What do you think NLOTH's reception means for future releases??

[hasin73]

U2 has at least $500 million worth of concert ticket buyers. They should not worry about
anything and just experiment as much as they can with their music.

 

[ozeeko]

This is where U2 is at...

Every artist happens upon a time when what used to be easy now seems so hard.

Even Bob Dylan said, he doesn't know how he wrote his old songs. Youtube a 60 minutes interview with him, he'll say "darkness at the break of noon, shadows even the silver spoon"...etc. - He doesn't know how he came up with that song.

Lou Reed said something pretty much on point with Dylan, in an interview with Elvis Costello, he said, to some degree: "you don't start out with a blank page. Either the song is written already, or you don't have a song at all"

The Doors, in their debut album classic album DVD, John Densmore said "the muse was defiinitely around at that time. You don't own it."

I think U2 are just victims of what happens to every great artist. After a certain amount of time, what once was easy (writing songs), isn't so easy anymore. The muse is gone. The inspiration is gone.

Where I do find U2 making strides with their music is where they don't overthink everything and just run with a burst of inspiration, kinda like MOS.

I'm a songwriter, and i've found that these older songs i've written, ones that have been worked on to death, overlabored, just dont' sound so hot now. I think when U2 are working something to death (like SUC), it won't amount to anything great, because they are already trying to make something great out of something that isn't great. The best thing to do, sometimes, is just start over.

The whole thing with Bono saying "we don't need the pop kids" was just a statement of the times. At that time, 80's music was being swept under the rug, and everyone was getting off on a detached, post modern, cool way of presentation. That's where U2 was at that time. That's why it worked. The best thing to do was to denounce their former selves.

In the 2000's, U2 found that the best way to crack the top ten again was to be unapollogetic about their past. To be unembarrased about being "U2". That's what worked for them at that time.

I think there will come a time soon when U2 will want to do another 180...but at the same time, they are getting old. I'm not sure if the fire is there any longer, to do another aboutface and present to the world another version of U2. This just happens naturally. Bands get old, and they stop caring so much about changing shit.

Maybe U2 will be the exception to the rule, but most bands after a while just lose the desire to want to shake things up. If anythign, they just want to be heard.

 

[BVS]

That's somewhat embarassing in itself...

 

[ozeeko]

That's somewhat embarassing in itself...

And what is?

 

[Niceman]

This is where U2 is at...

Every artist happens upon a time when what used to be easy now seems so hard.

Even Bob Dylan said, he doesn't know how he wrote his old songs. Youtube a 60 minutes interview with him, he'll say "darkness at the break of noon, shadows even the silver spoon"...etc. - He doesn't know how he came up with that song.

Lou Reed said something pretty much on point with Dylan, in an interview with Elvis Costello, he said, to some degree: "you don't start out with a blank page. Either the song is written already, or you don't have a song at all"

The Doors, in their debut album classic album DVD, John Densmore said "the muse was defiinitely around at that time. You don't own it."

I think U2 are just victims of what happens to every great artist. After a certain amount of time, what once was easy (writing songs), isn't so easy anymore. The muse is gone. The inspiration is gone.

Where I do find U2 making strides with their music is where they don't overthink everything and just run with a burst of inspiration, kinda like MOS.

I'm a songwriter, and i've found that these older songs i've written, ones that have been worked on to death, overlabored, just dont' sound so hot now. I think when U2 are working something to death (like SUC), it won't amount to anything great, because they are already trying to make something great out of something that isn't great. The best thing to do, sometimes, is just start over.

The whole thing with Bono saying "we don't need the pop kids" was just a statement of the times. At that time, 80's music was being swept under the rug, and everyone was getting off on a detached, post modern, cool way of presentation. That's where U2 was at that time. That's why it worked. The best thing to do was to denounce their former selves.

In the 2000's, U2 found that the best way to crack the top ten again was to be unapollogetic about their past. To be unembarrased about being "U2". That's what worked for them at that time.

I think there will come a time soon when U2 will want to do another 180...but at the same time, they are getting old. I'm not sure if the fire is there any longer, to do another aboutface and present to the world another version of U2. This just happens naturally. Bands get old, and they stop caring so much about changing shit.

Maybe U2 will be the exception to the rule, but most bands after a while just lose the desire to want to shake things up. If anythign, they just want to be heard.

I don't think this is where U2 is at at all!

NLOTH is U2 operating at a very high level. It's a stronger album than they've managed in the last 18 years. I think NLOTH is better than HTDAAB or POP or Zooropa, and it laughs at ATYCLB! Stand Up Comedy is a wonderful song! Consider, that the fire IS there for them, but perhaps YOU may have lost the fire for them?

If U2 was ever at the stage you're describing I think it was in 2000, but they recovered.

 

[ultraviolet7]

Where I do find U2 making strides with their music is where they don't overthink everything

In the 2000's, U2 found that the best way to crack the top ten again was to be unapollogetic about their past. To be unembarrased about being "U2".

I suppose you mean their 80s past. They seemed to be rather apologetic of their recent past.

Bands get old, and they stop caring so much about changing shit.

Maybe U2 will be the exception to the rule, but most bands after a while just lose the desire to want to shake things up. If anythign, they just want to be heard.

In a way it's the way life works, at a certain point older generations step aside to make room for younger ones and hand over the banners of revolution. I'm not so sure that they stop caring about changing shit when they get old, it's that generations change and as much as one may change it gets more and more difficult to reach out to those younger generations. I see many young people getting on the U2 bandwagon now, but they are not getting hooked up for the same reasons my generation did. In the early eighties at 18-20 we saw U2 as a band our generation who was shouting out what we thought, was supporting the same ideals we had, and did it to the beat of new music that reached our souls. While there are scores of young U2 fans now, which is great, their reasons to become U2 fans are different - they are similar to the reasons I had to become a Beatles or Zep fan when I was young. I loved (and love) those bands, but they were not the bands that shouted revolution to my generation.

The big difference is that in the past bands didn't get this old with no contention from younger generation bands. What I mean to say is that even if there are hosts of younger generation bands (probably more than in the past) these bands now are either sort of cultish - e.g. Radiohead (who are not that new or young either) or not exciting enough - e.g The Killers, King of Leon, Franz Ferdinand. There isn't a single band nowadays that can dispute U2's position to lead the "new wave" of rock 'n roll in terms of musical innovation, ideology and popularity and I don't know how reasonable it is to expect a band on the verge of their 50s to do it. I mean, they may be able to produce innovative music if they want to, but can they reach out to a younger generation avid for a band/music movement that represents them? Let's face it, they are this generation's parents. I don't think that any person in their late teens or early twenties will find a band their parents' age representative of their generation, as inspiring or great they may find their music to be. My opinion is that as much as U2 may be able to come up with a new version of themselves, the most they can hope for is to stay relevant, which by no means is a minor achievement.

 

[ozeeko]

I was drunk when i typed all that up the other night. As you can probably tell, since i'm all over the place with my points.

I wasn't knocking NLOTH, I actually like it a lot. I actually don't remember why i typed that whole thing up...haha

I think i was just making some point about artists in general, how there usually seems to come a time where creation isn't coming as easy, and inspiration is harder to find. And i was using some examples, some quotes from famous artists. I think it's common knowledge that every band usually peaks at a certain point. I mean, i think NLOTH is head and shoulders above The Bomb album, but part of me does believe that they peaked creatively in the 90's. Doesn't mean i hate the new album, just what i feel about U2 in the longrun. But I did say "maybe U2 will be the exception." I would be surprised, really surprised.

On a sad note, going back to my argument, I listened to the new Depeche Mode album the other day...damn...fucking horrible. All my fears about them turning into a self parodic act after the mediocre "Playing The Angel" have come to life. Shame. Now that's a prime example of a band with no new ideas, well past their creative peak! And they're my 2nd favorite band.

 

[Snowlock]

NLOTH didn't do as well because of the economy, a march release and Boots. I don't think there's really any more to it than that.

 

[standrums]

NLOTH didn't do as well because of the economy, a march release and Boots. I don't think there's really any more to it than that.

It's only been out a month, the second single hasn't even been released and the tour hasn't started- the album's done great already, it's shifted loads already and is still the European number one album

I can't see what people mean by it not doing well

 

[Snowlock]

It's only been out a month, the second single hasn't even been released and the tour hasn't started- the album's done great already, it's shifted loads already and is still the European number one album

I can't see what people mean by it not doing well

I should've said as well (as HTDAAB). NLOTH hit number 1 in how many countries? Basically I'm saying, things are fine, the universe isn't ending, U2 isn't panicking I'm sure.

Oh, but that second single is going to flop; sorry... Terrible choice, that.

 

[believer75]

It's only been out a month, the second single hasn't even been released and the tour hasn't started- the album's done great already, it's shifted loads already and is still the European number one album

I can't see what people mean by it not doing well

U2, before NLOTH came out, labeled the album a grower. And, I think that's what it will be. It is not riding the back of a smash single, and does not need to. Again, The Fly was not a smash single when Achtung was released. But, ZOOTV and other singles lurked on the horizon. People will discover the album over time, during the tour, beyond the tour, over the next 10, 25, 50 or one hundred years. U2's NEW album, has been out a month, and by all accounts is already a success. There is no argument or debate here. In the end, it's a great album, and that's all it has to be. That, and the tour, where U2's songs ultimately come "alive", will take care of the rest.