shuttlecock XXIV: it's the little swings

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dude, they live in a place where they’re lucky to get any tour at all because the members of this band are one fucking heart attack away from never touring again. Do you really think you’re being fair? And here I thought they were complaining too much. Why not just accept that it is what it is...? They’re fucking old.
 
Ok, my proper response now I've got a moment...
I've been calling for this for years. So at least I've got the integrity of that. If I went back through my old posts I reckon for at least five years I've been saying that I would prefer a modern-day U2 -- if they keep up this ridiculous lust for relevancy and top-charting singles, which they have done -- that does what they do best: tour. And tour their old shit. They're all in their late 60s now. It's obvious they refuse to take the path of fellow artists of a similar vintage in Nick Cave, Bowie, Tom Waits, none of whom care(d) about relevancy or chart hits and have all released albums that comfortably rank among their best. They also don't follow the Springsteen mould of mass touring, huge sets, and even he is just about to release a new album, one that is, shock and horror, not a culture grab. If they followed either of these paths, then I'd love to see them doing a current tour, with new tracks, and I'd prefer it to JT32.

But it's clear they are going to do what they have been doing, which is release studio albums with some great songs here and there, but which are horribly compromised thanks to this ridiculous pursuit for relevancy, headlined by absolutely woeful single choices. And if that's the strategy they take, then I'm really not that interested. There are a million great artists out there. U2 will always be my favourite band, that will never change. But their best is clearly behind them, and I don't know why it's so hard to understand that I would prefer to see my favourite band playing their best stuff live, then watching my favourite band play shitty new songs that I don't care for. I understand every point you make on this topic, and I think you've got a completely valid point of view. Maybe you could try to understand where I'm coming from. :shrug:

The other point to make is that this announcement has absolutely lit up Australians this morning. The news is everywhere. People have been coming out in droves because of the nostalgia they have tied to The Joshua Tree. People are genuinely excited about this tour and it is the first time in a very, very long time that I can remember such positivity surrounding the band. It is so nice, and has made for a very lovely morning, seeing others express love for the band I hold so dear. I can guarantee, the response would have been about two-tenths as strong had they announced a continuation of the EI tour, or some sort of hodge-podge.


Bono and Adam only turn 60 next year, but I agree with the rest of this.

I'm much more interested in this being a JT tour as opposed to I+E, I still haven't seen the band (they didn't come to my city in 2010 for 360) so I know that them performing JT in full would be so much better than them cranking out songs from an album I only listened to once and didn't come back to again.
 
Looking at the last E+I show in Germany half a year ago...
-no songs from SOI
-7 songs from SOE
Maybe we'll get some songs from SOE, possibly The Blackout and Love is Bigger. That leaves Lights of Home, Best Thing, Get Out, Summer of Love and 13, a combination of songs I'd either rather replace with something else, or ill-suited to a stadium. If they can retain one or two of Zoo Station, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, The Fly or Acrobat, I won't have too much to complain about.
 
As someone who saw at least the first incarnation of i+e and the JT revival, there’s no comparison. The former had a lot more energy and vitality to it. And regardless, it’s not like you have to hear a new album in full, it’s still only like 1/3 of the set.

Sorry, but I don’t think your position is valid at all. It’s people like you that are helping to usher in the death throes of any credibility they had left. It pains me to see a band making a move like this when they had always stuck by their new material, with the exception of the last legs of 360, and even after that they went back to playing a healthy dose of SOI and SOE on their respective tours, record sales be damned. One JT anniversary tour was hard enough to stomach, but you could at least stretch yourself to take them at their word for why they were doing it. The show made a good case for the material still being relevant. 2 years later after they already released more new material? Not so much.

Maybe you think it’s cool that the band caters to your country that’s stuck in the past, but I think it’s sad. U2 coming to these more remote areas should always be a privilege and they shouldn’t have to package it any specific way. Every tour has received great reviews regardless of how well the albums did so it shouldn’t matter what the fuck they play.

I don’t understand why anyone who calls themselves a fan wants them to turn into this. If you don’t like the newer material, then just stay away. Yes they could have gone the route of some of the other older acts you mentioned, but being the world’s biggest band is a mantle they feel obligated to still carry, for better or worse. And they can still get enough media attention for their releases and draw big name collaborators to keep that partial illusion going. But the ambition has always been a big part of what has made them great, not cranking out the hits for the olds.

This is exactly how I feel as well.
 
I don't regard U2 touring Australia for the first time in a decade as a privilege. I regard it as a band doing the bare minimum, especially a band that purports to be a global act.

Now of course, I'm not oblivious to (some) of the members' health worries, but that's a whole other conversation. At the point where they are just too frail to do this anymore, they shouldn't do this anymore. Period. Are we there yet? Evidently not.

For the record I'm agnostic on the whole Joshua-Tree-nostalgia-show vs being-an-ongoing-artistic-concern debate... I can see both sides. Not really that excited to be honest, considering there is a wealth of bootleg material out there from the actual Joshua Tree era; but hey. If they come to Toowoomba, I'm totally there.
 
Last edited:
Dude, they live in a place where they’re lucky to get any tour at all because the members of this band are one fucking heart attack away from never touring again. Do you really think you’re being fair? And here I thought they were complaining too much. Why not just accept that it is what it is...? They’re fucking old.

:up:

As someone who saw at least the first incarnation of i+e and the JT revival, there’s no comparison. The former had a lot more energy and vitality to it. And regardless, it’s not like you have to hear a new album in full, it’s still only like 1/3 of the set.

Sorry, but I don’t think your position is valid at all. It’s people like you that are helping to usher in the death throes of any credibility they had left. It pains me to see a band making a move like this when they had always stuck by their new material, with the exception of the last legs of 360, and even after that they went back to playing a healthy dose of SOI and SOE on their respective tours, record sales be damned. One JT anniversary tour was hard enough to stomach, but you could at least stretch yourself to take them at their word for why they were doing it. The show made a good case for the material still being relevant. 2 years later after they already released more new material? Not so much.

Maybe you think it’s cool that the band caters to your country that’s stuck in the past, but I think it’s sad. U2 coming to these more remote areas should always be a privilege and they shouldn’t have to package it any specific way. Every tour has received great reviews regardless of how well the albums did so it shouldn’t matter what the fuck they play.

I don’t understand why anyone who calls themselves a fan wants them to turn into this. If you don’t like the newer material, then just stay away. Yes they could have gone the route of some of the other older acts you mentioned, but being the world’s biggest band is a mantle they feel obligated to still carry, for better or worse. And they can still get enough media attention for their releases and draw big name collaborators to keep that partial illusion going. But the ambition has always been a big part of what has made them great, not cranking out the hits for the olds.

I was hoping you'd be more empathetic than this.

I wouldn't know about i+e or e+i because they don't fucking tour here. There is no excuse for them not to tour (Springsteen has toured here three times since U2 were last here), they're extremely rich, they've always enjoyed very strong support down under, and yet we've been stooged on Elevation and missed the entire SOI/E era altogether, and until today, overlooked for JT30. I saw the two LA JT30 shows and they were incredible, both immediately went to #2 and #3 on my list of U2 shows I've seen, behind my first show, which will never be supplanted.

Here's another thing you can't seem to grasp. I've seen six U2 shows. I've loved the band like little else since 2004. And I've only been able to see six shows. And one-third of those shows were in the US, where U2 tours consistently, along with Europe. In 15 years of fandom, I've seen four shows in my own country, where most American and European fans with my level of fandom have the opportunity to see dozens. I'd have been happy if they came here with the explicit purpose of playing In a Little While 22 times, I don't give a fuck, I'm that happy to finally see my favourite band in my own country again. The last time, I was 20 years old. I was legally not allowed to drink in the States (went with family that same year). I was a virgin, and I wouldn't take a positive shift with my life until the following year. I am an incredibly different person now to what I was back then. This might be my last chance to see them. And if they get older and decide stick to US/Europe with future tours, which is a very real possibility based on their history, I'll have to fork out thousands of dollars to say goodbye.

