shuttlecock XXIV: it's the little swings

[cobl04]

Man, thank you

 

[lazarus]

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.

Good to hear that one of our more level-headed members agrees with me.

 

[DaveC]

i found the u2iest song the verve ever made today - the chorus especially sounds like it could be a HTDAAB/NLOTH era outtake:

 

[namkcuR]

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this, Laz. I mean, I certainly understand your viewpoint and the worries it represents - I don't want to see the band turn into the Stones either, not at all. I just don't think that's what's happening here.

First off, we're not talking about some huge multi-year tour here, it's nine shows in the space of one month. It's not going to significantly impact any kind of timeline.

Second, I'd be with you more if was purely a greatest hits show, but I think playing albums front-to-back is a different thing, because not every song on an album is a "hit". Look, for those of us who weren't of a concert-going age in the 80s and (most of) the 90s, there are deep cuts on all of those albums that we've never had a chance to hear live because the band doesn't play them. The whole second side of JT - when I went to my JT show in 2017, that was the first and probably only time I'll ever get to hear RHMT, In God's Country, Trip, Exit, etc live in person. For those younger Aussies that couldn't afford to travel across the world in 2017 like Cobbler did, it will be likely their only chance to hear those songs live as well. You have to remember that. It's not just 'oh, here's Streets and WOWY for the 37th time'.

I didn't make it to E+I, but I saw I+E and JT30, and while both were great, if I had to pick one, I'd say JT30 was the better show(and I say that as someone who likes SOI[in particular] and SOE more than most, certainly more than Cobbler). It was surreal hearing the second half of it live. And I'll tell you this, if there's an AB30 in 2021, I will be there, and it will be worth it to hear Acrobat(like I said, didn't make it to E+I), Love Is Blindness, Tryin' To Throw Your Arms, So Cruel, and Wild Horses.

Or what about Pop? If they were touring Pop front-to-back, would you have the same problem with it, even though you, like me, have been clamoring for them to play that material for nigh on two decades now?

I certainly don't want them to ONLY do those types of things - if they're an active band, I want them to keep making new music - but I don't have a problem with playing older albums front-to-back at all. I don't view it as dinosaur act stuff when there are so many songs from the old albums that they haven't played in so long. They wouldn't be just going through the motions. It's not a jukebox if half the songs from the album are songs that the casual fan might not even know that well.

If I'm being honest, what does bother me a little is that they're not doing Lovetown 30 when the shows will be taking place exactly 30 years after Lovetown in the country it was conceived for.

Anyway, I don't think you have anything to worry about as far as the band 'not trying' anymore. They've been a consistently forward-thinking band for as long as they've existed, for forty years now, and I don't think they can just turn that off, that ambition. Unless they retire, I have no doubt they'll be right back to driving us crazy taking too many years to get an album out, compromising it, picking the wrong singles, and not playing the best songs on the subsequent tour.

 

[kabigon]

i found the u2iest song the verve ever made today - the chorus especially sounds like it could be a HTDAAB/NLOTH era outtake:

I was thinking yesterday about how the riff in Return of the Stingray Guitar / Lucifer's Hands reminds me a lot of

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The whole idea of a "dinosaur act" is kind of obnoxious anyways.

At some point an act that stays together is going to get to a point where their catalog and body of work is going to outweigh their new work no matter the quality. That's just reality.

At that point a band can go one of four ways

A) quit

B) have such a focus on the new stuff that they are no longer a draw

C) stop recording new music altogether and just live off the past

D) balance. Continue to create and care abou new music while also acknowledging and celebrating the past


U2 just did a tour where they didn't play a single song off of their biggest album, while playing a shit ton off their most recent two albums.

Now they're playing like a dozen shows celebrating their biggest album.

I just can't understand how that is "giving up."

 

[cobl04]

 

[lazarus]

The whole idea of a "dinosaur act" is kind of obnoxious anyways.

At some point an act that stays together is going to get to a point where their catalog and body of work is going to outweigh their new work no matter the quality. That's just reality.

At that point a band can go one of four ways

A) quit

B) have such a focus on the new stuff that they are no longer a draw

C) stop recording new music altogether and just live off the past

D) balance. Continue to create and care abou new music while also acknowledging and celebrating the past


U2 just did a tour where they didn't play a single song off of their biggest album, while playing a shit ton off their most recent two albums.

Now they're playing like a dozen shows celebrating their biggest album.

I just can't understand how that is "giving up."

