I'm loosing my U2 and I don't want to!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
drama.gif
 
ok i have a confession and hopefully my experience will shed some light. this...has happened to me. yes it's true. some time around june of 2003 i "drifted from the shore" and my favorite band became depeche mode, although i wouldn't addmit it. and i started getting into alot of old L.A. punk (the weirdos, x, screamers, skulls, gears) i got into the adicts, bowie, costello, velvet underground, the clash. i was scared that i would never fell the same way about U2 again. my posters started changing and my u2 dvd's were collecting dust. but i guess with the excitment for the tour and the album i went back to my dvd collection and cd's and totally rediscovered that u2 is definatly #1 in my heart. this was even more magnified when i saw them twice in april. and now i can't wait till november when i see them again.

my depeche mode phase lasted less than a year, in retrospect i don't even know why i liked them so much. and while i love my punk rock music and the other stuff, i love u2 better. i think it's just that they were dorment for so long that i was looking for stuff to fill the void left. my walls have been re-smuthered with the boys pictures and posters and u2 is on heavy rotation in the dvd and cd player. and i spend alot more time here than i ever have before.

not saying that everyone will return to the light side of the force. just listen to what you want to and be happy. :wink: if it happens it happens if it doesn't, move on with your musical life guilt free!
 
Hey don't feel guilty, there's some top bands you've mentioned there! After all, you've got to experience the full smorgasbord to appreciate your one favourite dish! *Ah, I'm a poet today!* :lol:
 
I go through obsessive periods, that when I find a band or song I really like, I'll listen to them not stop for a couple of months. And believe the “highness” the music takes me is better than U2.

Once I get over the phase the band took me on, I can't listen to their songs anymore. I can wait a few months and the music still has no effect on me, sort of like an infatuation. U2 is not like that for me....Their songs slowly dawn on me and the greatness feeling sets in after a long period, I can listen to their songs over and over again months later and they still give me a new feeling each time!
 
Why is this such a big deal? :|

I listened to HTDAAB the day it came out, put it back in its case and it hasn't left my shelf again. I don't like it and even when I hear the songs on the radio from it I switch the station over. I can't afford to pay huge amounts to see U2 in Croke Park, I'd much prefer to get tickets to see the All Ireland final there in September. I am going to see bands for free this weekend and other concerts I've been to my ticket has been 1/3 the price of a U2 ticket. I'd much prefer to give my money to a band who I don't think are money swindling thieves - not that I think U2 are in it for the money or anything. I had been a fan of U2 for about 7 years, I really don't worry myself at the thought of how I used to like them and how I don't really care about their music/ tour/ how great Bono is now. I'm sure U2 aren't missing my money or support either.

You might get that feeling back again with U2. You might not. You'll find other bands you like just as much I'm sure. Most things tend to run their course at some point or at least your interest in them will rise and fall.
 
MrBrau1 said:
What's funny about this is you've been turned off to U2 sounding like U2 (HTDAAB) by a band who are simply a modern rip off of Joy Division. An artist who created their own sound, and seem to be revelling in it, are supplanted by a band who are completely unoriginal.

It's really sad.

Obviously you haven't listen to them closely, 'cause thats the typical oversimplification of their music by those who've heard 1 or 2 songs. Anyways, my point was not that any particular band had surpassed U2 musicaly, it was that I had "left" for a while and when I came the songs/albums that I have loved so much were'nt doing it for me anymore. Kind of like going to sleep next to the "love of ur life" and waking up the next day distant and disconected.
 
blahblahblah said:
this may sound REALLY weird...BUT...take a copy of the Joshua Tree, CD/tape player, and a pair of REALLY good headphones and take them to a REALLY nice part of your town/city in the evening on a sunny day! You can't beat a nice warm evening when everything's going Orange. It'll change your life, trust me.

Might try that. Joshua IS kind of like the U2 mecca. I might be In need of some "spiritual" re-awakeaning!:wink:
Think I'll start with track 5(rtss) till the end and I'll know it helped if I feel like listening to the big 4(streets, Ishfwilf,wowy, bullet).
 
