Is This It?

[Nick66]

I realize you folks are quite accustomed to coming here and posting in what seems to be your 'safe zone' - aka where everyone reinforces each others' opinions, including the 'neutral' mods. Can't say I am disappointed in this, as I was warned several times by others as to what to expect in this forum.

This is absolute and utter rubbish. There are a wide variety of opinions on U2 here, and while we have our share of fanboys, most people are actually clear eyed about the band. Not to mention pretty musically knowledgable.

As to what you were "warned" about when coming here....more rubbish. This is an internet forum, that's all. So do try and not be a drama queen. And to take yourself less seriously.

Your offering an opinion that people don't agree with doesn't mean you've courageously burst bubbles in a "safe zone." It just means people think what you're saying is rubbishy rubbish.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

This is absolute and utter rubbish. There are a wide variety of opinions on U2 here, and while we have our share of fanboys, most people are actually clear eyed about the band. Not to mention pretty musically knowledgable.

As to what you were "warned" about when coming here....more rubbish. This is an internet forum, that's all. So do try and not be a drama queen. And to take yourself less seriously.

Your offering an opinion that people don't agree with doesn't mean you've courageously burst bubbles in a "safe zone." It just means people think what you're saying is rubbishy rubbish.

safe zone politically. if you don't want to recognize the reality of how this place is viewed - good for you. not terribly surprised.

now as for what I posted - so instead of saying simply 'I disagree and here is why' - you simply fall back to the lazy 'it's rubbish'. How thoughtful. Good job.

 

[BVS]

I realize you folks are quite accustomed to coming here and posting in what seems to be your 'safe zone' - aka where everyone reinforces each others' opinions, including the 'neutral' mods. Can't say I am disappointed in this, as I was warned several times by others as to what to expect in this forum.

BVS - to your specific question - the answer is no, my personal politics hasn't changed much. What I am referring to with the band is their recent change of tone starting with the anti-Trump stuff during their 2 Cali gigs. This is indeed a change of tone, if not necessarily in philosophy. Over the past 20 years or so, the band and B in particular have been mostly issue-driven. I.e. not about a specific candidate or elected official. Now that has changed. And while I personally can't stand Trump, a lot of people will likely be turned off by B's rambling if he chooses to go there. If you disagree, fine.

This simply isn't true.

Any of it.

There is no "safe zone" reinforcing each other.

And yes the band has been very outspoken towards certain politicians.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

another thoughtful retort. Rather than actually respond to the comments, you and your kin simply go to 'it's rubbish, it's all wrong, no this is not the way it is'

Essentially the response of an organism to an antibody.

Outstanding!

 

[BVS]

another thoughtful retort. Rather than actually respond to the comments, you and your kin simply go to 'it's rubbish, it's all wrong, no this is not the way it is'

Essentially the response of an organism to an antibody.

Outstanding!

Well anyone who isn't new to U2 knows he was outspoken about Reagan, Thatcher, and others.

I'm sorry, did you need some misogynistic tag line in order for you to understand?

 

[MrPryck2U]

U2 didn't exactly have great things to say about Reagan back in the 1980's, but Trump has easily surpassed any missteps Reagan took during his presidency. Bono and U2 have been a political band since Day 1 of their musical journey. Nothing has changed.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

U2 have recently become outspoken about Thatcher and Reagan, in order to sell this latest tour rather than simply admit that SOE is not coming along well, and hey there's money to be made in nostalgia.

In the 1980s, no actually they were not outspoken regarding specific individuals all that much. In fact - to their credit they largely let the music do the talking.

Now folks - before you have another cardiac here - I will remind you that I am not necessarily slagging them for it. I am simply recognizing that if they continue to call out Trump at their shows, it will be polarizing for some. Full stop.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

safe zone politically. if you don't want to recognize the reality of how this place is viewed - good for you. not terribly surprised.

now as for what I posted - so instead of saying simply 'I disagree and here is why' - you simply fall back to the lazy 'it's rubbish'. How thoughtful. Good job.

There's no doubt that the forum trends left. Is there any surprise to that, though? A forum on a left leaning politically active band leans left?

We have a few right leaning​ posters. Unfortunately the last prolific one was outed as a white nationalist because he was stupid enough to reference his posts here on Reddit, and they were discovered and shared with mods. Since then, admittedly, the board has been dominated by the left.

