The new songs news you've been waiting for...

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
mama cass said:
heh i was joking... no-one hates Glastonbury more than i do! ;)

i like Stingray, EBW and North Star though (but could do without BFFTS)
Click to expand...

New songs to the ear are more up my alley, but I have no problems with the ones you mentioned showing up in finished form. And although Glastonbury wasn't quite up my alley either, it's pretty obvious it was just a novelty song for the occasion that didn't come (hence why it was only played twice or whatever number that summer).

Vlaco said:
Side A will be great and side B will suck.
Click to expand...

Almost like NLOTH then!

*runs*
 
mikal said:
They should release "Glastonbury" as the lead single from the new album and then call their tour "The Glastonbury Festival".
Click to expand...

I just find it hilarious that they didn't play the song at the festival in the end. That's how bad that song was.
 
Yeah, that song was truly terrible. Certainly among my least favorite U2 songs.
 
I'll see them once or twice if they come around here again. They do put on a good show and I can hear my favorite 90s songs again, but I'm done waiting for them to release new subpar music. I've been done for two years now.

Welcome to irrelevance U2
 
Steved1998 said:
I'll see them once or twice if they come around here again. They do put on a good show and I can hear my favorite 90s songs again, but I'm done waiting for them to release new subpar music. I've been done for two years now.

Welcome to irrelevance U2
Click to expand...


Hang in there, dude! You've been to a shitload of shows. Hell, I've attended about 7 of the same ones. Admit it, secretly you really love Get on Your Boots. :wink:
 
Steved1998 said:
I'll see them once or twice if they come around here again. They do put on a good show and I can hear my favorite 90s songs again, but I'm done waiting for them to release new subpar music. I've been done for two years now.

Welcome to irrelevance U2
Click to expand...

Ouch.... but, yeah.

I feel like the longer they wait before releasing that next album, the less it matters. If you only release an album every 4-5 years there's no room for a bad first single choice or any kind of a misstep. The mistakes made selling NLOTH now mean it's been 7 years since U2 had a hit, and it will be at least one year more before the next album comes out. 8 years without a hit? No one could call that relevant.
 
I think U2 is "relevant" to all of the folks who caught their last tour and enjoyed it. I couldn't care less if they had a hit.
 
Niceman said:
So, you think they're relevant in the same way the Rolling Stones are relevant?
Click to expand...

U2 and the Stones are relevant to the personal soundtrack of my life. If they both continue to make/perform music that I find enjoyable, that will always work for me. They are both legends and both have their own unique place in rock and roll history.
 
MrPryck2U said:
U2 and the Stones are relevant to the personal soundtrack of my life. If they both continue to make/perform music that I find enjoyable, that will always work for me. They are both legends and both have their own unique place in rock and roll history.
Click to expand...

I guess. I mean, the Doors will always be important to me, but only for what they did years ago. I want/hope/expect U2 to STAY important for years to come, not just for what they did years ago, but for what's to come. I think that's the difference. The Stones (nor the Doors) will be important for what they do in the future, only for the long long ago...

EDIT: Most bands lose their inspiration and fire and dry up before their first decade is up. But U2 managed songs like Moment of Surrender, Breathe, Fez, and the others as recently as the latest album. Then they went on tour and pushed the old songs, as if they were creatively over. I guess that's the disparity for me. I don't buy that the band is creatively dead or over, but they're acting like it.
 
They played NLOTH, Magnificent, Moment of Surrender, Unknown Caller, Crazy Tonight, Boots and Breathe all on the first two legs, pretty much every night for the most part. they toured the new songs.

and the stadiums didn't react that well overall to the new songs. So, they changed it up. 360 was a bit unique because they were trying (whether the skeptics want to believe it or not) to release an album at some point in 2011, and they were "road testing" a few new songs, played Glastonbury, Every Breaking Wave, North Star, Boy Falls from the Sky and Stingray guitar (five more new songs) as well as a revamped Mercy in 2010, while still playing some of the NLOTH material.

when they realized they weren't going to put out an album and instead go nuts over an Achtung remaster in the fall, they said ok, we'll just play a shit ton of songs from Achtung, and then put on the best show that we can off of it.

and you know what? the 2011 shows were better than the 2009 shows by a fair margin, to me at least. do I like No line? Yes, I think it's a very good album. Do I wish they kept playing No Line instead of say, Elevation or Pride? Of course.

