Have U2's 21st century releases done irreparable damage to their legacy?

[lazarus]

This board has been Living on a Prayer for years now.

It's not likely to go out in a Blaze of Glory, either.

 

[Hollow Island]

It might be time for it to be shot down, though

 

[Hollow Island]

The damage that has been done to U2's rep can be mitigated by a great Achtung Baby 30th anniversary box set that includes unreleased an Zoo TV show. Do a lot of press, put it up on youtube so everyone can be reminded of what U2 really are...and then change course and be that brave band again.

I know it's not going to happen. The chart success of that weak Euro 2020 song will probably encourage them to continue striving for pop hirs. But they should really stop. I mean, do they really think that U2 should be making the same kind of music as Bono's kid?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i don't think being brave or taking risks is their issue.

decision making, however...

 

[dk42]

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.

 

[lazarus]

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.

 

[dk42]

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.

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.

 

[The Panther]

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.

Yes.

(I agree with all your points, btw.)

These is indeed something very "corporate" about U2, which not only stands in sharp contrast to their original mission as a band, but also in comparison to similarly-aged artists. Usually people reach an age at which they don't give a f*** anymore and just want to put out music when they feel like it, for whomever they want (Prince reached that stage when he was about 29!). Music for the sheer joy of creation, if you will -- put it out and let your (by now large) fanbase appreciate it if they want, or not.

But it's just not U2's way. They have to strategize every release and tour like it was the D-Day invasion with corporate sponsorship.

 

[womanfish]

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.

Nice post.

I agree that it sure would have been nice, or at least interesting/fascinating to see the band's progression if they would have stuck with Bono's Grammy acceptance for Zooropa and focused on fucking up the mainstream, instead of 6 years later "going back to the basics"

I've been very pleased with their most recent output with SOI and SOE. SOI being the stand out IMO. I would take over half the songs from SOI and SOE over anything from ATYCLB (except Kite) and Bomb (except Vertigo) I'd also take Cedars, Magnificent and No Line over most songs on Bomb and ATYCLB. Hell, I'd even throw in Fez and Moment of Surrender.

I think if they would have never teamed with Apple at all for SOI, the last two albums would feel more like they are genuinely doing music that matters to them and enjoy, and not really giving a shit. But the Apple team up (which forever changed their career) and SOE's inclusion of American Soul, the bland Get Out with oddly forced political lyrics shoved in, weaken an otherwise great album. I mean, I don't think you can listen to Love is All, 13, Landlady and Little Things, and not see that these are very personal heartfelt songs that are not created to be HITZ! Red Flag Day and Summer of Love being two others that 20 years ago could very well have been hits for them, and are just great songs as well.

Anyway, i enjoyed your post. I look forward to what's coming next for them, but with some real trepidation.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

In unusually pleasant news, season 2 of Ted Lasso had a complimentary U2 reference.

 

[Hollow Island]

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.

I always took "fuck up the mainstream" to mean bringing something strange and unusual to it, and they only did that for a brief period of their career. By 2000, they'd abandoned that desire, and ATYCLB was by no means analogous to Zoo TV - nu metal and boy bands were the rage, but melodic pop rock like ATYCLB was also hugely popular, and the album fit in with that stuff. Those singles fit perfectly between I'm Like A Bird, Drops of Jupiter and Scar Tissue. It fit in with the mainstream and had no desire to fuck it up. It's not like they dropped Kid A.

 

[lazarus]

I'd also say it's pretty reductive to say that Zooropa was merely "going a bit glam". There was absolutely nothing in popular music that sounded like that album, and I was listening to a fair amount of the industrial/dance music that inspired their 90s direction since 1988-1989. It still blew my mind because of where they (and Eno/Flood) took it. This is one of Bono's proclamations that was right on the money, because the biggest band of the world dropped that on an unsuspecting public, with a lead single featuring Edge doing a robotic rap. A lot of people took issue with Zooropa beating Smashing Pumpkins for that Grammy, and while I love Siamese Dream, it sounds like classic 70s stoner rock compared to what U2 was doing, which was looking into the future and delivering on the promise of what "Alternative" could be.

