New Album Discussion 10 - Songs of Sir, this is a Wendy's, durr
- Thread starter pacemaker
- 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.
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
but it needn't be the case. a band or artist becomes a legacy act not by age but by the way they act and by the quality and type of work that they make. being a legacy act is nothing to be proud of, either. it's a pejorative for a reason. one hoped that U2 would avoid that fate, but they've run into it with open arms without even being aware that it was happening.
iota
War Child
Ok I fucked up on that one. Please be gentle with me.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Name an artists with multiple successful albums in their early career, is now above the age of 40, still viable artistically and commercially, and not a “legacy act”?
LyricalDrug
Rock n' Roll Doggie
First time on this forum in years - nice to be back. Question: we know Larry’s replacement drummer for Vegas has been named, and Larry won’t be drumming. But do we know whether Larry will be there in another capacity? I can’t really imagine him as the type to be relegated to tambourine duty, but I could see them giving him control over some sequencers, digital aspects, sensory overload systems that are specific to the Sphere, and so on. It would let the band continue its streak of not having a band member miss a show since Stu-ropa in Sydney ‘93…
Also, I kept wondering about “U2:UV” … why that type/spacing? Everyone (including me) first assumed its a reference to Ultraviolet, but what if it’s the Roman numeral V, the number 5? The four members, plus Bram, makes 5? Hmmm….
Also, I kept wondering about “U2:UV” … why that type/spacing? Everyone (including me) first assumed its a reference to Ultraviolet, but what if it’s the Roman numeral V, the number 5? The four members, plus Bram, makes 5? Hmmm….
Dragonfave
New Yorker
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
I would actually say that U2 became very self aware about their standing as a legacy act and I actually commend them for doing so.
ahhh... this must be the random thing in DC that U2Songs mentioned.
the whole idea of "legacy acts" is kinda bullshit anyways.
eventually everyone becomes a legacy act, whether you want to or not. at some point every great artist crosses a threshold where it does not matter what they put out - people want to hear the hits.
yes - blackstar was critically acclaimed. three weeks after its release (and bowie's death) "Best of Bowie" replaced it at the top of the UK charts. because people love the hits.
his final concert set - https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/david-bowie/2004/eichenring-scheessel-germany-3bd5f8b0.html
pure legacy act. he knew. he gave the people the hits. because that's what the people want. they want the hits.
it's the inevitable end of life cycle an aging artist.
prbiker15
Blue Crack Addict
About time they did something like this.
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
I’d agree if they didn’t try to pass off the acts of nostalgia as acts of relevance
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
Except that wasn’t the end of life cycle for him. He continued to make records.
When an artist plays live they mostly play what people want to hear. Unless you’re Bowie in the 90s, spending years annoying the audience by not playing the hits. And remember that he stopped playing live. And the only classic he ever played in full was Low, and he only did it once. At a show where he played all of Heathen, iirc.
His recorded output was not that of a “legacy act.” U2’s, on the other hand…
so why is U2 playing Achtung Baby shows being a "legacy act" if it's about their recorded output? wouldn't it merely be an example of "giving the people what they want to hear?"
IMO, U2’s latter day recorded output is less legacy act and more old guys trying to connect with the kids.
Legacy acts typically embrace who they are and stop giving a shit about the radio - when’s the last times Bruce / Neil / the Stones aimed for a crossover hit? They’re comfortable with their level of popularity and established audience. Arguably, the music has been the better for it.
Legacy acts typically embrace who they are and stop giving a shit about the radio - when’s the last times Bruce / Neil / the Stones aimed for a crossover hit? They’re comfortable with their level of popularity and established audience. Arguably, the music has been the better for it.
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
Where did I say it’s about their recorded output? That’s only part of it. And there are degrees of giving the people what they want. Full-on nostalgia fests are one end like JT30 are at one end. The Bowie show I saw in 2004, where 1/3 of the show was from his two most recent albums is somewhere in the middle. Which is where U2 were on I&E&I…except those shows were about looking back and celebrating their past.
radio513
Babyface
Hi. Long-time listener, first-time caller here.