But to say they went on a 3-year tour and pushed the old songs is just inaccurate.
 
Niceman said:
I guess. I mean, the Doors will always be important to me, but only for what they did years ago. I want/hope/expect U2 to STAY important for years to come, not just for what they did years ago, but for what's to come. I think that's the difference. The Stones (nor the Doors) will be important for what they do in the future, only for the long long ago...

EDIT: Most bands lose their inspiration and fire and dry up before their first decade is up. But U2 managed songs like Moment of Surrender, Breathe, Fez, and the others as recently as the latest album. Then they went on tour and pushed the old songs, as if they were creatively over. I guess that's the disparity for me. I don't buy that the band is creatively dead or over, but they're acting like it.
Click to expand...


The Stones have been around for 50 years. They do not have to do anything. They could have kicked back and retired. Them deciding to tour is mostly a gift to their fans who love to hear them bang out their hits as well as perhaps a new song or two.
When U2 toured in 2009, they played a decent amount of songs from NLOTH. When they toured again in 2011, they altered the setlist to feature more classic songs as well as their more recent tunes. I thought they did an excellent job of mixing things up. I see no evidence of U2 acting like they are creatively dead. NLOTH sounded like nothing I've ever heard before from U2 and I definitely mean that in a positive way. I do see evidence though of guys who are in their 50's taking their time when it comes to releasing a new album. They've got nothing to prove. They just did two tours that featured crowds averaging well over 70,000 people. People who paid a lot of money to hear, yup, you guessed it, the hits. Like I said, the 2009 tour featured more songs from NLOTH while the 2011 tour featured more classic songs that people paying over a hundred bucks wanna hear.

The Doors are great and all, but they were together for less time than Nirvana and Jim Morrison died over 40 years ago. They'll always be important I suppose, but I don't understand why you've mentioned them. I'm sure the surviving members of the band would have loved to have had the careers of U2 and the Stones. But, alas, Jim drank himself to death. Meanwhile, Keith Richards is still alive regardless of all the drugs and drink that he's imbibed.
 
Niceman said:
Ouch.... but, yeah.

I feel like the longer they wait before releasing that next album, the less it matters. If you only release an album every 4-5 years there's no room for a bad first single choice or any kind of a misstep. The mistakes made selling NLOTH now mean it's been 7 years since U2 had a hit, and it will be at least one year more before the next album comes out. 8 years without a hit? No one could call that relevant.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Too many people in here have battered wife syndrome. They keep doing this stuff because you guys keep putting up with it.
 
MrPryck2U said:
The Stones have been around for 50 years. They do not have to do anything. They could have kicked back and retired. Them deciding to tour is mostly a gift to their fans who love to hear them bang out their hits as well as perhaps a new song or two.
When U2 toured in 2009, they played a decent amount of songs from NLOTH. When they toured again in 2011, they altered the setlist to feature more classic songs as well as their more recent tunes. I thought they did an excellent job of mixing things up. I see no evidence of U2 acting like they are creatively dead. NLOTH sounded like nothing I've ever heard before from U2 and I definitely mean that in a positive way. I do see evidence though of guys who are in their 50's taking their time when it comes to releasing a new album. They've got nothing to prove. They just did two tours that featured crowds averaging well over 70,000 people. People who paid a lot of money to hear, yup, you guessed it, the hits. Like I said, the 2009 tour featured more songs from NLOTH while the 2011 tour featured more classic songs that people paying over a hundred bucks wanna hear.

The Doors are great and all, but they were together for less time than Nirvana and Jim Morrison died over 40 years ago. They'll always be important I suppose, but I don't understand why you've mentioned them. I'm sure the surviving members of the band would have loved to have had the careers of U2 and the Stones. But, alas, Jim drank himself to death. Meanwhile, Keith Richards is still alive regardless of all the drugs and drink that he's imbibed.
Click to expand...

I mention the Doors because the music they made decades ago is still important now. IMO much more so than the Stones. But, in both cases, we're talking about bands being important to us for what they did long ago, not for the work they're doing now.

I guess there's no point in going through this again, 360 was not a NLOTH-themed tour. By the end they played very little from the album, and now we're more than 3 years later without a follow-up. That's not how a band who's excited about their current work would/should act IMO. And, as I said, it's a shame because the last album was brilliant. I would have liked to see a No Line tour, and I would have liked to hear Songs of Ascent.
 
Niceman said:
I mention the Doors because the music they made decades ago is still important now. IMO much more so than the Stones. But, in both cases, we're talking about bands being important to us for what they did long ago, not for the work they're doing now.

I guess there's no point in going through this again, 360 was not a NLOTH-themed tour. By the end they played very little from the album, and now we're more than 3 years later without a follow-up. That's not how a band who's excited about their current work would/should act IMO. And, as I said, it's a shame because the last album was brilliant. I would have liked to see a No Line tour, and I would have liked to hear Songs of Ascent.
Click to expand...

Wow, no matter how many times its worded, you're going to stick with this belief that 360 was not a NLOTH themed tour. 360(2009) was focused mostly on NLOTH while 360(2011) was more of a balance between new stuff and older material. You're correct that there is no point in going through this again because you don't seem willing or able to absorb this as a fact. One need only to observe the setlists as well the merchandise that was sold during the tour to realize this.

Lastly, a small reminder that you don't have to type "IMO" because we fully realize that it is indeed your opinion. In other words, its redundant. :doh:
 
MrPryck2U said:
Wow, no matter how many times its worded, you're going to stick with this belief that 360 was not a NLOTH themed tour. 360(2009) was focused mostly on NLOTH while 360(2011) was more of a balance between new stuff and older material. You're correct that there is no point in going through this again because you don't seem willing or able to absorb this as a fact. One need only to observe the setlists as well the merchandise that was sold during the tour to realize this.

Lastly, a small reminder that you don't have to type "IMO" because we fully realize that it is indeed your opinion. In other words, its redundant. :doh:
Click to expand...

I don't understand the belligerence. You claim the early show was "mostly focused" on the new album, in defiance of all logic. You can re-word that claim all you like, but it's just not true.

They played 7 NLOTH songs the opening night. Just over half the album. Less than a third of the show. (And all tour long, they never added to the number and worked in an 8th NLOTH song. 7 was the peak.) The final night of the tour they played 3 NLOTH songs. Compare that to POPMART or ZOOTV. By the end of the tour, they didn't even play an NLOTH song to open the show, all pretense at being anything but a best-of show was out the window.

IMO you're crazy IMO! ;)
 
Yes, they played 7 songs on 360(2009). That was the largest representation from any one album on their setlist. I'm not comparing previous tours. I'm only referring to what has been previously discussed.
 
MrPryck2U said:
Yes, they played 7 songs on 360(2009). That was the largest representation from any one album on their setlist. I'm not comparing previous tours. I'm only referring to what has been previously discussed.
Click to expand...

Until it became the Awesome Achtung tour. I'd argue that the tour was largely unfocused setlist wise until they hit South America.
 
Steved1998 said:
Until it became the Awesome Achtung tour. I'd argue that the tour was largely unfocused setlist wise until they hit South America.
Click to expand...

Yes, they probably should have called the 360(2011) tour the 180 tour because when they came back after Bono's surgery, they played more stuff from AB and less stuff from NLOTH. It was especially awesome when they played Zooropa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dan_smee
New Album Discussion 1 - Songs of..... - Unreasonable guitar album
60 61 62
Replies
2K
Views
101K
Achtung Ya'll
A
W
A Boy Falls From the Sky is some U2's best work
Replies
3
Views
2K
zoocarolina
Z
Registered Dude
  • Locked
Songs of _________________; New album discussion #7
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
53K
U2387
U2387
SayGoodbye
Scariest U2 Songs
Replies
26
Views
2K
clerks
clerks
Scorpionac
Songs that would fit better on SOI vs. SOE?
Replies
1
Views
410
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom