Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
This is painful to read.
And rather inaccurate too.
This is painful to read.
2) This is the best they can do. Which is still incidentally better then most, well all, rock bands who have been around 35 years can do.
Bands of U2's age or older that have made better albums over this decade, off the top of my head
Rush
Depeche Mode
Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds (grew out of The Birthday Party)
Mission of Burma
New Order
The Rolling Stones
There are more. Add solo artists and there are more still.
Not sure Nick Cave counts.
What the goddamn shit are you talking about
Fair but even if it was a fully democratic thing (and I'm 99% certain that the music is written and recorded with The Bad Seeds, just not the lyrics) the result would be the same. TBS are not at all interested in writing recording and releasing music that's gonna land them a "hit" or "relevancy".
So, to recap:
Nick Cave & Bad Seeds do that count b/c it's not a democracy, though others get writing credits.
Mission of Burma do that count b/c of a break.
Rush font count b/c they're Rush.
DM don't count b/c they haven't stepped outside of their comfort zone (even though Exviter and the Hillier trilogy are farther from their classic sound than anything U2 have done since Pop).
New Order don't count for the same reason.
Stones don't count b/c their last album was covers. Does their debut not count either?
They've all made better albums than SOI in the last few years.
Wire, there's another one! Can't wait to see why they don't count.
There's nothing remarkable about U2's output for a 35 year old band, just as it wasn't for 30 or 25 or 20.
There's nothing remarkable about U2's output for a 35 year old band, just as it wasn't for 30 or 25 or 20.
Very true, in fact most of us are here because we took a wrong turn looking for the UB40 forum.
I think the point is that literally none of those bands' albums in the last 10 yrs was actually better than SOI.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
They're still a very good band, obviously, but there are other bands of their vintage or older whose most recent album is better, or who put out records around 09 better than NLOTH. Just as there are bands that at 20 years old made records better than ATYCLB.
Throw solo artists in there and it's even worse, but the U2 supremacist side on this argument needs as narrow a field as possible, as is shown by all the disqualifications.
Most of us are here are probably here because of what they did between 83 and 93 though.
AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH :lmao HAHAHAHAHHAHAHhahhahahhahahahahhahah oh man that's some funny shit
This song alone is better than everything on SOI rolled into one
Hahaha objectively
Objectively Skeleton Tree was more acclaimed than anything U2 has released since 2000. And there's about five other albums from the man that could boast the same.
It's funny that SOI is held up as some kind of creative high water mark that's unachievable by anyone over 50 when it received some of the worst reviews of their career.
This song alone is better than everything on SOI rolled into one
AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH :lmao HAHAHAHAHHAHAHhahhahahhahahahahhahah oh man that's some funny shit
This song alone is better than everything on SOI rolled into one
So, is Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band also a band? How about Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers?
I understand you're in murkier water with Cave because Ellis (at least) writes music with him, but again, not a democracy.
The point being made is that it's hard to keep a BAND going for this long, one where there isn't one person with the final say on everything, and especially in U2 where everyone's opinion is given relatively equal weight (and what allows an idiot like Larry to keep Mercy from being on The Bomb at the last minute). It's why solo artists (however you want to define that) are able to keep going at a higher level because they don't have to compromise with anyone. So I don't think it's fair to bring Skeleton Tree into this.
As for SOI, can we at least agree that it's divisive? Some people think it's their worst, or one of their worst. Some think it's the best since the 90s. So of course we're going to have these wildly divergent opinions. And don't drag Metacritic scores into it because you know many of those negative reviews were biased due to the delivery method. I'm not saying it would have been universally raved, but it likely would have been more in the neighborhood of the last 3 (in the 70s).
My own opinion, as I've said many times, is that I think the first half is filled with over-production and unfortunate tinkering. But I do believe that second half is better than what any of those bands have put out in the last 10 years (longer in most cases).
So, is Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band also a band? How about Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers?
I understand you're in murkier water with Cave because Ellis (at least) writes music with him, but again, not a democracy.
The point being made is that it's hard to keep a BAND going for this long, one where there isn't one person with the final say on everything, and especially in U2 where everyone's opinion is given relatively equal weight (and what allows an idiot like Larry to keep Mercy from being on The Bomb at the last minute). It's why solo artists (however you want to define that) are able to keep going at a higher level because they don't have to compromise with anyone. So I don't think it's fair to bring Skeleton Tree into this.
As for SOI, can we at least agree that it's divisive? Some people think it's their worst, or one of their worst. Some think it's the best since the 90s. So of course we're going to have these wildly divergent opinions. And don't drag Metacritic scores into it because you know many of those negative reviews were biased due to the delivery method. I'm not saying it would have been universally raved, but it likely would have been more in the neighborhood of the last 3 (in the 70s).
My own opinion, as I've said many times, is that I think the first half is filled with over-production and unfortunate tinkering. But I do believe that second half is better than what any of those bands have put out in the last 10 years (longer in most cases).
Cave and Ellis. Springsteen, Neil Young too. Musical and lyrical geniuses,, hence the longetivity. U2 simply are not in this league, hence the recent struggles.
Period.