mikal
Blue Crack Addict
at that wedding, Magnificent sounded really good on the sound system.
U2's second chance
- Thread starter onyourkneesboy
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
I don't think anything U2 released in January 2009 could have caught fire, least of all a U2-by-numbers track like Magnificent. It's high quality, but we've heard it all before, both from U2 and their 249584605365906035650 pseudo alt-rock clones. Basically, the market is glutted with that sound, and I just don't think there was much chance of NLOTH going quintuple platinum in the US, no matter what they did. They would have been best advised to make the highest quality record they could, with absolutely no compromises, and set themselves far above their contemporaries, rather than play into it. It would have strengthened their public profile and lobbed up an easy smash hit for them next time, assuming anthemic navel-gazing had lost its ubiquity (hell, by the time U2 release SOA, we may all be living in colonies in space where sound waves cannot travel, so all music may be out of fashion).
In short, the suggestion in the original post is asinine.
In short, the suggestion in the original post is asinine.
Agree that for U2 to be anything resembling 'cool' in their 50s, they need to call an abrupt halt to reaching out to the kids/radio. U2 became huge by being essentially anti-cool and completely themselves through the 80s. They flipped it around, successfully, in the 90s, but then they spent too long on the 'ok, we're going to stay big and popular and cool with the mainstream' approach. It worked perfectly with ATYCLB (maybe even career-saving) but started to wear out its welcome with HTDAAB. Thankfully, they went a new direction (mostly) with NLOTH in terms of music and even promotion, but it gets roped in with the others, fairly or not, because of just 2 or 3 songs, the inclusion of which should have been reconsidered.
In the end, NLOTH comes across to many as a watered-down example (in terms of music/promotion/etc.) of what they've been doing all decade: trying to be the biggest, except this time not wholeheartedly making the effort; trying to make it on radio/into public consciousness, but making a FAR FAR weaker effort this time. So they get all the negatives of such an approach without any of the positives.
U2 have a track record of waiting until they just overstep themselves or outstay their welcome in a certain way before being forced to go in a new direction (change or die): 80s = Rattle and Hum, 90s = Pop, and 2000s = NLOTH. This is NOT an evaluation of the quality of these albums, but rather a statement of how they are perceived by the world at large and the band itself. I think U2 should have presented itself to the world in a way that really set them apart from the Beautiful Day/Vertigo era. If they had done so, they could have made only a couple minor tweaks to the album and perhaps achieved a very different result as far as public and critical perception goes.
ozeeko
Refugee
Just wanted to say i agree with the ones here saying U2 should stop trying to be relevant and stop trying to connect with the young listeners of today. i mean, come on, one of the hottest songs out right now features a chorus that goes like this: 'SHOTS SHOTS SHOTS SHOTS-SHOTS-SHOTS SHOTS SHOTS SHOTS-SHOTS-SHOTS SHOTS".
Did anyone catch that show on HBO with the dude from Eurythmics who was interviewing U2? Remember when they were going thru u2's influences and it came to Patti Smith and Bono said something to the degree of, "She is the reason i am ready, for the first time, to be completely naked lyrically and write from within and etc. etc. etc." and he got an enormoous applause. I was left thinking, "yea, i'll believe it when i see it". But if anything, NOW is that time. The time for him to write "naked" and "from within".
Did anyone catch that show on HBO with the dude from Eurythmics who was interviewing U2? Remember when they were going thru u2's influences and it came to Patti Smith and Bono said something to the degree of, "She is the reason i am ready, for the first time, to be completely naked lyrically and write from within and etc. etc. etc." and he got an enormoous applause. I was left thinking, "yea, i'll believe it when i see it". But if anything, NOW is that time. The time for him to write "naked" and "from within".
Yeah, U2 need an image shake-up that should simply be whatever it takes to make them look like they are in this (i.e. still making records) for the right reasons. People should listen to the new record and say, 'damn, that's a gutsy record. they meant every fucking note of it.' It should impress even--and maybe especially--the haters.
The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure that's the only way that U2 could still bring in new fans and achieve the status they want to achieve at this point in their career. The calculation and second-guessing has to go; from now on, it will back-fire in bigger and bigger ways.
The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure that's the only way that U2 could still bring in new fans and achieve the status they want to achieve at this point in their career. The calculation and second-guessing has to go; from now on, it will back-fire in bigger and bigger ways.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
LOL easier said than done mate!
