Have U2's 21st century releases done irreparable damage to their legacy?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
in the long run i hope that the SOI release is looked at the way that bob dylan's born-again period does - a later-career nadir that made the artist finally stop really giving a shit about the audience's opinion, followed up by a well respected "fuck you all" comeback.

I hope that it is looked at it like that. Initially slammed (a nadir in your words) but in retrospect a hugely creative period with really good and great songs. Which only became apparent when people started to look further than just the image.
 
What I keep hearing about the SOI release to this day is: "If they gave it away for free they obviously didn't think it was very good."
The same people that believe that "Every time I clap my hands a child in Africa dies" story
 
You laugh but it I was hoping they’d break out The Refugee on E+I. Far ballsier and more listenable than American Snore and a great pairing with Red Flag Day. (Also wanted them to end each show with Seconds and set everyone out on a heavy, down note.)

I don't hate it, but I know its not well thought of here so I put it on the list.
 
And as it's been said above, deserving or not, HTDAAB won the AOTY Grammy, plus other Grammys for FOUR of its tracks.

I think it's a good album, but it's definitely not among my personal favourites.

I like the sincerity of Miracle Drug, but it's just so sweet, it gives me a toothache. Love And Peace is another I'd drop, does nothing for me. A Man And A Woman is a nice departure for U2, but it feels like a B-Side and another track I'm not interested in listening to unfortunately. ABOY I actually like, including the tortoise! Original of the Species -- there's a moment when you can hear the joy in Bono's voice (he laughs) when the band kicks it up a notch towards the end, it's a great song, and Window would have fit well next to it. Yahweh is an odd one, I don't want to like it, but it lifts me up when I do listen to it, I think it's the infectious joy in Bono that gets me. HTDAAB finishes a lot stronger than ATYCLB, I think U2 learnt a lesson from that (which they quickly forgot again with NLOTH!). The other thing about HTDAAB is the production, it feels consistent from start to finish, really strong and polished with nothing sounding out of place -- that's Lillywhite I reckon, even though the album had like what, 8 producers?
 
For me, the 21st century U2 has produced some of their best songs(but not albums).

Beautiful Day
Walk On
Elevation
Stuck In a Moment(acoustic is beautiful)
Vertigo
Love and Peace or Else
City of Blinding Lights
Magnificent
Breathe
Moment of Surrender
Every Breaking Wave
Song for Someone
Blackout
Love is Bigger
Little Things(one of their best ever, let alone 21st century)

Of course there have been many more misses than their were in the 20th century from a song perspective.

I started to lose interest in U2 with SOE and then the subsequent awful tour(first tour of theirs that I thought was trash….at least the US leg).

SOE had way too many clunkers on it and it made for a very poor flow when listening to the album. Started very slow and ended slow and every other song was just meh.

The tour (and promo tour) was embarrassingly bad, again the US show I went to.

Lip syncing performance in Spain with Kygo…ugh

Grammy performance of GOOYOW on a barge by the Statue of Liberty…

Opening the tour with LIAWHL was such an anti climatic moment…worst show opener IMO

Lip syncing LIAWHL was embarrassing

Using a bullhorn on several songs

Canned strings for LOH…

No JT songs, especially streets

The stripped down weak performance of an already weak Best Thing was the first time I realized they “lost it” for me

The Macphisto cartoon face during Acrobat that would blink between the awful macphisto graphic and Bono every time he moved

I may never go to another U2 show, that’s how bad it was..but hey, more tickets for all of you guys.
 
“Haterz gonna hate”..... For those who still complain about the iTunes thing and bring it up a lot, its generally speaking, the same people who would never have bought a U2 album in the first place, (or at least would never admit to it) and who slag Bono off at any opportunity.

I know there’s some on here who it really pissed-off, but we all know this place is special ??????

Their musical legacy is very much intact and their musical output over the last while has also been pretty well received (generally speaking again) as has their live shows. SOI iTunes thing aside, I can’t remember the last real misstep they’ve made, certainly not musically. Get On Your Boots is probably the closest they’ve come to something in recent time which didn’t go down well, but that album received some pretty damn good reviews.
 
Let me add that even the cheesy stuff on HDTAAB struck me as coming from a genuine place, versus some of the forced pop and adult contemporary stuff that came on the albums that followed. I’ll take A Man & A Woman (bring on acoustic U2!) over Song for Someone any day.
 
Let me add that even the cheesy stuff on HDTAAB struck me as coming from a genuine place, versus some of the forced pop and adult contemporary stuff that came on the albums that followed. I’ll take A Man & A Woman (bring on acoustic U2!) over Song for Someone any day.
I genuinely don't think there is a skippable track on HTDAAB. Maybe one step closer and thats it.
 
I don't skip anything. The closest is Sometimes but the last minute saves it. Or the last minute right before it sputters to a finish, that is.
 
I genuinely don't think there is a skippable track on HTDAAB. Maybe one step closer and thats it.



I have always liked One Step Closer and find it to be a beautiful song about death.

Man and a Woman and Crumbs from your table are skippable on an otherwise wonderful album.
 
I think One Step is one of the better songs on the album.

My problem with Bomb is not that it has a batch of horrible songs among an otherwise great album like No Line. It’s that it’s an album full of mediocre songs. Vertigo is a great song. Other than that COBL and One Step and Original of the Species, which are a bit better than mediocre, the rest is very so, so (All Because if You) to the cringy (Yahweh).

I truly think that the bands 2nd biggest misstep (after Apple SOI) was boots. Coming off of Bomb, 8 Grammy sweep, 840,000 sold in the first week!, Vertigo in heavy rotation. Apple commercial that was cool, very successful tour.

And then Boots… A lead single that didn’t represent the album, An overall poor song, albeit with a killer guitar riff. A really really bad video, etc..
Despite that they sold like 450k the first week in a declining era of physical album sales. If Magnificent or No Line would have lead off the album they would have had heavy rock and Alt radio play and I think the album would have been overall more respected than it was. We have to remember that the general public judges on the songs they hear on the radio, and make snap judgments about the rest of the album.

I find it stunning, that after their hindsight on POP. Leading off with Discotheque, village people video…, A lead off that kneecapped an otherwise fantastic album where they got shellacked by critics and played to more than a few half full stadiums that they repeated the same mistake 12 years later.

If they had led off POP with Staring at the Sun, Gone, or even Do You Feel Loved, I think POP would have had a totally different public perception, and critical/public reception.

It seemed the way they tucked tail after POP that they wouldn’t repeat the same mistake a decade later. But that’s the mystery of our band. Sigh.
 
No Line never would have been a blockbuster, but with a safe, prototypical U2 track like Magnificent as the lead single, it would have been received a lot better. Moment of Surrender with a really beautiful, cinematic video outsourced to a talented director would have also been effective. They're good songs that most people like and would have convinced people to take interest in the album.

Sometimes it's best not to overthink things and simply illustrate what your album does best instead of trying to make the lead single fit into a specific category.
 
Last edited:
The Getty images watermarks on the Boots music video was hilarious to me.
 
The Pop analogy is really interesting. Because the other thing they did with Pop was decide the tour concept before the record was done - and they did the same thing with NLOTH.

But at least with Pop the record (rough and ready as it was) had a through line which matched the stage. In 2009, they had a big audacious stadium tour booked and architected, and then made a moody grey record, if a very interesting one.

Remember that photo shoot leading up to No Line, with Bono in thick eyeliner? This all looks very rock and roll, and then the band plays Boots at the Brits with B strutting in front of a screen like he’s The Fly. But then the song didn’t deliver. And the album didn’t either.

They then pissed about with a tenuous space theme for a year, before eventually making 360 an AB heavy greatest hits show, which was mostly awesome, apart from a bafflingly average Glastonbury set.

I agree that mishandling SOI with Apple was worse, but the ‘09-‘11 era was just ridiculous in terms of bad artistic choices.
 
360 was originally called the Kiss The Future tour. Not sure the reality, but easy to believe that since the single that provided the original tour name bombed, they leaned into selling the stage concept instead. The tech got more press than the band and album. I’m sure Paul McG was very proud of the 10k tickets at $30 value line. What a difference a decade makes. What was the cheapest ticket at JT30?
 
In short, yes.

But it's an inevitability, if a rock band goes on for a long time.

I'm sure on Rolling Stones' boards, there are plenty of threads about "Did the Stones to irreparable damage to their legacy by carrying on after 1972" (akin to U2 post-Zooropa), and "Did the Stones do irreparable damage to their legacy by carrying on after 1982 (aking to U2 post-Atomic Bomb). And I'm sure there are lots of fans who say, 'No! The Stones did lots of classic songs I can't live without in those eras". But to the casual music fans, or to the casual Stones' fan, the answers is a resounding YES.

So it is with U2.

For me, personally, I think their classic / essential / legendary period of unbridled creativity and vitality ended with the recording of Zooropa. Yet, I was mostly on board with their mostly fine releases from 1997 to 2004, as well.

Definitely, since 2005 or so, I've not really enjoyed U2 in sum anymore. The odd tune grabs my attention, but the amount of mediocrity -- largely, it seems, as a result of their obsessively chasing cultural bigness over quality music -- is disappointing, and two of the last three albums were crappy. I suppose a lot of casual U2-fans jumped ship then, as well, and since 2009 have lost interest.