Apparently multiple people missed that I accused various fans here of "giving up", and not actually using that term with the band itself. Merely that this JT 32 move reduces the integrity of what was their mission statement for so long. And I'm apparently one of few around here who still wants them to defiantly hold that position for as long as possible.

They're not at the downside of "B" yet, considering the i+e tour did very well, and if the numbers for e+i weren't as good, it's because they were touring some markets for the 3rd time in 4 years. But when 1/3 of your show is new material, that's definitely putting "such a focus" on it and not giving a damn what the fair-weather attendees want to hear. Unfortunately, it appears some of our Interference members are those fair-weather attendees, and would prefer a greatest hits tour to hearing SOI and SOE material. That's what "giving up" is.

 

[Diemen]

Maybe it’s not so much about preferring old to new, but being thankful they’re touring in their country at all and not getting bent out of shape about what they’re touring?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Apparently multiple people missed that I accused various fans here of "giving up", and not actually using that term with the band itself. Merely that this JT 32 move reduces the integrity of what was their mission statement for so long. And I'm apparently one of few around here who still wants them to defiantly hold that position for as long as possible.



They're not at the downside of "B" yet, considering the i+e tour did very well, and if the numbers for e+i weren't as good, it's because they were touring some markets for the 3rd time in 4 years. But when 1/3 of your show is new material, that's definitely putting "such a focus" on it and not giving a damn what the fair-weather attendees want to hear. Unfortunately, it appears some of our Interference members are those fair-weather attendees, and would prefer a greatest hits tour to hearing SOI and SOE material. That's what "giving up" is.

That's not what giving up is.

It prefer new music and a tour around new music. Just because that's my preference doesn't mean I'm going to get my panties in a bunch if, in between that new music, they do a few tours for touring's sake. Because, ya know, they're performing musicians.

And while I certainly applaud them for being able to still create a couple of great tunes over the past two records, their marketing decisions and turn to pop producers and guitar samples ripped from other songs has done significantly more damage to their integrity and mission than the Joshua Tree tour ever has or will.

 

[cobl04]

I think the most disappointing thing is Lazarus refusing to show any sort of empathy or humanity in order to keep up the facade on this forum. I thought my posts were pretty solid and level-headed, but a bloke I've met in real life and really enjoy hanging out with has to continue to pot me for being some pathetic fan. I expected more than that, but sure, go off about how I'm responsible for dragging the band into the abyss.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I think we all know that axver is responsible for that

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Headache still won’t play bball with me

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

You haven't put up your money

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Idk how to

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Sweet broken photo did you edit it to look like that

 

[Jerry Dunk]

would prefer a greatest hits tour to hearing SOI and SOE material. That's what "giving up" is.

You fail to factor quality into the equation. If U2 had new songs that were good, that's what I would want to hear. But they aren't playing new good songs, so I don't care if they tour greatest hits stuff. Pretty simple.

 

[lazarus]

I didn't care much for the direction they took on ATYCLB, and I prefer almost every song from the previous 3 albums to everything on it.

Would I have preferred they did a 90s or 80s retrospective instead of the Elevation tour? No.

So, anyone is free to not care for their recent material. But if you don't think the band should continue to favor that stuff when they tour, for better or worse, you've become the enemy of their progression. Some people didn't care for No Line, but liked the last two better. Or didn't like The Bomb but loved NLOTH. One has to hold out hope that there is something appealing in the future, or why bother calling yourself an active fan?

I get it, this is something that happens to most people. They start to want the artists they love entombed and frozen at a point when it was at its best. I just thought that the people on this forum understood what set U2 apart and wanted to stand by that ethos.

 

[Jerry Dunk]

That's not what I want, I just don't want to listen to songs I don't enjoy. And the big issue is that they don't write many songs I enjoy anymore, not that they toured The Joshua Tree.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I didn't care much for the direction they took on ATYCLB, and I prefer almost every song from the previous 3 albums to everything on it.

Would I have preferred they did a 90s or 80s retrospective instead of the Elevation tour? No.

So, anyone is free to not care for their recent material. But if you don't think the band should continue to favor that stuff when they tour, for better or worse, you've become the enemy of their progression. Some people didn't care for No Line, but liked the last two better. Or didn't like The Bomb but loved NLOTH. One has to hold out hope that there is something appealing in the future, or why bother calling yourself an active fan?

I get it, this is something that happens to most people. They start to want the artists they love entombed and frozen at a point when it was at its best. I just thought that the people on this forum understood what set U2 apart and wanted to stand by that ethos.

You are missing the point by light years.

We know that they're going to take 4-5 years to create a new album.

Would you rather just wait 4-5 years and have them do nothing, or would you rather they stay active during that time?

What is wrong with them continuing to be active in between album cycles? Why is this a bad thing? Especially considering as these fuckers are old and have almost died like a dozen times over the past 5 years. Exactly what part of still being able to enjoy and celebrate the band between album cycles is a bad thing?

 

[BoMac]

I think Laz's privilege is starting to show as he lives in a part of the world where U2 goes to every tour cycle and can't even fathom why someone would want to watch their all-time favourite band – whether they're playing new material or not – when they decide to finally have a handful of shows in their home country.

 

[brooklynmike]

I love this debate. I actually agree with points on both sides of the fence. I don’t think there can be a conclusion as it’s really subjective.

I love seeing U2 live more than anything else. I also prefer U2 roll out new material and tour it, over “celebrating” an old album.

If it was any other band I love, I wouldn’t mind seeing them roll out a previous tour or celebrating a great older album. But, no other band I love is in such historical standing as U2.

U2’s trajectory and intent has been different from day 1. I fully appreciate that, and hope they protect that and bolster it as much as possible.

What can really damage the legacy is hard to tell because markers change. In the 80’s and 90’s you were a sellout if you had any corporate ties going on. Now nobody gives a shit because you can’t avoid it. When it’s all said and done nobody’s gonna be thinking about “sponsored by BlackBerry” or “sponsored by Salesforce”.

When JT30 was announced, I cringed at the idea. Not because I didn’t want to see the album played live, but because part of the band’s DNA was to never look back. Now, two years later I don’t feel it affects the legacy much overall. But, it should be a one and done. Back to the new music.

U2 is way more than four guys who make music. The music is really only a percentage of what makes them massive.

When they start doing shit like everyone else and associating themselves with them is where they’d get into trouble with watering down legacy. JT30 was fine, It’s not like they did one of those Poison, Def Leppard, Extreme summer amphitheater tour’s.

They’re polarizing. People love them or hate them. They need to keep it that way.

 

[Jerry Dunk]

Who out there is having their opinion on U2 swayed by an Australian tour of The Joshua Tree?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Laz

 

[lazarus]

You are missing the point by light years.

We know that they're going to take 4-5 years to create a new album.

Would you rather just wait 4-5 years and have them do nothing, or would you rather they stay active during that time?

What is wrong with them continuing to be active in between album cycles? Why is this a bad thing? Especially considering as these fuckers are old and have almost died like a dozen times over the past 5 years. Exactly what part of still being able to enjoy and celebrate the band between album cycles is a bad thing?

I think Laz's privilege is starting to show as he lives in a part of the world where U2 goes to every tour cycle and can't even fathom why someone would want to watch their all-time favourite band – whether they're playing new material or not – when they decide to finally have a handful of shows in their home country.

Is it that hard to stick to the point of contention and not drag non-existent positions into it? I’ve said multiple times that I don’t begrudge the band for touring Oceania and Asia, or for fans in those areas to want to see them play. I’m merely debating the choice of what material the band has opted to tour, and the response by the fans here. It would be perfectly reasonable to continue some incarnation their most recent tour, which just ended less than a year ago and is still part of this “cycle”. No one is asking them to pack it up for 5 years.

It’s particularly baffling in the case of Cobbler, who didn’t even get to see SOI or SOE, and yet would rather sit through the JT album show for a third time than having a different audio-visual experience. Who gives a shit if the most recent songs aren’t as good as the ones on JT? I just want to hear a band trying to do something that at least they feel is fresh, that is giving them “a reason” to continue. And of course, combining highlights from SOI and SOE would be a show different from what the most of us got to see.

The more loyal response would be “I’m buying tickets anyway because of how rare an opportunity it is to see them here, but I’d rather they do something more current than a reheated anniversary tour from 2 years ago”.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Is it that hard to understand that my opinion has fuck to do with Australia?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Is it that hard to fathom that maybe the band has an arena show and a stadium show and they chose the stadium show to service more fans in Australia who get to see them less? Knowing fine well it likely could be the last time they’ll be out there.

 

[lazarus]

Is it that hard to understand that my opinion has fuck to do with Australia?

You posited an either/or of them not doing anything until the next album, or keeping active, and then are chastising me for apparently preferring the former, when I made it clear I had no issue with them continuing i+e/e+i to other countries.

So you are most certainly arguing against some position I never took.

Let me know if I need to repeat myself more times before you get it.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It is either/or. Either they did an arena show on e+i or they did TJT as a stadium tour. Or they did nothing.