I wonder if this guy is eating his words

[brianh20]

http://www.interference.com/stories/id179226.html

That is why U2 albums are not appended in expanded “legacy,” “anniversary,” or “special” editions. The music contained within them, and every nuance thereof, is enough to create a lasting and important statement, to achieve the desired communication of great artists. To show the artist’s sketchbook and reveal all the extraneous material destroys the integral and vital mystery of the work in creating a complete and satisfactory artistic work. The record is a statement, and revealing the inner working of how it was created dilutes the vision. Leave the albums alone, they don’t need expanding. They’re more than good enough as they are.

 

[xaviMF22]

http://www.interference.com/stories/id179226.html

Paul Mcguinness got greedier

so the band wants more money

 

[coolian2]

Fuck the artistic statement

More songs ftw

 

[Scorpionac]

As long as they don't put extra songs on the end of the real disc, I don't care. And we know they aren't doing that.

 

[lazarus]

I don't get it--what version of ATYCLB ends with Walk On? Also Fast Cars ISN'T really the last song on HTDAAB, and even if it was, it goes against his argument.

A little foolish.

 

[Zoomerang96]

aside from winning the odd grammy (which noone give a shit about anyway), u2 is a dinosaur band.

and really, so what. they had their day for like what, 20 years? good on them. but does ANYONE look to them to be relevant artistically anymore? i know i certainly don't. they're a jukebox, and their songs are by the numbers now. bono's lyrics have never, ever been worse. and just how many greatest hits packages can they put out before it's simply too embarrassing?

all i'm saying is, u2 is such an easy target to make fun of, that there's no point. they had a good go, but now they are exactly what they never wanted to become.

 

[corianderstem]

I think Zoomerang is bored this morning. Don't be a party pooper.

 

[Nate Dogg]

how many greatest hits packages can they put out before it's simply too embarrassing?

Aerosmith has approximately 432 Greatest Hits collections..They don't seem embarassed. U2 has 3 of them. They have a long way to go.

 

[Dorian Gray]

but does ANYONE look to them to be relevant artistically anymore?

I'd be willing to bet most artists do

 

[Rob33]

Zoomerang96, i think you were having a bad day when you wrote that and decided to take your frustrations out on U2 cause you can...

And as far as your statements go...Bono writing his worse lyrics ever? What are you talking about? Many would argue that his lyrics have improved through the years! And yes i do think most bands consider them artistically relevant, considering how many bands try to get that "U2 sound." You do not sound informed my friend.

All I can say is when U2's new album comes out, all other bands...WATCH OUT!

 

[EdgeIsTooSexy]

aside from winning the odd grammy (which noone give a shit about anyway), u2 is a dinosaur band.

and really, so what. they had their day for like what, 20 years? good on them. but does ANYONE look to them to be relevant artistically anymore? i know i certainly don't. they're a jukebox, and their songs are by the numbers now. bono's lyrics have never, ever been worse. and just how many greatest hits packages can they put out before it's simply too embarrassing?

all i'm saying is, u2 is such an easy target to make fun of, that there's no point. they had a good go, but now they are exactly what they never wanted to become.

are you just not having a good day or something?

 

[last unicorn]

So how many greatest hits packages have U2 actually put out? Compared to other acts, most of them not having been around for half as long as U2 have, they really haven't put out that many. And we all know what the concept behind Greatest Hits packages is, like it or not.

Isn't practically everyone on this board excited about the Joshua Tree Anniversary edition? The Pop Mart DVD? The upcoming new U2 and/or Passengers Part II album? The U23D movie? Doesn't U2 sell out concerts around the world? Don't they have a very strong following? Doesn't U2 have "old" and very young and new fans? Aren't many of today's younger bands trying to follow their example? Aren't they still an important socially concious voice and a force when it comes to promoting causes, be it as a band or as the individual members? Aren't they still able to make it to the front pages of music magazines?

So - hardly anyone cares about them any more, right? Crap.

I think everything about this band still is exciting - what they have done and what they are going to do. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can say they are not relevant - except obvious haters who have no idea, but who cares about them (except that they feel they need to come to this board to let out their personal frustration on the band and make rude and ridiculous remarks).

btw, the band has always said that they don't like looking back and are more focused on the future.

 

[Rob33]

Unicorn, well said and accurate, I completely agree!

 

[Dusty Bottoms]

“The Joshua Tree” is 20 years old this summer. 20 years is a long time. And recently, almost every band that’s been around as long as that has released a “Special Edition” of its back catalogue. Expanded with rare, out of print material! Remastered with new, previously unheard music! Demos, live songs, b-sides, finished ‘abandoned’ tracks, rehearsals and remixes! Every band seems to be doing it: releasing tenth, twentieth, thirtieth anniversary editions with new packaging, previously unseen artwork, unreleased songs, interviews and documentary DVDs.

But not U2. Never U2. U2 are about moving forward and exploring new territories. Not about looking back. U2 are an adventure – not a history lesson.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

the writer of that article has some good points, but relied too heavily on the "no special editions" concept... and has been shown up. it doesn't invalidate his points, but it does make some of his arguments look silly.

honestly, he did go a bit overboard in some places, putting them on a pedestal of artistic integrity. they've been releasing less-than-stellar b-sides for a good chunk of their career... i'm not saying all of it is bad, i'd say a higher percentage of their obscure material is better than that of most bands, but it's not all award-deserving.

i have been slightly surprised by the degree to which U2 have embraced their "classic" image. i saw atyclb as a return to their roots more than an embrace of a "classic image" - but as bomb in many ways sounds like atyclb part II, the vertigo arpeggio bridge sounds like something off "Boy", the riffs and vocal style in "All Because of You" sound very "early 1970s" and the vocal improvisation at the end of "Original of the Species" reminds me of old Rolling Stones or the Who, they do seem to be more backward-looking than i ever expected.

i really do hope they kick out a new sound and direction next time around or they are going to seem like they've done what they've promised themselves and fans they'd never do..

 

[Salome]

I'm having a hard time deciding whether this guy or zoomerang is more full of it
luckily I can't be arsed pondering this too long though

 

[gareth brown]

i had to skip a LOT of that article. I've not read anything that pretentious round here in quite a while...like, FOUR DAYS, can you imagine?!

but seriously, he's pulling this crazy assumption out of his ass that it's a [what, defiant?] STATEMENT and some sort of grand master plan to leave their albums alone to preserve "every nuance" [bye bye what time I had left for this guy...] of these hallowed works of art like it's beneath them to re-release that album with all that bonuses!

At the end of the day, he's read too much in to it, assumed he knows exactly what U2 are thinking and what their game is...and been highlighted as a fool.

 

[Cigar]

Anyone who thinks that the band is reissuing the Joshua tree for artistic purpose is a fool.Proof of that is the album was release March 1st of '87......not on December 11 '87.Did the album needed to be remastered?,absolutely.But to wait until the album turned 21 is a little too obvious of what the real and true reason of why they are doing it is.Lets just not kid ourselfes here.

When the album "The Wall" of Pink Floyd was re-release in 2000, it was on his exact 20th birthday.They didn't wait until the album turn 21 so that the could hear the bells of christmas to celebrate it



Christmas season=$$$$$$$$,period.that's the motivation,not art.

 

[gareth brown]

Do you mean The Wall, as in the Pink Floyd album released in December 1979, 21 years before the supposed 20th birthday in 2000 you're referring to? And if you're referring to the live version that was March 2000 so wouldn't even have been on it's 21st birthday by quite a while!

and anyway, I don't care if U2 are repackaging this album in time for Christmas, the point is it's the kind of release we've always wanted from them! Remastered album AND all the B-sides, rarities to make the die-hards piss themselves with excitement.

 

[BVS]

Christmas season=$$$$$$$$,period.that's the motivation,not art.

god forbid someone try both...

oh noes!!!

Once you start making a living being a musician, part of the motivation is money, why fault someone for being smart about it?

 

[Cigar]

god forbid someone try both...

oh noes!!!

Once you start making a living being a musician, part of the motivation is money, why fault someone for being smart about it?

Being smart about $$$ is one thing,but to pretend or assuming their true motivation from our part about the timing of the re-release of the album is another thing.I wouldn't give them as much credit as most of fans are doing right now.

U2 began to be smart with their financial whealth after the debacle finance of the popmart tour,curiously enough.And when Larry said that Beautiful day was them trying to compete with Britney Spears,then it showed the change of garde of how they see the future of their artistic work.I doubt very much that the U2 of 1983 thought about "competing with Micheal Jackson's Thriller when they wrote Sunday bloody Sunday.

 

[BVS]

Being smart about $$$ is one thing,but to pretend or assuming their true motivation from our part about the timing of the re-release of the album is another thing.I wouldn't give them as much credit as most of fans are doing right now.

One was released in 1987, the other is being released in 2007, sounds like 20 years to me. If they can get better sales in this month rather than this one, who cares? This would have been released either way. If this was the same exact release but on the very day, it would have more artistic integrity somehow? Bullshit.

U2 began to be smart with their financial whealth after the debacle finance of the popmart tour,curiously enough.And when Larry said that Beautiful day was them trying to compete with Britney Spears,then it showed the change of garde of how they see the future of their artistic work.I doubt very much that the U2 of 1983 thought about "competing with Micheal Jackson's Thriller when they wrote Sunday bloody Sunday.

U2 were smart about it, well before Pop, and financially Popmart wasn't that bad. Sting2 has shown that to us many many times in here.

Wow that's a horrible analogy. An 83 U2 to Thriller...

I think you've misunderstood the "competition" statement. U2 was trying to take the radio back, MTV back from the pop shit. They were constantly being quoted as saying why is Britney and boy bands ruling the airwaves when you have bands like Radiohead and Pearl Jam?

 

[U2girl]

I doubt very much that the U2 of 1983 thought about "competing with Micheal Jackson's Thriller when they wrote Sunday bloody Sunday.

Bono spoke about competing with the music on the charts, because they thought their music was better, right around the time of War.

 

[Zoomerang96]

I'm having a hard time deciding whether this guy or zoomerang is more full of it
luckily I can't be arsed pondering this too long though

oh, how touching, salome.

i suppose i was entirely off-base?

no, sorry... you're right. i'm full of it. a broad sweeping comment without any brilliant insight to back up your insult.

i didn't realize i was still in grade school.

 

[Zoomerang96]

Bono spoke about competing with the music on the charts, because they thought their music was better, right around the time of War.

even before that, i've seen an interview where bono said they knew they were better than the shit on the radio from the earliest days of being a band.

 

[DaveC]

aside from winning the odd grammy (which noone give a shit about anyway), u2 is a dinosaur band.

and really, so what. they had their day for like what, 20 years? good on them. but does ANYONE look to them to be relevant artistically anymore? i know i certainly don't. they're a jukebox, and their songs are by the numbers now. bono's lyrics have never, ever been worse. and just how many greatest hits packages can they put out before it's simply too embarrassing?

all i'm saying is, u2 is such an easy target to make fun of, that there's no point. they had a good go, but now they are exactly what they never wanted to become.

Absolutely 100% correct.

I probably won't even pay a cent for the new album when it comes out. 3 or 4 years ago, I would have slapped myself in the head for saying that.

But there are a whole lot of bands making original music these days that are a lot more deserving of my money.

 

[coolian2]

Fuck U2, how dare they release what most fans have been begging for?

 

[DaveC]

Fuck U2, how dare they release what most fans have been begging for?

Stale, unoriginal shit that really only serves to make them even bigger millionaires than they already are?

 

[BVS]

Stale, unoriginal shit that really only serves to make them even bigger millionaires than they already are?

You did read the thread right? Then you would have known he's talking about the JT 20th edition.

 

[Salome]

oh, how touching, salome.

i suppose i was entirely off-base?

no, sorry... you're right. i'm full of it. a broad sweeping comment without any brilliant insight to back up your insult.

i didn't realize i was still in grade school.

it's not a brilliant inside really, everyone who read your post would think you're full of it
so it was more like stating the obvious

should I ever figure out how I can back up the obvious I'll get back to you

btw
compared to your original post I am quite amazed how you'd dare to accuse anyone else of "broad sweeping comment without any brilliant insight"
you cornered the market on with just that one post alone

so to answer your question:
"i suppose i was entirely off-base?"

- yes


I don't see any true evidence that U2 are not as relevant/irrelevant/cool/ridiculous/calculating/artistic now then they were the first 20 years of their career


I don't think I would have liked you in grade school either