to it now for the first time. For example, I was only about 5 or so when War came out...by the time I got old enough to understand the content, it was like I had heard it before in bands that had that as an influence. the music was good, but I didn't get to the see how truely original it was because I wasn't there. When those albums came out there was nothing like it...it was so completely original especially ZOO TV....nowadays, it's very common place for there to be giant screens on the stage. When JT came out, there was the hair metal and bubblegum pop around..JT was new and different.

Now that is not to say that people born after 1980 cannot enjoy their music on the same level as those born before

 

[Saracene]

<shrug> Well, I've found that, even within the group of older fans, there's plenty of difference of opinion and no one can really say that his/her views represent the general feeling. There're people who think that U2 peaked with WAR and JT is sooo overrated; there're people who swear by JT and hate U2's 90s catalogue; there're people who lost interest with POP and were wooed back with ATYCLB. You could probably have some of the older fans saying something like, you Joshua Tree lovers should have been there when we were blown away by Boy and WAR, then you'd have a better perspective on U2's music.

I've become a fan in 2000 and it would be silly of me to say that my experience of U2 is the same compared to someone who saw them play clubs back in 1983. However, I would never have become an obsessive if all my love was based on the latest album only, or if U2 albums' impact was tied down to the time when they were released. This is what timeless music is about.

 

[Zoomerang96]

people born after 1980 cannot enjoy their music on the same level as those born before[/QUOTE]

how dare you say!

 

[daisybean]

bear, I love it when you misquote me.

 

[One Tree Still]

See, this is a GREAT conversation!

It's (unbelievably) to the point now where U2 is pretty much to today's 17 year old like The Stones were to me as a 17-year old in 1987.

I was a Stones fan in 1987 - really liked their older stuff (late 60s, early 70s), but didn't grow up with them like my Dad did, so while I really liked them, I didn't fully grasp the impact they had when they released their best stuff.

Maybe ATYCLB is U2's "Steel Wheels" - a good Stones album that ignited interest and spawned a great tour, but doesn't hold up when compared to the early back catalogue.

15 years from now, if U2 releases their "40 Licks" it'll probably have about the same mix of old (1978-1994) (80%) to "new"(1995-200?) (20%) stuff on it because time will have tested all of it by then and the cream will have risen to the top.

Who knows?

 

[Blacksword]

I've liked all periods of the band and I always have compared teh band's music against the times. Heck I've even taken th etime to dig up pre-Boy material. Though I came in at Pop (though not because of Pop - I only really started to love that album after a year or so) the first albums I bought were JT anf TUF. Next i bought War and Boy then AT and Zooropa. I bought Pop and then October and Rattle and Hum. For a long time Under a Blood Red Skty was my fave album (11 o' Clock Tick Tock will reamian one of my fave songs forever). So I think I'm being pretty objective in my criticisms of ATYCLB. I haven't trashed it I've said it was good but not great which I think is why a lot of people aren't as fond of it. The material got a lot better with the live performances and Elevation was probably their best tour ever. I just will never warm to ATYCLB as I have to their other stuff.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

I just wish people would say "I don't like ... (insert the album name)" PERIOD instead of "...... (insert album name) sucks". No need for insults.

I usually go with "least favorite".

As far as the question at hand...Judging from ATYCLB, I don't think U2's best days are behind them. BD, WO, Kite & IALW rank among my favorite U2 songs. There are definitely songs I skip over on ATYCLB, but I do on the Joshua Tree as well. I think ATYCLB would have been stronger with Stateless & TGBHF on it, showing a bit more of U2's experimental side, but it's still a great album IMO.

I guess we'll just have to see how the new album is. It doesn't mean that their best days are behind them if you don't like it. Rattle & Hum was my least favorite album & they followed it with Achtung Baby. I know Edge said that the sound of the new album is close to the 1st 3 albums. That sounds intreging & refreshing, but I'll believe it when I hear it. They always keep you guessing.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

15 years from now, if U2 releases their "40 Licks" it'll probably have about the same mix of old (1978-1994) (80%) to "new"(1995-200?) (20%) stuff on it because time will have tested all of it by then and the cream will have risen to the top.

Who knows?

Please let U2 break up with all 4 members in tact before they ever release a "40 Licks" type album and Greatest Hits tour. I respect the Stones for doing what they want to do, but they have pretty much become a nostalgia act since Bill Wyman left the band IMO. I would not like to see this happen to U2. They should end the group before that, much like the bands who "wrote the blueprint" for them....The Beatles, The Ramones & The Clash.

 

[Saracene]

The TGBHF was on the Australian version of ATYCLB... but where can I find "Stateless"?

 

[wertsie]

Everyone makes good points here on page 5!

I guess I am a bit confused as to why some people think that only warm fuzzies should be passed around on a discussion board.