I think your claim this is killing their credibility is laughable. Credibility with who? :lol: How many of your friends are out here saying "man I'm not a big fan of U2 but I really respect that they're playing shit new songs instead of the only album that I actually liked?" The JT30 tour got U2 the only positive article they've had on Pitchfork in about a decade. Genuinely, who thinks this is killing their credibility aside from you? You and maybe a couple of others on this forum are the only ones I've ever heard complain. Everyone else who might complain stopped giving a shit about U2 when they forced SOI onto their phones, if not five or ten years earlier.

"I don't get how a fan could want this" "don't like the new stuff stay away". So what am I supposed to do? Not attend this tour out of protest and log off and listen to JT at home? What a stupid proposition.

And yeah you're right -- any tour would have gone over well. Of course it would have. They're great at live music. It SHOULDN'T matter what they play, you're right - and yet you're the one whinging about what they're playing. I'd have gladly taken IE/EI if that's what they did. I prefer this, because it means I don't have to fucking hear Best Thing and Own Way and half a handful of other SOI/E songs I don't like. And I think it's wanky as hell to be like "oh U2 are playing these songs I don't like but I RESPECT THEM for doing it". That's dumb as hell.

You're also right about their ambition, that's always been them and won't change now. But I will take a set full of songs I love over a set with a third of songs I strongly dislike eight days a week. :shrug:

I absolutely love you man, and I truly, truly mean that, I owe you a lot and I hope to repay it someday, but I think it's strange you refuse to even try and sympathise with mine or many other Australians' point of view.
 
Bono and Adam only turn 60 next year, but I agree with the rest of this.

I'm much more interested in this being a JT tour as opposed to I+E, I still haven't seen the band (they didn't come to my city in 2010 for 360) so I know that them performing JT in full would be so much better than them cranking out songs from an album I only listened to once and didn't come back to again.

Whoops, typo, meant 50s.

And hell yeah, man. You're gonna love it. I'll try to be there for it :)
 
I saw the Joshua Tree tour twice and the E+I tour twice. They were about the same quality. Had the JT Tour shows been a little longer, they'd probably be ahead of E+I. Who cares which one they get, it's cool that they're going back there.
 
Sure. Stadiums tend to be larger than arenas



Can’t tell if joke

That was my point. They’re going to Australia and they’re intentionally bringing the stadium show and not the arena show. It isn’t some “legacy act” card drawn. It’s a “We don’t want to have to design a new show when we are at the end of a tour but want a stadium for Australia” card drawn.
 
What's the point? We're mostly talking about different things; you're going on and on about how long it's been since they played in your country and how much you love them blah blah blah. I never implied it was a bad thing that they were coming, or that they shouldn't, or that no one should see them. You also misread my line about skipping the show, as what I originally said what that they should be touring Innocence and Experience, and that if they had done that and you hate those albums so much, don't go. Not that you should skip this actual tour out of protest.

Here's all of it in a nutshell: I don't think the band should be a legacy act. You don't seem to think it's a problem because you get to see them again and that's all you care about. I am, over anything else, invested in the critical and historical standing of this band, and that is why I criticize these decisions and question people's credibility as fans when they just let things slide to satisfy their own personal urges. I would literally rather see them retire than do shit like this. Because an album that has spotty production and poor single choices but still manages to give me a handful (or more) of stellar tracks is much less of a crime IMO. The problems with SOI and SOE were the release method of the former and the single/promo choices of the latter, and not the actual content, which is good enough for a band at this age. Could be better, but it doesn't bother me in the same way as them trying to keep beating an old horse to stay in the conversation.

So I'm sorry that you feel seeing some i+e/e+i hybrid would mean that you'd have to suffer through some shitty tracks, but all I know is that the actual presentation of those songs, at least in the i+e incarnation, actually made the band appear relevant and vital. The JT show I saw was a fun victory lap and that's it.
 
