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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
No matter how well they did (which is something you can indeed argue) both songs have created more awareness that U2 still exists than any of their singles in the last 15 years except for Beautiful Day and Vertigo (and arguably Elevation).

Which is about as much as you could possibly want to achieve when you don't yet have an album available to release anyway.
 
Who cares about U2 (besides hardcore fans, rainbow press) anyway?

Honestly .... and I should not ask this question in a fan-forum ... as there are 1000 reasons why one should care.

But in "public" .. who would wait for new U2 music?

I just want some decent songs on the new album ... and that is subject to my personal definition of "decent" .... yes .. I guess I have it ... EPIC !!!!
 
No matter how well they did (which is something you can indeed argue) both songs have created more awareness that U2 still exists than any of their singles in the last 15 years except for Beautiful Day and Vertigo (and arguably Elevation).

Which is about as much as you could possibly want to achieve when you don't yet have an album available to release anyway.

This :thumbup:

Sent from my GT-I9300 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
Even if the band would be in their early 30s, after 12 albums you can't really expect something drastically different. Especially considering how much they already explored on those 12 albums.

I would think that anything that is within their reach has been covered in one way or another by now.
So they can only aim to become better at certain aspects of making music.
 
Well it's now April Fools Day here in Australia... I'm expecting some kind of bullshit U2 announcement within the next 24 hours, either about their album or they've broken up. Just remember, don't believe anything you read today!
 
Well it's now April Fools Day here in Australia... I'm expecting some kind of bullshit U2 announcement within the next 24 hours, either about their album or they've broken up. Just remember, don't believe anything you read today!

U2 are releasing 14 Australia only albums tomorrow and will tour Australia exclusively from May 1st 2014, till June 30th 2022, performing 8 shows a week (every night plus matinees on Saturday), spending several weeks at a time in each major city, playing setlists as requested by fans, the only exception being Acrobat will open every show.
 
No matter how well they did (which is something you can indeed argue) both songs have created more awareness that U2 still exists than any of their singles in the last 15 years except for Beautiful Day and Vertigo (and arguably Elevation).

Which is about as much as you could possibly want to achieve when you don't yet have an album available to release anyway.

Well there's certainly no doubt about that.

Though considering U2 only had three lead "singles" prior to Invisible/OL in the past 15 years, and two of those three singles, as you said, created more "awareness" of U2 than either of those, I'm not sure that's saying much. Also, let's face it, one of those song's awareness is largely because of its Oscar nomination, and the other was attached to two of the most watched television events of the year. I'm not so sure the songs themselves made that much of an impact...Oh, this one is just a soundtrack song...this one is just a free charity single... No one expects them to do that great, right?

In any event, it all seems much ado about nothing. All this "awareness", and then...what? No album, just a lot of press stories about revolving producers, frustrated song writing and more delays. So what did they "achieve" other than reminding people they're around, some mixed press, and ending Aids in Africa?
 
They achieved being in the public eye and on the radio more with these 2 songs than they were with all the combined singles of their last album.
Which decreases the gap with their potential audience.
 
Which decreases the gap with their potential audience.

That's a very interesting point. They have their longtime fans, who will undoubtely buy their new record - Can U2 attract new fans?

If I were in my 20ies ... or even a teenager .. I don't know if I would start listening to a band in their mid 50's ..

And People in "our age" .. know U2 for "decades" .. and either love or hate them .. or ignore them ...

So my question would be: Besides U2's fans ... who would be a potential audience?
 
Whilst I think grand departures are pretty much off the table at this point, there are one or two simple things the band could do that would at least make it appear as though they are making a break with the past to recapture some attention.

Like changing the way they look.

The bands image has been all but identical for about 15 years now, a world away from the band of the 80's and 90's, whose aesthetic was constantly in flux, every album had a its own visual identity.

Image is everything in the music industry and its a hell of a lot easier to create the impression of change, rather than actually changing anything at a fundamental level.

