No! Its quite the oposite! If you read carefully what i just wrote, i said exactly what you mean. In my own expierence i had to learn to expect diferent things from U2 because of ther growth and mine! I think there is no more perfect example than ATYCLB. Apart from expecting good songs, i was sure that they would not deliver another JT or UABRS. They were at their 40's and it would be weird if they showed the same young rebel atitude. Although sometimes i wonder why they sounded much more mature on Running to Stand Still than Elevation for example...
And with this new album all i expect is some good songs, beautiful crafted hamornies and two or three words about the problems the wolrd has today, but from a man's point of view.
I still think you are projecting way too much of your own expectations and judgements about their lifestyle and the resulting quality (or lack there of) of the work, which is what I was specifically addressing.
We are saying similar things in these last couple of posts...but they are actually quite different if you take into consideration the context of both of our prior posts over the last few weeks. I've read many of your previous posts claiming that they (U2) can't reproduce a new album in the same successful mode of prior albums (which you obviously hold in high regards) because of the point they are at in their careers, their lifestyle, complacency after achieving a certain amount of success, etc.(or so you claim)
You've consistently built your argument based around those "observations" and "inferences" (not necessarily facts) that they have reached their perverbial musical peak. You have conveniently refered to your own selective "observations" and "inferences" to build your "opinions" around. Others on the board have more than stated their own valid cases based on other things they have noticed and referenced, which opposed your views...to which you kind of berated and wrote off simply because they don't match your own "opinions"...and vice versa I might add.
MY POINT? That IN MY OPINION they are still making great music that is very relevant now and in many cases better crafted, written, and much better performed than in years past; due impart to them finally honing their craft and using their knowledge and experience to create music that could only be made at this point of their careers as a result. But does my comment make me someone that "blindly loves everything U2"? Of course not, I can name a large number of their songs and an album or two from their expansive catalogue that I despise. I have my favorites, just like anyone else. They just happen to span the band's ENTIRE career...not just selected eras.
Do I want another Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby? HELL NO....I've already got two of those...I want something different...something great...but different. It seems to me that you may not share that view. You and a variety of people want reprises of the albums you love so dearly. The band doesn't repeat themselves...so I think you might be out of luck.
Artists grow over time, as does their interests, influences, and life. Just like the changing seasons can affect the fruit on the vine so does the what you do with the fruit once its picked.
If you want to fault U2 for achieving success and "flaunting it" then say THAT.
If you want to fault U2 for not being "experimental enough" then say THAT.
If you want to fault U2 for not being "rebellious enough" or "angst ridden enough" or "meloncholy enough" then say THAT.
Or just simply say that U2 are not "good enough"
Just don't try to convince everyone that all of those things are necessarily linked together and are FACT...because in the end they are your OPINION.
I think thats what people are trying to get across to you.
