Almost Finished with U2
- Thread starter dreamletter
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I would think (and hope) that the only chance of Moment of Surrender ever being released as a single would be as a part of this Bono memoir CD thing.
Otherwise? Yea I can't see anyway they release a single to promote a reissue of an album that flopped on it's initial release.
MrPryck2U
ONE love, blood, life
That or a different version of MOS. The original is my favorite track on No Line, but I'd rather hear a new mix than a rerelease.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
Maybe they can get Tedder to rework MOS. Cut it to 3 minutes, eliminate Edge's guitar playing, add some poppy synths, redo the lyrics, autotune it up and voila, smash hit with the kids.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Have we ever gotten an update on if the OP is completely done with U2 yet or still on the verge?
Muad'zin
Refugee
I guess I was finished with U2 after the 2005 tour. It didn't help that getting tickets was becoming next to impossible, with GA tickets being sold out within minutes of the sale going online. And then appearing en masse on resale sites. I dug the New Line on the Horizon album, the 360 tour bootlegs and videos were still awesome, but not being able to go to the shows at an affordable price caused my interest to go down over the years. I never connected with the Songs of .... albums or those tours.To me they sound like U2 has ceased being relevant and become like the Rolling Stones, where every new album is an excuse to go on tour and cash in on a greatest hits collection. But they do get points for still trying. And I'm kinda hesitant to even listen to recent bootlegs. Bono was becoming insufferable already in the tours of the 00's, I fear that hearing him go off a woke deep end might kill off what remains of my love for this band's music. Kinda like how Patrick Stewart has killed off my love of The Next Generation with the new Picard series. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
But I reckon more people are finished with U2. Or they moved on to other places. I've been absent for several years, mostly lurking in once a year or so, and the traffic here has slowed here significantly. Threads whose last post was last year on the first page? That didn't happen a decade ago. Even when we were in a years long lull between albums.
But I reckon more people are finished with U2. Or they moved on to other places. I've been absent for several years, mostly lurking in once a year or so, and the traffic here has slowed here significantly. Threads whose last post was last year on the first page? That didn't happen a decade ago. Even when we were in a years long lull between albums.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
I don't like the term "woke" in its new slang meaning, but Bono was actually a lot easier to stomach in the last few tours. The Vertigo Tour was a bit much when it came to Bono's activism and the constant Africa stuff. Not saying the activism was bad, but the 10 minute speeches before "One" definitely was a bit too much.
Did you sign up for the U2.com membership to get tickets by chance? I've seen every tour in GA at a very reasonable price.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
Have to disagree this point.
They would routinely play 6-7 songs off Songs of Innocence plus Invisible on the i&e tour and usually 8 songs off SoE on the e&i tour. Those tours were not cashing in on greatest hits by any means.
You could argue that about JT30 certainly and the latter legs of 360, but not the Songs of tours.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Yeah, when the Stones tour, if you hear 4 new songs, or 6 from the last 30 years, you're lucky.
They're a jukebox.
U2 may not be making music as good as their best, but they believe in their new material.
They're a jukebox.
U2 may not be making music as good as their best, but they believe in their new material.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Bono has been woke since 1981.
MrPryck2U
ONE love, blood, life
You know what's fucked up? I hardly ever "cringe", but that term (usually meant in a derogatory manner) makes me cringe. I never use the term. It's called being a decent human being. I've never been bothered by Bono's speeches. That is what you get when you're a U2 enthusiast. Bono utilizes his platform to send out positive messages. Good for him.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
"Woke Mob" makes me cringe even more. Like in some senses, I agree. I think our society has become outrage addicts to a degree and I find myself getting really annoyed that we have to walk on eggshells now in fear of offending certain groups. But at the core definition, "woke" means well informed and I find it funny that the ones that are using this term in a derogatory sense are usually the most ignorant.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
"woke" is a term that has been around mostly in the black community for a very long time, often to stay alert because their lives were in danger. but then entering into a more political usage in the 60's, and now defined in the Oxford Dictionary as:
“well-informed, up-to-date, alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice”
So yes, Bono and the boys have been woke from the start. And if a word that means being aware of racial and social discrimination and injustice, (including gender, lgbtq+, sexual assault, police shootings, etc...) makes someone mad, then they may want to take a good hard look at who has the issue.
mikal is spot on - the ignorant and right wing politicians now use it as another culture war weapon because 1, they have no discernable policies, 2. They believe that being a decent human being that actually thinks and cares about others that are different than them is a horrible thing.
“well-informed, up-to-date, alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice”
So yes, Bono and the boys have been woke from the start. And if a word that means being aware of racial and social discrimination and injustice, (including gender, lgbtq+, sexual assault, police shootings, etc...) makes someone mad, then they may want to take a good hard look at who has the issue.
mikal is spot on - the ignorant and right wing politicians now use it as another culture war weapon because 1, they have no discernable policies, 2. They believe that being a decent human being that actually thinks and cares about others that are different than them is a horrible thing.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
When people use that word, it’s usually because they know they can’t (yet) use the word they really want to use.