As most people only ever focus on the frontman, he is the one that has to be seen to be changing most radically. Just take a look at a band like Queen, Freddie Mercury's image altered dramatically through the years, creating the impression of multiple incarnations even when the music stayed pretty much exactly the same. It didn't matter that his fellow band members never followed his example, his ever-changing identity was enough to keep people engaged.

Bono could lose the shades and jacket and try something different. The music staying the same is one thing, but when the image stays the same as well it just compounds matters and people simply presume they've seen in all before.

They also wouldn't have to necessarily overhaul their sound either, part of the problem with the more recent material is that an awful lot of it is a bit too sanitised. But something that touches a nerve in the listenership, that confronts them with something they're a little uncomfortable with might make the tune lodge a bit longer in the brain than its 3 minute duration.

ZOO TV had vaguely controversial connotations and could occasionally challenge the audience with something deeply uncomfortable. It made the work stand out all the more amid the glut of mainstream music. Maybe the band could try something like this again.

Anything that creates an impression and gets people interested in the band again (and that's what I think is missing, people just don't seem very interested in U2 right now ) is exactly the kind of thing they need at this point.
 
Everytime Bono cuts his hair they lose their fans. That's a simple fix. He should just wear a wig until it grows out.

Edge needs a new fucking hat. I honestly just want to slap that thing off him at this point.
 
Edge needs a new fucking hat. I honestly just want to slap that thing off him at this point.

yes he needs one of these

pharrell-hat.jpg
 
Whilst I think grand departures are pretty much off the table at this point, there are one or two simple things the band could do that would at least make it appear as though they are making a break with the past to recapture some attention.

Like changing the way they look.

The bands image has been all but identical for about 15 years now, a world away from the band of the 80's and 90's, whose aesthetic was constantly in flux, every album had a its own visual identity.

Image is everything in the music industry and its a hell of a lot easier to create the impression of change, rather than actually changing anything at a fundamental level.

As most people only ever focus on the frontman, he is the one that has to be seen to be changing most radically. Just take a look at a band like Queen, Freddie Mercury's image altered dramatically through the years, creating the impression of multiple incarnations even when the music stayed pretty much exactly the same. It didn't matter that his fellow band members never followed his example, his ever-changing identity was enough to keep people engaged.

Bono could lose the shades and jacket and try something different. The music staying the same is one thing, but when the image stays the same as well it just compounds matters and people simply presume they've seen in all before.

They also wouldn't have to necessarily overhaul their sound either, part of the problem with the more recent material is that an awful lot of it is a bit too sanitised. But something that touches a nerve in the listenership, that confronts them with something they're a little uncomfortable with might make the tune lodge a bit longer in the brain than its 3 minute duration.

ZOO TV had vaguely controversial connotations and could occasionally challenge the audience with something deeply uncomfortable. It made the work stand out all the more amid the glut of mainstream music. Maybe the band could try something like this again.

Anything that creates an impression and gets people interested in the band again (and that's what I think is missing, people just don't seem very interested in U2 right now ) is exactly the kind of thing they need at this point.


Well-put all around.
 
Re: Image

Bono-
It's not possible for him to grow his hair long anymore; the last time he did was 2004 and it looked terrible. Add 10 years to that it wouldn't work at all.
What he has now is IMO awful to begin with on anyone, but on him it just doesn't work at all. Maybe for a 23 year old male model, I dunno, but I know it just looks silly on him. I think his best hair in the last decade was at Glastonbury 2011. The leather looked good too.
What can he do now? Beats me....write great lyrics and sing well?

Edge-
Yes, the beanie is old news, but what else can he do? I'd vote for the bandana like early AB era.

Adam-
Why is the hair so long on top? Again, that's something for a guy half his age.

Larry-
Never changes so never mind.
 
Re: Image

Bono-
It's not possible for him to grow his hair long anymore; the last time he did was 2004 and it looked terrible. Add 10 years to that it wouldn't work at all.
What he has now is IMO awful to begin with on anyone, but on him it just doesn't work at all. Maybe for a 23 year old male model, I dunno, but I know it just looks silly on him. I think his best hair in the last decade was at Glastonbury 2011. The leather looked good too.
What can he do now? Beats me....write great lyrics and sing well?

Edge-
Yes, the beanie is old news, but what else can he do? I'd vote for the bandana like early AB era.

Adam-
Why is the hair so long on top? Again, that's something for a guy half his age.

Larry-
Never changes so never mind.

seriously?

who gives a sh!t about image at this stage?

just a few good songs would be nice...
 
Re: Image

Bono-
It's not possible for him to grow his hair long anymore; the last time he did was 2004 and it looked terrible. Add 10 years to that it wouldn't work at all.
What he has now is IMO awful to begin with on anyone, but on him it just doesn't work at all. Maybe for a 23 year old male model, I dunno, but I know it just looks silly on him. I think his best hair in the last decade was at Glastonbury 2011. The leather looked good too.
What can he do now? Beats me....write great lyrics and sing well?

Edge-
Yes, the beanie is old news, but what else can he do? I'd vote for the bandana like early AB era.

Adam-
Why is the hair so long on top? Again, that's something for a guy half his age.

Larry-
Never changes so never mind.

Bono's got to lose the shades and leathers. Dress like a normal person. Dress well, but like a normal person. He looks like an aged rock star, and that doesn't help anyone be relevant.

The other guys look fine. Who cares about what they wear, unless Edge is wearing a mic on his head like a ponce.
 
Whilst I think grand departures are pretty much off the table at this point, there are one or two simple things the band could do that would at least make it appear as though they are making a break with the past to recapture some attention.

Like changing the way they look.

The bands image has been all but identical for about 15 years now, a world away from the band of the 80's and 90's, whose aesthetic was constantly in flux, every album had a its own visual identity.

Image is everything in the music industry and its a hell of a lot easier to create the impression of change, rather than actually changing anything at a fundamental level.

As most people only ever focus on the frontman, he is the one that has to be seen to be changing most radically. Just take a look at a band like Queen, Freddie Mercury's image altered dramatically through the years, creating the impression of multiple incarnations even when the music stayed pretty much exactly the same. It didn't matter that his fellow band members never followed his example, his ever-changing identity was enough to keep people engaged.

Bono could lose the shades and jacket and try something different. The music staying the same is one thing, but when the image stays the same as well it just compounds matters and people simply presume they've seen in all before.

They also wouldn't have to necessarily overhaul their sound either, part of the problem with the more recent material is that an awful lot of it is a bit too sanitised. But something that touches a nerve in the listenership, that confronts them with something they're a little uncomfortable with might make the tune lodge a bit longer in the brain than its 3 minute duration.

ZOO TV had vaguely controversial connotations and could occasionally challenge the audience with something deeply uncomfortable. It made the work stand out all the more amid the glut of mainstream music. Maybe the band could try something like this again.

Anything that creates an impression and gets people interested in the band again (and that's what I think is missing, people just don't seem very interested in U2 right now ) is exactly the kind of thing they need at this point.

:up::up::up:

Re: Image

Bono-
It's not possible for him to grow his hair long anymore; the last time he did was 2004 and it looked terrible. Add 10 years to that it wouldn't work at all.
What he has now is IMO awful to begin with on anyone, but on him it just doesn't work at all. Maybe for a 23 year old male model, I dunno, but I know it just looks silly on him. I think his best hair in the last decade was at Glastonbury 2011. The leather looked good too.
What can he do now? Beats me....write great lyrics and sing well?

Edge-
Yes, the beanie is old news, but what else can he do? I'd vote for the bandana like early AB era.

Adam-
Why is the hair so long on top? Again, that's something for a guy half his age.

Larry-
Never changes so never mind.

embrace their age.. Neil Young looks old. He also looks cool as fuck. Pearl Jam.. same story.

leave the dyes, and tight leather behind.. stay fit, dress well, but dont try and sell yourself as 33, if you're 53

sincerely,
an aging, balding fan.
 
Fuck it! Let's just cut to the chase and ask Bono not to be Bono anymore. That's just not relevant anymore. Go back to being Paul. Real names are all the rage in the 2010's.


Of course, I'm being sarcastic.
 
Back
Top Bottom