So, it's a toss-up: If U2 had ended in 1994, we'd be able to look back on an all-killer-no-filler career of young guys in their prime, like The Beatles or whatever. But on the other hand, if they'd ended then, we wouldn't have 'Please' or 'Beautiful Day' or 'Every Breaking Wave' or 'The Little Things That Give You Away', etc.

The unanswerable rock'n'roll question has always been: Is it better to burn out than to fade away?
 
In short, yes.

But it's an inevitability, if a rock band goes on for a long time.

I'm sure on Rolling Stones' boards, there are plenty of threads about "Did the Stones to irreparable damage to their legacy by carrying on after 1972" (akin to U2 post-Zooropa), and "Did the Stones do irreparable damage to their legacy by carrying on after 1982 (aking to U2 post-Atomic Bomb). And I'm sure there are lots of fans who say, 'No! The Stones did lots of classic songs I can't live without in those eras". But to the casual music fans, or to the casual Stones' fan, the answers is a resounding YES.

So it is with U2.

For me, personally, I think their classic / essential / legendary period of unbridled creativity and vitality ended with the recording of Zooropa. Yet, I was mostly on board with their mostly fine releases from 1997 to 2004, as well.

Definitely, since 2005 or so, I've not really enjoyed U2 in sum anymore. The odd tune grabs my attention, but the amount of mediocrity -- largely, it seems, as a result of their obsessively chasing cultural bigness over quality music -- is disappointing, and two of the last three albums were crappy. I suppose a lot of casual U2-fans jumped ship then, as well, and since 2009 have lost interest.

So, it's a toss-up: If U2 had ended in 1994, we'd be able to look back on an all-killer-no-filler career of young guys in their prime, like The Beatles or whatever. But on the other hand, if they'd ended then, we wouldn't have 'Please' or 'Beautiful Day' or 'Every Breaking Wave' or 'The Little Things That Give You Away', etc.

The unanswerable rock'n'roll question has always been: Is it better to burn out than to fade away?

Everyone knows that the Stones haven't been great since 78 at the latest and it's done nothing to damage their rep. It did when they were regulalry releasing embarrassing music because it distracted from their unassailable greatness between 1964-72. But the mediocre music has been forgotten and they're the band that made Exile on Main St and Satisfaction and The Last Time. They're not the band that made Hot Stuff or Bridges to Babylon. They're universally regarded as a top 10 band, if not the best band that didn't come from Liverpool. Medocrity gets forgotten, same with embarassing stunts. U2's blunders are fresh in the mind because they're relatively recent and the weight that they carry now will be lessened by time. SOI spam aside, of course.

U2 will be fine.
 
Last edited:
In short, yes.

But it's an inevitability, if a rock band goes on for a long time.

I'm sure on Rolling Stones' boards, there are plenty of threads about "Did the Stones to irreparable damage to their legacy by carrying on after 1972" (akin to U2 post-Zooropa), and "Did the Stones do irreparable damage to their legacy by carrying on after 1982 (aking to U2 post-Atomic Bomb). And I'm sure there are lots of fans who say, 'No! The Stones did lots of classic songs I can't live without in those eras". But to the casual music fans, or to the casual Stones' fan, the answers is a resounding YES.

So it is with U2.

For me, personally, I think their classic / essential / legendary period of unbridled creativity and vitality ended with the recording of Zooropa. Yet, I was mostly on board with their mostly fine releases from 1997 to 2004, as well.

Definitely, since 2005 or so, I've not really enjoyed U2 in sum anymore. The odd tune grabs my attention, but the amount of mediocrity -- largely, it seems, as a result of their obsessively chasing cultural bigness over quality music -- is disappointing, and two of the last three albums were crappy. I suppose a lot of casual U2-fans jumped ship then, as well, and since 2009 have lost interest.

So, it's a toss-up: If U2 had ended in 1994, we'd be able to look back on an all-killer-no-filler career of young guys in their prime, like The Beatles or whatever. But on the other hand, if they'd ended then, we wouldn't have 'Please' or 'Beautiful Day' or 'Every Breaking Wave' or 'The Little Things That Give You Away', etc.

The unanswerable rock'n'roll question has always been: Is it better to burn out than to fade away?

It’s very disheartening to think that all it would have taken was a simple pop up on everyone’s iphone that gave them a choice to either accept or decline their album for free, to change the course of the band’s history.

That aside, I think the burn out or fade away question can be answered by my second favorite band, REM. If they would have wrapped up with New Adventures in HiFi, oh what a run of greatness they would have had. But they went on for almost 15 more years!! Their final album being decent, but the ones between New Adventures and Collapse into now, were painful.

The difference with U2 is that none of their music has been broadly painful. SOI is a great album and SOE a very good one. Both more consistent IMO than ATYCLB, Bomb, and No Line. They also are a legendary touring band, which REM was not.
But let’s be honest. It really doesn’t matter what a 43 year old band puts out, it will never garner the same attention that their previous albums did. Put that in the perspective of today’s musical landscape and it is virtually impossible. When even hot newer artists like Taylor Swift, Lorde and Billie Eillish aren’t even getting the same attention and airplay as they were with previous releases. U2 stands no chance to gain new ears.

This is why the next release of theirs is so important. They can’t go in with the mindset of being relevant or trying to get airplay. In fact the opposite would be their best bet. The whole mention of acoustic just scares the hell out of me. Who has a guitarist like the edge, whose entire magic lies in being able to manipulate tech with his playing, and says , yeah let’s do acoustic. Just mind boggling.

Whether they have one or two more in them. They have to get out of shoving current political stuff into songs, and shoehorning failed attempts at pop radio hits into albums. Just shut the world out and make beautiful, dark, light, heartfelt, non-cheesy songs that emerge organically, and play to your strengths, not, can this song be played on a piano nonsense. I don’t want it on a piano, I want it ten layers deep through processors and manipulated guitar pedals. Do what you do best and close out with your head held high.
 
It’s very disheartening to think that all it would have taken was a simple pop up on everyone’s iphone that gave them a choice to either accept or decline their album for free, to change the course of the band’s history.
I didn't mention the i-Phone thing in my post, as I truly think it doesn't matter at all. It's just meaningless trivia in U2's history. People have already moved on and largely forgotten it.

What has hurt U2's current profile is mediocre music / albums, chasing pop hits, long gaps between over-cooked albums, and aging. (One of these isn't their fault.)

I know several people (I was one) who largely jumped ship with No Line On The Horizon. And I know a lot of others who had jumped a decade or two before that. It sounds like you are an enthusiast of U2's recent music, which is great, but I would suggest you're in the minority there.

So, no, I don't think U2's next album is important, at all. It's actually trivial to their legacy. U2 can release another bad album or a really great one, and it's not going to make any difference in their broad legacy, which is pretty much set in stone already.
 
I genuinely don't think there is a skippable track on HTDAAB. Maybe one step closer and thats it.

Miracle Drug is the one I skip, but yeah, upon a recent re-listen I was surprised at how good the album is. Maybe it's because I am comparing it with SoE, which has replaced HTDAAB as my least favourite U2 album.
 
Last edited:
I didn't mention the i-Phone thing in my post, as I truly think it doesn't matter at all. It's just meaningless trivia in U2's history. People have already moved on and largely forgotten it.

We've gone over this before, and your first paragraph seems insular and oblivious. People haven't forgotten it, and almost every time a story about them gets posted anywhere, it's something that people joke or rant about.

I guarantee you that the iTunes automatic download is one of the first things that come to people's minds when they hear the band's name, if they're in a certain age range.

Now that doesn't represent everyone, but don't act like it's a blip on their career. It's like saying Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson aren't still associated with that "wardrobe malfunction".

So, no, I don't think U2's next album is important, at all. It's actually trivial to their legacy. U2 can release another bad album or a really great one, and it's not going to make any difference in their broad legacy, which is pretty much set in stone already.


I do agree with this, though. A poor album or a brilliant one at this point won't move the needle too much. Because with the former, it's just one more on the pile of post-2004 releases for a lot of people, as you mentioned. With the latter, it would take some kind of legendary TV broadcast performance and/or industry acclaim via the Grammys again for it to matter, and I think the ship has sailed in that regard.

Could they win an Oscar still for a soundtrack song? I suppose, but it would have to be a weak year in terms of competition from musicals and animated films. It would be another ribbon on their legacy but I wouldn't hold my breath on this either.
 
Yeah, last time we brought that up we were told that Twitter is bullshit and doesn't represent the "real" audience.

The extremists do tend to make the most noise but it's on Facebook too, and dismissing all the social media opinions is a mistake that only old people make.
 
Not that this negates the arguments of the last two posts, but I did go to Twitter right now and searched "U2 iTunes" and I'm seeing maybe 1 person per day mentioning it on a global platform, and honestly, most of these tweets are attention seeking...and they're not getting likes or attention.

Maybe in 2024 when U2 releases their new album, there might be more jabs, but it's not like a super high volume right now.
 
Well sure, I'm not trying to say people are still overdoing about it. But they're still talking about it, and it's been 7 years. Jay-Z released a free album. Does anyone talk about the release method, like, ever? No, because it wasn't a fuck up.

The pace also definitely picks up anytime they do something.
 
Back
Top Bottom