Last edited:
It happened to me as well. After the Super Bowl and the horror of horrors that is the Elevation video I sort of lost it. Didn't listen to very much U2 at all between my last Elevation show and HTDAAB (which took me awhile to get into but now I think is quite strong).

Then something happened. The band began to tour again and suddenly I was interested again, but in a different way. I was not so obsessive about it, I didn't have to read all the articles, see every second of TV that they were featured on, or basically be embarrassed that I'd go, ahem, numb everytime I came in contact with something U2 related. I also kind of took a different view of the band--that they are flawed liked everything else. I don't need every album to be an Acthung.

So my advice, take a brake if you need to and focus on your other bands. If you end up liking them better then who cares what you think of U2 because you will have something else to fill that spot in your life.
 
Have you considered the possibility that (I know, I'm being a heretic here) U2 has finally recorded a bad album?

I don't love every single U2 song ever written (only 99.9 percent of them); and I don't love HTDAAB. The first time I heard it I felt--nothing. It's still hasn't made me feel much of anything. But I haven't forgotten and will not forget, cannot forget all the great music they've made, and the songs that I love. But I will tuck HTDAAB back on the shelf and hope for something better the next time around.
 
echo0001 said:
Have you considered the possibility that (I know, I'm being a heretic here) U2 has finally recorded a bad album?

I don't love every single U2 song ever written (only 99.9 percent of them); and I don't love HTDAAB. The first time I heard it I felt--nothing. It's still hasn't made me feel much of anything. But I haven't forgotten and will not forget, cannot forget all the great music they've made, and the songs that I love. But I will tuck HTDAAB back on the shelf and hope for something better the next time around.

U2 recording a bad album? Hell they did that 24 years ago, they themselves would tell you that (October). Of course there are people who like it, if not love it, most people who aren't die-hard U2 fans would tell you it's not particularly good.

But to take your point further, I agree with you pretty much.

I love U2, still my favorite band, but if you asked me to make one album with all their best songs since the end of POPMart, 1998, I still don't think I would like it as much as I like everything from War to Zooropa, maybe even POP. But that's just my tastes, you know there are many people who love the last two albums, and I am glad for them. I wish I liked them the same way.

It doesn't make me sad or anything, there is a whole universe of rock and roll out there with all different kinds of sounds and vibes, U2 may be my favorite singular band, but I don't think even a hard core fan would be expected to liek ALL of it. I don't think HTDAAB is a bad album, but I don't think it's great either. I also think that over time it will not be considered a great album by any stretch and will likely take a back seat to ATYCLB as U2's "comeback" album when the books are written.

Trying to be objective, I'd say U2 are on the decline progressively but probably steadily maturing each album. And I'd say they are willing to sacrifice older fans to get newer fans because of their egos. Which is probably my only real true gripe about the band. I understand why they target the "kids", but I wish they wouldn't. I know I am not alone.

And if you are worried about "losing your U2" then you probably have a life void of any real worries, so I would just enjoy it.
 
Possibly sacrificing old fans to get the kids doesn't bother me so much--it's just the way they seem to be going about it.

One of the greatest things about them, to me, is that from Boy to POP, they never made the same album twice. JT and R&H may have been in the same neighborhood, but they weren't the same album. They were always looking for a new way, a new path, and now it feels like they've made the same album at least twice.

If this is how they react to a generation of kids who tastes have been damaged by too many years of boy bands and Britney Spears, I'm beginning to wonder if they have lost touch with musical reality--where more sophisticated listeners are always on the look out for something new.
 
echo0001 said:


If this is how they react to a generation of kids who tastes have been damaged by too many years of boy bands and Britney Spears, I'm beginning to wonder if they have lost touch with musical reality--where more sophisticated listeners are always on the look out for something new.

oh I think that is exactly right, and it might get be flamed for saying it, but U2 are notorious for being out of touch with things. Hell, it was part of their appeal for years.

first let me add, that I love new fans, getting new fans, it's great, I was a new fan back in the Achtung era, so I empathize and say "the more, the merrier". I certainly do not think that having teenagers listening to your music is a bad thing but I do agree with your premise that they have lost touch with the reality of the music scence, primarily the American music public which they covet so much because of the demographic they target. A 14 year old kid with a good ear for music and good taste in substance will get into U2 either way. If you target the poppy-heads you are losing grip of the situation. They don't want you, they want something of their own generation. U2 could make the greatest album ever made and it wouldnt sell as well as most rap and hip-hop. It's the nature of the beast, and it's more or less the way it's always been, although it has gotten worse because rock is running out of places to go.