Folks have different definitions of what a legacy act is, but I see little evidence for Bowie's late period being a "pure legacy act" and just giving the people the hits. Average setlist on his last tour: 26 songs, 11 hits. Top 30 most-played songs on that tour: 10 hits.
Bowie went on to disappear for ten years and then put out a great record with zero press or hype. Did the same three years later with Blackstar (and the Lazarus play, which was fantastic as well). He's such a great role model for staying creative and producing high-level work at the end of a career, and U2 couldn't be farther away from that given their desperate chase for relevance and all of the things that many of us find frustrating about them. Bowie never did an album retrospective tour/string of dates, while U2 is gearing up for their second. I get that Bowie had more freedom as opposed to four guys needing to agree on a path forward, but he's one of the few in their weight class and worth comparing.
U2 is my favorite band of all time -- the short version is that fell in love with them after hearing Gloria when we first got MTV, I've seen most tours starting with the original JT tour, and I bought every record after War on the day it came out. What frustrates and saddens me about them is not any one choice, but the sustained lack of creativity and pileup of puzzling decisions since NLOTH. That record wasn't as bold as intended, and SOI/SOE were a desperate chase for pop relevance and to establish Bono/Edge as a great songwriting duo (I like a few songs on the records but rarely play them). Now we have the three songs off of SOS, which are stunningly bad to me, and the decision to play without Larry in circumstances where there's at least a little smoke (Larry's WaPo quotes) that it's not as clear-cut as the glowing press release would have us believe.
It's obviously not fair to expect guys at their age to match the creative peak of AB-through-Pop, but it's fair to ask them to not embarrass themselves, which is what I feel like they keep doing through odd decisions, the admitted pursuit of pop relevance, and Bono's endless stream of hype and bullshit. I'll keep listening, but I likely won't buy SOS and I've lost faith that they can rebound for greatness on the unreasonable rock record to come. I'd prefer them to call it a day.
None of this, btw, is meant at a shot anyone who's excited for the LV shows or is digging SOS. Art is subjective and if you're getting enjoyment out of current U2, then props to you. It just seems like the folks who are down on SOS and the LV shows are catching a lot of shit, and I felt like speaking up.
Thanks for listening and for the spirited conversations. Back to lurking. Cheers.
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
Hello, and I agree with every word you said. Enjoy lurking. They’re my favourite band to, fwiw. They’ve held that spot for 30 years, and also wish they’d quit.
Thom Yorke/Jonny Greenwood/Radiohead are also great role models for being aging band despite being roughly a decade younger than U2. Radiohead get together when they all want to do it, otherwise every member of the band works on their own shit. And now Thom and Jonny want to play together but apparently the other guys are happy doing their own thing, so they started a new band and play all new material. Bono and Edge would probably enjoy doing that but there's no way they'd eschew the applause generated by playing U2 songs or simply calling themselves U2.
Also, the early 00s were the the first time Bowie played hit heavy sets in over 20 years. It was surprising because he was known for not doing that, and we thought we’d never hear a lot of those songs (or hear them again, for those lucky old people).
Thom Yorke/Jonny Greenwood/Radiohead are also great role models for being aging band despite being roughly a decade younger than U2. Radiohead get together when they all want to do it, otherwise every member of the band works on their own shit. And now Thom and Jonny want to play together but apparently the other guys are happy doing their own thing, so they started a new band and play all new material. Bono and Edge would probably enjoy doing that but there's no way they'd eschew the applause generated by playing U2 songs or simply calling themselves U2.
Also, the early 00s were the the first time Bowie played hit heavy sets in over 20 years. It was surprising because he was known for not doing that, and we thought we’d never hear a lot of those songs (or hear them again, for those lucky old people).
Last edited:
Oh fuck Radiohead lol
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
Hey they have a song called Creep you’d probably like, give them a chance
But seriously, there is no valid argument against them being a band that carries itself well and is a good role model on how to age while maintaining popularity and integrity.
Last edited:
Radiohead has never gone for the commercial success that U2 strove for. Never. They purposefully avoided it.
You're also using subjective things as fact. They're opinions. It's relevancy to you.
Radiohead is not overly relevant to the average person. Sorry.
They aren't relevant to me. They bore me to tears.
But they're highly relevant to you.
Somewhere someone discovered the Rolling Stones by randomly stumbling upon Living In A Ghost Town during lockdown. And yes - there are fans who discovered U2 from Songs of Innocence randomly showing up on their iPhone. Thus making it relevant to them.
So the whole argument over legacy acts and relevance is bullshit, as relevancy is different for everyone.
The only actual measurable thing of mass relevancy is to judge an act's popularity. But that doesn't measure creative value. You've already made it clear by dismissing the acts that are chart relevant who also have Vegas residencies.
What they do live also apparently doesn't matter, as you said. So I guess we can put that one to rest. Which, honestly, thank god. Your constant, ever changing, contrarian arguments are making me loopy. How is one supposed to kick a field goal when the goal posts keep moving? It's exhausting, really.
You're also using subjective things as fact. They're opinions. It's relevancy to you.
Radiohead is not overly relevant to the average person. Sorry.
They aren't relevant to me. They bore me to tears.
But they're highly relevant to you.
Somewhere someone discovered the Rolling Stones by randomly stumbling upon Living In A Ghost Town during lockdown. And yes - there are fans who discovered U2 from Songs of Innocence randomly showing up on their iPhone. Thus making it relevant to them.
So the whole argument over legacy acts and relevance is bullshit, as relevancy is different for everyone.
The only actual measurable thing of mass relevancy is to judge an act's popularity. But that doesn't measure creative value. You've already made it clear by dismissing the acts that are chart relevant who also have Vegas residencies.
What they do live also apparently doesn't matter, as you said. So I guess we can put that one to rest. Which, honestly, thank god. Your constant, ever changing, contrarian arguments are making me loopy. How is one supposed to kick a field goal when the goal posts keep moving? It's exhausting, really.
Last edited:
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
Radiohead avoided success yet have been a consistently massive band for 25 years. Weird! It must have been an accident!
You don’t care about Radiohead but the fact remains that they are a hugely popular rock band who has maintained or even surpassed the popularity that they achieved the traditional way before they decided that the traditional was wasn’t for them. Your personal feelings about their music are irrelevant. They play the game on their terms and do it well. Every album release is an event, and they don’t need Apple or a Disney documentary or the Super Bowl to help them. I actually think Radiohead are pretty uneven over the last two albums, fwiw. It doesn’t change that they top lists, chart highly, headline festivals around the world and sell out their own shows immediately.
Do you know who one the bands is that inspired Radiohead to carry themselves they way they do? U2! hard to believe that once upon a time U2 were role models for how operate with integrity. Now they’ve decided to play shows with out a member in order to get the Vegas payday, and despite Bono’s constant crowing about the magic the four of them create.
No wonder your head hurts. You can’t follow a simple point, which is: like U2, the guys in Radiohead are old yet they don’t beclown themselves. U2 do. Hence, they are a good example.
Sure, a few people may have discovered U2 thanks to Apple. And someone, somewhere may have discovered the Stones from Living in a Ghost Town (good song!). But they’re the exceptions, and both releases - especially Ghost Town - are niche items. Well, one is. The other is a punchline.
I haven’t changed any goal posts and I didn’t say that what artist do live doesn’t matter - we’re talking about what artists do live ffs.
And Vegas is for washed up rockers and past-their-prime pop stars who are into the reality tv host phase of their career. That’s why they lower themselves to get the big payday. That’s not a contrarian argument- in fact, I haven’t made any. My positions are mostly pretty mainstream. If anything, your Vegas loving U2 standom is the contrarian position
You don’t care about Radiohead but the fact remains that they are a hugely popular rock band who has maintained or even surpassed the popularity that they achieved the traditional way before they decided that the traditional was wasn’t for them. Your personal feelings about their music are irrelevant. They play the game on their terms and do it well. Every album release is an event, and they don’t need Apple or a Disney documentary or the Super Bowl to help them. I actually think Radiohead are pretty uneven over the last two albums, fwiw. It doesn’t change that they top lists, chart highly, headline festivals around the world and sell out their own shows immediately.
Do you know who one the bands is that inspired Radiohead to carry themselves they way they do? U2! hard to believe that once upon a time U2 were role models for how operate with integrity. Now they’ve decided to play shows with out a member in order to get the Vegas payday, and despite Bono’s constant crowing about the magic the four of them create.
No wonder your head hurts. You can’t follow a simple point, which is: like U2, the guys in Radiohead are old yet they don’t beclown themselves. U2 do. Hence, they are a good example.
Sure, a few people may have discovered U2 thanks to Apple. And someone, somewhere may have discovered the Stones from Living in a Ghost Town (good song!). But they’re the exceptions, and both releases - especially Ghost Town - are niche items. Well, one is. The other is a punchline.
I haven’t changed any goal posts and I didn’t say that what artist do live doesn’t matter - we’re talking about what artists do live ffs.
And Vegas is for washed up rockers and past-their-prime pop stars who are into the reality tv host phase of their career. That’s why they lower themselves to get the big payday. That’s not a contrarian argument- in fact, I haven’t made any. My positions are mostly pretty mainstream. If anything, your Vegas loving U2 standom is the contrarian position
Last edited:
Registered Dude
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
So why do we think u2 is playing Vegas and this Sphere?
Do folks believe them when they say they miss playing in front of fans? Is it about being associated with something innovative, technologically? Have they got some hereto unknown contractural obligation? Are they planning a surprise album release?
I ask not cynically. Genuinely interested in what folks think. Why do you think they feel they need to do this NOW?
Do folks believe them when they say they miss playing in front of fans? Is it about being associated with something innovative, technologically? Have they got some hereto unknown contractural obligation? Are they planning a surprise album release?
I ask not cynically. Genuinely interested in what folks think. Why do you think they feel they need to do this NOW?
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
I think they feel the need to do this NOW is because they want the attention for opening the venue, and they want the payday. So, ego and greed. What else could make them think it's reasonable to celebrate their best album without a member being there? It's not tied to an anniversary, so they could have waited. They could have agreed to play the venue in a year or two, when Larry is healthy. The venue isn't going anywhere.
I believe they miss playing and that they're excited by the tech, but those things are secondary to money and ego gratification.
Why do you think they have to do it now?
I believe they miss playing and that they're excited by the tech, but those things are secondary to money and ego gratification.
Why do you think they have to do it now?
Last edited:
dan_smee
ONE love, blood, life
I think all those things are probably true. And the album thing - well, if rumours are to be believed there’s one in the can, it’s just a matter of when is right, which I assume has LOTS to do with Larry’s health.
Scorpionac
War Child
I think the vocal approach on these versions isn't helping. As a singer Bono's known for his strength mostly, so trying to do these undersung, conversational takes is just reading as weak, tired, old, etc. when in reality he still has plenty of strength. Trying to sell this as the "singer Bono has become" is no good, either. It's inaccurate at best and unflattering at worst. It's not like he's post-pneumonia Johnny Cash or Leonard Cohen on his later albums.
Like the other versions, One gets momentarily interesting at the end, but it's too little too late. Bono could have tried singing like he was trying to impress, well, anybody. Especially if they're going to play songs everybody knows. Show off a bit! Don't be deliberately unimpressive. The music is so stripped down that it's basically asking him to step up and showcase his voice, but instead he's playing coy. I guess the approach is supposed to sound like he's sitting next to you on a couch with a guitar, taking a break in between reading chapters of his autobiography. I think it's been said already, but this album might have been sold better as strictly a companion piece to the book.
Like the other versions, One gets momentarily interesting at the end, but it's too little too late. Bono could have tried singing like he was trying to impress, well, anybody. Especially if they're going to play songs everybody knows. Show off a bit! Don't be deliberately unimpressive. The music is so stripped down that it's basically asking him to step up and showcase his voice, but instead he's playing coy. I guess the approach is supposed to sound like he's sitting next to you on a couch with a guitar, taking a break in between reading chapters of his autobiography. I think it's been said already, but this album might have been sold better as strictly a companion piece to the book.
Similar threads
