Is This It?

[BVS]

I think songs like NLOTH, MOS, Invisible, Troubles, SLABT, RBW, and even the dives into pure pop like Iris and California show that the band is capable. It just comes down to, and it's been said over and over, they just need to get out of their own heads. They have to go into the studio with no goal(except a hard timeframe), one producer, and no yes-men.

And then lock them up away from media for awhile.

 

[mikal]

Not enough is spoken about how brilliant the final 5 tracks on SOE are.

 

[david]

SOI has a solid back end.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

This nostalgia tour and yet another punt on the new album are symptoms of a deeper sickness: this is a band in serious decline and may in fact be dying before our very eyes.

I understand why people want to hear some of the JT rarities but I can't seem to get excited by that. So many of the performances on I+E were mailed in and barely listenable. I fear more of the same on this money grab venture. Maybe I'm wrong. But it's hard to imagine how they do justice to Exit, MOTD or RHMT when they could not even nail Miracle Drug, Volcano or California for f-sake. Without a truckload of technical wizardry they don't seem to be able to just rock and roll any more (yes I agree that the opening sequence on the last tour was great, and there were some other excellent moments...)

I'm not even sure they are an actual band anymore. To me they seem more like a Hollywood-style production studio looking to land the massive summer blockbuster every 4-5 years, and much less the creative force they were. Then when you tack on the endless socio-political advocacy nonsense, i just wonder sometimes what is the point. I think they are lucky to have built up a lot of goodwill over the years, and have alot of fans who seem willing to put up with anything.

Not many other bands - if any at all - would get away with a lot of this BS.

 

[lazarus]

This nostalgia tour and yet another punt on the new album are symptoms of a deeper sickness: this is a band in serious decline and may in fact be dying before our very eyes.

I understand why people want to hear some of the JT rarities but I can't seem to get excited by that. So many of the performances on I+E were mailed in and barely listenable. I fear more of the same on this money grab venture. Maybe I'm wrong. But it's hard to imagine how they do justice to Exit, MOTD or RHMT when they could not even nail Miracle Drug, Volcano or California for f-sake. Without a truckload of technical wizardry they don't seem to be able to just rock and roll any more (yes I agree that the opening sequence on the last tour was great, and there were some other excellent moments...)

I'm not even sure they are an actual band anymore. To me they seem more like a Hollywood-style production studio looking to land the massive summer blockbuster every 4-5 years, and much less the creative force they were. Then when you tack on the endless socio-political advocacy nonsense, i just wonder sometimes what is the point. I think they are lucky to have built up a lot of goodwill over the years, and have alot of fans who seem willing to put up with anything.

Not many other bands - if any at all - would get away with a lot of this BS.

This is all well and good but:

Not enough is spoken about how brilliant the final 5 tracks on SOE are.

I don't know if I'd call all 5 tracks "brilliant" but that's a half an album better than one has a right to expect, considering. Throw in Invisible and Crystal Ballroom and it's even an more impressive batch.

Feel free to name another band in their 35th year who put together a run of songs that good. As I've said before, it sure ain't on Bridges to Babylon. Or if you want a more contemporary comparison, the last New Order or Depeche Mode albums can't top it either.

Which makes it all the more frustrating, I know. If you can do half an album that good, why not the other half? And that comes down to them wanting to have it both ways, and be everything to everyone. Until they alter that philosophy (and I imagine they'll just call it quits before they do), I'm content to mine the gems amongst the compromised pap.

 

[Nick66]

SOI was easy enough to listen to, completely non-offensive (well, except the cover to some prudes) but for me it's had no staying power, and the record, both as a collection of songs and their sum, comes up to very little. The whole thing feels hollow on reflection and I just feel no connection to it. It's got its high points to be sure (e.g. Iris & Invisible), but even at its best there's something missing I can't quite put my finger on. These are personal observations, of course, some people love the record. For as far as I'm concerned as it stands I'd rank it towards the bottom of U2's catalogue.

I'm frankly more excited for the Joshua Tree tour than I would have been for a continuation of I+E, and I can't manage much excitement even for SOE given that they seem to be going down the same tepid road in recording it that they've been on for over a decade (at least).

