All "Is U2 Breaking Up" Discussion

[mama cass]

after all the public whining he's been doing lately, i reckon Bono should have a really good long holiday to chill and find some new inspiration and recharge his batteries - really, he must be burnt out - he went straight from a MASSIVE op, with a VERY short recovery time, back into a gruelling tour schedule, plus the headache of Spider-Man - he must be pretty drained in many ways really - any normal human being would be!

 

[WalkOn21]

Here's more fodder for the rumor mill this guys facts are crap and he is clearly being a drama queen. I still don't get the hate for No Line. I loved it.

End of line now on the horizon for U2 - Music, Entertainment - Independent.ie

Wow. That guy just said HTDAAB was in the same league as TJT and AB.

 

[mad1]

Nothing more than Bono being Bono and talking. It all sounds too familiar. After Rattle and Hum they had to go away for a while and dream it all up again.... is it any coincidence that upon the 20th anniversary rerelease of the album that was the product of them dreaming it all up again Bono starts saying the same thing he did in 1989 but with different words? There is no way in hell they just stop now. It's just Bono saying shit.

I think back then they were able to completely change their fashion and music style because of the huge transition of 80s to the 90s. I mean, it felt like closing one door and entering another. It worked, they were lucky because the trans applies to everything back then from fashion, music, etc.

these days you dont get that anymore. I dont see it anyhow. So can they do such again? Maybe this 20th anniversary is in Bono's face and he is nostalgic and realising they can't deliver the same or similar complete transformation.

 

[loner]

HTDAAB is a far better album than it gets credit for here.

That being said, the guy's premise is that NLOTH sucks without anything at all to back it up. We're just supposed to take the guy's opinion as universally accepted fact.

So what, he doesn't like GOYB.

No one here would argue that GOYB, SUC or Crazy Tonight represent U2's best output, but they're hardly as cringeworthy as, oh, I don't know, Coldplay's 2 current hits. To say nothing of the Bieber-Miley-etc crap that dominates today's radio. The only one that I wish wasn't there is SUC.

Either way, strip away the middle 3 or whatever you want to call them and you have a really strong album with, I think, the exception of Unknown Caller, which to me is mediocre.(I realize many here love it).

I don't see how

No Line
Magnificent
Moment of Surrender
White As Snow
F-Being Born
Breathe
Cedars of Lebanon

Represent anything but a band that not only has still got it, but is actually getting better with time!

That is to say nothing of 360 being the highest grossing, best attended tour in history and of the number of fans and reviewers who remarked that the 2011 shows were by far the best they'd seen from U2 in many, many years.

This is all journalist tabloid bs talk.(unfortunately, fueled by Bono, but whatever, who here doesn't expect that by now?)

U2 are going nowhere.

A year or 2 ago, I was really anxiously awaiting the next album and would flip out about any perceived delay.

The 2011 leg of 360 changed ALL of that immediately for me. For now, I am more than happy to savor an album and era as spectacular as Achtung Baby and will be happy whenever U2 decides to release new material and tour again.

Watching the AB opening barrage, seeing rare treats like Zooropa and Stay being staples and absolutely amazing performances of classics like Pride, One, Streets, Bad, I WIll Follow, Out of Control and 40 should be more than enough to make any of us proud of what U2 are still more than capable of doing!

This.

 

[ahittle]

I think this is a crafty Bono plot. Not only is the press talking about Achtung Baby, but they're talking about U2's future and tying the two together. Now U2 can have a "comeback" next year after having a "crisis" and almost breaking up.

Well put. He's just setting up the central conflict of the next campaign, giving lazy journalists a hook for writing about the next one. Injects some drama into what would normally be an aging-superstars-release-another-record story.

 

[Aygo]

Yes, HTDAAB is a better album than many people on this board think. ATYCLB is a far worse one than many people around here think too. But NLOTH is far superior to both.

This!

 

[BigMacPhisto]

No Line On The Horizon was a good album despite some major flaws, mostly concerning a few half-baked tracks. It would work alright as a swan song except what it really lacks is a classic song. The casual audience was unenthused with this tracks at the 360 shows and I can see why. None of them even come close to reaching the highs of say "City of Blinding Lights" from the previous album. Frankly, I'd rather half an album that was half shit like HTDAAB since the other half was at least full of U2 classics. This band has such a long catalog of excellence that I don't see any reason to have another album of tracks that are merely good. I'd much rather have them fall on their asses half the time if I at least could skip past the bad ones and get singles as good as those on ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

I have no need in my life for more passable U2. I'd much rather have a few more classic U2 tracks to add to my library than a bunch of forgettable ones.

 

[nielsgov]

I'd really like to know which half of HTDAAB is classic.

 

[Achtung Ya'll]

What I really want is another Pop or Achtung Baby. Something edgy and different and out there...experimental and dark.

 

[Scorpionac]

This band has such a long catalog of excellence that I don't see any reason to have another album of tracks that are merely good. I'd much rather have them fall on their asses half the time if I at least could skip past the bad ones and get singles as good as those on ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

I have no need in my life for more passable U2. I'd much rather have a few more classic U2 tracks to add to my library than a bunch of forgettable ones.

What, are you Bono posting in disguise?

I'd really like to know which half of HTDAAB is classic.

The half with Electrical Storm, Smile, Mercy and Fast Cars on it.

 

[WalkOn21]

The half with Electrical Storm, Smile, Mercy and Fast Cars on it.

 

[U2girl]

Does U2 still matter? - Music - Macleans.ca

 

[dstalksalot]

That article is annoying. Judging from the many many comments, it struck a nerve.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

On the question of whether they would give it up now - if they go into the studio again and hit another Berlin type disarray, would they come out the other side this time? I don't think they would, and they are setting themselves up for something like that (I mean, they want the overhaul again, but can they overhaul like that again? The odds would surely be on the side of 'no'.) So it is possible, IMO, that we've seen the last of them.

Should they give it up now? I've got mixed feelings about the quality of the past decade, but mostly I hate the nagging feeling that there almost certainly was better in there somewhere, that a lot of it is likely too contrived, or suffered at the hands of too much compromise. If they're going to go around again, they've got to drop that and go in confident and comfortable.

So it comes back again to...

(a) Forget the hits.
(b) Forget the radio.
(c) Forget the charts.
(d) Forget the kids.

Go with whatever comes naturally. That would be experimentation and an overhaul for them now, and I bet it would work out just fine.

 

[last unicorn]

Does U2 still matter? - Music - Macleans.ca

Wow, someone loves statistics. And has a lot of time on their hands.

It doesn't matter if other people find them "relevant" or not. U2 have always polarized and I'd be shocked if there were more U2 supporters coming out to declare their love for the band than U2 haters now. The "irrelevance" topic is annoying - and yes I'm looking at you Mr. Bono - but seriousy, you can tell most of the acts who's been out there for more than 15 years "irrelevant", especially if they don't have any hit singles or aren't in the charts. So most of them could go and lose themselves.

I'm glad to see some comments from people there as well who still enjoy U2's music. And judging from the audience numbers of the last tour, the band is far from being irrelevant. It's almost ridiculous to say that they don't matter anymore after they just finished a tour that had such phenomenal success.

 

[WalkOn21]

Does U2 still matter? - Music - Macleans.ca

Quite an interesting idea for an article, asking "50 prominent Canadians with an ear for music" the question "are U2 still musically relevant?".

I think Joel Carriere is spot on with his comment: "The 2000s ushered in new technology, new music, new access, new media and U2 did their best to stay on top of all of that. But kids didn’t care because the one thing that stays the same is kids need their own music to define themselves, not their parents’ music." U2 should stop trying to be 'relevant' because, being four fiftysomethings with a musical career spanning over 30 years, they have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming hip with the youngsters again.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

He says HTDAAB was a better album than NLOTH - thereby losing all credibility!

i still hear songs from Atomic Bomb on the radio, on tv, out at bars, randomly in the shopping center, etc. etc. etc.

i can't tell you the last time i heard a no line on the horizon song that i didn't play myself (which is a rare thing in it's own right)



music is subjective... so no line probably is better to you, and a lot of people here, but to most, right or wrong, atomic bomb is the far superior album.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Quite an interesting idea for an article, asking "50 prominent Canadians with an ear for music" the question "are U2 still musically relevant?".

I think Joel Carriere is spot on with his comment: "The 2000s ushered in new technology, new music, new access, new media and U2 did their best to stay on top of all of that. But kids didn’t care because the one thing that stays the same is kids need their own music to define themselves, not their parents’ music." U2 should stop trying to be 'relevant' because, being four fiftysomethings with a musical career spanning over 30 years, they have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming hip with the youngsters again.

if i could give that quote one million of these , i would.

 

[U2girl]

The difference is ATYCLB and Bomb had huge hits in BD and Vertigo (which would go against the quote that kids don't care about U2 in this decade). And the former had huge help being the unofficial healing record after 9/11.

Given the right single - Magnificent or NLOTH - the *failure narrative of NLOTH would not exist.

Is it time for U2 to call it a day? – Telegraph Blogs

 

[mama cass]

Quite an interesting idea for an article, asking "50 prominent Canadians with an ear for music" the question "are U2 still musically relevant?".

I think Joel Carriere is spot on with his comment: "The 2000s ushered in new technology, new music, new access, new media and U2 did their best to stay on top of all of that. But kids didn’t care because the one thing that stays the same is kids need their own music to define themselves, not their parents’ music." U2 should stop trying to be 'relevant' because, being four fiftysomethings with a musical career spanning over 30 years, they have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming hip with the youngsters again.

if i could give that quote one million of these , i would.

i would normally tend to agree with that, but, thinking of my own teenage son, well, one of his biggest defining bands (style and ideology wise) has been The Clash... and Bob Marley more lately too actually... and completely out of the blue, he now tells me U2 are alright (which was a massive shock to me i tell ya!) LOL

although, we kind of brought the kids up with a wide range of music, ever since they were tiny, starting with Abba, Elvis, The Beatles, The Clash, Led Zeppelin, and introducing them to everything on our shelves over the years to more recent stuff, i dunno Arctic Monkeys, White Stripes, Raconteurs, The Killers, Green Day, all the usual.. and we kind of thought they'd never be able to rebel against their parents' taste in music because we thought we'd pretty much covered everything... and then my son discovered slash metal and SlipKnot and all this new nasty hardcore death metal, and has been torturing us with it ever since haha

 

[BVS]

i would normally tend to agree with that, but, thinking of my own teenage son, well, one of his biggest defining bands has been The Clash... and Bob Marley more lately too actually...

If you're dead or retired for 10 years you automatically get street cred.

 

[mama cass]

If you're dead or retired for 10 years you automatically get street cred.

yeah i guess that can help!

that way they stay forever young and don't turn into middle-aged plonkers!

although, he does like Metallica too! so i'm really confused! lol!

 

[U2girl]

No other band managed this level of popularity for three decades. There are no comparisons.

 

[gvox]

Wow, someone loves statistics. And has a lot of time on their hands.

We're getting ready for a doozie of a winter.

All jokes aside though, I thought it was a good article in that he tried to get a huge cross-section of opinion and express his results in some sort of logical/data supported fashion. It might not be what we want to hear, but sometimes it's good to step outside the blue veil and realize that a huge number of people in the real world can very much identify with probably 2-3 (or more) of these opinions..

 

[doctorwho]

Sorry, but NLOTH was a huge disappointment.

Sorry, but no, it wasn't.

If NLOTH was their last, I'd be a proud fan.

 

[doctorwho]

Does U2 still matter? - Music - Macleans.ca

This article stopped being interesting when the author said he stopped listening back in 1992 when he saw a ZOO TV show. He wanted "protest songs" and got "wraparound shades". Boo hoo. If that moron had actually paid attention, he'd realize that U2 did more protesting than ever in that era. The author - clearly too blinded by his own self wants and needs to see - didn't get that. Perhaps he didn't want to see it. He wanted JT U2 forever. The irony is that the ZOO U2 was more protest than the JT U2 ever were. And that's the true bit of the ZOO era irony (I've had previous "discussions" on these forums about irony - what some claim is irony in ZOO TV was not).

Relevance is very open-ended. Relevant to whom? U2 has always had people not like them. I knew one person who didn't like U2 until "One". My sister used "Beautiful Day" at her wedding. Bruce Springsteen's own teenage son (at the time) was singing to "Vertigo". Relevance is wildly subjective.

U2 want a hit. But does a hit make one relevant? Would any artist claim to be inspired by Britney Spears or Kelly Clarkson, despite their "hits"?

U2's albums will go Platinum. If they do have a decent sized hit - ala BD or "Vertigo" - great. But don't force it - they should make music that is relevant to THEM. MOS is an outstanding example of that. GOYB and "Crazy" were not.

U2 most likely won't be favorites of 14 year olds. But they can still make outstanding music. And that should be the most relevant thing of all.

 

[mama cass]

MOS is an outstanding example of that

yeah, when my family saw U2 last year (it was my kids' first time at a U2 gig), my son (the hardcore SlipKnot/death metal/Clash/Bob Marley kid lol) actually said his fave song at the gig was Moment of Surrender - he was really taken with it... i take his musical opinions seriously as well, he's an amazing musician himself, and is pretty fussy about his music... music is a big part of his life, so when he says he likes a track, it's a pretty big thing... i bet U2 wouldn't think of marketing MOS to teenagers, but that's the one that grabbed him... so you never can tell really...

 

[LadySpinHead]

Does U2 still matter? - Music - Macleans.ca

Zooropa is officially the worst U2 album? Ok, this article is officially not worth my time.

 

[WalkOn21]

I genuinely don't understand the fuss about MOS. For me, it's one of the weakest tracks on the album. Sure, it makes for an interesting read that it originated in a faulty drum loop of Eno's, that the song was mostly improvised on the spot subsequently and how moved everyone in the studio was afterwards, but as a song it simply doesn't work for me. And it's not a general dislike of hymns/ballads either; I like Cedars of Lebanon a lot and I appreciate Grace a lot more than most Interferencers do. It's MOS in particular that doesn't appeal to me at all.

To each his own, I suppose. But when I hear people saying that they wish songs like MOS are the direction U2 will take for their next album, I can only sincerely hope they won't.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i would normally tend to agree with that, but, thinking of my own teenage son, well, one of his biggest defining bands (style and ideology wise) has been The Clash... and Bob Marley more lately too actually... and completely out of the blue, he now tells me U2 are alright (which was a massive shock to me i tell ya!) LOL

although, we kind of brought the kids up with a wide range of music, ever since they were tiny, starting with Abba, Elvis, The Beatles, The Clash, Led Zeppelin, and introducing them to everything on our shelves over the years to more recent stuff, i dunno Arctic Monkeys, White Stripes, Raconteurs, The Killers, Green Day, all the usual.. and we kind of thought they'd never be able to rebel against their parents' taste in music because we thought we'd pretty much covered everything... and then my son discovered slash metal and SlipKnot and all this new nasty hardcore death metal, and has been torturing us with it ever since haha

Right... and there will always be small groups of kids with taste who are more intrigued by older acts than with those of their own era. They'll always exist. But its not the norm.

The majority of us are U2 diehards over the stones or the Beatles because U2 are/were the band of OUR generation. Doesn't mean there isn't a love or respect for those who came before, but its just not the same.

And guess what... we're getting old. And so are they. Eventually the goals of your youth simply aren't realistic, and you move on and set new goals.

To quote chris rock... nobody wants to be the old guy in the club. Not really old, just a little too old to be in the club.

U2 aren't done. They just need to embrace a different kind of relevancy and stop trying to embrace this ancient concept of pop chart dominance and being hip and cool with the kids.