Had they actually released Passengers under their name, and I'm not saying they should have, it certainly would have delivered on him saying they were going to continue to fuck up the mainstream. By the time Pop came out, it just didn't stand out as much because electronica had already started to permeate the mainstream a year earlier, so you couldn't really fuck it up anymore. And by 2000, the radio and people's taste had become too democratic and equal-opportunity to really throw a curveball, and ATYCLB's relative traditionalism wasn't it either, as explained by Hollow Island above.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i mean i'm not going to pick apart every little detail other than to again restate that in order to fuck up the mainstream you need to, in fact, be in the mainstream/

U2 have always wanted to be popular. just because you like one direction better than another doesn't change that the fact that the shift in direction was still aimed at completing the goal of being a mainstream, popular band.

they didn't make the shift in style around achtung baby because they wanted to just focus on their art and not care about commercial success like, say, radiohead. they made the shift because they felt it was what was needed to remain on top.

their shift back in the 2000s was a good reading of the tea leaves. if they felt that staying the course would have been the best road? that's what they would have done. every decision they have made has been towards this goal. some decisions were good, some were bad. but this part of their being has remained incredibly consistent throughout their career.

in a way what we see now - their inability to turn that off - is the inevitable outcome of the constant shape shifting in pursuit of mainstream popularity.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.

ding ding ding

 

[Irvine511]

Yikes. By mini culture I meant “monoculture.”

 

[MrPryck2U]

You know, it's real crazy being a rock/pop/country/rap star for an extended period of time. Like decades. Look at Madonna. An artist who has been around almost as long as U2. She has reinvented her look, image, and sound over the last 4 decades. No easy feat. She's still trying to be "relevant" at the age of almost 62. Essentially, she's gonna do whatever she wants, and no one is gonna tell her no. She's Madonna. She's done plenty of shameless things over the years, couldn't care less, and moved on.
Now U2 are extremely relevant in my own life, but those darn young people couldn't care less or don't even know about them. U2 should focus on their "tribe" and not the people who don't want to be a part of it. Don't hire all these producers. With the world going to shit rapidly, there should be a wealth of ideas to draw inspiration. And finally, Bono needs a makeover.

 

[lazarus]

Yikes. By mini culture I meant “monoculture.”

I thought you meant Mini Hedge.

 

[The Panther]

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.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.

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.

U2 came through the other side and tried to run it back again.

I can't fault anyone for trying to hold on to their youth. We all do. It's hard accepting that you're an old now and to just be comfortable in your oldness.

But when it's in your face and obvious you either adjust and adapt or make yourself look pretty god damn lame. It's as true for you and I as it is for a rock band.

U2 is the old guy in the club who can't figure out that it's okay to go to bed at 9'o'clock on a Saturday night every now and then.

 

[DaveC]

"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.

 

[Hollow Island]

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.

Absolutely. And the success of that album made them stay as that version of U2. Some time between 2000 and 2004 they went from being U2 to being "U2." Like they have an idea of the band that they have to actualize rather than just being a band.

 

[Hollow Island]

"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.

good for their bank accounts, bad for their art.

 

[Hollow Island]

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.

Same thing happened with Bowie around 2000. He realized he wasn't going to have hits any more and just set out to make the music he wanted to make, knowing that he had an audience that liked what he did. He drew from different eras of his past for each album (while still trying new things), and it worked out very well. His run from Heathen to Blackstar provided a roadmap for U2 (and every other old artist), but U2 are stuck in Rolling Stones c.1997 mode. Dust Brothers producing the Stones...wtf.

 

[danm]

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.

At the end of the day, U2 are now in the position of many other legacy artists/bands - most people outside of their diehard fan base (i.e. us) don’t care too much about their new material, but their back catalogue is still very popular and they are still huge as a live act.

Springsteen, the Stones, Dylan, Bowie and Prince when they were alive etc - all still are/were huge live acts, but most people won’t be able to name a song of theirs from the last 10/20 years, or even longer for some of the older acts.

At the end of the day, U2 have now been around for over 40 years. Their peak was the mid 80’s to the early 90’s, with another commercially successful period between 2000-2005. It isn’t conceivable for them to continue having that sort of commercial success with their new material this late into their careers, and they shouldn’t chase it either.

I really like SOE, some of the songs on SOI and about 2/3rds of NLOTH. However, songs like Get on Your Boots, the Miracle of Joey Ramone and Get Out of Your Own Way were all misguided attempts to try and have another Elevation/Beautiful Day/Vertigo style radio hit. They should ditch that idea and just make music without trying to stay “relevant” or chasing a hit.

 

[lazarus]

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.

 

[danm]

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.

 

[MrPryck2U]

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.

 

[mikal]

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.

No one is right and no one is wrong here, especially an opinion of if something was overblown. And no evidence can prove that opinion to be right or wrong.