While acknowledging that looking back the way they are now is an anathema to what the band has always stood for, I for one am glad for it. They're one of the greatest rock band of all time, and still put on a live show that puts pretty much anyone else to shame. They have an incredibly rich, deep back catalogue and as far as I'm concerned , the more they explore it the better.

 

[RoKKeR]

Not enough is spoken about how brilliant the final 5 tracks on SOE are.

Retweet.

 

[LemonMelon]

Feel free to name another band in their 35th year who put together a run of songs that good. As I've said before, it sure ain't on Bridges to Babylon. Or if you want a more contemporary comparison, the last New Order or Depeche Mode albums can't top it either.

Just off the top of my head, the Pet Shop Boys were on fire for a while during the late 00s/early 10s. Electric is a great album. The band itself isn't quite as old as U2, but it's close.

 

[Bubble]

Even tough my expectations are as low as it never been for a new release of U2,i'm 100% much more looking forward to it than this up coming tour.

But if SOE is their last attemp to be the flavour of the year with a new release and it fails,then they should have the balls to admit to themself that it's over to be relevant again and say the the fans :"Thanks for your support for the last 40 years or so, and here's our fareweel tour and adios!"

I would respect them much,much more than having them going with a 30th anniversary tour of Acthung Baby in 2021

I do have question, though,who around them has the authority to challenge them with their artistic choices on music,songwriting or touring?

Guy Oseary?... hell no!
producers?.....nope
Other bands or musicians in their inner circle friends?..no

 

[DaveC]

especially since paul left it's "u2 inc." there are many shareholders now that the company is no longer a startup. the larger number of shareholders means that the board of directors (the band) and CEO (the manager) have much less leeway for real risk-taking, lest the company go bankrupt and everyone loses their investments. more conservative management by the directors and executives probably will never give you the spectacular returns investors saw during the startup period, but it dramatically lessens the risk of catastrophe, and managed properly everyone still gets a good return on their investment.

"u2 inc." has an obligation, like any business that has shareholders, to return the best profit to investors while managing the risks properly. that's why the way u2 have been making money since the company matured 15-20 years ago is the way they are going to keep doing things, and that includes in the studio. them deciding to take a wild major deviation from the now-established recording process is going to make investors nervous about their capital, and guy o$eary certainly isn't going to be getting behind an idea like that. it's not what he was hired for, after all. despite what the hardcore fans like us want there's no motivation for the band to take any risks when every tour and album cycle earns hundreds of millions of dollars for the business. the last time they really were willing to take those big risks was pop, and we all know how the band feels (wrongly) about that album and tour.

this is why we're going to be getting more of the same album cycle-wise, again and again either until the business model stops making shitloads of money for everyone involved or something happens that breaks up the band. if they start playing to half-empty arenas, that's the point where they'll make the decision whether to cast off the chart-chasing, or retire, but i wouldn't expect it to come before that.

 

[Nick66]

"u2 inc." has an obligation, like any business that has shareholders, to return the best profit to investors while managing the risks properly.

The only problem with that theory is that they gave the last record away for free. I don't think the profit motive was foremost on their mind. There's a prevailing belief here that if only U2 did what they REALLY wanted, without thinking of things like relevance and charting, we'd finally get this brilliant record that's supposedly been brewing for 20 years.

Rubbish. It's entirely possible that 1) U2 is putting out exactly the type of music they want to put out and; 2) This is the best they can do. Which is still incidentally better then most, well all, rock bands who have been around 35 years can do. We just attribute the mediocrity that the band has slid into to other factors, when it's entirely possible that this is who they are and this is what they've got. Because we want to believe they're still the band that made Achtung Baby....and if only they'd do x they'd put out a record like that again. They're no longer that band, of course. But we want to believe they are. So we make excuses.

In any event, the tour would have been sold out no matter what the record sounded like, most people weren't there to hear the new songs anyway. Indeed, U2 could have toured without a record and it would have sold out.

 

[trevgreg]

First off, welcome aboard Iggy! Or welcome to the madness, I should say.