Deleting Stand Up Comedy is easier said than done? Just force quit and move to trash. They had a record here that filled all of the criteria I gave, but it's somewhat obscured.
While I don't believe they have yet to make their greatest record, they're more than capable of making a truly great one. Something 95% of their mainstream contemporaries are incapable of.
Saracene
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Problem is, a band like U2 will always be judged by their commercial success as well as artistic, and their albums will never be judged solely for their actual quality. If they made an album you've described and it didn't sell well or do well on the radio, in no way would it strengthen their public profile or increase their chances for a smash hit later on. Maybe it would have given them points in certain circles, but as far as wider public perception goes, no.
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Wait. We can't attack one single song. Music is subjective. I really like SUC and if I had to delete a track it would be "Unknown Caller". But U2 clearly really like that track - as do many here. Do U2 not like SUC? My guess is that something about it made it difficult to play in concert or it didn't flow as well as the other songs into the basic setlist.
I could name a song or two from every U2 album that should have been excluded. But in just about every case, the songs have had little influence on the outcome of the album - SUC is one of them.
The goal here is the first single off a NEW album. One person wrote there are no second chances. People have already made up their minds on NLOTH based on GOYB. I agree with that to some extent - although I have heard even kids (!) say that they really like "Magnificent". But overall that point is valid. U2 released a weaker first single. They hoped it would be like "Vertigo" or "The Fly", but instead, became like "Discotheque". The song wasn't loved and it dragged own the album with it.
We've already gone over what U2 needs to do for a big hit single off their next album. But I do agree - trying to be cool at any age, even in one's 20's, can and often does backfired. One can be a bit hip in clothes and whatnot, but dressing too young has the same effect as dressing too old. Eyeliner (or guyliner) is too trendy now. It was rebellious in the 80's, but in this decade, it comes across too "wannabe". They can still have the rock star edge to them in hair or whatever, but be realistic and accepting of their age. After all, it's that age that has garnered them so much respect due to their past successes.
Do they have their "best" still in them? I think they may some of their best songs still out there, but best album? Tough call - but I'd love to see U2 prove me wrong.
It's true - for U2 they have to not only have critical recognition but commercial as well. Many feel one reason NLOTH was not awarded in the Grammies was the fact that it sold "well" (for today's world) but not exceptional. The same may have been true for "Pop". AB wasn't shut out completely, but seriously overlooked - and perhaps the voters realized that and gave U2 their due on ATYCLB and HTDAAB (to some extent). But by NLOTH, U2 had to prove themselves as critical and commercial darlings. Since NLOTH didn't break out, it suffered. In contrast, Swift had big sales and won big.
Plus, one might argue that OS1 is that album - something very experimental. While Larry felt it was self-indulgent, often these types of highly experimental albums are. Regardless, OS1 was bsically overlooked by everyone (except die-hard fans). Even strong fans felt it was some "side project" and they weren't going to spend $$ on that.
U2 is not alone in having this problem (commercial and critical), but this is what they have created and sadly, it's what they must maintain on some level IF they want to remain musically relevant. After all, how can they influence anyone if no one hears them?
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
another thing about that wedding i was at, the chicken was Magnificent!
I doubt a lot of people consider Boots/Magnificent/Crazy as the best songs on NLOTH, except Magnificent perhaps but the song was too long to be a radio hit (like Mercy). They just didn't pick the most interesting songs to promote this album, nothing dramatic. Boots was just crap, it's not a demographic problem, it would flop even performed by a much younger bodybuilded Bono. They took the good road with NLOTH, Fez was a better choice than a fake honest stripped grandpa rock songs monotonous album produced by Rubin.
Anyway, forget SOA or a 2nd chance for NLOTH, it's all about Spiderman now, Bono, The Edge, Spiderman, Broadway, so weird so good. Potentially as exciting as James Brown playing an alien in Miami Vice.
Anyway, forget SOA or a 2nd chance for NLOTH, it's all about Spiderman now, Bono, The Edge, Spiderman, Broadway, so weird so good. Potentially as exciting as James Brown playing an alien in Miami Vice.
ozeeko
Refugee
To the first part, I agree. With tracks like MOS, F-BB and WAS, there is concrete proof that U2 are still capable of churning out musical works of art. If they plan on, (and i'm sure they do), releasing some singles in the future, they should release something in the spirit of these 3 tracks. I'm not saying something anti-radio, but something that contains that otherwordly U2 sound, and not something that sounds "made for radio". They should release singles that aren't 1)about the band itself, and 2) sloganeering universal message songs that sound like something Obama would play at a campaign rally.
To your 2nd point, I think it's time for the guys to literally, and i mean LITERALLY, stop caring about being musically relevant. What? There's no other way? U2 have dug themselves into this pit, they can also dig their way out.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
i agree completely. i was listening to the newish David Byrne and Brian Eno album last night, and i was just thinking how cool it is that David Byrne really seems to care less about acquiring new fans. he just releases albums when he feels like it. his hardcore fans will surely buy it, and maybe they'll introduce a friend or two to his current and back catalog.
unfortunately, U2 did really dig themselves into this hole. there was so much talk last year about Universal hoping U2's album could drive their sales for the year, and i'm sure to some extent, U2 felt that pressure. i wish there was a way they could just get out of their current place in the music industry, and finally be able to operate under their own terms.
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
They need to enter what I would consider a sort of "legacy" mode. They should be fearless and adding to their discography. History will already remember them as relevant during a majority of their career. What does five or ten years more of that really add to their legacy? They have great albums left in them. Fans two or three decades from now won't remember more years of relevancy but they will cherish the great albums that U2 has a chance to create. U2 has accomplished almost everything and now it should be about nothing more than challenging themselves to make the best music that they can.
ozeeko
Refugee
Thank you!
We're all wondering what U2's next phase it going to be...I say bring the "U2 don't give a fuk" phase. I mean, seriously, how non-U2ish would that move be?
(Old U2 interview)
Reporter: So Bono, what's your new album like?
Bono: It's the greatest thing we've ever done. Edge is on fire. Prepare for this year, this will be OUR year! We are reapplying for biggest band in the solar system, yes again, for the 45th time this year.
(NEW U2 INTERVIEW)
Reporter: So Bono, what's your new album like?
Bono: I dunno. It's got songs. It's got words. It's got melodies. Yea, I dunno what else to tell you.
Reporter: (thrown for a loop, taken aback) Uhhhh...well, isn't this that point in the interview where you tell me you're reapplying for biggest band in the Milky Way?
Bono: Biggest band? Been there, done that. Honestly, that job kinda sucks. We'll let someone else take over that position. Maybe Coldplay, if they ever write a damn song that doesn't make me feel like slashing my fucking wrists using the same razorblade Chris Martin uses to shave his vagina.
Reporter: You don't like them i take it?
Bono: I don't like YOU! (spits in reporter's face)
...a boy can dream...
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Let's not go too far now. People think Bono is a douchebag, but he doesn't have to play to it. U2 doesn't have to utilize irony to make great music, and it wouldn't be original anyway. Been there, done that indeed.
What I would really like to see from Bono is some lyrics that actually feel human and lived-in. No more bullshit pop songs about saving the world.
YouTube - Bill Hicks - Play From Your Fucking Heart
What I would really like to see from Bono is some lyrics that actually feel human and lived-in. No more bullshit pop songs about saving the world.
YouTube - Bill Hicks - Play From Your Fucking Heart
ozeeko
Refugee
I was joking about the spitting and all that.
What I really meant to say was that they should let the music do the talking, no more of the "reapplying for biggest band" bullshit.
I think if they stopped caring about how they are perceived, and how relevant they are, at the very best people would acknowledge that, and i think the music would be given a fairer chance.
What I really meant to say was that they should let the music do the talking, no more of the "reapplying for biggest band" bullshit.
I think if they stopped caring about how they are perceived, and how relevant they are, at the very best people would acknowledge that, and i think the music would be given a fairer chance.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Keeping your eyes on the prize is a fair enough way to construct a music career, but only if you have the ideas to sustain it. I really think that the lack of innovation did them in, not their commercial ambitions. However, as Saracene and Doctorwho mentioned, with a band of U2's magnitude, commercialism and creative inspiration are intrinsically linked. The thing is, U2 can decide to let loose their grip. That's their prerogative. And I truly believe that (counterintuitive though it may seem) making music that they enjoy listening to is the best way for them to return to prominence. They have great instincts and ears for melody; hell, they themselves admit Achtung is their best album, and when those sessions began, they all came in with ideas based on what they enjoyed listening to at the time.
There's more to it than that though. What links the album together, and has helped it age so well in spite of perhaps aged influences, is the lyrics. U2 may be a larger-than-life (especially prior to the tour
) band, but I don't think it can be argued that Bono's best work is inherently personal. WOWY, Running To Stand Still, WGRYWH, All I Want Is You...these are all songs that focus on face-to-face interactions and personal observations. He's not trying to save a continent or define a nation, he's trying to save himself or detail a relationship in ashes. And, from this decade, When I Look At The World, One Step Closer, and Moment Of Surrender detail similar topics to great success. All of these tracks are introverted by nature, but due to their scope and relatability, they communicate these feelings to a wider audience. And this is really what I think they need to get back to.
Am I presumptuous for prescribing lyrical ideas to a band that mopped up their competition for 20 years? Hell yes. But I don't give a fuck. This forum is for people with big ideas to compensate for small genitals, if nothing else. Besides, U2 has been ordinary for the last 10 years, and that's not at all acceptable. Forgive my zealousness, but I'm starting to see some spark again in a band I've loved for most of my life, and I really hope this is kept roaring.
There's more to it than that though. What links the album together, and has helped it age so well in spite of perhaps aged influences, is the lyrics. U2 may be a larger-than-life (especially prior to the tour
) band, but I don't think it can be argued that Bono's best work is inherently personal. WOWY, Running To Stand Still, WGRYWH, All I Want Is You...these are all songs that focus on face-to-face interactions and personal observations. He's not trying to save a continent or define a nation, he's trying to save himself or detail a relationship in ashes. And, from this decade, When I Look At The World, One Step Closer, and Moment Of Surrender detail similar topics to great success. All of these tracks are introverted by nature, but due to their scope and relatability, they communicate these feelings to a wider audience. And this is really what I think they need to get back to.Am I presumptuous for prescribing lyrical ideas to a band that mopped up their competition for 20 years? Hell yes. But I don't give a fuck. This forum is for people with big ideas to compensate for small genitals, if nothing else. Besides, U2 has been ordinary for the last 10 years, and that's not at all acceptable. Forgive my zealousness, but I'm starting to see some spark again in a band I've loved for most of my life, and I really hope this is kept roaring.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
I've felt for a significant amount of time that if U2 wants to make an album, at this point in time, to top all of their previous albums, that it would have to be an album of slower, more atmospheric songs. I believe that style has produced some of their best, least forced-sounding, most moving songs of the last 10-15 years, some of which were as recent as on NLOTH. Take the following list of songs:
Two Shots Of Happy, One Shot Of Sad(1997)
North And South Of The River(1997)
The Ground Beneath Her Feet(2000)
Stateless(2000)
Falling At Your Feet(2000)
If You Wear That Velvet Dress(1997)
Fez-Being Born(2009)
White As Snow(2009)
Moment Of Surrender(2009)
Your Blue Room(1995)
Miss Sarajevo(1995)
Always Forever Now(1995)
Slug(1995)
I argue that rock music is something that is perhaps at its best when it is fueled by a younger spirit and a younger soul. But at the same time, songs like the above would be less likely to be written by 20 year olds. I mean, have you listed to Two Shots Of Happy, One Shot Of Sad recently? I think it's one of the best songs the band has ever written, but I doubt that they could've written something like that when they were 20.
I believe that, in their 50s and beyond, this style is where U2 could make their best work. I love most of the rock songs on NLOTH, but for the most part I still think they're capable of writing and performing music on a higher emotional/spiritual plane, as evidenced by slower songs on the same record(MOS, Fez, WAS, Cedars). That's not any slight on NLOTH's rock songs, btw - I love the title track, Unknown Caller, GOYB, and Breathe. But I think they're capable of better if they go for a certain style and a certain vibe as evidenced by the songs listed above. They've made absolutely incredible rock songs in their career, but...I listened to HMTMKMKM a few times last night, it's one of my favorite rock songs ever, not just U2, but ever, and...I can't really see U2 putting out a rock song as incredible as that again. You might disagree.
Look at Elvis Costello - I don't listen to him much, but in the last ten years, the few times I've seen him performing on TV, it's been slower and/or more experimental stuff. U2 could take that path. (if I'm wrong about Costello, please correct me).
Those songs listed above are great, great stuff.
BTW: I made a thread expressing similar thoughts last year before NLOTH came out: http://www.u2interference.com/forum...-and-lounge-music-in-the-late-90s-192787.html
Two Shots Of Happy, One Shot Of Sad(1997)
North And South Of The River(1997)
The Ground Beneath Her Feet(2000)
Stateless(2000)
Falling At Your Feet(2000)
If You Wear That Velvet Dress(1997)
Fez-Being Born(2009)
White As Snow(2009)
Moment Of Surrender(2009)
Your Blue Room(1995)
Miss Sarajevo(1995)
Always Forever Now(1995)
Slug(1995)
I argue that rock music is something that is perhaps at its best when it is fueled by a younger spirit and a younger soul. But at the same time, songs like the above would be less likely to be written by 20 year olds. I mean, have you listed to Two Shots Of Happy, One Shot Of Sad recently? I think it's one of the best songs the band has ever written, but I doubt that they could've written something like that when they were 20.
I believe that, in their 50s and beyond, this style is where U2 could make their best work. I love most of the rock songs on NLOTH, but for the most part I still think they're capable of writing and performing music on a higher emotional/spiritual plane, as evidenced by slower songs on the same record(MOS, Fez, WAS, Cedars). That's not any slight on NLOTH's rock songs, btw - I love the title track, Unknown Caller, GOYB, and Breathe. But I think they're capable of better if they go for a certain style and a certain vibe as evidenced by the songs listed above. They've made absolutely incredible rock songs in their career, but...I listened to HMTMKMKM a few times last night, it's one of my favorite rock songs ever, not just U2, but ever, and...I can't really see U2 putting out a rock song as incredible as that again. You might disagree.
Look at Elvis Costello - I don't listen to him much, but in the last ten years, the few times I've seen him performing on TV, it's been slower and/or more experimental stuff. U2 could take that path. (if I'm wrong about Costello, please correct me).
Those songs listed above are great, great stuff.
BTW: I made a thread expressing similar thoughts last year before NLOTH came out: http://www.u2interference.com/forum...-and-lounge-music-in-the-late-90s-192787.html
Saracene
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Question is, after spending so many decades on the top, can they be really happy with letting go of their ambitions, accept the fact that the majority of the public will view them as faded superstars, and just keep on tinkering quietly in the corner doing their own thing. I think it's easier for artists like David Byrne to grow older, in a way, because their music never had huge massive popularity to start with.
ozeeko
Refugee
Keeping your eyes on the prize is a fair enough way to construct a music career, but only if you have the ideas to sustain it. I really think that the lack of innovation did them in, not their commercial ambitions. However, as Saracene and Doctorwho mentioned, with a band of U2's magnitude, commercialism and creative inspiration are intrinsically linked. The thing is, U2 can decide to let loose their grip. That's their prerogative. And I truly believe that (counterintuitive though it may seem) making music that they enjoy listening to is the best way for them to return to prominence. They have great instincts and ears for melody; hell, they themselves admit Achtung is their best album, and when those sessions began, they all came in with ideas based on what they enjoyed listening to at the time.
There's more to it than that though. What links the album together, and has helped it age so well in spite of perhaps aged influences, is the lyrics. U2 may be a larger-than-life (especially prior to the tour
Yea, I agree pretty much with everything you have to say.
As for commercialism and creative inspiration, the two can co-exist, as long as artistic integrity is maintained. Once the desire for commercial success outweighs creativity, that's when they run into trouble, and you get the token (in your own words) "bullshit pop songs about saving the world".
I always saw their approaches to relevancy as this:
80's - Achieved relevancy by doing their own thing (despite R&H "failure")
90's - Achieved relevancy by doing their own thing (despite POP "failure")
00's - 05 - Achieved relevancy by playing to 80's image
05-Present - Losing relevance by trying to play to too many things, trying to juggle both the 80's and 90's, and as a result...not progressing. and of course another, quote unquote "failure" in NLOTH.
They need to make peace with their past and start fresh. Because in my opinion, most of this decade has been about desperately trying to recapture what came to them effortlessly in the past.
Yes, yes, yes. This post is so so right. Could not agree more. For U2 post-2010, legacy is going to be determined by the quality of the albums they release from here on out and very little else. Unlike some fans, I agree that they have GREAT albums still in them; my only concern is that they'll let other factors get in the way of these albums.
There have been a lot of great posts in this thread, and I can't help thinking we would all be in for a pretty big treat if U2 released SOA as originally conceived/planned. Seems too much to hope for at this point though.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
It's either that or create music they don't believe in. As a matter of fact, can we conclude that even works for them anymore? No, I don't believe so. And reliving the past a la ATYCLB would net them the "nostalgia act" tag. It worked for one album, but only because it was necessary. U2 had created a demand for that sound through years of experimentation and it paid off. But a decade of tinkering around with reruns killed the momentum and good will of the early '00s.
So, keeping all of that in mind, what other choice do they have right now?
gherman
New Yorker
Why do people constantly talk about the past and what U2 did and didn't do or should do? Its done... who cares? Lets look at what they are going to do and just try to enjoy the good parts instead and just fucking let go of the bad parts. We can't do anything about it. U2 is U2 and they can only do what they feel is the best they can do.
Boo hoo... GOYB didn't captivate the world like people here think U2 must do with every song they put out. Christ they are just 4 guys that are really good at making music... they are not fucking gods... they are human.
People want U2 to experiment. Well, I think a song like GOYB is pretty experimental just by the fact all the yuppie kids that love Vertigo and Beautiful Day got turned off by the song. What the fuck do you people want from them?
And by the way, U2 will never do Achtung Baby again. Its done, they won't ever be that band again. Just let it go
Boo hoo... GOYB didn't captivate the world like people here think U2 must do with every song they put out. Christ they are just 4 guys that are really good at making music... they are not fucking gods... they are human.
People want U2 to experiment. Well, I think a song like GOYB is pretty experimental just by the fact all the yuppie kids that love Vertigo and Beautiful Day got turned off by the song. What the fuck do you people want from them?
And by the way, U2 will never do Achtung Baby again. Its done, they won't ever be that band again. Just let it go
allbecauseofu2
Refugee
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,258
Yea, once again ,don;t know how some u2 fans that think pop and NLOTH are complete failures (at least from a commerical standpoint) are gonna handle the day when u2 releases a album that sells about 10,000 copys, no hits, no airplay, and nobdy,NOBODY cares. Thats what a flop is. u2 has never released a flop since the first two albums didn;t do well at first. Its been a blessed commerical career. You just need to see other past bands that had huge albums, and its like, oh this will last forever etc, this and that ,and now they are washed up. I mean didn't we go over this already. U2 have treaded the waters as well as anyone ever. What would this board do in the event u2 got washed up? no albums sales,shows having to rely almost 100% on old songs,reduced visibilty of the band etc. I think u2 is riding a very weird,uniqe, wave of a little bit of coolness,elderstatesmen-ship,some decent radioplay,and just name value. They just didn't have a over the top connection with this album this time due to the fact GOYB just didn't work. But still did very good numbers . The only other reason is perhaps too much time passed between albums.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Cuz, like, we're on a U2 message forum and shit. Who would you rather talk about, Echo And The Bunnymen?
I do enjoy the good parts. And the bad parts seldom keep me up at night. Although posts attempting to arrogantly box in posters such as myself to prevent them from presenting constructive criticism (rather than exhibit sycophancy on a suffocating scale) are troublesome.
Yes, but we can make our feelings known. Otherwise, we would take it out on the cat. I sometimes wonder what Sicy would do without this forum.
I honestly couldn't care less whether or not U2 captivates anyone but my scrawny ass. But they didn't. Hence my posts.
For a long time, I wasn't sure, but this made me wonder:
YouTube - U2 - Trip Through Your Wires (Live TV Gaga 1986) HD
By this logic, hitting your hand with a hammer after years of success constitutes experimentation: it's a change of pace and a turnoff.
We're trying to say as much, but you don't want us to!
Anyone who wants U2 to remake Achtung Baby is an idiot and I immediately disregard their opinions, especially if they want the band to do so for the sake of experimentation. That's just stupid. But what I wouldn't mind is another great album. It could be progressive rock, jazz, hip-hop...I don't give a fuck. Numerous great albums exist in all of those genres.
We good?
ozeeko
Refugee
i feel like we always end up talking in circles on these forums.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Did you hear that?
It was a real, honest-to-pete little slice of truth.
It was a real, honest-to-pete little slice of truth.
phommel
Refugee
yes, you are right on this. Which other band, apart from U2, from the 80s is still big? And where are all those bands of the 90s now? There are very very very few bands that can dominate 3 decades. U2 did it in the 80s, 90s and 00s.
Where are Echo and the Bunnymen, R.E.M., The Cure, Depeche Mode, Guns n Roses, Metallica, Beastie Boys, Red Hot Chilli Peppers...
And who is still there from the 90s? Where are The Smashing Pumpkins, Live, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, The Offspring, and ALL THOSE britpop bands (Blur, Oasis, Suede, The Verve etc,etc).
In that light it is amazing that U2 is still there and with top album sellings and able to sell millions of concert tickets!
Similar threads