And I agree with some criticisms of what might be called “wokeness” — but it’s the use of it as a meaningful insult renders that speaker an idiot.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Yeah, it’s an umbrella term used by people who are mad they can’t make (or laugh at) misogynist, homophonic, or racist jokes anymore without getting criticized for it.
Exactly!
Apples and oranges. The Stones of the last 30 (arguably more) years and U2!
Even when you take into account JT 30 and late 360. U2 still have their original line up and no extras on stage for one. (Terry is another story but that's been known for how long?)
The fact that U2 want to take some time to really lean into the back catalogue for a tour or two does not change their commitment to new material. Ordinary Love was released a couple years after 360 ended and JT 30/SOE were very much taking place at the same time.
Whatever one thinks of SOI/SOE, these were full works that the band labored over and believed in. Far from excuses to tour the hits.
They also continued to push the envelope and innovate production wise on both of those tours.
I'll just never get it. There are valid criticisms of this band of course. Then there are flat out idiotic ones. To think a band with one of the best catalogues ever isn't going to dig into that much is the height of ridiculous.
Before 360 2011 and JT 30, I seem to recall every other thread here complaining about not playing enough of the catalogue live. To read threads back around 2009, you'd be forgiven for predicting that 90% of the forum would erupt in ecstasy to get Exit and Acrobat live. What happened? These two (among other rare favorites) were brought back and people just bitched about something else.
If U2 wanted to just cash in on the greatest hits, they could've spent the last 20 years playing the simplest of stage set ups in stadiums and arenas and just cranking the jukebox. No innovative production. No albums. No concepts for the albums. Maybe a one-off single here and there. Just cash the checks.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
trevgreg
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Nailed it. I remember when the band got into a consistent habit of changing 2-4 songs a night on the I&E tour in 2015, and pulled out a number of seldom played tracks along the way. The argument shifted from "Why don't they switch up even just a few songs a night?" to "Well, if they can shift those 2 or 4 songs, then why don't they change these slots out - or EBTTRT for Discotheque?" and all that jazz. The debate didn't go away, it just shifted to something different.
Yep. On top of that, these guys are entering their 60s now, so I try to see the bright side of any upcoming shows or tours as being a great thing overall. The fans of, say, Tom Petty or Linkin Park aren't really as lucky these days. I'm sure many of them would give an arm and a leg to hear "the hits" right about now.
the whole "it's only the four original members on stage" thing is a bit misleading and kinda bullshit.
you can't make that argument without also mentioning that the band relies heavily on backing tracks to create their live sound.
you can't make that argument without also mentioning that the band relies heavily on backing tracks to create their live sound.
That's been known for years, though re: backing tracks.
And I highly doubt the Stones and everyone else with a small city on stage are above using backing tracks.
So true on both counts! It took me a long time, but I've finally come to the conclusion that you're just not going to make some people happy no matter what. Lol. 360 2011 and the I&E tour were all I needed for confirmation of this.
If people were consistent here to what I read 2008-2011, there would've been a noticeable shift toward commending their shows and song choices as soon EBTTRT Fish out of water became the opener later on 360!
"They're not switching up the songs I personally want them to" is a hell of a different argument than "they 're lazy and just play the same set."
As for your Tom Petty and Linkin Park comments, AMEN!!
That's really where I've been at with U2 these last few years.
I'm not wrapped up in what they do next or how they do it. Whatever they're feeling, go for it! If that means hits in the Sphere, have at it! If it means working with Teeder again, go ahead! If it means making a contemplative album. If it means trying for another Zooropa. I do not care. Seriously.
Look at life and where we've all been as a world the last few years. We still have this band around. Not only that, no reasonable person would say they'd have any issue filling stadiums around the world BY THEMSELVES.
Who else can say that at their age??? Elton John. The Stones. Bruce.
Like anyone, I'll have my opinions on the quality of the material, the set lists, etc. Some positive, some negative, I'm sure.
However, what we all know here, if we are honest with ourselves, is that U2 will retire before they put on a show that isn't up to the standard they've set.
Have we seen some cringe moments in live history? Of course. But flat out embarrassing, shell of themselves performances that just beg to be put out of their misery? Absolutely not.
That day is coming when they hang it up. Way sooner than later as we're all well aware.
My first show was 17 years ago this very night! (Vertigo, Boston). If you told me then we'd be looking at the machine gearing up for another album/tour right now, I would've said "oh, you mean a couple songs and like 12 shows in 5 cities over a few weeks?"
I'm just happy to still be along for the ride.
Precisely. Not sure what people are expecting from them now? U2 are in the twilight of the career. They've been around for 46 years as a band. They've achieved everything.
They aren't at their peak anymore, and nor would you expect them to be. Personally I'm just happy they're still a functioning band, they still tour - and nail their songs live, despite their advancing years - and still create new music. is their post 2000's output anywhere near as good as their mid 80's to mid 90's peak? Ofcourse not. But at least they put out new music and don't go on nostalgia tours, JT30 aside.
