Is This It?

[Galeongirl]

This is painful to read.

And rather inaccurate too.

 

[Hollow Island]

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.

Bands of U2's age or older that have made better albums over this decade, off the top of my head

Rush
Depeche Mode
Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds (grew out of The Birthday Party)
Mission of Burma
New Order
The Rolling Stones

There are more. Add solo artists and there are more still.

 

[BVS]

Bands of U2's age or older that have made better albums over this decade, off the top of my head



Rush

Depeche Mode

Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds (grew out of The Birthday Party)

Mission of Burma

New Order

The Rolling Stones



There are more. Add solo artists and there are more still.

Not sure Nick Cave counts.

Rush, respect what they do, but not a fan.

DM has definitely made some solid albums, but haven't really stepped out of their comfort zone in a loooong time.

New Order and RS; have to hugely disagree.

 

[cobl04]

Not sure Nick Cave counts.

What the goddamn shit are you talking about

 

[BVS]

What the goddamn shit are you talking about

From what I've read Nick Cave writes on his, there isn't much collaboration with the bad seeds. I think when speaking of longevity and creativity, one has to take in account that writing and creating on your own vs a very democratic band are two entirely different things.

 

[lazarus]

Doesn't Cave pretty much have final say in all creative decisions? Bad Seeds are more of his backing band than any kind of democratic setup like the others. EDIT: wrote this before seeing BVS's response.

Anyway, I'd also disagree with New Order (though I enjoyed their first Peter Hook-less album more than I expected to), and the Rolling Stones haven't even released an album of original content this decade, though even suggesting them is laughable considering they haven't released anything even remotely great since the mid-to-late 1970s.

Rush? Let's not.

Mission of Burma took a 20 year break so I'm not sure that's the same as continuing to record and tour for 35+ years straight.

 

[cobl04]

Fair but even if it was a fully democratic thing (and I'm 99% certain that the music is written and recorded with The Bad Seeds, just not the lyrics) the result would be the same. TBS are not at all interested in writing recording and releasing music that's gonna land them a "hit" or "relevancy".

 

[BVS]

Fair but even if it was a fully democratic thing (and I'm 99% certain that the music is written and recorded with The Bad Seeds, just not the lyrics) the result would be the same. TBS are not at all interested in writing recording and releasing music that's gonna land them a "hit" or "relevancy".

Im guessing you've never created anything in a group environment over a period of time? Saying the results would be the same is ridiculous. You don't even know if they'd still be together let alone creating the same output.

 

[Hollow Island]

So, to recap:

Nick Cave & Bad Seeds do that count b/c it's not a democracy, though others get writing credits.

Mission of Burma don't count b/c of a break.

Rush don't count b/c they're Rush.

DM don't count b/c they haven't stepped outside of their comfort zone (even though Exciter and the Hillier trilogy are farther from their classic sound than anything U2 have done since Pop).

New Order don't count for the same reason.

Stones don't count b/c their last album was covers. Does their debut not count either?

They've all made better albums than SOI in the last few years.

Wire, there's another one! Can't wait to see why they don't count.

There's nothing remarkable about U2's output for a 35 year old band, just as it wasn't for 30 or 25 or 20.

 

[Hollow Island]

Oh and the Bad Seeds change dramatically based on who's there and who dominates.

 

[gvox]

I think the point is that literally none of those bands' albums in the last 10 yrs was actually better than SOI.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[MrPryck2U]

So, to recap:

Nick Cave & Bad Seeds do that count b/c it's not a democracy, though others get writing credits.

Mission of Burma do that count b/c of a break.

Rush font count b/c they're Rush.

DM don't count b/c they haven't stepped outside of their comfort zone (even though Exviter and the Hillier trilogy are farther from their classic sound than anything U2 have done since Pop).

New Order don't count for the same reason.

Stones don't count b/c their last album was covers. Does their debut not count either?

They've all made better albums than SOI in the last few years.

Wire, there's another one! Can't wait to see why they don't count.

There's nothing remarkable about U2's output for a 35 year old band, just as it wasn't for 30 or 25 or 20.

You need an editor, pronto!

 

[BVS]

There's nothing remarkable about U2's output for a 35 year old band, just as it wasn't for 30 or 25 or 20.

Very true, in fact most of us are here because we took a wrong turn looking for the UB40 forum.

 

[Hollow Island]

Predictive text went mad, I'm genuinely embarrassed! Apologies to everyone.

 

[Hollow Island]

Very true, in fact most of us are here because we took a wrong turn looking for the UB40 forum.

They're still a very good band, obviously, but there are other bands of their vintage or older whose most recent album is better, or who put out records around 09 better than NLOTH. Just as there are bands that at 20 years old made records better than ATYCLB.

Throw solo artists in there and it's even worse, but the U2 supremacist side on this argument needs as narrow a field as possible, as is shown by all the disqualifications.

Most of us are here are probably here because of what they did between 83 and 93 though.

 

[cobl04]

I think the point is that literally none of those bands' albums in the last 10 yrs was actually better than SOI.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH :lmao HAHAHAHAHHAHAHhahhahahhahahahahhahah oh man that's some funny shit

This song alone is better than everything on SOI rolled into one

 

[BVS]

They're still a very good band, obviously, but there are other bands of their vintage or older whose most recent album is better, or who put out records around 09 better than NLOTH. Just as there are bands that at 20 years old made records better than ATYCLB.



Throw solo artists in there and it's even worse, but the U2 supremacist side on this argument needs as narrow a field as possible, as is shown by all the disqualifications.



Most of us are here are probably here because of what they did between 83 and 93 though.

I think even my 5 yo niece understands the difference between comparing a band and a solo artist' output when it comes to age.

 

[gvox]

AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH :lmao HAHAHAHAHHAHAHhahhahahhahahahahhahah oh man that's some funny shit

This song alone is better than everything on SOI rolled into one

No, it objectively is not.

 

[cobl04]

I didn't realise you were THAT stupid.

 

[cobl04]

I mean, I knew you were an idiot, but I didn't think you were that dumb.

 

[LemonMelon]

Hahaha objectively

Objectively Skeleton Tree was more acclaimed than anything U2 has released since 2000. And there's about five other albums from the man that could boast the same.

It's funny that SOI is held up as some kind of creative high water mark that's unachievable by anyone over 50 when it received some of the worst reviews of their career.

 

[gvox]

https://youtu.be/uaU4V8JYdSs


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[cobl04]

Waiting for gvox to be like "didn't you read the Rolling Stone review?!"

 

[lazarus]

Hahaha objectively

Objectively Skeleton Tree was more acclaimed than anything U2 has released since 2000. And there's about five other albums from the man that could boast the same.

It's funny that SOI is held up as some kind of creative high water mark that's unachievable by anyone over 50 when it received some of the worst reviews of their career.

So, is Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band also a band? How about Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers?

I understand you're in murkier water with Cave because Ellis (at least) writes music with him, but again, not a democracy.

The point being made is that it's hard to keep a BAND going for this long, one where there isn't one person with the final say on everything, and especially in U2 where everyone's opinion is given relatively equal weight (and what allows an idiot like Larry to keep Mercy from being on The Bomb at the last minute). It's why solo artists (however you want to define that) are able to keep going at a higher level because they don't have to compromise with anyone. So I don't think it's fair to bring Skeleton Tree into this.

As for SOI, can we at least agree that it's divisive? Some people think it's their worst, or one of their worst. Some think it's the best since the 90s. So of course we're going to have these wildly divergent opinions. And don't drag Metacritic scores into it because you know many of those negative reviews were biased due to the delivery method. I'm not saying it would have been universally raved, but it likely would have been more in the neighborhood of the last 3 (in the 70s).

My own opinion, as I've said many times, is that I think the first half is filled with over-production and unfortunate tinkering. But I do believe that second half is better than what any of those bands have put out in the last 10 years (longer in most cases).

 

[kabigon]

This song alone is better than everything on SOI rolled into one

The whole album? Objectively no.

I'll give you that it's definitely as good as any song on SOI though, and I do think SOI is better than anything from U2 since the 90s.

 

[An Cat Gav]

AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH :lmao HAHAHAHAHHAHAHhahhahahhahahahahhahah oh man that's some funny shit

This song alone is better than everything on SOI rolled into one

It is an incredible song and better than anything on SOI.

 

[AndrewCowley]

Cave and Ellis. Springsteen, Neil Young too. Musical and lyrical geniuses,, hence the longetivity. U2 simply are not in this league, hence the recent struggles.

Period.

 

[LemonMelon]

So, is Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band also a band? How about Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers?

I understand you're in murkier water with Cave because Ellis (at least) writes music with him, but again, not a democracy.

The point being made is that it's hard to keep a BAND going for this long, one where there isn't one person with the final say on everything, and especially in U2 where everyone's opinion is given relatively equal weight (and what allows an idiot like Larry to keep Mercy from being on The Bomb at the last minute). It's why solo artists (however you want to define that) are able to keep going at a higher level because they don't have to compromise with anyone. So I don't think it's fair to bring Skeleton Tree into this.

As for SOI, can we at least agree that it's divisive? Some people think it's their worst, or one of their worst. Some think it's the best since the 90s. So of course we're going to have these wildly divergent opinions. And don't drag Metacritic scores into it because you know many of those negative reviews were biased due to the delivery method. I'm not saying it would have been universally raved, but it likely would have been more in the neighborhood of the last 3 (in the 70s).

My own opinion, as I've said many times, is that I think the first half is filled with over-production and unfortunate tinkering. But I do believe that second half is better than what any of those bands have put out in the last 10 years (longer in most cases).

FWIW I was only arguing Nick Cave vs U2 because that comparison had arisen in the discussion. I don't find it to be a practical or realistic comparison myself.

As far as contemporaneous comparisons go, here are some 70s and 80s bands that put out good/great albums this decade:

Pet Shop Boys
Wire
Beastie Boys
Dinosaur Jr.
Iron Maiden
Motorhead
The Feelies
Black Sabbath

Obviously a list of solo acts would be much longer.

 

[gvox]

So, is Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band also a band? How about Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers?

I understand you're in murkier water with Cave because Ellis (at least) writes music with him, but again, not a democracy.

The point being made is that it's hard to keep a BAND going for this long, one where there isn't one person with the final say on everything, and especially in U2 where everyone's opinion is given relatively equal weight (and what allows an idiot like Larry to keep Mercy from being on The Bomb at the last minute). It's why solo artists (however you want to define that) are able to keep going at a higher level because they don't have to compromise with anyone. So I don't think it's fair to bring Skeleton Tree into this.

As for SOI, can we at least agree that it's divisive? Some people think it's their worst, or one of their worst. Some think it's the best since the 90s. So of course we're going to have these wildly divergent opinions. And don't drag Metacritic scores into it because you know many of those negative reviews were biased due to the delivery method. I'm not saying it would have been universally raved, but it likely would have been more in the neighborhood of the last 3 (in the 70s).

My own opinion, as I've said many times, is that I think the first half is filled with over-production and unfortunate tinkering. But I do believe that second half is better than what any of those bands have put out in the last 10 years (longer in most cases).

I don't even think SOI is necessarily their best album since the 90s. Track for track it certainly isn't my favourite.

But as you say, the last half - and if you want to dream up a world in which Invisible and Crystal Ballroom make the cut - is really good stuff, and better than the song posted.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

Cave and Ellis. Springsteen, Neil Young too. Musical and lyrical geniuses,, hence the longetivity. U2 simply are not in this league, hence the recent struggles.

Period.

I don't think genius has anything to do with it. I think all three of these artists have had their creative struggles.

And I guarantee you they'd have more of these struggles if they had 3 or 4 other members to answer to or depend on. In fact it's probably why they are solo artists and not in bands.

Period