I mean, to read Bono's responses he's talking as if he is aiming at getting the kids listening to Jay-Z and Britney Spears to turn on to his music. When in reality, anyone would tell you that, kids, teenage kids like the pop fluff of their generation and it burns hot for about 2 years and dies and creates a massive list of one hit wonders and "has-beens" . But that is the popular culture, it has always been this way. I don't know if Bono beleives they can "re-invent the wheel" of the industry, so to speak, but it sure seems like they are trying.

U2's audience has, without question I would say been one of the smarter sects of the listenig population. They cut their teeth with rebeliion and politics and religous songs and drastic makeovers, and their legion of fans is filled with people who love them for this very thing. So what do they do? They say "well, we've already got those people, let's get the ones who aren't listening" the thing is, they aren't NOT-listenig because they don't know who U2 is, they aren't listening because they don't care. This demographic (and I am certainly generalizing, I was part of it once too, you now?) this demographic is full of kids who buy records for everything other than the right reasons, hardly ever for the actual music content. Just faddish junk.

And for the record EVERY SINGLE young generation that has come along in rock history has it's own gimmicky banal pop bands and teenage acts who only sell records because they are good looking. Every one.

It was no worse in 1999 than it was in 1989 or 1979. The difference is that mainstream rock was crap for about 5 years there, really really bad. But it's getting better.
You'd think U2 could figure this out, they have influenced half of these bands, Coldplay, the Killers whomever. In 1991, I was 16, the old folks were telling me rock and roll was dead blah blah blah, yeah right. It will survive if it's greatest assets don't go "full blown pop", like U2 is tending towards. It's not bad pop music, but if you try to sell me that this isn't pop music, I will have to laugh. They are admitting it, left and right. I mean, at least they are being brutally honest about it.

It's like they want to target people who don't have any interest in them in large part, no matter what they fucking do. In the meantime they do so and it leaves that legion of fans left over from two decades of really inspring music scratching their heads.
I mean, it seemed to me that U2 was the alternative to the SHIT those people listened to.

The new music is not bad,, it's good but it could be so much better though. And I think 99% of this problem is to do with the demographic they are going after. I mean, Bono fucking admits it. It's plain as day.
 
Last edited:
I spend about a week listening to solely U2. then about a week of only Ryan Adams. then a week of random other songs from the 3,000 i have in the ipod. then back to U2. works out great! ive been a fan for about 7 years and have never lost interest.

ps, in my humble opinion, interpol sucks :ohmy:
 
I wanted to add some more things to an intersting thread, don't want to seem liek I am all down on the band, I listen to HTDAAB often. I am going to see them in the fall. And I look forward to it all, just don't have to love the direction.

It's about the music to me, always has been, you can take the images and burn them, it doesn't mean anyting really. Maybe if you make an artistic statement with them, then okay. Maybe U2 didn't intentionally have their image in the 80's but it was defintely an offset to the hair metal and new wavey synth pop going on. The 90's well if you have to explain the differences between the Fly and say Cobain, well you get the idea.

But the music really stayed on the foundation of rock and roll, with pop sensibilties. Whether that was Mofo or Wire or I Will Follow, most of U2's songs have a chorus some of them catchy, so U2 have essentially always made pop rock music, but I always heard it as rock first, pop second. That is what I hear in most all of it before 2000.

So I acknowledge certainly that U2 idolizes the pop masters The Beatles and might not have always written in that vein, were always more or less headed that way.

Now, I don't give a damn about I-pod ads, and Super Bowl shows and all that garbage, that is all image fodder for people with image issues between themselves and the music listen to. But if anything it does speak to what they are trying to do, to U2's credit they freely admit this, they aren't being hypocritical about it.

I am concerned with the music. There is evidence in the outtakes. Xanax and Wine was going somewhere, rock and roll. And it's now a novelty, Fast Cars. Native Son was rock and roll, now it's the gimmicky Vertigo. I mean All Because of You is the most rock and roll song on the album, yet I see people saying how much they don't like it in post after post. Are there any rock fans left?

Sure U2 aren't a pure rock band, maybe they are just a loud folk band. I still love them. The issue, I suppose is that the music seems to have changed to be more, decidedly more mainstream, if it's the production, the promotion or words coming from the bands mouth, it's all telling us the same thing. "We want to be big, to sell, we want to be relevant." Bono didn't want Discotheqe to "change the atmosphere of the summer" or what the hell ever. He wanted it to be more popular.

So they are making pop music now. Forgive me if I doesn't make me excited. I don't detract from what the band wishes to accomplish, I just wish it was more suited to the rock and roll listener as opposed to the average pop listener.

And that is the gripe I have, and I have stated it and I don't like to dwell on negatives. I love the band still, deeply, I look forward to seeing them in the fall, and I will still love them even if Bono messes up the lyrics or they don't play a particular song or whatever. I love this band, it's the only reason I care enough to say that something they do is dissappointing. But it is what it is. They make the music they want to make, and if we don't like it, or I don't like it, tough shit. I know some people thought Achtung Baby was a bad career move, tough shit. Maybe I am not totally into the new U2 durection, but I say to myself, tough shit.

I still can enjoy it though.
 
Last edited:
:applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

Quick Quiz:

In the current music climate, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb's nearest neighbour is...

a) The Killers "Hot Fuss"
b) Coldplay "X & Y"
c) Interpol "Antics"
d) Maroon 5 "Songs About Jane"

Think about it.

How the mighty have fallen indeed....
 
For me U2 are still the best band around but I do have my complaints about the mixmaster of what they say in interviews since about 1998.

1. There is nothing wrong with attracting young people to your music but it is best done when its done with just the music itself and not the constant "stating" that they are trying to turn young people on to U2...that is fine to do but let the music do it naturally....some things are better left unsaid. In the end I think it does take a certain amount of smarts to listen to U2 and the demographic they seem to be generally trying to attract from what they are saying....90 percent of those people simply dont have those smarts and will never care about what U2 does. Infact most of those people HATE U2 and will openly say so and they always come up with some very stupid arguements.

2. It is fine to want to make money touring and having a successful tour. But again I think U2 in general are selling there world wide fanbase short as far as shows go. The last real world tour they had was Popmart, ever since then they have really seemed to care a little bit too much about the profit margins of what goes on with the tour....even in the US, where I think there is far too many shows for a fanbase that has been certainly to anybody that has followed U2 over time weakening since the Zooropa days. Even in the US they are playing far too many shows in far too few locations, what is wrong with playing 2 shows in a smaller city rather then having to play 5-7 in the major markets...does it look more impressive....does anybody really care? I would rather them come to the fans rather then the fans having to drive and fly miles to go see them. U2s fans are probably the best fans in the world and I think U2 should show them some respect and make it seem like they are making a genuine effort to make it easier for them to see the band.

3. I don't think that U2 is the only one to blame for these changes in public image and the way they operate more as a corporation I blame the entire U2 management team and most of all Paul Maguiness. I remember when ATYCLB came out in the US and it didnt debut at #1 and he wanted all these recounts and other things just because it looks good on an album to debut at #1, because in general they end up making more money. If the management team had any touch with reality they would have known that 2 rap acts were going to debut ahead of U2 in the biggest hiphop market in the world the US...and too much business is geared towards the US market instead of worring about the world market where U2 is and always will be strong.

4. This album is fantastic I think its probably my second favourite album behind Achtung Baby. But I think the reason that U2 hasnt been able to make an album like Achtung Baby in recent times has nothing to do with band dinamics because live I think they are as good as theyve ever been. I think there is only 3 out of 4 members that are working on music in this band these days full time. Bono hasnt got time to put as much energy in as most of the fanbase expect for him to put in, because of all his very noble causes these days, which I really dont blame him for I am proud hes doing them...but I really feel that it pushes the rest of the band to their creative limit not having Bono there working all the time with them on musical and lyric ideas. As much of perfectionists that U2 are they wont ever make the perfect album which I know they are capable of making until Bono is able to put 110 percent like the rest of the band are into an album, because I genuinely belive that U2 are better musicians now then they ever have been its just time and effort on Bonos part that is lacking in the studio.

That is all....
 
salim117 said:
Before the release of HTDAAB I was as hyped as ever for a new U2 album. Was it gonna be a full out guitar album or some strange new beautiful sounds my ears had never experienced! Didn't matter, after their "shawk and Awe" campaign of the '90s followed by the 180 of ATYCLB, I knew I would be surprised.
Then came "Vertigo" followed buy the onslought of Ipod Hello-Hellos! U2 semi-selling out?

(cut)

I have not listened to HTDAAB more than once or twice in the last 5 months. I have been listening to other bands like The Shins,The Strokes, & The Arcade Fire:)up: ). The only albums from U2 that I have felt like listening to lately are AB and Zooropa(strangely enough).
I'm not as excited about the concert as I should be though I always check the setlist from the previous night's shows fist thing next morning! :wink:
To summarize, I MISS HOW U2's MUSIC USED TO MAKE ME FEEL! I MISS IT AND I WANT THAT FEELING BACK ASAP 'cause I feel like I'm drifting, drifting, drifting from THEIR shore!
:sad:

Salim

Wow. I could have wrote the same post, salim... I'm amazed!

p.s. I'm on AB right now, and really not impressed with the Bomb...
 
youtooellen said:
when i feel like i'm drifting from U2 for other bands, i rejuvenate myself by watching their dvd's from beginning to the end.

slane dvd seems to hit the spot best. :wink:
hope i was of some assistance :)

Absoluteley!!

I feel the same way as you sometimes where I won't listen to U2 for months. I then go and watch Live in Sydney and it totally brings me back to them to the point that my 6/disc changer in my car is nothing but U2!
 
Re: Re: I'm loosing my U2 and I don't want to!

TheFlyOnTheWall said:


Wow. I could have wrote the same post, salim... I'm amazed!

p.s. I'm on AB right now, and really not impressed with the Bomb...

Hey, maybe it's a virus that's going around or something?:wink:
 
i can have these phases of not listening to u2 at all, finding new "favourite" bands. many of my friends are amazed that i'm a u2-fan, considering my taste in music in general. there are so many new exciting bands i'm really into right now (interpol is one of them, i'm quite obsessed ;) ) that i tend not to listen to u2 for weeks and weeks at all. still i always keep up with all the news, not out of habit, but because it genuinely interests me. i used to get a bit "scared", thinking i'd grown sick of them when i didn't feel like listening to them. but i always seem to return to their albums at some point. not consciously, i just suddenly feel like listening to them.

so, like many of you have said, just keep listening to interpol or whatever band it is that you feel really passionate about and see where it goes. after all, there's nothing wrong with moving on... ;)
 
I hate to say it, but I've been going through the same thing, except the part about liking another band. I've been a fan for about three and a half years and I dearly wish I could be as excited about U2 now as I was back then. But I suppose that'll never happen again. It helped that back then I had a friend who really liked them, too, but now it's Yellowcard and all those other "little" bands for her. I just feel sort of... bored? Lonely? Too busy? I don't really know. But once school is over, I'm gonna start coming here more often and listening to more music instead of just reading about it so much.
 
I wouldn't worry about it....i go through phases where i won't listen to a U2 song for monthes.
But i always come back ....for me U2 are like old friends, i know i can leave for awhile and come back.
Unless of course you are really losing interest which can happen and if thats the case well, thats up to you. but never say never one day you might all the sudden fall back into them again :)
 
U2 is still by far the greatest band ever, and if we didnt have such high and sometimes unreal expectations maybe theyde be met once in awhile!
 
U2DMfan said:
I am concerned with the music. There is evidence in the outtakes. Xanax and Wine was going somewhere, rock and roll. And it's now a novelty, Fast Cars. Native Son was rock and roll, now it's the gimmicky Vertigo. I mean All Because of You is the most rock and roll song on the album, yet I see people saying how much they don't like it in post after post. Are there any rock fans left?

Who says they don't like ABOY? I love it...

I dunno, I think Bono was trying to say he cares about rocknroll, but you know that's maybe a broader category than some here find acceptable, and encompasses work some would call 'pop'.
I gotta check out these outtakes for evidence...I like Fast Cars. What makes it a novelty over its previous instantiation? And it was just the addition of the call-n-response stuff that made Vertigo gimmicky or more?
Whatever Earnie Shavers believes counts as rocknroll,honestly, I think the comparison being made time and again to maroon5 is just so off.
One doesn't have to like the new stuff, but goodness me...

cheers!
 
ShellBeThere said:


Who says they don't like ABOY? I love it...

I dunno, I think Bono was trying to say he cares about rocknroll, but you know that's maybe a broader category than some here find acceptable, and encompasses work some would call 'pop'.
I gotta check out these outtakes for evidence...I like Fast Cars. What makes it a novelty over its previous instantiation? And it was just the addition of the call-n-response stuff that made Vertigo gimmicky or more?
Whatever Earnie Shavers believes counts as rocknroll,honestly, I think the comparison being made time and again to maroon5 is just so off.
One doesn't have to like the new stuff, but goodness me...

cheers!

check out the 'where the album has a name forum' and check just about anything on there. I'd say at least 2/3 of the opinons of ABOY are that it is average at best.

As for the other....

I have a pretty broad context of rock and roll also. I meant that the song Xanax and Wine, I personally believe is great rock and roll. Raw guitar, hooky chorus with a George Harrison-almost-esque type guitar in the chorus, and the chorus has better flow, more harmony and reminds me of exactly what old fashioned "rock and roll" is. It was textbook. At least it's the shit I love.

Now Fast Cars guts the raw riff, the clever and catchy chorus and replaces it with an eastern-tinged romp where Bono sings "these fast cars will do me no good". It just sounds 'tongue-in-cheek', that's why I call it novelty. It sounds like a rock and roll song that Larry didn't like, so they re-recorded a kitschy version on the last day in the studio to salvage the idea.

Native Son to me, would have spelled the direction I wanted the band to go. The music is virtually the same, there is an extra lead guitar melody on Native Son, but it's virtually the same. Where this song became gimmicky, was not just Vertigo all by itself, was that the original Native, had a poltical context, with yet another killer chorus. Vertigo is a fine song to do exactly what it does, if I had never heard Native Son, I'd still think it was a tad gimmicky. Hearing it, solidifies it. Whether it's the spanish intro, spanish word play, turn it up loud captain, the idea of the flippant lyrics as opposed to a song about Leonard Peltier. I am not even saying it's a bad song, but it's what was a better song Native Son, stripped down to be made a 'hit', catchy gimmicks, I guess.

If I just said I like the songs better, it gives no context, and people just say "well I disgaree" or "you are fucking wrong!"
Highly subjective areas, I try to present why I like the songs better, if I can.

More of what I think they intended to make in the first place, with Chris Thomas until Larry said he wouldnt go out on tour without more hits on the record. I only deduce he said something to that effect, from reading in between the lines. Speculation extrapolated. ;)

I agree with earnie in general, it seems we are going down similar paths at the roots of the problem, I don't agree with the Maroon 5 comparison, although the fact that it's not that far off is scary. I think Maroon 5 don't know any better than to make poppy fluff.

I think U2 tread on poppy fluff on a song or five, only because they are bowing down to their own democracy and want an idea of relevancy that is only attainable when people acknowledge them by driving them up the charts, the only way really possible, by buying up their stuff.

It seems they were so injured creatively by the whole POP era, that they over-corrected and said the only reassurance is hits, hits, hits at all costs. But I would emphasize that democracy comment. To put it another way if Bono and Edge were making the records by themselves it would be sure to sound different. That's my honest take.
 
U2DMfan, excellent post.