I happen to think (some of you will see this as self-centered - and I don't mean it that way) that I grew up at the perfect time for U2 - in other words, I was at the perfect age to appreciate their work in the context of when it was released. Does that make sense to anyone else? It's just a luck thing, nothing of my doing, but I really feel that way.

So, all that to say, people my age - or within a few years of my age either way (32) probably have a better perspective on U2's music than someone who discovered U2 with POP when they were 12 or 15.

I know some of you are going to come in guns-a-blazing on this one but please understand I am not minimizing your U2 experience, just maximizing the experience that those of us who are in our late 20's or early 30's had.

Where am I going with this - well, if you're one of the latter, you probably are more likely to share my sentiments. Does anyone confer with me on that? Am I nuts?

I completely see what you're saying here. I think age has a large part to do with a person's U2 experience. I "discovered" U2 at age 15 with Pop and the Popmart tour. That period in their history will always be dear to me because it's when I, personally, became a real fan. I have been exposed to their music for as long as I can remember...my mom has been a huge fan for years. Her "defining" U2 moments, so to speak, were in 1992 with Achtung Baby and the Zootv tour, and I don't think anything has ever topped it for her since then, although she does agree with the whole idea of "ATYCLB as U2's third masterpiece."

Maybe we identify most with the U2 we come to know in the beginnings of our fandom. For me, someone who had been familar with their music back to War before I became a fan, U2 was the band who was always changing, always evolving. And I loved the way I never knew what to expect from them, and thus couldn't help loving whatever they happened to toss my way.

I guess it's all about perspective.

 

[STING2]

I don't by the Steel Wheels comparison to ATYCLB. Steel Wheels was the Stone's lowest selling album with a tour promoting it, at that time. The album sold about 4.5 million copies, 2 million of that in the USA. Its more comparable to POP and its 5.5 million sales in terms of popular appeal and impact. ATYCLB is approaching 11.5 million in sales worldwide. It is clearly U2s most popular album with the exception of Achtung Baby and Joshua
Tree.

I don't see U2 putting a disproportionate amount of material from the 80s on any 40 licks CD they would come out with. U2 have just put out a GH album primarily based on its 90s material. I don't thing the Stones would even put a 1980-2000 let alone a 1990-2000.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

The TGBHF was on the Australian version of ATYCLB... but where can I find "Stateless"?

Stateless is on the Million Dollar Hotel Soundtrack...Great spacy tune.

As far as that Stones Steel Wheels/ATYCLB comparison. I agree with it to a degree because SW was considered a "comeback" album for the Stones. Probably their most popular & critically acclaimed album since Tattoo You.

 

[One Tree Still]

STING2 -

That's good info on SW vs. ATYCLB, but I was thinking of them more in terms of philosophy than sales figures.

I think part of the reason ATYCLB sold so well was because we were told it was an album that sounded like "classic" U2 (it doesn't).

The real question is, will the songs from ATYCLB be placed on the same pedestal that songs from UF (Bad, Pride, MLK), JT and AB are.

 

[wertsie]

I think part of the reason ATYCLB sold so well was because we were told it was an album that sounded like "classic" U2 (it doesn't).

You know, that always kind of annoyed me. People were saying, "oh, they've returned to their roots!" and honestly, I did a lot of head-scratching over that. Does ATYCLB sound like Boy? No, of course not! wtf? I mean, I like ATYCLB and all...I just don't understand what people were talking about!!!

 

[Salome]

The real question is, will the songs from ATYCLB be placed on the same pedestal that songs from UF (Bad, Pride, MLK), JT and AB are.

if that is indeed the real question then U2's best days are already behind them since 1991 so we're having this discussion about 10 years too late

 

[wertsie]

In my experience, it's not usually a good thing to put anything (a song, or anything else, for that matter) on a pedestal...because the only place to go is down, right?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

In my experience, it's not usually a good thing to put anything (a song, or anything else, for that matter) on a pedestal...because the only place to go is down, right?

No, not always. 'Sunday Bloody Sunday and 'New Year's Day' were put on pedestals, and U2 answered the bell with 'Pride' (no pun intended) and 'Bad'. Those two songs were also put on a pedestals, proclaimed as their greatest songs by many fans, and they answered with about 3 or 4 better songs with their next album ('Streets', WOWY, 'Running To Stand' and possibly 'Still Haven't Found', though this last one is probably tied). People put those songs on a pedestal for very good reason. Then, after R&H, U2 go away for a while and record the greatest song ever, that being 'One'. Of course, now we've all managed to put this one on a pedestal, too. I'm sure that U2 somehow believe they can out-do 'One' in some form or another. I'm not saying they'll do it, but if history is any indicator... My point is, sometimes, the only place to go is up. "It's all we can do..."