Totally agree. Radiohead has completely lost me. And they were once a band whose album I'd go to the record store at midnight for on release days. I hope U2 never does what Radiohead are doing now.
Interesting, I feel the exact opposite. Radiohead continue to fascinate me, while U2 haven't in ages. Nigel Goodrich is most certainly to Radiohead what George Martin was to the Beatles, they have a special bond and have created some fantastic music together.
The Kings of Limbs is a polarizing record, but I loved it. It certainly takes a number of listens (as does a lot of their post-
OK computer stuff, with the exception of
In Rainbows). It's very rewarding when it finally clicks, but to each their own. I'm also a big Radiohead fan, so there's that.
I like that TKOL is extremely rhythm based and very minimalist, so perhaps that's why it worked for me. It was also a different direction from
In Rainbows (another thing I love about Radiohead). Of course U2 have changed their sound and reinvented themselves too, but have since abandoned this. Although, they sort of tried it with NLOTH, but then retreated back to appease. Radiohead just do what they want. Yes, they're very different bands, but are certainly two of the biggest out there. Radiohead continues to challenge their audience, U2 not so much.
Radiohead are doing what U2 were doing during the 90s, maybe to different degrees, but they're still doing it. U2 haven't quite recovered after
Pop, for whatever reason. If ATYCLB was a one off, that would've been fine, but it wasn't. I suppose when they became that popular again, it was hard to turn down, hence HTDAAB (an extremely pedestrian and boring record, with some decent songs). It's sad that those 2 albums are among their highest selling and most award winning ever, but I suppose that also simply reaffirms how meaningless awards are sales are. Another thing Radiohead don't care about.
I wouldn't mind if Eno and Lanois came back, but I'm not sure if it would yield the results some people want. But perhaps it could push them in a certain direction. I don't know, U2 don't have anything to prove anymore I guess and they don't really owe me anything. Of course, I'd love for them to make good music. If SOE is a massive failure, I'm not sure where this leaves them, also the Live Nation deal ending in 2020.
All that could be a blessing, and perhaps they'll retreat to the studio and dream it up again an exciting way. Or maybe they really are making the music they want to make at this very moment, I can't really say for certain (though my hunch is they just want a hit). Hopefully as I've heard, YTBTAM will be the most pop oriented track on the album, but I'll be cautious as always. My expectations aren't high, but I'm still intrigued to give it a listen. SOI (at least the back half) showed greatness, most especially SLABT and The Troubles, which is what U2 excel at. When they want to be a "rock" band, they don't really nail it. While some may love Vertigo and yes, it's generally harmless, this band is capable of so much more and they've shown that with certain tracks. When U2 go ballsy, dark, experimental, they can really blow people away. It's sad many people I know will tear U2 an asshole, because of Vertigo or Beautiful Day, but if I play them Acrobat, Zooropa, Do You Feel Loved, Miss Sarajevo or Slug, they'll be stunned. It's nearly a different band (which could be a strength I suppose), but it also shows you what they could be when they really went for it.
Who knows? Maybe it's age too. We all evolve after all and U2 are in their late 50s, they're not the band of the 80s or 90s anymore. It would be ageist and silly of me to demand them to act their age and make "mature" music whatever that means, but this need for radio hit/relevancy does confound me. Also, considering what's in the top 100 these days, I'm not sure why U2 would want to share that company.
My dream would be for U2 to go full Bowie and just not give AF. After all, Bowie put on some incredible music in the last decade of his life. He went darker, bolder and just did whatever he pleased. But U2 aren't Bowie and it's perhaps unfair for me to expect that. One is a band after all and the other is a solo artist (granted U2 have cited him as a major influence, which is quite apparent during their 90s hey day). Hell, U2 are more or less a business these days. I would hope that U2 learned what Bowie did after his dismal 80s work with
Tonight and
Never Let Me Down, which clearly were more commercial attempts, especially after the massive success of
Let's Dance (which is an album I do enjoy). But then Bowie bounced back and just did whatever he desired and put out some great music. Sure, maybe he didn't reach his 70s peak (it's all subjective of course), but he still made compelling music. I mean,
Earthling, that record is still awesome IMO.
Anyway, sorry for my lengthy rant here, but I think U2 can still surprise us, it's just a matter of whether they desire (no pun intended) to.
) that could culminate in something marvellous.
