U2 - still relevant

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I think the idea is that coldplay are more rock-oriented (and there are several tracks on the new which "rawK') whereas ATYCLB is more adult contemporary

I have actually had the same argument with a friend of mine who really likes coldplay and also despises ATYCLB

also...I would never put coldplay in the realm of important bands. They are good at what they do...and what they do is wear their influences on their sleeve
 
No problem, U2Kitten.

And Saracene, exactly...why do we waste our time arguing about U2's past albums? They're done, that's it, they can't go back and change the album, so...:shrug:.

Basstrap said:
I think the idea is that coldplay are more rock-oriented (and there are several tracks on the new which "rawK') whereas ATYCLB is more adult contemporary
Click to expand...

They may not be looked at as an adult contemporary band, but I've heard them on a station that plays some adult contemporary stuff.

Angela
 
Basstrap said:
I would never put coldplay in the realm of important bands. They are good at what they do...and what they do is wear their influences on their sleeve
Click to expand...

That's just it... it comes down to expectation. Coldplay has a mellow sound, and it has projected across their whole body of work. Whereas, a band like U2 has a more dynamic sound... even though the difference between ATYCLB and the Coldplay sound may not be large, it all comes down to the artist. Coldplay is almost a specialty act... where they only "sell" one kind of song, which is fine if that's what you're expecting. But I think that you see there are a lot of U2 fans who expected a different album than ATYCLB (maybe one that was more dynamic). If you ripped the U2 label off the album, I'd suspect there would be fewer arguments pertaining to its content and sound... but I guess that's just my opinion.
 
Basstrap said:
I think the idea is that coldplay are more rock-oriented (and there are several tracks on the new which "rawK') whereas ATYCLB is more adult contemporary.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I agree that Coldplay's new album is harder than their debut but their "rockier" tunes are still kitten bites IMO, even compared with ATYCLB's punchier songs that don't exactly rawwwk themselves.

I agree with cujo in that people have different expectations of different bands. ATYCLB is not the softest you can get, but it's pretty gentle compared to U2's previous output. Whereas the opposite works for Coldplay: their music is still pretty timid and restrained if put against, say, The White Stripes, but it does sound rockier compared to their previous output.
 
Just for informations sake, ATYCLB is closing in on the 12 million mark worldwide and is currently one of the top 10 selling albums worldwide since January 2000. All of the Shows on the last world tour were sellouts. The tour in the USA set a GROSS record only topped by the Rolling Stones. In terms of popularity, they are indeed the most relevant thing out there.

As far as the critics go, ATYCLB won 7 Grammy Awards! How many albums have ever one that many awards or more? Rolling Stone refered to ATYCLB as "U2's third masterpiece"! So U2 again has the critics on their side.

Most fans seemed to be of the opinion that ATYCLB is a really good album although not as good as Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and Unforgettable Fire.

There are certainly individual opinions that will affirm or defer with this. But there always is even with albums like the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby.

It will be very interesting to see what this next album is like. Most likely it will be ATYCLB II which is alright with me. The only thing is that they should have released it back in October 2002 like they hinted they would back in September of 2000.

About a year after the POP album, I remember hearing the band say they were interested in doing an album that had traditional Irish Music as a main influence. I think that would be very cool.
 
STING2 said:
About a year after the POP album, I remember hearing the band say they were interested in doing an album that had traditional Irish Music as a main influence. I think that would be very cool.
Click to expand...

Oh, really?

Wow, that would be cool.

And your post proves what my dad said last night when I was talking to him about this-they're still selling well. So they still have relevance...people won't buy an artist's music if they can't relate to it.

Originally posted by ishkash
Michael Jackson is finally irrelevant
Click to expand...

Haha, yeah.

Angela
 
I don't know why anyone should be so incredulous. Of course U2 aren't relevant. Not even remotely. And the way I compute that little notion is not in terms of whether they write some good songs or not. It's in terms of what they're plugged in to. I think it's a bit much to see ATYCLB as this great document of the times, AFTER the fact. U2 didn't predict 911, nobody did (except the CIA perhaps). I know someone from Radiohead was saying wonderful things about ATYCLB recently, and good for him. I'm not him.

Fact of the matter is I don't doubt U2's intentions. I think that THEY believe they are doing exciting things. I just think they are hopelessly disconnected from what's going on in the world. I think that was starting to happen even in the POP era but it has since gone fullblown.
 
I also think threads like this are good and should never be merged and/or closed. It's not all sweetness and light folks. Get used to it.
 
Kieran McConville,

So your definition of relevancy is based on what your "Plugged into"? What do you feel is going on in the world that U2 is "hopelessly disconnected from"?

What bands or artist do you feel are "relevant" and way? What are they "Plugged into"? Please be specific if possible.
 
I think U2 are relevant and should be looked at as inspirations to young bands that want to have a long career as a successful rock band. U2 should be admired for the way they were able to do whatever they wanted to do as a band, they should be admired for still being together for over 25 years, they should be admired for writing some of the all time greatst rock and roll songs of all time.

U2 are relevant because we still talk about them on this UBB, because Radiohead admires them, because a lot of bands such as Coldplay name drop albums like WAR, because there are still people in the world that actually do find relevance and relate to U2's music.

A band doesn't stop being relevant just because they decide to make an album that appeals to themselves and not the mass commercial public.
 
david said:
I think U2 are relevant and should be looked at as inspirations to young bands that want to have a long career as a successful rock band. U2 should be admired for the way they were able to do whatever they wanted to do as a band, they should be admired for still being together for over 25 years, they should be admired for writing some of the all time greatst rock and roll songs of all time.

U2 are relevant because we still talk about them on this UBB, because Radiohead admires them, because a lot of bands such as Coldplay name drop albums like WAR, because there are still people in the world that actually do find relevance and relate to U2's music.

A band doesn't stop being relevant just because they decide to make an album that appeals to themselves and not the mass commercial public.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

I was watching the 1987 80's show earlier, and they were talking about the Joshua Tree album, and this one guy was saying that U2 was a band who people who wanted to be musicians looked up to and said, "If I ever become a musician, those are the guys I want to be like."

And I think that sentiment still shows today-Coldplay and Radiohead, you mentioned, like them, Hootie and the Blowfish admire them-the lead singer apparently is a huge fan, and so on.

Angela
 
David,

"A band doesn't stop being relevant just because they decide to make an album that appeals to themselves and not the mass commercial public."

This is very true. But ATYCLB with nearly 12 million copies sold worldwide is one of the biggest selling albums of the new decade. So even though they made an album for themselves, they have found mass commercial public appeal for it.
 
Kieran McConville said:
I don't doubt U2's intentions. I think that THEY believe they are doing exciting things. I just think they are hopelessly disconnected from what's going on in the world. I think that was starting to happen even in the POP era but it has since gone fullblown.
Click to expand...

Well, you're entitled to your opinions, but I'm just wondering what do you mean when you use the word "world"; is it the musical world you're talking about or just the big wide world in general? (And even more specifically, which musical world, since music is so incredibly fragmented nowadays, with many people even questioning the relevance of rock music in general.) If it's the former, I've heard many observations of the similar sort, only they said that U2 were never really plugged into what was happening on the big musical scene at this or that time; so how is POP or ATYCLB era different according to you?
 
Last edited:
Saracene, I mean the world. Period. I'm not talking about musical genres. I'm talking about the big wide world and what's going on in the world and my feeling that the members of u2, although they are intelligent men, are somewhat out of touch.

And I think they were already losing the plot a bit during and before POP, but at least there was some source of energy they were plugging into.
 
Kieran McConville said:
I'm talking about the big wide world and what's going on in the world and my feeling that the members of u2, although they are intelligent men, are somewhat out of touch.

And I think they were already losing the plot a bit during and before POP, but at least there was some source of energy they were plugging into.
Click to expand...

Kieran, interesting comments, but I don't know if I'm understanding you completely. Do you mean U2 are somewhat out of touch with what's happening in music? Politics? Pop Culture?
 
I will clarify, or at least try to in my own feeble way. I am talking about plugging into ideas (including musical, but not only). I don't feel that U2 are plugging into anything much right now, except riffing on the idea of being a survivor rock band after 20 years and what it's like to be a mature man in a band, and so on (and yes, the sorrows that come with middle age). That is not a terrible thing at all, but it's a fairly narrow spectrum of what life is about. And more particularly, for a band with U2's history.

I also agree with people who find their recent lyrics and tunes to be bland and predictable. I have a big problem with that. It's a harder one to define as I know many people don't find their recent songs bland at all. It's just that I do.

Some people here seem to be afraid of intellectual things but I'm sorry, rock and roll is not only about the beat. I know some bands give 'arty' rock a bad name (including Radiohead if you hate them, I guess. I love them but again, a personal choice), but it's not a terrible or elitist thing. Nothing artistic can happen in a vacuum and I feel like U2 are operating in a bit of a vacuum these days. They don't seem to be interacting with the wider world in any way. I will try to cut a little closer to the point and say that I feel a lot of their recent songs (ie. most of ATYCLB) do not stand up to much scrutiny when you remove them from the context of U2 and what we know about U2. And I just happen to think great artistic work should be able to survive apart from the people who made it.

And more crudely, I just don't like the tunes that much. You've got to have a bit of gall to say it's all about the songs now and then turn out tunes that aren't as good as the supposedly kitsch and superficial POP songs. Let alone not coming within cooee of someone like Nick Cave.

U2's best music has always felt bigger than the people who made it, at least to me. Because they weren't only drawing on their own experience or what they thought about things, they were stealing left right and centre from anything or anyone who might be worth reacting to. Recent music from them just feels like a bunch of songs that any number of bands could have written. Some of them pretty good songs, granted.

As for the POP era vs ATYCLB, the best example that comes to mind for me is Please as compared to Peace on Earth. They are basically the same song. But for me, one of them works and one does not.
 
Pub Crawler, all of the above. I feel that right now U2 are no better or worse than Bruce Springsteen or the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. That's not an awful fate but it's not great either.
 
I think it began during POP because they were simply losing the plot. They were full of piss and vinegar to be sure, but losing their vision to a lot of hightech smartarsery. Fancy me saying that as I actually enjoyed POP a lot. It had a hell of a lot of swing.
 
And I'll be really undiplomatic and add that I think Bono has grown altogether too used to the corridors of the powerful. I know all the arguments about that being a worthy thing, and if he achieves great things for people who need it, believe me I am prepared to forgive another ten years of mediocre U2 albums.

But I don't think it does the band any good, because when you're a politician you don't always say the most cutting things. You say what works or gets a result. You edit yourself. I don't think that can be quarantined from the music U2 make. So I'm sort of selfish.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, interesting views, Kieran. I didn't care for POP when it was initially released, although it subsequently really grew on me and I now consider it one of U2's best albums. Question: do you consider yourself part of the mainstream?
 
Kieran, I see where you're coming from, although I disagree with you on most points. Interesting reading, anyway.

Interestingly enough, out of all U2 albums for me it's Zooropa that loses the most of its interest after you remove it from the context of being made by U2. I always thought it was rather tame for an "experimental" album.
 
I think that Zooropa would win a lot more friends if the 'experimental' tag were trashed. I just see it as pop music for a crazy year. Johnny Cash is spot on in his cameo.
 
Well, if I was to regard Zooropa without "experimental" tag, I'd say that half of its tunes are pretty mediocre IMO if regarded just as pop songs. The ones that do work though are wonderful and could make a first-class EP.

I always liked the lyrics in "The Wanderer", but the whole thing is too much like Johnny Cash singing karaoke for my liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
289
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
748
lazarus
lazarus
Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
825
zoo skis
Z
Achtung_Bebe
IO: It's been a while...
Replies
2
Views
676
mikal
mikal
N
Hello From Alberta, Canada
Replies
4
Views
403
NormB
N

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom