U2: Band in Crisis?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
mad1 said:
maybe U2 feel lost in today's music industry.
Click to expand...

They would be if they continue to read it through a lens of circa 1980s or 1990s. It would be utterly befuddling. But I don't see how it would be 'bad' at all for a band in U2's position/prominence. It really only is an issue for them if they really do hedge so much on charting singles and commercial FM radio 'hits'. It is certainly not the case that there's no path for a band like U2 in today's industry. Quite the opposite.
 
U2girl said:
It's sad watching a band that used to play 7 songs off NLOTH, including opening the show with 4 of them, diving into (Zoo TV) nostalgia ever since S. American shows brought back Zooropa and EBTTRT, right down to opening with 5 or 4 AB songs.

They even used the old graphics at Glastonbury. At least on Vertigo tour the Zoo TV trio of songs had new images.
Click to expand...

Good grief people, they can't please everyone. Can you imagine the bitching that would have occurred around here if pre- and post-Glastonbury shows had been the setlist they were playing at the beginning of the NA tour? People would have cried bloody murder about them not shaking up the setlist and not getting to see the AB heavy opening from Glastonbury. I'm glad I saw pre-shakeup set in Oakland and the AB set in Baltimore. Going to Philly for my last show next week and hope there is another shake up, but if not I will be HAPPY to hear either one of those set lists! Just as I'd be equally happy to see the return of Breathe, NLOTH, Magnificent, or Unknown Caller.
 
What I do agree with 100% are his thoughts on Rick Rubin.

WITS is a natural outgrowth of 2000s U2. No signs of the identity crisis they seem to have begun around '06, and I think it's a great song. What's more, an album spearheaded by WITS and "All My Life" alone, even if they didn't have any catchier songs, would have been guaranteed to perform better than NLOTH. You could say that the decision to go back to Eno was a decision to push themselves - and in some ways I think it was - but it was also a decision to return to typical producers and not write songs outside of the studio. So as far as "edginess," I'd say it's a wash at best. Rubin was the one who stretched them in a way they didn't want to be stretched.

My complaint is that if U2 are really pissed and want a new lease on life, I want to hear them say that. I want to hear another "dream it all up again" statement; then this news that they're cycling through producers would sound like an insistence on finding a new, definite sound rather than like discontent, directionless wandering. It's a thin line, but I think it's a real one.

Still, I would bet on their amazing me soon. I just feel they're best when they're in a confident, determined place rather than the overspread, wobbling one they seem to be in.
 
rjhbonovox said:
Yeah gotta agree. Even that massive failure (but fucking brilliant album) Pop was supported throughout the whole tour. But I suppose u also have to factor in the fact that this 360 tour has been going on a year too long. I'm right in thinking that it would have been done and dusted by now if it wasn't for Bonos back injury? But I suppose taking that into account they should still be playing at least 5 songs from the last album. Can't understand why dropped Breathe and NLOTH. Thats crap I reckon. And why didn't they try and factor in Fez/Being Born, Winter and Cedars to keep it fresh.
Click to expand...

Yes, 360 would have been over with the South American dates if it wasn't for Bono's back.

Put in White as snow in the acoustic spot. If they feel comfortable with Zooropa, why not FEZ ? And the most obvious MIA-live song from NLOTH, Stand up Comedy. There are ways to keep the record going live.

As for public perception of new U2 material...Boots is, sadly, no Vertigo or Bomb. Thus, NLOTH can never be ATYCLB or Bomb.
 
doctorwho said:
The fact that some shows have 4 AB songs immediately and some do not just proves that NOT all shows are the same and setlists vary.
Click to expand...

What they did in Oakland is simply what they're doing now. What they've been doing night after night after night since Anaheim II is four AB songs in a row. Five in a couple of cases (Anaheim II and Glasto).

U2 Anaheim, 2011-06-18, Angel Stadium, 360° Tour - U2 on tour
U2 Baltimore, 2011-06-22, M&T Bank Stadium, 360° Tour - U2 on tour
U2 Glastonbury, 2011-06-24, Glastonbury Festival, Various Dates - U2 on tour
U2 East Lansing, 2011-06-26, Spartan Stadium, 360° Tour - U2 on tour
U2 Miami, 2011-06-29, Sun Life Stadium, 360° Tour - U2 on tour
U2 Nashville, 2011-07-02, Vanderbilt Stadium, 360° Tour - U2 on tour

That being said, although if I were designing setlists I probably wouldn't do this, I don't really care. It's kind of cool in some ways.
 
I honestly cannot believe people are actually complaining now U2 got us this good opener and 4 AB songs and 2 Zooropa songs over atyclbcrap.
 
Gilead12 said:
What's more, an album spearheaded by WITS and "All My Life" alone, even if they didn't have any catchier songs, would have been guaranteed to perform better than NLOTH.
Click to expand...

WITS sank like a stone. Granted, hard to really tell, but in basic structure and melody, the other Rubin beach clips all sounded straight out of Bomb-era U2. With all respect for your opinion, I think more weak, cheesy, base level MOR is probably the worst direction they could possibly take. And I don't think they need a 'natural outgrowth of 2000s U2', but a clean break from 2000s U2.


Bring on a confident, comfortable and mature U2.
 
Well apparently yes! :lol:


Sorry guys, I'd love to stay here and bitch with all of you, but I've a plane to catch to see this Irish band play loads of songs off the album I love most and whom have dumped my most hated two songs. :wink: Smell ya later!
 
if having one of the biggest sellings albums of the year and the biggest tour ever is being in a crisis, then I hope I'll hit a crisis soon too and never get out of it

sure, it's not their prime period
but, hell, i don't think they're truly worried quite yet
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Going for '360' over 'Kiss The Future' was pure marketing, I would think. They wouldn't have been planning to 'drop' No Line from the outset. But it was a tour/concept wholly separate from the album, both thematically and in terms of consideration for the actual music, which is unique for them and I would suggest a little bit... I mean, it was obviously wildly successful (both commercially and genuinely) but it's not necessarily a good turn for the band. That is to me a little bit 'Rolling Stones' territory, even if what U2 put in and get out is very different. Despite it's success, I would definitely chalk that up in any list of 'Where are U2 really at these days?' But No Line, I would guess, would have had far better and longer representation if it had simply been an arena tour.



'Most'? No. But it will certainly set up and determine how their final phase goes, and thus play a large degree in determining their legacy. Really - harsh chat here - there are probably only a couple of U2 albums to go. Not much room for fucking up, one way or another.

Another misguided chase for the bottom (even if in reality, like No Line, it's only a few songs, but they happen to be the shopfront window) and the 'U2 Story' will forever take an ugly turn at the end. If they say 'fuck it' and just go for it without 'hit single' consideration, while gaining critical appreciation, then there'll be a lot of respect there but given it would almost certainly lead to lesser sales again, they'll have to cop a narrative of not being as big as they were, and not as 'relevant' in the way they seem to define that. Or they'll somehow manage both critical and commercial, and succeed, which would safely lock them in as some sort of all time something. I think they'll obviously be gunning for that last option, but I don't quite trust that that simply doesn't mean they'll end up with the first option. Nothing we've heard post No Line really inspires much hope, either in what we've heard musically or in what we've heard from them in terms of how they read the No Line 'failure'. But a good thing: none of what we've heard is from the Danger Mouse stuff.

But yeah, it's not the most important. But they do have a red pill/blue pill choice here that they haven't had since post-Pop, but I'd say the stakes are elevated to roughly the same as post-R&H.

Personally, I'd just like some really great music. No bullshit. No sense that you're listening to stuff that's been compromised via one eye on what an imaginary focus group might be suggesting, which even on the better end of No Line, you do get some sense of. I don't need them to suddenly be a genuinely exciting, 'relevant' band again, I'd be quite happy for them just to release very high quality, far quieter or smaller, 'mature' albums that break no real new ground, but really sound like a band with their experience, both in years and musical fucking around. No Line as a whole is great, but you can't tell me that after all this time, that's the best they can do.

Outside of my own enjoyment, I would like to see the band have a bit of a 'golden age' at the end. It would be a shame if a respect for or appreciation of U2 remains decidedly uncool/unacknowledged until the morning after they quit or their plane crashes or something, and then there's a sudden and widespread 180 turn on them (and you know that's exactly what will happen.) More articles with headlines like this (if not quite the backhanded nature of it): Isn't it time we learned to cherish U2? as a reflection of a genuine re-think (or acceptance, or 'brave' acknowledgment) but U2's musical output and career decisions from here on out will almost wholly determine whether or not they actually get to see that sort of thing take hold. Another album like either Atomic Bomb or No Line and they've fucked it, basically.
Click to expand...

Is it as important as Boy? No. As important as TJT? Maybe not. But I would say its a more important moment than 1991 was. Is U2 a band that peaked in 1987-1991 and has coasted ever since or are they still important? Are they the Rolling Stones now? The wrong next album, the wrong lead single and yeah, I think U2 will be the Rolling Stones.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
WITS sank like a stone. Granted, hard to really tell, but in basic structure and melody, the other Rubin beach clips all sounded straight out of Bomb-era U2. With all respect for your opinion, I think more weak, cheesy, base level MOR is probably the worst direction they could possibly take. And I don't think they need a 'natural outgrowth of 2000s U2', but a clean break from 2000s U2.


Bring on a confident, comfortable and mature U2.
Click to expand...

I would rest that claim mostly on what we have of "All My Life" - to me that has "yay U2 is back, where have they been since beautiful day?" and "omg can i get that at my wedding?" written all over it.

But I think WITS would have made for a strong teaser or second single. I think it's a great song and a wonderful music video, and I think it would have done well had it been supporting an album rather than a singles collection. There's no way around the "hey! U2 are... back... not really... meh" effect.
 
Niceman said:
Is it as important as Boy? No. As important as TJT? Maybe not. But I would say its a more important moment than 1991 was. Is U2 a band that peaked in and has coasted ever since or are they still important? Are they the Rolling Stones now? The wrong next album, the wrong lead single and yeah, I think U2 will be the Rolling Stones.
Click to expand...
I agree. One more dead duck of a single, one more meandering album, they will be well and truly the new (next?) Rolling Stones. Like the Stones, they will only make albums as an excuse to tour and play only the hits. The last 15 years are going to be grim for us. Whether the last chapter will be exciting and fruitful or by-the-numbers will depend solely on the next album. Danger Mouse, you are our last hope.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
WITS sank like a stone. Granted, hard to really tell, but in basic structure and melody, the other Rubin beach clips all sounded straight out of Bomb-era U2. With all respect for your opinion, I think more weak, cheesy, base level MOR is probably the worst direction they could possibly take. And I don't think they need a 'natural outgrowth of 2000s U2', but a clean break from 2000s U2.


Bring on a confident, comfortable and mature U2.
Click to expand...

Word. I was a little :eyebrow: at the above comment because whilst I didn't hate WITS it's quite similar to Crazy Tonight in terms of the cheesy, base-level MOR.
 
Niceman said:
Is it as important as Boy? No. As important as TJT? Maybe not. But I would say its a more important moment than 1991 was. Is U2 a band that peaked in 1987-1991 and has coasted ever since or are they still important? Are they the Rolling Stones now? The wrong next album, the wrong lead single and yeah, I think U2 will be the Rolling Stones.
Click to expand...

there is no way their next album is more important than Achtung Baby. none.
 
Niceman said:
As good? Probably not. But U2 could have released anything in 1992 and still be seen as the best band in the world. from that perspective, what they do next is far more important.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
What they released in 1991 was extremely important. Even if they released something in 1991. At that time, U2 was a band in turmoil. There were questions in what way to continue. And with the inner-band tensions, there were questions whether to continue at all, should there not be a unified view in which direction to take their music.
Had U2 released The Joshua Forest in 1991, they might've still be seen as a really good band. But one that had peaked 4 years earlier and were now just rehashing old stuff.

With Achtung Baby that all changed. A new musical direction, combined with an excellent album, gave them a second life. They could no longer be pinned down to this serious, po-faced anthemic rock band, but were also these great alternative rockers in touch with the times.
And this is still going on until today. U2 are not a band to pin down to one style. U2 are capable of turning out an excellent record (even if they might not release on). These views/expectations started with Achtung Baby.

What U2 will do now is not that important in this context. Yes, a great album that also ignites the general public will give U2 yet another life. But if it does not happen then I don't think their legacy is tainted (forever). They have proven that they can be on top, slide down a bit and then get back to the top again.
 
Popmartijn said:
I disagree.
What they released in 1991 was extremely important. Even if they released something in 1991. At that time, U2 was a band in turmoil. There were questions in what way to continue. And with the inner-band tensions, there were questions whether to continue at all, should there not be a unified view in which direction to take their music.
Had U2 released The Joshua Forest in 1991, they might've still be seen as a really good band. But one that had peaked 4 years earlier and were now just rehashing old stuff.

With Achtung Baby that all changed. A new musical direction, combined with an excellent album, gave them a second life. They could no longer be pinned down to this serious, po-faced anthemic rock band, but were also these great alternative rockers in touch with the times.
And this is still going on until today. U2 are not a band to pin down to one style. U2 are capable of turning out an excellent record (even if they might not release on). These views/expectations started with Achtung Baby.

What U2 will do now is not that important in this context. Yes, a great album that also ignites the general public will give U2 yet another life. But if it does not happen then I don't think their legacy is tainted (forever). They have proven that they can be on top, slide down a bit and then get back to the top again.
Click to expand...

U2 of 1991 didn't face all of the criticism that they do today. I mean, kids HATE them. Even on this board, I see the phrase "dad rock" all the time. Spiderman has made a mockery of them in the media. GOYB and Magnificent were radio flops. And yeah, they're out there now touring their whole catalogue, having jetisoned the latest album. I don't think anyone would have complained about the Joshua Forest, even if Achtung was a better direction for them. They have a steeper hill to climb now than then IMO.
 
i think people "hate" Bono -- he got enormous accolades in the early part of the '00's for his debt relief work and it seemed like he was a celebrity activist with credibility unlike so many others, but he seems to have jumped the shark in that capacity in recent years and it's become a liability for the band. as has Spiderman.

i think U2, in general, while they might now have entered the "dad rock" category for many, there's an appreciation for their legacy that wasn't there until after ATYCLB, which is undoubtedly their second "comeback" (the first being AB) and a complete and total triumph of critical and commercial success, regardless of one's own personal opinion of the material.

no one doubts their legacy, even if they're beginning to look foolish. no one doubts the masterpiece status of JT and AB. no one doubts the first three songs of JT. no one doubts "one." no one doubts "streets" or "bad" or "BD."

it's just the present that hasn't gone down so well.
 
Wasn't Rattle & Hum kinda like their Joshua Forest? So they already got that out of their system by 1991. They would have changed direction regardless. Maybe they wouldn't have made Achtung Baby, but whatever they did it would not have been a 'make or break' time for them like it is now.
 
No way 'Joshua Tree II' U2 would have made it far into the 90s. They would have been blown away quickly. Practically no-one made it out of the 80s and into the 90s. The only ones I can think of were the ones who were able to innovate and change.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
No way 'Joshua Tree II' U2 would have made it far into the 90s. They would have been blown away quickly. Practically no-one made it out of the 80s and into the 90s. The only ones I can think of were the ones who were able to innovate and change.
Click to expand...

Depeche Mode didn't change that much. Or The Cure. Or Bowie. Faith No More? The Beastie Boys? No one will pretend the decade's survivors is a long list, but the others were less shocking changes compared to U2.

Could U2 have made a less dramatic departure in 1992? The fans wouldn't have complained in the short term. It is possible that things would get old by 1995, but I just don't think they were at the crisis where they are now.

They changed in 1992 because their muse demanded it, but the public didn't. It's a very different moment than they find themselves in now. Yes, their history is secured, but the next album is where they get the cred they will need for the final 15 years of their career. Or, where they lose it and find themselves in 2025 opening that tour with 5 songs from Achtung Baby again....
 
Delusion runs pretty deep on all sides in here. The truth is is that for the most part there is very little U2 could have done in the past 5 years or so. People don't like their rock stars to age. Period.
 
So much doom and gloom around here lately, wasnt nloth praised by some of the biggest selling mags Q and rolling stone etc,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Hello from a U2 guitarist in Massachusetts!
Replies
2
Views
1K
bobbvis
B
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
11 12 13
Replies
388
Views
11K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
A
The little stranger Chapter 6
Replies
0
Views
556
annj
A
A
The little stranger chapter 13
Replies
0
Views
570
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom