U2 Still has a great album in them

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Artists need to hold consistent with the lines in their songs. U2 should have never done anything that glorifies the past, and The Who should have offed themselves at 33 to avoid getting old.
Click to expand...



I was just thinking about this on my run yesterday.

U2 stopped being cool when they started being all “we love Green Day” and “we are punk rock” and “David Bowie is a legend” and blah blah blah. When you’re a brand new band you’re way too focused on trying (and failing) to be who you idolize, but that “failure” is actually those dose of creativity that makes you you.

Somewhere around the 90s U2 emerged as off doing whatever the fuck they wanted, and that was when they really really turned into “their own thing.”

Somewhere around the 2000s, we will say Elevation, they started being focused on image and on doing whatever it takes to make their glorified past a present thing.
 
It all went wrong when the Sweetest Thing became a bigger hit than anything from Zooropa, OST 1 and Pop, and 1980-1990 received more praise than Pop. It followed Popmart by only 8 months or so - Popmart ended in the spring, friendly 80s U2 returned in the fall. Queue a "back to basics" album and speeches from the stage about "the north side of Dublin"...for the next 20 years.
 
To put this into perspective, in one-year-and-a-half from now, Adam Clayton will be the same age as B.B. King in the Rattle & Hum movie.

By 1987, it had been 14 years since King's previous top-40 single. Sound familiar?
 
I've said this before, but I think U2's biggest problem is that they didn't lean in to their U2-ness in the right way after ATYCLB. ATYCLB was a big pop smash because, to most, it felt good to hear U2 singing anthemic rock songs again and the album sounded completely sincere.

Since then, it's been a futile chase for pop culture relevancy with extremely diminishing returns.

The best comparison here is Bruce Springsteen. I've attended multiple shows on every tour since the Reunion. I was 13 at the time and easily the youngest person there. The '99 Reunion was a nice nostalgia trip but, culturally speaking, Bruce was pretty irrelevant. Then 9/11 happened and, like U2, Bruce seized the moment with a culturally relevant album and an incredible tour that brought people together.

The difference is that, while U2 went hunting for radio gold again, Bruce realized that Dancing in the Dark was 25 years old and he wasn't going back there again. So he just kept on being Bruce. He wrote songs about American life and small town girls and the plight of the working class. They sounded like Bruce. The tours were marathon shows with a joyful parade of goofy fun and community on stage. It was hokey, but who gives a shit? It was awesome. And then, around this time, Bruce settled into a comfortable role as an elder statesman of rock. The Killers and The Arcade Fire and basically every other up and coming band started listing him as a major influence. They made songs blatantly ripping him off. He became *cool* again. Every show I've gone to since the Magic tour has gotten younger and younger. He didn't chase relevance. It came to him. Fast forward to last year and he wrote an album inspired by 1960s Glen Campbell records and it turned out to be one of the most acclaimed albums of his *career.*

Our boys are different. They should have owned the fact that "yes, we write weird indie-rock anthems. Yup, I'm the guy on stage waving white flags and screaming about rebel songs." Instead, we got some strange disco remix in a stadium and then a complaint that "the audience wasn't groovy enough," to enjoy a techno remix to a shitty pop song they wrote in 2009. No, Bono. It wasn't the audience that wasn't groovy enough - the US was at the beginning of an EDM explosion at the time. It's that it just wasn't good and, frankly, the band seemed like a bunch of try-hards. The guy who's been at the club 15 years past his expiration date.

It's not to say that the music should be U2-by-numbers. It's that if they would have just owned their weirdness - their penchant for sonic experimentation mixed with big anthemic numbers - they would have fit right in with Bruce and Tom Petty as bands that are even cooler *because* they're old. While U2 was busy desperately trying to get in to the cool clubs wearing last year's fashion, Bruce was sitting at his regular neighborhood bar, and everyone was coming to see him. It's a shame they didn't see it that way.
 
The John Tree said:
I've said this before, but I think U2's biggest problem is that they didn't lean in to their U2-ness in the right way after ATYCLB. ATYCLB was a big pop smash because, to most, it felt good to hear U2 singing anthemic rock songs again and the album sounded completely sincere.

Since then, it's been a futile chase for pop culture relevancy with extremely diminishing returns.

The best comparison here is Bruce Springsteen. I've attended multiple shows on every tour since the Reunion. I was 13 at the time and easily the youngest person there. The '99 Reunion was a nice nostalgia trip but, culturally speaking, Bruce was pretty irrelevant. Then 9/11 happened and, like U2, Bruce seized the moment with a culturally relevant album and an incredible tour that brought people together.

The difference is that, while U2 went hunting for radio gold again, Bruce realized that Dancing in the Dark was 25 years old and he wasn't going back there again. So he just kept on being Bruce. He wrote songs about American life and small town girls and the plight of the working class. They sounded like Bruce. The tours were marathon shows with a joyful parade of goofy fun and community on stage. It was hokey, but who gives a shit? It was awesome. And then, around this time, Bruce settled into a comfortable role as an elder statesman of rock. The Killers and The Arcade Fire and basically every other up and coming band started listing him as a major influence. They made songs blatantly ripping him off. He became *cool* again. Every show I've gone to since the Magic tour has gotten younger and younger. He didn't chase relevance. It came to him. Fast forward to last year and he wrote an album inspired by 1960s Glen Campbell records and it turned out to be one of the most acclaimed albums of his *career.*

Our boys are different. They should have owned the fact that "yes, we write weird indie-rock anthems. Yup, I'm the guy on stage waving white flags and screaming about rebel songs." Instead, we got some strange disco remix in a stadium and then a complaint that "the audience wasn't groovy enough," to enjoy a techno remix to a shitty pop song they wrote in 2009. No, Bono. It wasn't the audience that wasn't groovy enough - the US was at the beginning of an EDM explosion at the time. It's that it just wasn't good and, frankly, the band seemed like a bunch of try-hards. The guy who's been at the club 15 years past his expiration date.

It's not to say that the music should be U2-by-numbers. It's that if they would have just owned their weirdness - their penchant for sonic experimentation mixed with big anthemic numbers - they would have fit right in with Bruce and Tom Petty as bands that are even cooler *because* they're old. While U2 was busy desperately trying to get in to the cool clubs wearing last year's fashion, Bruce was sitting at his regular neighborhood bar, and everyone was coming to see him. It's a shame they didn't see it that way.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif

Excellent post.

(My only real disappointment in Springsteen is his silly Broadway show... God, that's horrible. At least U2 hasn't gone there.... yet.)
 
The John Tree said:
I've said this before, but I think U2's biggest problem is that they didn't lean in to their U2-ness in the right way after ATYCLB. ATYCLB was a big pop smash because, to most, it felt good to hear U2 singing anthemic rock songs again and the album sounded completely sincere.



Since then, it's been a futile chase for pop culture relevancy with extremely diminishing returns.



The best comparison here is Bruce Springsteen. I've attended multiple shows on every tour since the Reunion. I was 13 at the time and easily the youngest person there. The '99 Reunion was a nice nostalgia trip but, culturally speaking, Bruce was pretty irrelevant. Then 9/11 happened and, like U2, Bruce seized the moment with a culturally relevant album and an incredible tour that brought people together.



The difference is that, while U2 went hunting for radio gold again, Bruce realized that Dancing in the Dark was 25 years old and he wasn't going back there again. So he just kept on being Bruce. He wrote songs about American life and small town girls and the plight of the working class. They sounded like Bruce. The tours were marathon shows with a joyful parade of goofy fun and community on stage. It was hokey, but who gives a shit? It was awesome. And then, around this time, Bruce settled into a comfortable role as an elder statesman of rock. The Killers and The Arcade Fire and basically every other up and coming band started listing him as a major influence. They made songs blatantly ripping him off. He became *cool* again. Every show I've gone to since the Magic tour has gotten younger and younger. He didn't chase relevance. It came to him. Fast forward to last year and he wrote an album inspired by 1960s Glen Campbell records and it turned out to be one of the most acclaimed albums of his *career.*



Our boys are different. They should have owned the fact that "yes, we write weird indie-rock anthems. Yup, I'm the guy on stage waving white flags and screaming about rebel songs." Instead, we got some strange disco remix in a stadium and then a complaint that "the audience wasn't groovy enough," to enjoy a techno remix to a shitty pop song they wrote in 2009. No, Bono. It wasn't the audience that wasn't groovy enough - the US was at the beginning of an EDM explosion at the time. It's that it just wasn't good and, frankly, the band seemed like a bunch of try-hards. The guy who's been at the club 15 years past his expiration date.



It's not to say that the music should be U2-by-numbers. It's that if they would have just owned their weirdness - their penchant for sonic experimentation mixed with big anthemic numbers - they would have fit right in with Bruce and Tom Petty as bands that are even cooler *because* they're old. While U2 was busy desperately trying to get in to the cool clubs wearing last year's fashion, Bruce was sitting at his regular neighborhood bar, and everyone was coming to see him. It's a shame they didn't see it that way.
Click to expand...

The only thing I might change here is to say that All That You Can't Leave Behind had been out for almost a year and was already huge prior to 9/11 - so U2 didn't really seize that moment. They just happened to be the right hand at the right time. Minor detail.

Also Bruce was very disappointed at the lack of commercial success that Wrecking Ball had - so much so that he hasn't written a new E Street album since (although that could change quite soon as apparently he's sitting on one and just waiting for the right time to drop it).

Minor details for sure - but other than that your post is dead on balls accurate.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
It was a joke but I guess everyone turned off the dark and deleted Bono’s Spider-Man from their memory in favor of a younger, hipper Tom Holland.
Click to expand...
Nah I'm still involved in a class action lawsuit against the band for stealing my money for that giant turd.

Alas - the only thing Spiderman and Springsteen on Broadway had in common was that they booth took place in midtown Manhattan.
 
Springsteen on Broadway was amazing and surreal.

Agree with the post about U2 being dumb.
 
Let me add that Spidey was the worst Broadway show I’ve ever seen and I laughed way too hard walking behind Reeve Carney on my way out of an I+E show at MSG.
 
Oh he had no idea what I was laughing about. I wouldn’t try to hurt the guy’s feelings. At least it was more entertaining than the musical.
 
We got Boy Falls From The Sky out of it, at least. Cracking tune that deserved way more than 1 play on 360.
 
tommycharles said:
We got Boy Falls From The Sky out of it, at least. Cracking tune that deserved way more than 1 play on 360.
Click to expand...

I really like that track too, thought the version they played in Portugal on 360 was really good but a shame they didn’t keep it around and polish it a bit as it was a bit rough around the edges.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
I was just thinking about this on my run yesterday.

U2 stopped being cool when they started being all “we love Green Day” and “we are punk rock” and “David Bowie is a legend” and blah blah blah. When you’re a brand new band you’re way too focused on trying (and failing) to be who you idolize, but that “failure” is actually those dose of creativity that makes you you.
Click to expand...



I get what you’re saying and in hindsight perhaps I agree with you fully but for me personally, they stopped being “cool” in 2017- 2018 for the Joshua Tree Anniversary tour. Bono aged about 15 years in a year and for the first time I found nothing at all cool about his “style”. His voice also seemed to be much worse than it was during iE and I remember him singing “tributes” during Beautiful Day and he sounded terrible almost every time (StarMan was particularly pitchy and cringe worthy).

It also started to wear on me all the usual BS Bono would say at concerts during songs, especially the celebrity call outs during Beautiful Day (yes, he did them before JT but that’s when I was like WTF already).

Lastly, the eI tour was by far the worst concert of theirs I have ever been to. Between the absolutely worst “opening” to any concert I have ever seen with the lip sync of LIAWHL, the megaphone, Macphisto image they used that kept flickering in and out during acrobat and the embarrassingly bland/weak Best Thing version...it was so lack luster.

I’m sorry to get negative, I really do love their work as a whole and several songs off of Experience are truly great but man they have changed(not just an age thing with Bono but all around with their decisions on albums and live shows....ugh).
 
The Stones are still cool. They’re ragged and old and don’t care and that last blues covers album was fantastic. Maybe “the kids” aren’t paying attention but still mostly respect them because the Stones aren’t trying too hard. They’re just being themselves. Which is exactly what U2 needs to do.

Zoo22 followed by an arena tour of 10 semi-rotating hits, 10 deep cuts and no storyline is just what the Doctor Doctor ordered.
 
DeVaul said:
The Stones are still cool. They’re ragged and old and don’t care and that last blues covers album was fantastic. Maybe “the kids” aren’t paying attention but still mostly respect them because the Stones aren’t trying too hard. They’re just being themselves. Which is exactly what U2 needs to do.

Zoo22 followed by an arena tour of 10 semi-rotating hits, 10 deep cuts and no storyline is just what the Doctor Doctor ordered.
Click to expand...
Yeaaaa but I remember a time in the 90s where the Stones were a constant punchline. So there's still time for U2 to recover - but even they need to stop trying so hard.
 
Stones’ critical successes in the last 25 years have been from the times they gave up trying to be current. Stripped in ‘95, the No Security tour in ‘99, Licks in ‘02/‘03, and their sporadic tours from ‘12-present, because they don’t pretend they’re as current as they were in ‘72.
 
I don't think young people today wear Stones shirts ironically, even if Headache is right about them not knowing many songs by them. People didn't wear them ironically or unironically in the 90s either because no one wore Stones shirts at all that decade unless they just went to a show and were dumb enough to spend $50 on one.

As far as them being a punchline, I feel like that was more the case in the mid-to-late 80s? Up until the comeback of Steel Wheels at least. Voodoo Lounge, the album and tour, both seemed to be received well enough.

So I wouldn't say they became a joke as much as no one really cared about what they were doing anymore, and that their work was just completely irrelevant.

U2 is much more in the news with whatever they do than the Stones are. It doesn't make them necessarily relevant or cool, but I don't know that their attempt to be both of those things is a complete failure. They just keep picking terrible singles, as in the case of Best Thing and Get Out. IMO, The Blackout didn't sound out of place on K-ROCK or whatever. They could have built on the cred of appearing on Kendrick's album, but failed to because the flipside of the collaboration on SOE sucked. They could have boosted Lady Gaga's backing vox on Summer of Love, but buried her in the mix. They could have featured Haim more in the recording of Lights of Home, and maybe even done a video with both of those artists.

A lot of missed opportunities.
 
I agree, kids aren’t wearing Stones shirts ironically. I think that, in the age of streaming, they’ve got an opportunity to actually check out the music without spending $20 on each CD. Also, kids see things through a hip hop lens now: legends are respected. In the 80s and 90s, Gen Xers mocked the Stones for being old and out of touch. 20-30 years later, millennials and the generation after don’t give a shit: they’re still doing their thing and they’re awesome for it.

I saw Fleetwood Mac, sans Lindsey Buckingham, last year and I’ll be damned if Baltimore Arena wasn’t filled with a bunch of 25 year old girls dressed like Stevie Nicks belting out the words to every. Single. Song. Not just “Dreams.” Because Stevie Nicks is cool. Why? Because she’s Stevie Nicks. She’s herself and unique and never tried to be anything else.

Again, this could have been the case for U2 but, instead, Bono’s still under the impression that Will.i.am is the way to stay cool with the kids.
 
The John Tree said:
I saw Fleetwood Mac, sans Lindsey Buckingham, last year and I’ll be damned if Baltimore Arena wasn’t filled with a bunch of 25 year old girls dressed like Stevie Nicks belting out the words to every. Single. Song. Not just “Dreams.” Because Stevie Nicks is cool. Why? Because she’s Stevie Nicks. She’s herself and unique and never tried to be anything else.

Again, this could have been the case for U2 but, instead, Bono’s still under the impression that Will.i.am is the way to stay cool with the kids.
Click to expand...

Yep. Seeing FM last year in Tacoma was wild, the screaming girls at the end of every song made it sound like Beatlemania. After many years of seeing Neil Finn in small venues it was surreal seeing him in a packed arena.
 
tommycharles said:
Yep. Seeing FM last year in Tacoma was wild, the screaming girls at the end of every song made it sound like Beatlemania. After many years of seeing Neil Finn in small venues it was surreal seeing him in a packed arena.
Click to expand...



“Rumors” has had a vinyl hipster rebirth in a way that few albums from any era ever have had. It’s a genuinely great album, beloved by 13 year olds and 83 year olds everywhere. And it sounds fucking great on vinyl, kind of the musical equivalent of that other 1977 masterpiece “Star Wars.”

That plus the Stevie Nicks Fajita Roundup makes them unstoppable with the youngs.

“You placed and order, I wrote it down / three enchiladas, the best in town.”
 
Last edited:
The John Tree said:
I agree, kids aren’t wearing Stones shirts ironically.

Gen Xers mocked the Stones for being old and out of touch. 20-30 years later, millennials and the generation after don’t give a shit: they’re still doing their thing and they’re awesome for it.

.
Click to expand...

Gen X had the disadvantage of seeing the Stones become sellouts and of releasing a few bad albums. People under 30 probably wouldn't even remember A Bigger Bang. The Stones are more associated with their old stuff, and the 64-73 run is unfuckwithable. Blue & Lonesome didn't make much of a splash but it was excellent and more in line with vintage Stones than anything post-Exile. It was the Stones being thr Stones. I remember people sneering at them but that does t happen anymore. Hell, in Latin America it probably never did, if that doc on Netflix is anything to go by.

The bad stuff gets forgotten and the good lasts. It happened to the Stones, Fleetwood Mac, REM, and Bowie, and it'll happen with U2. We're just too close to the bad things. It also depends on them ceasing to embarrass themselves, and I don't know if that's possible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Has U2's 21st century releases done irreparable damage to their legacy?
Replies
3
Views
806
ChurchBay
C
D
Have U2's 21st century releases done irreparable damage to their legacy?
18 19 20
Replies
598
Views
44K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
C
Happy that they still bleed when cut
Replies
7
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
A
The Little stranger chapter 1
Replies
0
Views
990
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom