lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
This board has been Living on a Prayer for years now.
It's not likely to go out in a Blaze of Glory, either.
This board has been Living on a Prayer for years now.
Points taken but Chaos and Disorder was a compilation of outtakes released to fulfill his record contract with Warner Bros and he did zero promotion for it, so not really an example of what he was trying to put out at the time (Emancipation later that year being his official output.
Yes.That's true, though I do like stuff he put out in the 90s however, most notably The Love Symbol Album and The Gold Experience, I might refer more to his 2000s output in this case as it's just quite inconsistent (though solid stuff in there). Sometimes the guy could've used an editor. But if you're that prolific, it is kind of inevitable. Same thing with Neil Young., Elvis Costello, David Bowie etc.
U2 are the opposite, they could be producing more music, but just don't. They're just a touring machine, stuck in the outdated record/promote/tour cycle.
Legacy is a fascinating idea to me, because it is not something I really care about. Of course, I am not in a very famous band, so I can't imagine this isn't something that people in bands think about, at least once in awhile.
The funny thing, albeit probably not very surprising, is that bands that do not tend to care about it, flourish creatively. A key example would be Radiohead, who have maintained an exciting career full of experimentation and evolution. You can tell they don't really care, hell they all didn't even show up for their Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction, which I quite appreciated. Maybe it's a British thing too, which Ed alluded too as they're not fixated on that sort of adulation. They always found the Grammys to be hilarious and bizarre (which I agree with). This is clearly the opposite view of U2, who seem to think this means something beyond life itself.
The thing about legacy though is who cares about "the music post-97" or whatever? I mean, does U2 releasing HTDAAB dilute their classic output? You can simply choose to not listen to anything post-1997. I mean, yeah, maybe NLOTH isn't amazing (though I think it's generally solid), but I love Cedars of Lebanon and would be sad to live in a world in which it doesn't exist and that's the case for a number of other songs as well.
I mean, Prince, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, they've each put out well over 30+ albums and I don't think any of them give the slightest shit about legacy. Granted they're also solo artists. But does Prince's Chaos and Disorder ruin Parade for me? Do any of Neil Young's mediocre 80s albums ruin his incredible 70s run? Same thing with Dylan, albeit he has continued to put out solid stuff, which I am sure his die hard fans adore (I'm not a huge Dylan fan admittedly).
U2 are just a fundamentally different beast, they're a corporation at this point. But they always have had ambition and wanted to be this big and guess what? They did it. Of course, that comes with a lot of negatives too. Then there's Bono, which is a whole separation discussion.
I became a U2 fan with ATYCLB, so I can't hate it. I associate that record with one of the happiest years of my life and have many memories of listening to it during the summer of 2002. I sadly didn't see them on the Elevation Tour, but everything I've seen and read about it tells me it was one of their finest tours. They sounded incredible, fully revitalized and played the hell out of those shows.
I think their legacy as a live act remains pretty positive, even if their musical legacy is in question. I dunno, I am in my 30s and feel like a bit of a loner when it comes to my U2 appreciation. I suppose that makes them all the more special to me, in a corny sort of way. Anyway, whether one of them dies or they break up/call it quits, I think their legacy will be solid. Hell, even some of their ardent haters will probably fess up to liking Streets or Pride or something.
I mean when SOI was released, their discography was all over the top ten selling albums in iTunes, so clearly there was interest. If they had simply made the download optional a la Invisible, all the backlash would've been avoided though. We will probably see something like that when they're done and I hope we get more rarities. Nonetheless, I love this band and always will and I will certainly make a case for them to anyone who will give them a chance.
I love when the "fucking up the mainstream" quote comes up. It's so misunderstood and misinterpreted around here.
Please note that he didn't say "fuck the mainstream."
In order to fuck up the mainstream you need to be a part of the mainstream.
A 20 year old band breaking through in an era of boy bands and nu-metal with an earnest rock record is just as much an example of "fucking up the mainstream" as going a bit glam while everyone else was going grunge was.
The issue with them now isn't that they aren't trying to fuck up the mainstream anymore.
The issue is that they are.
They'll move on to their next phase when they still caring about the mainstream.
They also come from a different time. The mini culture that existed from The Beatles until maybe 2007ish has vanished — in 1987 “biggest band in the world/only band that matters” was a real thing that meant something. U2 was that band in 87/88, 92/3, and 2001. You also had a meaningful underground at this time because there was this mainstream to subvert.
They still seem to have this mentality. Which is why their pursuit of modernity for the sake of this goal makes them look anachronistic. It’s self-defeating.
Yikes. By mini culture I meant “monoculture.”
In retrospect, U2's third wave of mainstream American/international success from late 2000 to 2005 is the worst thing that happened to them. It filled them with the pompous misbelief that they could continue to be pop stars against 19-year-olds as they approached their mid-40s and 50s.
Had the 2000 album tanked, maybe we'd by now have seen several more records, more caution thrown to the wind by the band.
In retrospect, U2's third wave of mainstream American/international success from late 2000 to 2005 is the worst thing that happened to them. It filled them with the pompous misbelief that they could continue to be pop stars against 19-year-olds as they approached their mid-40s and 50s.
Had the 2000 album tanked, maybe we'd by now have seen several more records, more caution thrown to the wind by the band.
"in retrospect, the success of all that you can't leave behind was the worst thing that happened to us", said U2, wondering what could have been while drying their tears with $1000 bills.
Nah. I can't buy this.
I mean Springsteen saw a rebirth with The Rising and Magic, yet somehow he managed to fall into the same trap. In fact he even TRIED to have a massive breakthrough again with Wrecking Ball, and has been quoted as saying that he was surprised when it didn't and questioned whether or not the world needed new Springsteen music. So he went through the same doubt process that U2 have gone through - but came out the other end with a shrug and acceptance.
I think sometimes people overplay the Apple Music/Songs of Innocence debacle. Most people will have forgotten about it, it’s only the media that constantly reference it when discussing contemporary U2.
How many times are we going to do this? You're wrong. We've provided ample evidence multiple times that it still gets made fun of by the general public, and frequently.
I don’t follow the ins and outs of this thread. But I would highly doubt 90% of the general public remember or care that much that a U2 album appeared on their phone. It was 7 years ago now.
U2 are still a massive draw as a live act, and that’s all you can ask for at this stage of their career. They’re not going to churn out culturally significant albums in the way they did in the 80s and early 90s anymore. No legacy act does.
They still have a lot to offer with their new music and I like quite a lot of their latter output, but they’re beyond the point where it’s going to resonate to any great degree with those outside the fan base. And that shouldn’t be a problem 40 years in to their career. They’ve achieved everything from a commercial standpoint.
How many times are we going to do this? You're wrong. We've provided ample evidence multiple times that it still gets made fun of by the general public, and frequently.