Personally I think expectations of artists at this stage in their lives/careers should lowered.
MrPryck2U
ONE love, blood, life
I actually like their 21st century output. And the fact that they're still attempting to put out new material is admirable in and of itself. Billy Joel gave up songwriting nearly 30 years ago and he's still performing shows using the same old hits. No one seems to care about that.
Sickly Vulpine
The Fly
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2016
- Messages
- 109
In hindsight, was this thread started by guy oseary??
I agree on the 21st century output! The fact that, as a whole, it doesn't clear one of the highest bars ever set by ANYONE in the 80s and 90s is next to meaningless. There's a few songs (at least) per album that most fans would rate as on par or very close to it. And as danm said, they still nail their live performances.
As for Billy Joel (and others) EXACTLY! Because, by in large, that's what the people want from older bands. They want the hits and the songs they remember!
The fact that U2 is focusing a little more on that these days is both inevitable and welcome with the vast majority of fans.
And of course, they're still doing it their way.
JT30 had Little Things and a revolutionary screen. They also were consistently playing 5 post 2000 tracks.
Acrobat, when finally played live, wasn't some half ass acknowledgement, they worked at it and made it both a staple and a highlight. Same with the 2018 version of Wild Horses.
I&E/E&I followed pretty much the exact same ratio of new to old material (one unheard of for bands their age/status) that Elevation, Vertigo and 360 did.
I've said this a few times, but I don't know what more people expect from them these days!!
One of the most repeated criticisms here, by many, is "they're nowhere near as good as they used to be" and then "they're resting on the past with these shows/this theme" in the literal next breath!
It's unreal!
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
You bring up a valid point that it's possible to both like their 21st Century output and have the opinion that it doesn't come close to touching their 80's and 90's output.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Agreed. The interesting part is that aside from Rattle and Hum and October, 80 through 97 had extraordinarily consistent albums. Yes people may say POP wasn't terribly consistent, but to me, POP and Zooropa were brilliant and sometimes messy masterpieces that needed all of their parts to be the incredible albums they are.
What changed for me 2000 til now, is that you have to take about 3 songs off of each album to make an extraordinarily consistent album. (except for SOI, where I would only remove 1)
I think the last 3 albums get a shitty wrap largely because of bad single and promotional choices by the band. All of them have excellent songs, SOE and No Line have some just plain bad songs on them. and SOI has a couple mediocre ones.
And lets be honest, there is a core of very loyal and diehard fans that keep on enjoying the journey this band gives us. The regular people that were fans for while eventually drop off over time, that's just how it goes.
The die-hard fans get the pleasure of enjoying the fantastic songs that still arrive, like Cedars and No Line, and Magnificent, and MOS, and White As Snow, and Fez, and The Troubles, and EBW, and Sleep LIke a Baby, and Raised By Wolves, and Crystal Ballroom, and Red Flag, and Summer of Love, and Landlady, and Little Things, and 13....
There's no other band that been around 40+ years that have anyone remotely excited about what new music they will put out next. That fact alone shows just how much commitment that this band has made to keep creating whether the general public really cares much anymore.
pacemaker
Refugee
^ well said.
So I think the two early 2000s albums are terrific. Not on par with JT or Achtung Baby, but really really good and worthy of all the praise they received at the time.
I also understand why there's a subset of U2 fans who completely disagree.
And therein lies the band's problem.
I'd be thrilled with another All That You Can't Leave Behind type album, but some of you would be disgusted by anything short of the 90s work. And a few would only be happy if they did something totally different from what they've done before, which at t his point I'm not even sure what that would be.
Their output from 1980 through 2000 was so eclectic that they brought in all types of fans. Eventually you get to a point where, short of repeating yourself, it's damn near impossible to make everyone happy. And that's a tricky place to be for a band that really likes to try and make everyone happy.
What they need to focus on is not giving a turkey about making everyone happy because it's impossible. Never gonna happen.
Stick with a plot and go with it. If that's a Moroccan themed album? Great. See it through. If it's a Danger Mouse produced album, which will undoubtedly have a lot of production elements that may present a challenge in a live setting? Ok. Do it. See it out and then figure it out.
I also understand why there's a subset of U2 fans who completely disagree.
And therein lies the band's problem.
I'd be thrilled with another All That You Can't Leave Behind type album, but some of you would be disgusted by anything short of the 90s work. And a few would only be happy if they did something totally different from what they've done before, which at t his point I'm not even sure what that would be.
Their output from 1980 through 2000 was so eclectic that they brought in all types of fans. Eventually you get to a point where, short of repeating yourself, it's damn near impossible to make everyone happy. And that's a tricky place to be for a band that really likes to try and make everyone happy.
What they need to focus on is not giving a turkey about making everyone happy because it's impossible. Never gonna happen.
Stick with a plot and go with it. If that's a Moroccan themed album? Great. See it through. If it's a Danger Mouse produced album, which will undoubtedly have a lot of production elements that may present a challenge in a live setting? Ok. Do it. See it out and then figure it out.
Similar threads
