Album 13: Mirror mirror on the wall, there's no album so let's just talk y'all

[Izzy.nyc]

new U2. play it loud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YE011zdK90

 

[The_acrobat]

Trip Thru is a good song. Screw the haters.



I hear ya and I'd agree but I have the obligation (to myself) to point out that two of these things are not like the other, IMO.

I might go see Aerosmith, even though I've considered them a dinosaur greatest hits band for nearly 20 years. Their 70's stuff is bad ass (and some 80's stuff is good too). And Tom Petty is just damn good, period. But yeah, I could name a lot of other "heritage acts" that I still find interest in. It doesn't bother me.

I'm considering seeing Aerosmith this summer too, US tour dates are to be announced soon. I haven't seen them since 2006. I also am a HUGE fan of the 70s albums, and they did some good stuff in the 80s/90s as well. And yeah, Petty is just plain awesome!

The interesting thing is that setlists from 2010-2011 360 tour pretty much followed the format of a Tom Petty/Aerosmith type band's concert. 3-4 new songs, the lions share of the hits, and 1 or 2 fan favorite album cuts, nothing too deep or obscure. The thing is, I liked the 2011 shows I saw MORE than the 2009 NLOTH Tour shows I saw. Maybe U2 can turn things around, the next album will be a HUGE hit, and they'll defy all the odds once again. I'd love for the album to be awesome, and for about 8-9 songs to be featured in the set lists, and for U2 to real fresh and relevant again. I just don't think it's going to happen. But that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

The last time Aerosmith had a real HIT in the charts was in 2001, with "Jaded". The last time U2 had a real HIT in the charts was 2004-5 with "Vertigo". We think of Aerosmith as being a DINOSAUR band, but their first album debuted only 7 years before U2's first album, and they were "relevant" not much farther back than U2's last "relevant" moment.

 

[kingofsorrow]

If U2 want to be relevant again, have a big huge album with big songs (radio hits) and win a ton of respect on the street with those coveted kids, I have a good suggestion for them. Here is exactly what they need to do:

Stop waiting for God, literally, figuratively, etc. Just stop with God, period. Kids these days don't want to hear about God, don't care about God, want nothing really at all to do with God, religion, etc. They are over it. God was their parents and grandparents ideas, like chrome wheels and white socks, kids today are into black wheels and black socks, and no religion. Kids today have a pretty bleak outlook on life in general, don't necessarily believe in a reason to believe in anything of an afterlife. Most kids are more inclined to believe in life on another planet and aliens before they would admit to believing in God or heaven. Most feel that religion is something of a club (*) that tricks people into conforming into a certain lifestyle in which someone has chosen or pre-determined fate. Yet these same people tell us we have "free will", which is supposed to explain how God can sit back and let all of these awfully bad things happen to an innocent world.

So if U2 wants to be cool with the kids, most of which who view wealth, greed, & power as the same thing, U2 should drop the religious act and just let the MacPhisto dollars and Zoo condoms fall where they may. U2 was a lot more fun when they focused more on sex, drugs, & rock and roll than the current group of guys who talk about faith and world leaders while chilling with Jay Z and Beyoncé on a yacht in the French Riveria.

If U2 really wants to throw people for a loop, they should admit they really don't care about the fans, admit to doing all of this for the money, praise tax shelters and wars of convenience, and convert to Satanism. There are many people out there who have suggested that Bono was the antichrist anyway. Clearly U2 wants a number one album chock full of hit singles (lots of 'em), what better way is there for a band who's chasing old magic than to chase the black magic instead?

 

[Hollow Island]

We think of Aerosmith as being a DINOSAUR band, but their first album debuted only 7 years before U2's first album, and they were "relevant" not much farther back than U2's last "relevant" moment.

Yeah, I think people have a hard time remembering how long U2 have been around. They differ from Aerosmith in a few important respects, though.

Aerosmith always seemed like a 70s rock band, and seemed older in the 90s than U2 did in the mid 2000s for that reason.

U2's constant reinvention allowed to always be relevant and not seem old. They never seemed old because they were always basically a new band: new concept, new image, and new sound. With every album from 1980-2000.

Aerosmith committed suicide with I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing. Sure, it was a huge hit, but they became a joke then and have never recovered, which might be unfair, but that's what they get for inflicting that horror upon our ears. Seriously, fuck them.

U2 only started to seem old once they began relying on the most commercially successful elements of their 80s sound because it reminded us how old they actually were. It was a commercially successful move for the short term, but detrimental to them in the long term. If they had continued moving forward as they did for 20 years (if ATYCLB was a blip, not the new template) they wouldn't have the 'relevancy' problem that they do now.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That's such utter bullshit.

 

[BVS]

Yeah, I think people have a hard time remembering how long U2 have been around. They differ from Aerosmith in a few important respects, though.

Aerosmith always seemed like a 70s rock band, and seemed older in the 90s than U2 did in the mid 2000s for that reason.

U2's constant reinvention allowed to always be relevant and not seem old. They never seemed old because they were always basically a new band: new concept, new image, and new sound. With every album from 1980-2000.

Aerosmith committed suicide with I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing. Sure, it was a huge hit, but they became a joke then and have never recovered, which might be unfair, but that's what they get for inflicting that horror upon our ears. Seriously, fuck them.

U2 only started to seem old once they began relying on the most commercially successful elements of their 80s sound because it reminded us how old they actually were. It was a commercially successful move for the short term, but detrimental to them in the long term. If they had continued moving forward as they did for 20 years (if ATYCLB was a blip, not the new template) they wouldn't have the 'relevancy' problem that they do now.

Once again you are implying your bias to the general public. As you ALWAYS do. But like always you are slightly off.

 

[Aygo]

U2 only started to seem old once they began relying on the most commercially successful elements of their 80s sound because it reminded us how old they actually were. It was a commercially successful move for the short term, but detrimental to them in the long term. If they had continued moving forward as they did for 20 years (if ATYCLB was a blip, not the new template) they wouldn't have the 'relevancy' problem that they do now.

This.
(And this template do not only aplies to the image and the marketing, but mostly to the music.)

 

[Batfink27]

Come on U2, even Michael Jacksons got his new album out this year and he's dead!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[BVS]

Class not ass...

 

[mikal]

Chlorophyll? More like Borophyll!

 

[digitize]

I honestly have a very hard time believing that U2 would be more relevant now than they are if they had released an experimental-ish album after ATYCLB.

 

[Montrose]

U2 began to seem older once they aged sufficiently. It's no more complicated than that.

 

[Irvine511]

I wish I knew what "experimental" means.

 

[prbiker15]

I'm really glad that there's a chunk of new music coming out in the next few months. From other artists, of course.

 

[Nick66]

U2 only started to seem old once they began relying on the most commercially successful elements of their 80s sound because it reminded us how old they actually were. It was a commercially successful move for the short term, but detrimental to them in the long term. If they had continued moving forward as they did for 20 years (if ATYCLB was a blip, not the new template) they wouldn't have the 'relevancy' problem that they do now.

Yeah, most of this is wrong.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I wish I knew what "experimental" means.

I don't think it means anything on this board anymore, it's just another Interference buzzword like 'autopilot' and 'relevance.'

 

[mama cass]

Come on U2, even Michael Jacksons got his new album out this year and he's dead!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[mama cass]

so... i guess they say no news is good news

is there any news btw?

 

[ChargedVT]

so... i guess they say no news is good news

is there any news btw?

No.

 

[Musikwala]

So yeah,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YE011zdK90

It was an April Fool's Joke, to the shock of no one.

Hahaha not a bad prank actually, although virtually no one fell for it.

If U2 want to be relevant again, have a big huge album with big songs (radio hits) and win a ton of respect on the street with those coveted kids, I have a good suggestion for them. Here is exactly what they need to do:

Stop waiting for God, literally, figuratively, etc. Just stop with God, period. Kids these days don't want to hear about God, don't care about God, want nothing really at all to do with God, religion, etc. They are over it. God was their parents and grandparents ideas, like chrome wheels and white socks, kids today are into black wheels and black socks, and no religion. Kids today have a pretty bleak outlook on life in general, don't necessarily believe in a reason to believe in anything of an afterlife. Most kids are more inclined to believe in life on another planet and aliens before they would admit to believing in God or heaven. Most feel that religion is something of a club (*) that tricks people into conforming into a certain lifestyle in which someone has chosen or pre-determined fate. Yet these same people tell us we have "free will", which is supposed to explain how God can sit back and let all of these awfully bad things happen to an innocent world.

So if U2 wants to be cool with the kids, most of which who view wealth, greed, & power as the same thing, U2 should drop the religious act and just let the MacPhisto dollars and Zoo condoms fall where they may. U2 was a lot more fun when they focused more on sex, drugs, & rock and roll than the current group of guys who talk about faith and world leaders while chilling with Jay Z and Beyoncé on a yacht in the French Riveria.

If U2 really wants to throw people for a loop, they should admit they really don't care about the fans, admit to doing all of this for the money, praise tax shelters and wars of convenience, and convert to Satanism. There are many people out there who have suggested that Bono was the antichrist anyway. Clearly U2 wants a number one album chock full of hit singles (lots of 'em), what better way is there for a band who's chasing old magic than to chase the black magic instead?

You win this thread.

Come on U2, even Michael Jacksons got his new album out this year and he's dead!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using U2 Interference mobile app

lmao! So true. I read that Jackson news last night and wondered.. is it an April fools joke??

so... i guess they say no news is good news

is there any news btw?

No.

 

[doctorwho]

There is no "filler" on TUF, TJT or AB. Not a single song.

As you sometimes write, all of this is wrong.

But then, it's really a moot point. We aren't going to change each other's opinions on this topic.

 

[Reg McGowan]

At least Steve Lillywhite is optimistic...

https://twitter.com/Sillywhite/status/450839373949313026

 

[gvox]

Did someone actually try and pull a new U2 song prank yesterday and massively fail to fool even one person?

Even bigger fail: it was already Apr 2 in much of the world when he posted it.

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

All those great songs make me wonder...when did U2 stop being a rock band and become a pop band? About the time Bono started calling them pop stars?

When POP failed to appease the masses and the stadiums were half-empty in the back, that's when U2 changed. They went back to "safe" and wrote ATYCLB. And because of that, they've stayed 'soft'. Bomb and NLOTH were both written as attempts at another safety, "classic" sounding record. Except the classic sounds were missing because the band wasn't taking chances. They weren't allowing themselves to experiment. There was potential on NLOTH but it missed the mark, and now the band needs to choose which way they go. Do they let themselves experiment, knowing that no matter what, the hardcores will buy it, go see the (sold-out) shows, etc? Or do they try to make another "safe" record and hope to catch the attention of the 20-something college kids who are running around listening to Imagine Dragons and Pharrell?

I want more POP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLRXRXzkH0A#t=14


and less 'pop'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWZKw_MgUPI

U2 should drop the religious act and just let the MacPhisto dollars and Zoo condoms fall where they may. U2 was a lot more fun when they focused more on sex, drugs, & rock and roll than the current group of guys who talk about faith and world leaders while chilling with Jay Z and Beyoncé on a yacht in the French Riveria.

There are many people out there who have suggested that Bono was the antichrist anyway. Clearly U2 wants a number one album chock full of hit singles (lots of 'em), what better way is there for a band who's chasing old magic than to chase the black magic instead?

Best idea I've heard in a while. BRING BACK THE FLY AND MACPHISTO! Bring back the leather, the attitude, and the dirty rock & roll!

 

[last unicorn]

Yeah, I'm sure a 54 year old running around with horns and shiny Las Vegas style costumes will be widely appreciated.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Yeah, I think people have a hard time remembering how long U2 have been around. They differ from Aerosmith in a few important respects, though.

Aerosmith always seemed like a 70s rock band, and seemed older in the 90s than U2 did in the mid 2000s for that reason.

U2's constant reinvention allowed to always be relevant and not seem old. They never seemed old because they were always basically a new band: new concept, new image, and new sound. With every album from 1980-2000.

Aerosmith committed suicide with I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing. Sure, it was a huge hit, but they became a joke then and have never recovered, which might be unfair, but that's what they get for inflicting that horror upon our ears. Seriously, fuck them.

U2 only started to seem old once they began relying on the most commercially successful elements of their 80s sound because it reminded us how old they actually were. It was a commercially successful move for the short term, but detrimental to them in the long term. If they had continued moving forward as they did for 20 years (if ATYCLB was a blip, not the new template) they wouldn't have the 'relevancy' problem that they do now.

They never seemed old because they weren't yet old.

They now seem old because they are fucking old.

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

Yeah, I'm sure a 54 year old running around with horns and shiny Las Vegas style costumes will be widely appreciated.

I'd rather see Bono do it than be subjected to Miley's attempts at Gene Simmons tongue tricks while running around practically naked and humping unsuspecting one hit wonders.

 

[Musikwala]

I really don't think Mrs. Garrison meant for his suggestion to be taken seriously.

 

[Aygo]

I wish I knew what "experimental" means.

For most users here, "experimental", means "electronic".
To me, it only means "out-of(-their-own)-box".

 

[Irvine511]

After 35 years, what does their "box" look and sound like?