shuttlecock XXIV: it's the little swings

[lazarus]

Congrats on giving up, all of you. It's a lot easier.

Originally Posted by cobl04

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.

[Axver]

Ugh, wrong thread, ignore post.

[cobl04]

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.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.

[Axver]

Laz, I know you are not engaging in good faith, but re-reading this:

Originally Posted by lazarus

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.

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

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.

Oh my fucking god yes!!!

[Popmartijn]

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.

[The John Tree]

Originally Posted by Axver

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.

[The John Tree]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

I'd much rather see U2 go down this road than turn into Aerosmith.

Funny that you mentioned them, because my first thought was that this is the first step in them turning into Aerosmith: a band just touring their old hits and not even really trying to push forward with new material anymore.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.

[cobl04]

Man, thank you

[lazarus]

Originally Posted by The John Tree

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgBxWZcQtqc

[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]

Originally Posted by DaveC

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXBHRzlOGAg

[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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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]

Originally Posted by lazarus

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.