I agree with you that people will be alienated if Bono goes on Trump rants. That doesn't mean he's wrong, nor does it mean it makes sense. I was at a Springsteen concert last summer that featured a 4 song stretch of Death To My Hometown, Youngstown, Jack Of All Trades and American Skin... As politically motivated and left leaning as Bruce gets. And he spoke on the election and whatnot. And he's a known hardcore liberal, and yet, behind me, some jersey Bros grumbled. Hey, it happens... doesn't mean he shouldn't say it.

Artists are often our best source of dissent. We shouldn't be silencing them. Call them out if they're wrong or being hypocritical? Sure. Silence? That's a slippery fucking slope there.

 

[BVS]

U2 have recently become outspoken about Thatcher and Reagan, in order to sell this latest tour rather than simply admit that SOE is not coming along well, and hey there's money to be made in nostalgia.

In the 1980s, no actually they were not outspoken regarding specific individuals all that much. In fact - to their credit they largely let the music do the talking.

I have bootlegs that say differently.

 

[redhill]

Oh just stop. At least red hill had the virtue of being new and not knowing any better.

Absolute and utter rubbish

redhill
Refugee
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lehigh, FL, USA
Posts: 1,515

 

[Iggy Fizz]

There's no doubt that the forum trends left. Is there any surprise to that, though? A forum on a left leaning politically active band leans left?

We have a few right leaning​ posters. Unfortunately the last prolific one was outed as a white nationalist because he was stupid enough to reference his posts here on Reddit, and they were discovered and shared with mods. Since then, admittedly, the board has been dominated by the left.

I agree with you that people will be alienated if Bono goes on Trump rants. That doesn't mean he's wrong, nor does it mean it makes sense. I was at a Springsteen concert last summer that featured a 4 song stretch of Death To My Hometown, Youngstown, Jack Of All Trades and American Skin... As politically motivated and left leaning as Bruce gets. And he spoke on the election and whatnot. And he's a known hardcore liberal, and yet, behind me, some jersey Bros grumbled. Hey, it happens... doesn't mean he shouldn't say it.

Artists are often our best source of dissent. We shouldn't be silencing them. Call them out if they're wrong or being hypocritical? Sure. Silence? That's a slippery fucking slope there.

100% agreed.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

I have bootlegs that say differently.

do share.

 

[Nick66]

redhill
Refugee
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lehigh, FL, USA
Posts: 1,515

Ah, well. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt mate.

 

[redhill]

Ah, well. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt mate.

I appreciate that (and your later comment about the pile on) but I don't know what there is to doubt.

 

[mikal]

Lol!

 

[redhill]

Lol!

 

[DaveC]

Anybody Seen My Baby? hit the top 20 in Europe and top 5 of US Rock charts. #1 in canada, eh.

that's because we were already pretty familiar with the song.

Spoiler

There's no doubt that the forum trends left. Is there any surprise to that, though? A forum on a left leaning politically active band leans left?

We have a few right leaning​ posters. Unfortunately the last prolific one was outed as a white nationalist because he was stupid enough to reference his posts here on Reddit, and they were discovered and shared with mods. Since then, admittedly, the board has been dominated by the left.

I agree with you that people will be alienated if Bono goes on Trump rants. That doesn't mean he's wrong, nor does it mean it makes sense. I was at a Springsteen concert last summer that featured a 4 song stretch of Death To My Hometown, Youngstown, Jack Of All Trades and American Skin... As politically motivated and left leaning as Bruce gets. And he spoke on the election and whatnot. And he's a known hardcore liberal, and yet, behind me, some jersey Bros grumbled. Hey, it happens... doesn't mean he shouldn't say it.

Artists are often our best source of dissent. We shouldn't be silencing them. Call them out if they're wrong or being hypocritical? Sure. Silence? That's a slippery fucking slope there.

the rest of your post on the stones and this one are the gold plated truth. posts like these are why we need that like button.

 

[lazarus]

u
the rolling stones as a brand has long outlived their relevance as a maker of music. if anything U2's insistence on trying to remain culturally "relevant" has made them LESS culturally relevant. bono's brand work with (red) may be more culturally relevant than the actual band at this point.

meanwhile the stones just had an amazingly well received exhibition in manhattan that's on it's way to chicago next, and a well received album to boot. plus - you see younger generations wearing stones shirts. you see that logo everywhere. not the same with u2. it just isn't.