U2 is a band that truly takes a fan to sign onto a journey. If you ever get stuck in one period, or hop off the train for too long, it's nearly impossible to genuinely enjoy the next stage they hit.
We all know fans that are stuck in the 80-83/84 range. Wall all know fans stuck in the 84 to 88 range, or the 91 to 97 range, etc... But if you are like most people here, who have hung on tight for the entire ride, each release brings something to be appreciated and anticipated.
I for one have been a fan since 85, my most love leaning to the 90's material, and while I never fully embraced any of the 2000's albums in their entirety, it is impossible for me not to be in love with songs like Kite, WILATW, Vertigo, OOTS, COBL, Magnificent, Fez, MOS, NLOTH, EBW, Raised By Wolves, SLABT, and The Troubles...

And if i love 4 or 5 songs from SOE, it will be well worth it.

I don't think anyone here can argue that we wouldn't just love it if the band could shake the "relevance" bug and just put out something free from over-cooking. But it probably isn't what we are going to get.
I also don't think anyone here would be disappointed if the band released an album that actually resonated with the public again and allowed them to go out on a high note in the general public's perception.

I would love to get both of those things with SOE. It will be fun to find out what we end up with though.

So, enjoy the ride. If you've taken too many breaks and pit stops along the way, you'll probably be disappointed no matter what.

Pretty much agree here. On top of that, any expectations that fans have on an album, or a preference for one period or another, are almost always going to guarantee that any album they release from here on out won't be universally praised. Or almost, since you hardly find anyone 100% on one album or another. Part of the reason for that though is that you have a band that's already explored a lot of ground musically, and in ways that's not a bad thing. But it does give people expectations in these parts, and that's nearly unavoidable.

Like you said though, if I come away liking at least a few songs off a release, then it's never a defeat on my end. I'd rather that be the case then having them call it a day.

Which makes it all the more frustrating, I know. If you can do half an album that good, why not the other half? And that comes down to them wanting to have it both ways, and be everything to everyone. Until they alter that philosophy (and I imagine they'll just call it quits before they do), I'm content to mine the gems amongst the compromised pap.

Personally, I'm not sure about the first half automatically being bad because it's got a lighter, 'pop' sound or whatever you want to call it. Part of the reason for that is that five of the six songs use I–V–vi–IV progressions at one point or another, and that doesn't necessarily translate into being a worse song automatically. And for all the complaints or people on here pointing out that they don't like Edge's "chimey" riffs anymore, Iris did seem to get some of the most praise on the initial release. So damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.

For me, I don't mind hearing a bit of cohesiveness among all the songs. But I don't need it to sound like their version of In Rainbows every time just to think it's "good" or whatever. Just write a good song and the rest should follow. And based off SOI, I think there was plenty of that present at the time. And not just on one "half/side" or another.

 

[mikal]

The only problem with that theory is that they gave the last record away for free. I don't think the profit motive was foremost on their mind. There's a prevailing belief here that if only U2 did what they REALLY wanted, without thinking of things like relevance and charting, we'd finally get this brilliant record that's supposedly been brewing for 20 years.

Rubbish. It's entirely possible that 1) U2 is putting out exactly the type of music they want to put out and; 2) This is the best they can do. Which is still incidentally better then most, well all, rock bands who have been around 35 years can do. We just attribute the mediocrity that the band has slid into to other factors, when it's entirely possible that this is who they are and this is what they've got. Because we want to believe they're still the band that made Achtung Baby....and if only they'd do x they'd put out a record like that again. They're no longer that band, of course. But we want to believe they are. So we make excuses.

In any event, the tour would have been sold out no matter what the record sounded like, most people weren't there to hear the new songs anyway. Indeed, U2 could have toured without a record and it would have sold out.

Yeah I've made this argument a couple of times too. It's all about perspective. I think I enjoy their post 90s work because I realize that this isn't the same group of guys that put out those 90s albums, which still remains my favorite period of the band. There has been enough to like about their last ffouralbums that I never seem to understand the folks that completely write that work off.

 

[Nick66]

There has been enough to like about their last ffouralbums that I never seem to understand the folks that completely write that work off.

Absolutely! All those records to one extent or another have great songs on them. And while I like them to varying degrees, I certainly wouldn't write any of them...or that era....off.

 

[BVS]

This nostalgia tour and yet another punt on the new album are symptoms of a deeper sickness: this is a band in serious decline and may in fact be dying before our very eyes.

I understand why people want to hear some of the JT rarities but I can't seem to get excited by that. So many of the performances on I+E were mailed in and barely listenable. I fear more of the same on this money grab venture. Maybe I'm wrong. But it's hard to imagine how they do justice to Exit, MOTD or RHMT when they could not even nail Miracle Drug, Volcano or California for f-sake. Without a truckload of technical wizardry they don't seem to be able to just rock and roll any more (yes I agree that the opening sequence on the last tour was great, and there were some other excellent moments...)

I'm not even sure they are an actual band anymore. To me they seem more like a Hollywood-style production studio looking to land the massive summer blockbuster every 4-5 years, and much less the creative force they were. Then when you tack on the endless socio-political advocacy nonsense, i just wonder sometimes what is the point. I think they are lucky to have built up a lot of goodwill over the years, and have alot of fans who seem willing to put up with anything.

Not many other bands - if any at all - would get away with a lot of this BS.

My biggest problem with this post is that some of these arguments have been around since at least the late 80s; especially the political and no longer a rock band ones.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

The only problem with that theory is that they gave the last record away for free. I don't think the profit motive was foremost on their mind. There's a prevailing belief here that if only U2 did what they REALLY wanted, without thinking of things like relevance and charting, we'd finally get this brilliant record that's supposedly been brewing for 20 years.

Rubbish. It's entirely possible that 1) U2 is putting out exactly the type of music they want to put out and; 2) This is the best they can do. Which is still incidentally better then most, well all, rock bands who have been around 35 years can do. We just attribute the mediocrity that the band has slid into to other factors, when it's entirely possible that this is who they are and this is what they've got. Because we want to believe they're still the band that made Achtung Baby....and if only they'd do x they'd put out a record like that again. They're no longer that band, of course. But we want to believe they are. So we make excuses.

In any event, the tour would have been sold out no matter what the record sounded like, most people weren't there to hear the new songs anyway. Indeed, U2 could have toured without a record and it would have sold out.

Great post, 100% agreed.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

My biggest problem with this post is that some of these arguments have been around since at least the late 80s; especially the political and no longer a rock band ones.

Respectfully disagree.

In the 80s, the politics was a motivational, driving force for the band. it fueled them and made them connect with their audience in ways that distinguished them from the sugar pop hair band nonsense of that era.

No one was questioning their identity as a band in the 80s - their worldview and musical sensibilities defined them in a positive sense and was a key element to their ascendancy as one of the biggest bands in the world.

 

[BVS]

Respectfully disagree.

In the 80s, the politics was a motivational, driving force for the band. it fueled them and made them connect with their audience in ways that distinguished them from the sugar pop hair band nonsense of that era.

No one was questioning their identity as a band in the 80s - their worldview and musical sensibilities defined them in a positive sense and was a key element to their ascendancy as one of the biggest bands in the world.

People weren't questioning their identity?! They absolutely were.

Some were questioning them being too American, some were questioning their ego with R&H, and many were questioning their Hollywood like theatrics with ZooTv.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

People weren't questioning their identity?! They absolutely were.

Some were questioning them being too American, some were questioning their ego with R&H, and many were questioning their Hollywood like theatrics with ZooTv.

Well, the R&H fiasco was more about the band's ego getting out of control. Different issue than saying their politics was the problem. That at least is my recollection but if you recall differently then ok.

Zoo TV was not the 80s, and wasn't really about the politics per se. The band took a radically new direction both musically and with the tour and that was bound to generate criticism as well as praise.

 

[BVS]

Well, the R&H fiasco was more about the band's ego getting out of control. Different issue than saying their politics was the problem. That at least is my recollection but if you recall differently then ok.

Zoo TV was not the 80s, and wasn't really about the politics per se. The band took a radically new direction both musically and with the tour and that was bound to generate criticism as well as praise.

You mentioned several issues, not just the political, please go back to my original comment on your post.

 

[TheWanderer]

It's been all downhill since Boy.

 

[mikal]

BVS. Don't scare new people away!

 

[Salome]

I don't think anything U2 could do would win over their fans.

 

[BVS]

BVS. Don't scare new people away!

Was that scary?

 

[Nick66]

My biggest problem with this post is that some of these arguments have been around since at least the late 80s; especially the political and no longer a rock band ones.

The most tiring is the oft-used but utterly rubbish "If only they'd stop trying to be relevant they'd be great again..." argument.

They've always tried to be relevant. It's in their DNA. The just didn't have to try so hard in the past. And they were more successful, more consistently, at being relevant. With the possible exception of Passengers (which isn't really U2 record), I don't think they've put out a record where they weren't concerned, to a large degree, with relevance...both as a reflection of record sales and being part of the popular zeitgeist.

 

[womanfish]

The most tiring is the oft-used but utterly rubbish "If only they'd stop trying to be relevant they'd be great again..." argument.

They've always tried to be relevant. It's in their DNA. The just didn't have to try so hard in the past. And they were more successful, more consistently, at being relevant. With the possible exception of Passengers (which isn't really U2 record), I don't think they've put out a record where they weren't concerned, to a large degree, with relevance...both as a reflection of record sales and being part of the popular zeitgeist.

I see your point here. It's a slippery slope. It is correct that they always wanted to be relevant. To be the biggest band in the world. But I think that when you look back, you see that they were making the music they really wanted to, and got deep into a set of "inspirations", and by god it worked at that time. UF, JT, AB, Zooropa, etc... I think they went for it and they had success and it just boosted their confidence to go to the next stage and knock it out of the park. I think part of it was that they were making music in a time when rock music and radio and albums, etc... were all looked at differently than they are today. Timing means a lot.

When POP hit them negatively, it shook them. Then they put out ATYCLB to try and get back to the "basics" and boom, great success. Except in my opinion, it's a pretty mediocre album.
So instead of reaching out again to something new and different, they mainly stuck with the same formula, fearing that a new direction could mean another failure.

So in that respect, i do think they are just playing it too safe. And to be honest, they are a rock band. They've gone in about as many directions as a rock band can go. So at a band with members nearing 60 years of age... There aren't a ton of new tricks up the sleeve.

And the fact that the tracks on SOI that were more Danger Mouse centric ended up being the more enjoyable tracks than the ones where they brought in the shiny pop producers, just reinforces the feelings that fans like us get, that they need to pair down the revolving door on the studio and just bang out something that they are feeling at the moment. Ala Zooropa.

I'm glad they still strive for relevance and greatness. I think its the engine that keeps them going. But they have to trust themselves more than the dozens of "others" they surround themselves with.

 

[lazarus]

They've always tried to be "relevant", but Bono certainly wouldn't be saying anything like "Fuck the pop kids, we don't need 'em" post-2000.

 

[BVS]

They've always tried to be "relevant", but Bono certainly wouldn't be saying anything like "Fuck the pop kids, we don't need 'em" post-2000.

And why not? Everyone was saying 'fuck the pop kids' in order to relevant back then.

 

[BVS]

I see your point here. It's a slippery slope. It is correct that they always wanted to be relevant. To be the biggest band in the world. But I think that when you look back, you see that they were making the music they really wanted to, and got deep into a set of "inspirations", and by god it worked at that time. UF, JT, AB, Zooropa, etc... I think they went for it and they had success and it just boosted their confidence to go to the next stage and knock it out of the park. I think part of it was that they were making music in a time when rock music and radio and albums, etc... were all looked at differently than they are today. Timing means a lot.

When POP hit them negatively, it shook them. Then they put out ATYCLB to try and get back to the "basics" and boom, great success. Except in my opinion, it's a pretty mediocre album.
So instead of reaching out again to something new and different, they mainly stuck with the same formula, fearing that a new direction could mean another failure.

So in that respect, i do think they are just playing it too safe. And to be honest, they are a rock band. They've gone in about as many directions as a rock band can go. So at a band with members nearing 60 years of age... There aren't a ton of new tricks up the sleeve.

And the fact that the tracks on SOI that were more Danger Mouse centric ended up being the more enjoyable tracks than the ones where they brought in the shiny pop producers, just reinforces the feelings that fans like us get, that they need to pair down the revolving door on the studio and just bang out something that they are feeling at the moment. Ala Zooropa.

I'm glad they still strive for relevance and greatness. I think its the engine that keeps them going. But they have to trust themselves more than the dozens of "others" they surround themselves with.

The only problem with this argument is that you're basically saying that now they're not making the music they want to...

 

[Iggy Fizz]

Was that scary?

no, wasn't scary. I respect your POV on the topic. Seems like we are probably saying much the same thing anyway, and more debating semantics...