I haven't heard Native Son or Xanax & Wine - living in Australia we don't have the full iTunes yet, so those things aren't available. I think my lack of interest in HTDAAB is what's stopped me from tracking them down thus far, but I certainly will tonight....

Can I also just say that my Maroon 5 comment (along with the other bands I mentioned) isn't meant to be a direct comparison based on the style of music, as in "That U2 song sounds like a Maroon 5 song!", but a general grouping based on the demographic that the music is squarely aimed at, and the depth of the music overall. Put it this way... 2 bands that sound nothing like U2: Maroon 5 and Radiohead. Both are heavyweight multi million selling acts. 2 of the biggest bands in the world today. If they are at opposite ends of the scale (one honestly records whatever noise is in their heads and sales or not couldn't give a f*ck. The other purely manufactures music with sales in mind, and little else). Where do U2 circa HTDAAB fit? At the worst, I'd like them to hit the centre. I think they've skidded off into the Maroon 5 side of the graph.
 
absolultey I agree with that

If Radiohead is the far left of the scale and Maroon5 is the far right, you'd have to be lying to say that 2005 U2 is not leaning to the right of that scale, certainly as opposed to the left.

and for Native Son and Xanax, I think I'm in the vast minority on that one. Some of that might come from people assume I am insulting HTDAAB itself by saying I think it's B-sides are better songs. I just like them better. I played them for my friend over some beers, he isn't much of a U2 fan but is a musician, and he thinks they are better. I wanted some kind of perspective, it's not an absolute, but perhaps there are others who agree with me.
I think HTDAAB is a good album, it's not "U2 good" IMO, meaning if the band Salty Dog Balls recorded it, I would have never purchased it, probably heard the songs radio and said "yeah, that's pretty cool". I do that all the time. I am a music nut.

I'll take it a step further, I think Smile and Mercy are worthy of being on the album. That's 4 songs that they made, I think are worthy of being on the album and were left off in favor of what I think are inferior tracks. Smile is not a hit song, but I think it's genuine good rock and roll, as opposed to whatever 'A Man and A Woman' tries to accoplish on the record. It's savvy pop in the Sting vein. Chalk that one up to being voted off by somebody.
That's just a disconnect for me. I am not even griping, I am just acknowledging the disconnect. Trying to define it, I guess.

I am not sure I have much in common with they typical pop music listener. I like some pop music, but generally I am a rock guy, modern and classic. So that might leave me in the minority on this board, maybe not. But it also leads me further to believe that there is an idea of 'camps' inside of the U2 democracy.

They are making some interesting stuff, Levitate is IMO a stronger track than probably 3 or 4 on ATYCLB, it didn't make it either. So I don't think U2 lost anything, I think they are trying to accomplish something the wrong way. Rock fans growing up, need to hear songs like all the ones I mention. 90% chance, if not higher, they won't ever hear them. U2 blazing out good rock tunes and nobody but hardcore U2 fans hear them in favor of the more accesible stuff. This is to me, is more relevant to the rock climate. U2 resided in this clmiate for 20 years, this is where their relvancy is born and bred and will be extended, not in pop circles.

I fully realize that the band doesn't pick tracklistings to suit my needs, but I think I have more in common with some band members than others. My expectations were not too high for this album. I had virtually none. I said "U2 offer me the music and I'll take what you give, good or bad". I heard HTDAAB, I said "this is pretty good". I hear songs that don't make the cut, I say these are better, this is the direction they wanted to go in, and they changed.

Because of lack of "hits". Not quality, hits. We seem to be asking "why?" The history of pop music is littered with pop hits that never will have any relevance other than for the small time the occupy the fucking chart keeping them alive.
 
People seem to forget Bono and Edge believed they had a finished album in October of 2003, and then Adam and Larry said no. Hearing the alternative versions of album songs, I think getting Lillywhite in was a good idea.
 
U2DMfan said:

I wanted some kind of perspective, it's not an absolute, but perhaps there are others who agree with me.


U2DMfan, I completely agree with everything you've said in this thred. My exact feellings. I'm glad I'm not alone. :( :|
 
Back
Top Bottom