mikal
Blue Crack Addict
at that wedding, Magnificent sounded really good on the sound system.
They would have been best advised to make the highest quality record they could, with absolutely no compromises, and set themselves far above their contemporaries, rather than play into it.
u2's problem is their back catalogue. it doesn't matter what they release, it will always be compared to the past hit albums, and too much time has passed for anything new to be compared favorably to the joshua tree or achtung baby. which is why their album can flop (by their standards... it still did very well by most artists' standards, let us not forget) and they can still sell out massive stadiums across the world.
plus.. they're old. nobody wants to be the old guy at the disco. i think u2 needs to take a page from springsteen and understand that they are old... they can still be relevant, but they don't need to try and be cool and hip with the kids and just be themselves.
and then thus by not trying to be hip and cool with the kids, they'll actually become hip and cool with the kids.
if you continue to try and be hip and cool with the kids long past the point where they don't want you to try and be hip and cool with the kids, you become the rolling stones. which is fine, but it is what it is.
LOL easier said than done mate!
Basically, the market is glutted with that sound, and I just don't think there was much chance of NLOTH going quintuple platinum in the US, no matter what they did. They would have been best advised to make the highest quality record they could, with absolutely no compromises, and set themselves far above their contemporaries, rather than play into it. It would have strengthened their public profile and lobbed up an easy smash hit for them next time.
Deleting Stand Up Comedy is easier said than done? Just force quit and move to trash. They had a record here that filled all of the criteria I gave, but it's somewhat obscured.
While I don't believe they have yet to make their greatest record, they're more than capable of making a truly great one. Something 95% of their mainstream contemporaries are incapable of.
Problem is, a band like U2 will always be judged by their commercial success as well as artistic, and their albums will never be judged solely for their actual quality. If they made an album you've described and it didn't sell well or do well on the radio, in no way would it strengthen their public profile or increase their chances for a smash hit later on. Maybe it would have given them points in certain circles, but as far as wider public perception goes, no.
Do they have their "best" still in them? I think they may some of their best songs still out there, but best album? Tough call - but I'd love to see U2 prove me wrong.
U2 is not alone in having this problem (commercial and critical), but this is what they have created and sadly, it's what they must maintain on some level IF they want to remain musically relevant. After all, how can they influence anyone if no one hears them?
To your 2nd point, I think it's time for the guys to literally, and i mean LITERALLY, stop caring about being musically relevant. What? There's no other way? U2 have dug themselves into this pit, they can also dig their way out.
To your 2nd point, I think it's time for the guys to literally, and i mean LITERALLY, stop caring about being musically relevant. What? There's no other way? U2 have dug themselves into this pit, they can also dig their way out.
i agree completely. i was listening to the newish David Byrne and Brian Eno album last night, and i was just thinking how cool it is that David Byrne really seems to care less about acquiring new fans. he just releases albums when he feels like it. his hardcore fans will surely buy it, and maybe they'll introduce a friend or two to his current and back catalog.
unfortunately, U2 did really dig themselves into this hole. there was so much talk last year about Universal hoping U2's album could drive their sales for the year, and i'm sure to some extent, U2 felt that pressure. i wish there was a way they could just get out of their current place in the music industry, and finally be able to operate under their own terms.
However, as Saracene and Doctorwho mentioned, with a band of U2's magnitude, commercialism and creative inspiration are intrinsically linked. The thing is, U2 can decide to let loose their grip.
Keeping your eyes on the prize is a fair enough way to construct a music career, but only if you have the ideas to sustain it. I really think that the lack of innovation did them in, not their commercial ambitions. However, as Saracene and Doctorwho mentioned, with a band of U2's magnitude, commercialism and creative inspiration are intrinsically linked. The thing is, U2 can decide to let loose their grip. That's their prerogative. And I truly believe that (counterintuitive though it may seem) making music that they enjoy listening to is the best way for them to return to prominence. They have great instincts and ears for melody; hell, they themselves admit Achtung is their best album, and when those sessions began, they all came in with ideas based on what they enjoyed listening to at the time.
There's more to it than that though. What links the album together, and has helped it age so well in spite of perhaps aged influences, is the lyrics. U2 may be a larger-than-life (especially prior to the tour ) band, but I don't think it can be argued that Bono's best work is inherently personal. WOWY, Running To Stand Still, WGRYWH, All I Want Is You...these are all songs that focus on face-to-face interactions and personal observations. He's not trying to save a continent or define a nation, he's trying to save himself or detail a relationship in ashes. And, from this decade, When I Look At The World, One Step Closer, and Moment Of Surrender detail similar topics to great success. All of these tracks are introverted by nature, but due to their scope and relatability, they communicate these feelings to a wider audience. And this is really what I think they need to get back to.
They need to enter what I would consider a sort of "legacy" mode. They should be fearless and adding to their discography. History will already remember them as relevant during a majority of their career. What does five or ten years more of that really add to their legacy? They have great albums left in them. Fans two or three decades from now won't remember more years of relevancy but they will cherish the great albums that U2 has a chance to create. U2 has accomplished almost everything and now it should be about nothing more than challenging themselves to make the best music that they can.
Question is, after spending so many decades on the top, can they be really happy with letting go of their ambitions, accept the fact that the majority of the public will view them as faded superstars, and just keep on tinkering quietly in the corner doing their own thing. I think it's easier for artists like David Byrne to grow older, in a way, because their music never had huge massive popularity to start with.
Why do people constantly talk about the past and what U2 did and didn't do or should do?
Its done... who cares? Lets look at what they are going to do and just try to enjoy the good parts instead and just fucking let go of the bad parts.
We can't do anything about it. U2 is U2 and they can only do what they feel is the best they can do.
Boo hoo... GOYB didn't captivate the world like people here think U2 must do with every song they put out.
Christ they are just 4 guys that are really good at making music... they are not fucking gods... they are human.
People want U2 to experiment. Well, I think a song like GOYB is pretty experimental just by the fact all the yuppie kids that love Vertigo and Beautiful Day got turned off by the song.
What the fuck do you people want from them?
And by the way, U2 will never do Achtung Baby again. Its done, they won't ever be that band again. Just let it go
Its been a blessed commerical career. You just need to see other past bands that had huge albums, and its like, oh this will last forever etc, this and that ,and now they are washed up. I mean didn't we go over this already. U2 have treaded the waters as well as anyone ever. What would this board do in the event u2 got washed up? no albums sales,shows having to rely almost 100% on old songs,reduced visibilty of the band etc. I think u2 is riding a very weird,uniqe, wave of a little bit of coolness,elderstatesmen-ship,some decent radioplay,and just name value.