I believe U2 can climb through this "old guy at the club" cultural malaise and return to their iconic legend status (the JT tour is a good start), and I think the Stones went through a similar phase in the late 90s/early 00s to come out of it on top... but yea, U2 are not very culturally relevant right now at all. most under the age of 30 consider them quite lame. mostly 'cause of bono and songs of innocence.

the stones are touring artwork, costumes and instruments from their history to select cities around the world and smashing it at the box office with Exhibitionism.

So it would appear that yes, people still care about the stones.

so i've spent the entire post so far defending the stones, but now it's time to knock this little theory down a bit and defend U2.

U2 rode a huge wave of "BIGNESS" from 1987 through 2005. Yes, Popmart fizzled in the States, but was still huge elsewhere in the world. It could have been the start of the fall, but Sweetest Thing did very well in 99, and ATYCLB was a smash hit in 2000. Vertigo/Bomb was absolutely massive, and they rode that through the end of 360, which was an unbelievable success.

No Line faltering was the sign that things were changing, and the butchered 2014 release cycle closed the deal. they should have been able to see changing demographics and plan their release method accordingly. failing to do so resulted in the embarrassingly out of touch release method of Songs of Innocence.




the late histories of each band are actually very similar...Steel Wheels can be seen as an equivalent release to All That You Can't Leave Behind, Voodoo Lounge their Atomic Bomb (i'd argue Bomb was more popular, but alas).

Bridges to Babylon in 1997 was released 35 years in for the Stones, roughly equivalent to No Line On The Horizon for U2. The albums and tours are relatively similar - mildly successful on the charts, more so in Europe than the US (
Anybody Seen My Baby? hit the top 20 in Europe and top 5 of US Rock charts. #1 in canada, eh. Saint of Me cracked the Billboard Hot 100 (albeit a low 96), and reached #26 on the UK charts) - massively successful mega world tour to accompany that broke all records.

they released 40 licks for their 40th anniversary and toured backing that, and then a few years later released Bigger Bang to mild success in Europe (not much in the US), Tour was still utterly massive (the biggest ever until 360) and saw a show in Canada draw 500k and one in Rio draw over a million. This was at 43 years in... or where U2 will be in 2019.


so can somebody again tell me about how irrelevant the stones were/are in comparison to U2? 'cause that's some bullshit. if anything the two bands "late" history is remarkably similar. comparing the Stones of today to the U2 of today is incredibly unfair; the Stones are 55 years in while U2 is in the middle of their 40th year. you have to look at it from where they were at certain milestones - 20 years in - 30 years in - 40 years in - etc etc etc. when you do that the album success and tour success almost line up perfectly.

Perhaps I didn't choose my words as well as I could have. Or maybe you will disagree anyway.

I never claimed U2 were "cooler" than the Stones, or held in higher regard by young people. That's no surprise.

When I say culturally relevant, I'm talking about the way the band chooses to interact with and reflect the culture itself, musically or otherwise. They may make some poor decisions in terms of who to collaborate with, but they aren't writing and recording music in a vacuum. They are often citing younger artists who interest and inspire them. They seek out collaborators from various genres, often ones with fresher perspectives (Tedder isn't someone I want them working with, but it fits this description).

Outside the world of music, they're clearly involved with current political and social issues via philanthropy and their own publicized support of various causes, physical appearances at benefits, as well as Bono's constant boots on the ground and mouth in the office activism.

What do the Stones care about? How long has it been since they made music that anyone can relate to or that speaks to something inside the listener? Yes, they're more "respected" for their legacy and will always be considered cool because of their dangerous past. But they exist outside the world we're living in. Aside from one song called "Sweet Neo-con" on A Bigger Bang, and Jack White and Christina Aguilera appearing in Shine A Light as guests, I can't think of how they've connected to any culture in the last 20+ years.

So my classification has little to do with what millennials think about the bands, or how much money a touring Stones memorabilia museum makes. It's about one band continuing to engage with the world around them and another content to live like demigods with little interest in making music. The latter has been like that for a long time.

 

[DaveC]

What do the Stones care about? How long has it been since they made music that anyone can relate to or that speaks to something inside the listener? Yes, they're more "respected" for their legacy and will always be considered cool because of their dangerous past. But they exist outside the world we're living in. Aside from one song called "Sweet Neo-con" on A Bigger Bang, and Jack White and Christina Aguilera appearing in Shine A Light as guests, I can't think of how they've connected to any culture in the last 20+ years.

when they played a concert in halifax in 2006 it was the biggest event of the year for me and all my 19-20 year old friends. none of us were more than casual fans, but still we all happily spent $100 each months in advance of the show and despite it being a woodstock-eqsue mud pit from the entire day of poring rain there were about 60,000 people there and it was a fantastic show. it was one of the best memories of college for me and a few dozen people i knew.

i know this is only an anecdote, but you make it sound like nobody has given a single fuck about the stones for decades. i can promise you the entire city of halifax was pumped that the stones were coming and this was 12 years after they'd released their last commercially successful single in canada. they played several songs off a bigger bang that were very well received by the crowd, even if we didn't know all the words. of course jumping jack flash got a bigger reaction, but it's not like people got irritated at hearing their post-80s work.

saying they're "content to live like demigods with little interest in making music" is really off the mark and unfair too. like headache mentioned, they just released an album in december of blues tunes that was quite highly rated and sold very well. in fact you may be surprised to learn that the album was #1 on all of these charts:

usa (billboard vinyl albums, billboard top rock albums, billboard top blues albums)
sweden
switzerland
uk (OCC albums, OCC jazz & blues albums)
scotland
norway
germany
japan
netherlands
czech republic
belgium
croatia
argentina
austria
australia

we get it laz, you really don't like the rolling stones. but to pretend that nobody else does anymore either is objectively silly. u2 is dreaming of having a career like the stones do 20 years from now.

 

[lazarus]

you make it sound like nobody has given a single fuck about the stones for decades.

I never claimed U2 were "cooler" than the Stones, or held in higher regard by young people. That's no surprise.

Do you have trouble reading?

You barely addressed anything in my actual post, so I don't even know what to respond with.

I never claimed that they couldn't still sell tickets.

My point was about them engaging with the world around them, musical and otherwise. They don't. Releasing an album of covers of songs 50+ years old doesn't equal relevance to me, regardless of how well it was reviewed.

I have over 10 Stones albums and hardly consider myself a hater. I also don't think they've put out a legitimately great album since the late 70s.

Feel free to continue the strawman argument that "people don't listen to them" instead of addressing that the band is out of touch. U2, whatever their flaws, are attempting to be vital and that goes beyond hiring hot producers. It's about a worldview and the content of their writing.

 

[DaveC]

i hardly call releasing an album that goes to #1 on 18 separate charts to be an act that is particularly "out of touch". its content has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this. so what if it's an album of blues covers? so was their first album. obviously millions of people felt it was relevant enough to them to purchase/listen to the thing.

and why does it seem that are you assuming that being "in touch" and "attempting to be vital", is something every band should inherently be striving for anyways? what the hell does that even mean if it's not huge contemporary sales, stellar critical reviews and continuing to be one of the biggest influences in pop and rock music for over 50 years? i'm really confused what exactly you mean. how else do they "engage with the world around them" if getting chart topping sales for a fantastic album and playing sold out shows worldwide year after year somehow doesn't count?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Do you have trouble reading?

You barely addressed anything in my actual post, so I don't even know what to respond with.

I never claimed that they couldn't still sell tickets.

My point was about them engaging with the world around them, musical and otherwise. They don't. Releasing an album of covers of songs 50+ years old doesn't equal relevance to me, regardless of how well it was reviewed.

I have over 10 Stones albums and hardly consider myself a hater. I also don't think they've put out a legitimately great album since the late 70s.

Feel free to continue the strawman argument that "people don't listen to them" instead of addressing that the band is out of touch. U2, whatever their flaws, are attempting to be vital and that goes beyond hiring hot producers. It's about a worldview and the content of their writing.

One could easily make the argument that it's U2 who are more out of touch of late; trying to attach their wagon on to whoever the hip "of the moment" producer is, pursuing simply embarrassing publicity stunts, and still not quite getting "it."

They're trying to force feed relevancy, rather than let it happen organically. At times it comes off as desperate and out of touch with reality. Sad!

They've always tried to be "vital" and "big," but what they are now does not come off as relevant and/or important, rather desperate and needy, and it's had the reverse effect - it has hurt their legacy.

They're not the band of "fuck the revolution" or ZooTV to the younger generation. They're that band who spammed everyone's iPhone.

As far as worldview in writing? I mean... the Stones have never been overtly political, a couple of tracks off Beggars Banquet aside. It isn't who they are and never has been, so I don't understand why it should be expected of them to do so now.

 

[hasin73]

In our country, we hear and love songs of many old bands from The Beatles to Radiohead. In the 1987 year ending chart of most popular English songs, U2's With or Without You was no. 1. The inherent meaning of that song may not be understood by all but the song touched our heart and that what makes a song great and relevant. Till this day, U2's music inspires us, soothes us, makes us think about us, about the world around us. This third world nation's people love lots and lots of old songs that have touched their soul. Those songs have been with them all the time, in sadness and in happiness. That enduring quality has made those songs great. If you want I will name all the beloved foreign bands in our country. U2 is one of them. BUT....... NOBODY LIKES ROLLING STONES' SONGS in this country. RS songs do not touch our heart, do not lift our soul....... let alone be relevant. As a band, they are dead as dinosaurs to us. It is same in most of the third-world countries. 50 years worth of RS career means nothing to us when the music does not resonate with the inner soul. But 37 years worth of U2 and many other bands ( older & newer than RS ) move us, make us laugh & cry, make us be thankful to be born with the ability to hear and appreciate soul-searching music. And don't underestimate us. We ( this country ) have heard and tasted a Lot.

 

[david]

I know it was brought up earlier... but Bono frequently mentioned Reagan during Bullet the Blue Sky during the Joshua Tree Tour in '87.

https://youtu.be/eb8v9MBbRcs

Around 3:40 - :46 he name drops old Ronnie.

 

[Axver]

U2 have recently become outspoken about Thatcher and Reagan, in order to sell this latest tour rather than simply admit that SOE is not coming along well, and hey there's money to be made in nostalgia.

In the 1980s, no actually they were not outspoken regarding specific individuals all that much. In fact - to their credit they largely let the music do the talking.

What? This is completely and utterly wrong. In particular Bono went after Reagan repeatedly in concert. On the UF Tour "Seconds" was a typical vehicle to denounce Reagan and his policies.

Hell, even on the hilarious drunken TV Gaga performance Bono slags off Reagan during "Knockin' on Heaven's Door".

 

[U2girl]

Yep!



You're a fucking idiot, Blue & Lonesome was more well-received than the last two U2 albums by a mile.

The Stones are more then welcome to try and top 360. "Biggest live draw" and all that...

And...I wouldn't brag about a covers album (do the reviews mention it happened because Stones had trouble with writing new material?) reception if I had a legacy like that band but knock yourself out...
Did 30+ miillion listen to it, like SOI ? Did several U2 albums pick up in the charts, like U2's did ? Was Blue and Lonesome a huge event ?

Are you kidding me ? Are you seriously suggesting whenever next Stones album comes out it will get near the reaction SOE will get ? They haven't released new studio material since A bigger bang in 2005* despite, yes, being one of the best live acts. They don't even belong in a "relevance" discussion.

* Say what you will about U2, we got NLOTH, SOI since. And they're working on SOE.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Did 30+ miillion listen to it, like SOI ? Did several U2 albums pick up in the charts, like U2's did ? Was Blue and Lonesome a huge event ?

* Say what you will about U2, we got NLOTH, SOI since. And they're working on SOE.

I personally very much enjoy SOI and I'm looking forward to SOE.

I'm still excited to be a U2 fan.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

Look we can talk original lineup, how many hits, how long have they been together, etc till we're blue in the face, but it's the other thing we're trying to discuss. The X factor.

IMO, on top of all those things U2 had their moment(s) where they were part of cultural fabric, they had hits, bands wanted to be them, there was an importance about them.

AC/DC are big, they're influential, but I would say it's niche, and in a "knocked me out with American thighs" way.

DM, I'm not sure their reach was ever wide enough, and I think they'd be the first to admit that.

R.E.M. I would say they're probably the closest, although I'm not sure if they ever had their 'able to play super bowl' moment. And what I mean by that is I don't know if they were ever able to cross lines in their audience/ generations.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The only thing stupider than comparing the Stones now to U2 now, rather to where the two bands were at the same time (35-40 years in) is to use that 30 million number as a sign that Songs of Innocence was a success.

Utter nonsense and revisionist history. Songs of Innocence, the album release, was a disaster. The album may be strong, but it never stood a chance from day one due to the band's inability to check their own egos.

It does seem like they learned from it, and yea - if Song of Experience makes a dent when it's finally released, then yes, they'd be in truly uncharted territory and have done something that the Stones were unable to do (or even tried to do, for that matter).

But to say that U2's last two albums had this huge cultural impact in comparison to the equivalent Stones releases is simply false. They're fairly even in their impact and chart success.

 

[mikal]

^^^^^

Yeah I don't understand why everyone can't agree that U2 and the Stones are fairly even.