Fair enough. One final thing, I will just call into question your point about their relevancy and their critical and historical standing. I can understand what you mean about vitality, I didn't and won't ever see the SOIE shows, but I can appreciate that they appeared to be vital and energetic playing those songs. But as for relevancy and critical standing, no one cares about them any more. U2 aren't relevant like they once were, and no amount of new work, particularly when combined with release method and poor single choices, is going to change that.

I would argue that the JT victory lap made them more relevant than they had been since the Vertigo commercial. Case in point: https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1406-u2-are-finally-acting-their-age/

Anyway I'll drop it now, but I guess I just don't really like being called some pathetic loser fan for preferring a legacy tour over new stuff, and your preferences don't make you superior.
 
Congrats on giving up, all of you. It's a lot easier.

Fair enough. One final thing, I will just call into question your point about their relevancy and their critical and historical standing. I can understand what you mean about vitality, I didn't and won't ever see the SOIE shows, but I can appreciate that they appeared to be vital and energetic playing those songs. But as for relevancy and critical standing, no one cares about them any more. U2 aren't relevant like they once were, and no amount of new work, particularly when combined with release method and poor single choices, is going to change that.

"No one cares about them anymore" is a ridiculous overstatement, because clearly they are still getting a fairly large number of people to listen to their new music, even if it's a fraction of the total they used to reach. Sales are down (as they have been in general, for a while), but to be as old as they are and put up any kind of numbers is impressive. Their albums and tours are still reviewed prominently across entertainment media. But they can still continue to record and tour with new material as the featured priority, as they have ALWAYS done until the JT anniversary tour(s).

Now I'm not going to argue that they're "relevant" in terms of a younger demographic, or any kind of zeitgeist that is talked about across a significant number of demographics. But again, they are still able to garner attention. Maybe the day will come when big magazines don't want to put them on the covers, put the new album review on the main page of the site, etc. But that day isn't here yet, and there isn't another band from their era that can claim relevance anyway, or most bands from subsequent eras. Is Radiohead relevant? To how many people? Just because A Moon Shaped Pool got better reviews? Pearl Jam sure isn't. The Strokes aren't.

You link to an article from Pitchfork about U2 finally acting their age, as if the seal of approval from a site that has always has an axe to grind with them, is some kind of proof. That's just the young turks wanting to put the old guard in its place. What I did say was that during the i+e concert, the material appeared relevant and that says more about the band's mindset than the public's taste.

All I want them to do is to keep creating music until the bad truly outweighs the good. Just because some of the people around here think that happened 5 years ago doesn't mean it's so. There's clearly a variety of opinion in terms of which post-2000 albums are low points or successes.

You claim the JT anniversary tour(s) made them more relevant than they have been a while, and I don't know how you measure that. Because they sold more stadium tickets to old people? Regardless, this kind of thing has a subconscious impact, in that when people think of the band, they are either going to regard them as a geriatric band that is touring on past glories like every other classic rock act (the Stones, The Who, Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, etc.), or those has-beens who won't seem to go away and keep trying to shove their new stuff in everyone's faces. It seemed to me that Bono at least preferred to be the latter because he sees the value in art as a disruption. The more they keep going out like a jukebox and doing unnecessary anniversary tours, they reduce that legacy in contrast to what set them apart from the classic rockers for a ridiculously long time.

This is why I'm questioning those fans who are just fine with them seeing the writing on the wall or whatever and just going out there with their best material to prove that they can still deliver the goods. That's not what they're about, what they've ever been about until 2017. And why would a longtime fan want them to be that? That's what I mean about giving up. Retiring is not giving up, it's stopping with dignity.
 
Last edited:
I guess we just aren't going to agree. I really think the dinosaur / legacy acts aren't viewed as negatively as you think, at least not by the vast majority. And I can't understand why you can't even acknowledge that wanting one's favourite ever band to remain on tour on playing beloved songs is a legitimate thing to want, rather than for them to retire in the name of some arbitrary dignity. End of the day, hearing Streets for the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth time live is going to make me a lot happier than them retiring, or making albums on which I only like a handful of songs and touring them only in places that prohibit me from enjoying them in person. Agree to disagree.
 
Give up shmive up.

I don't consider U2 to have given up whatsoever. They just finished, whatever your opinion of the work aside, a rather ambitious two part companion set with accompanying world tours. They also did this while the lead singer was apparently going through two separate life threatening episodes.

Acknowledging your history is not selling out, not is it giving up - especially for a band as old as U2. I absolutely can't go along with that line of thinking.

If anything I find it sadder when a band completely sells out their history by compromising themselves with of the moment pop producers in a bullshit attempt to appeal to the youts. I'd much rather see U2 go down this road than turn into Aerosmith.
 
Laz, I know you are not engaging in good faith, but re-reading this:

This is why I'm questioning those fans who are just fine with them seeing the writing on the wall or whatever and just going out there with their best material to prove that they can still deliver the goods.

...you... are questioning... fans... for going to see U2... playing their best material?

What the fuck are you on.
 
My take on this is that the upcoming shows are not part of any new tour. They are just the 5th leg of The Joshua Tree Redux Tour. Thing is, the band released SOE at an inconvenient (for them) moment. Had the album be ready 1 year earlier then legs 3 & 4 of the i+e Tour (or e+i Tour) would've taken place in 2017. And if the album had not been ready yet late 2017, then I'm pretty sure that Australia would've gotten leg 5 of The Joshua Tree Redux Tour early 2018. But, the way it turned out, we now have this 'weird' division of:
- i+e legs 1 & 2
- Joshua Tree Redux legs 1, 2, 3 & 4
- i+e/e+i legs 3 & 4
- Joshua Tree Redux leg 5

This is also something I heard somewhere, that U2 is touring Australia because they had more or less promised it in the past. So they're taken to that promise. And just because they have to anyway, they've thrown in some Asian dates as well. But in a way they're still on the break that Bono hinted at at the end of the e+i Tour. I just hope that the band gets energy from these coming shows to forget about the break and record a quick album.
 
Laz, I know you are not engaging in good faith, but re-reading this:



...you... are questioning... fans... for going to see U2... playing their best material?

What the fuck are you on.

I don't want to speak for Lazarus, but my response to that would be it's not a criticism of fans wanting to see U2 play their 'best material' but rather the idea that the band has apparently given up on creating new 'best material' and, rather, are resting on their laurels.

Forward progress has always been a key part of this band's DNA. Remaining relevant is something they've always worked towards. They even tried to explain away the Joshua Tree tour by claiming that the album had found new relevance in the political climate of 2017. It's just strange to see them fall back on a nostalgia tour. 2 years ago, they could somewhat explain it away by using the 30th anniversary. But two years later? Why not just take the E+I tour down under and sub in some JT songs? Exit next to Acrobat would have been pretty cool.

It's just kind of jarring to see the band start the I+E tour, shoehorn the JT tour in the middle of it, then pick it back up with the E+I tour (same basic concept), and then...go back to the JT tour.
 
Taking a tour to Australia is not exactly cheap. I'm sure this factored into the equation. If they're going to do this, they need a stadium show. Perhaps there were thoughts of doing a hybrid show using a modified JT stage. I so believe there were rumors of that. Ultimately this was more cost effective.

I also can't wrap my brain around how people think that they're giving up when they just released a new album last year, and the last 5 years has been as productive an era for the band in a long long time. 2 new albums and 3 massive (and a half?) world tours in 5 years.

Is every artist that has toured on the backs of an old album and/or no album at all "given up?" Has Springsteen given up because he toured on the back or an old record? Does he now get a pass on giving up because he's releasing new music? Pearl Jam has toured at some level every damn year of their existence except for one, whether they have an album or not. Have they given up?

For me? When Bono's doing Gap commercials and Edge is hosting America's Got Talent? Yea that's when they've called it a day.

I also have more or an issue with them pimping themselves out to the Ryan Tedders of the world than I do them touring for touring's sake. That's closer to selling out than doing a JT32.5 tour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom