stagman
War Child
3 negative reviews out of 50 from the media...not that bad really.
(12-05-2004) John Waters: Why Don't U2 Disband? - The Guardian*
- Thread starter HelloAngel
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
Tell people that U2 should "dismantle" when millions are out there putting them on top of Eminem one of today's hottest acts. 
popshopper
Acrobat
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 459
You know reading that I actually find myself agreeing with a lot of it.
The last two albums were just exercises in how to write good pop music. There's nothing daring about them, lyrically at least. Musically they're U2 looking at U2. That's not a bad thing, but it's hardly inkeeping with the orginal spirit of the band.
I like HTDAAB, but really what is this album saying??? It's hard when someone you love dies? Please. Relationships can be hard, but lets not upset the kids cause love will win through. Africa, what are we to do?War and terrorism in the middle east...oh where is the love... even Justin had that one down better.
It's not political, its abstractly personal. It has no overriding narrative. If anything lyrically its full of bland takes on traditional U2 themes.
I mean Love and Peace: War is bad, Peace is good. Can't get too angry about it, Mr Bush might be listening. Oh Where is the love??. Bullet the Blue Sky and even Peace on Earth make this look like a kids song. there is no anger here. Four years of war, death and destruction at this is the best Bono can come up with. Call me or I'll call you and we'll sort it out. I think Bono got his and Britney's lyric sheet mixed up, she'll be singing about fighter planes bombing innocent children next. It's a song to make middle america happy while their kids are dying for oil.
Before you flame me. I like the album, there's a lot of good songs on it, but lyrically it's a mess. I think what the writer is trying to say is if they don't have anything new or relevant to say why dilute what they already said by repeating a bland copy of it.
The last two albums were just exercises in how to write good pop music. There's nothing daring about them, lyrically at least. Musically they're U2 looking at U2. That's not a bad thing, but it's hardly inkeeping with the orginal spirit of the band.
I like HTDAAB, but really what is this album saying??? It's hard when someone you love dies? Please. Relationships can be hard, but lets not upset the kids cause love will win through. Africa, what are we to do?War and terrorism in the middle east...oh where is the love... even Justin had that one down better.
It's not political, its abstractly personal. It has no overriding narrative. If anything lyrically its full of bland takes on traditional U2 themes.
I mean Love and Peace: War is bad, Peace is good. Can't get too angry about it, Mr Bush might be listening. Oh Where is the love??. Bullet the Blue Sky and even Peace on Earth make this look like a kids song. there is no anger here. Four years of war, death and destruction at this is the best Bono can come up with. Call me or I'll call you and we'll sort it out. I think Bono got his and Britney's lyric sheet mixed up, she'll be singing about fighter planes bombing innocent children next. It's a song to make middle america happy while their kids are dying for oil.
Before you flame me. I like the album, there's a lot of good songs on it, but lyrically it's a mess. I think what the writer is trying to say is if they don't have anything new or relevant to say why dilute what they already said by repeating a bland copy of it.
Last edited:
There's politics and anger in Crumbs.
As for political, U2 can't afford that if Bono wants to keep working on AIDS/Africa activism.
I also am thinking Bono was sarcastic about the "we need love and peace" chorus. Unless he is really talking about a feuding couple (I'll call or you'll phone) and the "lay down your guns" bit is there to divert the listener. It could also be that "love and peace" refers to God.
As for political, U2 can't afford that if Bono wants to keep working on AIDS/Africa activism.
I also am thinking Bono was sarcastic about the "we need love and peace" chorus. Unless he is really talking about a feuding couple (I'll call or you'll phone) and the "lay down your guns" bit is there to divert the listener. It could also be that "love and peace" refers to God.
Last edited:
popshopper
Acrobat
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 459
U2girl said:
My point is if U2 can't be political because of Bono's work then perhaps it is time to call it a day. It's self-censorship, which would be so bad if they just cut out the political songs. We had Larry on an anti-war march, we have Edge making harsh comments about Bush. But we have Bono writing the blandest political song I've ever heard. Edge is kicking it musically and Bono is unwilling to match it. When I first read the lyrics I thought it was a piss-take, the song was going to be ironic. Then I heard it, the band is giving it everything, Bono is drawing his fire.
That's what the author means about the corruption of the U2 ethos. They've never done it before, but their doing it now.
Funny enough with Crumbs, it's almost the other way around. bono is making scathing comments but the band are holding back (a little).
Well, Bono did critisize Blair for his policy in Iraq and while he supported the war in Afghanistan, he and Edge were on record as not being in favor of the war in Iraq.
That said, it's easier for Larry and Edge to make anti-Bush comments. They're not the ones with the spotlight on or the guys behind the microphone. They're not the ones that talk to politicians worldwide and work with them.
Imagine Bono openly attacking Bush policies and then coming to the White house asking for help in the undeveloped/poor countries.
There is more to U2 than just politics. The band should not be only about writing Sunday bloody sunday or Bullet the blue sky sequels.
Last but not least, remember the mega backlash U2 got after Bono publicly critisizing Reagan?
The line between coming across as critisizing and being preachy is very thin.
That said, it's easier for Larry and Edge to make anti-Bush comments. They're not the ones with the spotlight on or the guys behind the microphone. They're not the ones that talk to politicians worldwide and work with them.
Imagine Bono openly attacking Bush policies and then coming to the White house asking for help in the undeveloped/poor countries.
There is more to U2 than just politics. The band should not be only about writing Sunday bloody sunday or Bullet the blue sky sequels.
Last but not least, remember the mega backlash U2 got after Bono publicly critisizing Reagan?
The line between coming across as critisizing and being preachy is very thin.
Last edited:
kellyahern
Blue Crack Supplier
Re: Re: (12-05-2004) John Waters: Why Don't U2 Disband? - The Guardian*
angelordevil said:
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
The main problem with this review is that he's stating that HTDAAB isn't as great as past U2 works, like JT.
But what if, as a fan, you don't think JT is all that great?
By now it should be no secret that I only semi-like JT. I consider it the best album of 1987 and one of the best of the 80's. However, compared to U2's overall body of work, it ranks rather low. I feel it is a fine-tuning of the songs on UF. I feel it is very preachy - all talk and no show (this point is important as Bono is infinitely more active now, and not wasting time just "dreaming"). And I feel it has the worst song U2 ever made on it.
Therefore, comparisons to JT don't do much for me.
But what about comparisons to AB? AB is my favorite U2 album and arguably the best album of the 90's. However, is it truly this "radical departure" that we've all claimed it to be?
For many years, I nodded along - U2 had "reinvented" themselves. But now that it's 13 years since the release of AB, I can clearly see that the music itself is not that radical. Sure, there are changes: Bono didn't scream his lyrics and at times, even spoke or whispered them; U2 created more "catchy" rocking songs; U2 created more "fun" songs, even though they all had a message. However, this is still very much a U2 album - and we heard hints of these songs on UF ("Pride"), JT ("Exit") and R&H ("God Part II"). What really changed was U2's image and how they approached the media.
With this in mind, is HTDAAB that different? Probably not, and herein lies the author's main argument for why U2 should disband - the music isn't "different enough". But is this reason enough for such a strong statement (disbandment)? What is wrong with U2 sounding like U2?
We've heard U2 try on the punk sound with the first 3 albums, they tried on a more ambient sound with the second 3 albums, they tried on more "industrial", techno rock sounds on the third 3 albums. Now they are experimenting with their own sound - what makes U2 sound like U2. U2 seems to work in threes, we are only in the middle of this phase.
The ultimate irony of this negative review is that AB has songs like "One" that sound like prior U2. "Zooropa" has "Stay". "Pop" has songs like "If God Will Send...". A chunk of JT's work could have been on UF. And even some of UF's work could have appeared on "War".
U2 is always transitioning - taking part of their past and bringing it to the present. There sound is evolving, sometimes in large jumps, sometimes in small. While ATYCLB and HTDAAB may sound similar to past works, I can't imagine a "Stuck...", "Fast Cars" or "Love & Peace..." on other U2 albums. U2 didn't have the maturity to write "Walk On", "Kite", "Sometimes...", of "Miracle Drug" years ago. As eloquently stated in other posts, this is a VERY mature album, something U2 couldn't have done at any time in their pasts.
Admittedly, a weakness of HTDAAB is that it's a fine-tuning of many past U2 sounds, barring a few exceptions. But isn't this true of JT? Isn't this true of "War"? Isn't this true of AB? Don't many of those albums contain "fine-tunings" of past works? Why was it acceptable then but not now?
In other words, I feel this review has no merit.
It's O.K. to not like the album. Music is incredibly subjective - IMO, it's beyond review (despite the plethora of critics out there). However, to suggest a disbandment because an album isn't to your liking is asinine. It suggests that this critic's ego is even worse that Bono's.
But what if, as a fan, you don't think JT is all that great?
By now it should be no secret that I only semi-like JT. I consider it the best album of 1987 and one of the best of the 80's. However, compared to U2's overall body of work, it ranks rather low. I feel it is a fine-tuning of the songs on UF. I feel it is very preachy - all talk and no show (this point is important as Bono is infinitely more active now, and not wasting time just "dreaming"). And I feel it has the worst song U2 ever made on it.
Therefore, comparisons to JT don't do much for me.
But what about comparisons to AB? AB is my favorite U2 album and arguably the best album of the 90's. However, is it truly this "radical departure" that we've all claimed it to be?
For many years, I nodded along - U2 had "reinvented" themselves. But now that it's 13 years since the release of AB, I can clearly see that the music itself is not that radical. Sure, there are changes: Bono didn't scream his lyrics and at times, even spoke or whispered them; U2 created more "catchy" rocking songs; U2 created more "fun" songs, even though they all had a message. However, this is still very much a U2 album - and we heard hints of these songs on UF ("Pride"), JT ("Exit") and R&H ("God Part II"). What really changed was U2's image and how they approached the media.
With this in mind, is HTDAAB that different? Probably not, and herein lies the author's main argument for why U2 should disband - the music isn't "different enough". But is this reason enough for such a strong statement (disbandment)? What is wrong with U2 sounding like U2?
We've heard U2 try on the punk sound with the first 3 albums, they tried on a more ambient sound with the second 3 albums, they tried on more "industrial", techno rock sounds on the third 3 albums. Now they are experimenting with their own sound - what makes U2 sound like U2. U2 seems to work in threes, we are only in the middle of this phase.
The ultimate irony of this negative review is that AB has songs like "One" that sound like prior U2. "Zooropa" has "Stay". "Pop" has songs like "If God Will Send...". A chunk of JT's work could have been on UF. And even some of UF's work could have appeared on "War".
U2 is always transitioning - taking part of their past and bringing it to the present. There sound is evolving, sometimes in large jumps, sometimes in small. While ATYCLB and HTDAAB may sound similar to past works, I can't imagine a "Stuck...", "Fast Cars" or "Love & Peace..." on other U2 albums. U2 didn't have the maturity to write "Walk On", "Kite", "Sometimes...", of "Miracle Drug" years ago. As eloquently stated in other posts, this is a VERY mature album, something U2 couldn't have done at any time in their pasts.
Admittedly, a weakness of HTDAAB is that it's a fine-tuning of many past U2 sounds, barring a few exceptions. But isn't this true of JT? Isn't this true of "War"? Isn't this true of AB? Don't many of those albums contain "fine-tunings" of past works? Why was it acceptable then but not now?
In other words, I feel this review has no merit.
It's O.K. to not like the album. Music is incredibly subjective - IMO, it's beyond review (despite the plethora of critics out there). However, to suggest a disbandment because an album isn't to your liking is asinine. It suggests that this critic's ego is even worse that Bono's.
Last edited:
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
AtomicBono said:
Blah blah blah... get over yourself, man. If you don't like what others are writing about U2 now, then go read some other stuff. It's still there.
*will try to give a proper reply tonight*
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
whitehead said:Irvine511, I agree with you as well.
Though doesn't the title of the article say "why not disband?"
but that was a headline placed upon the article by The Guardian (masters of subtle sensationalist), not by Waters himself. he might agree, but i didn't see disband anywhere in the body of the article itself.
Dima
Acrobat
i don't find this review that negative as you do...he actually states that the album is a good one with even a couple of great tunes and he speaks of a work of genius. He just thinks that there's no more passion in u2's lastest works: to him these works are just like putting together 10-12 good/great songs to shift a mad amount of copies...i don't agree with him (except maybe for ATYCLB) but this is not a negative review (indeed putting together 10-12 good/great songs every 4 years can't be seen as a bad work).
OP
OP
HelloAngel
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511 said:
I just wanted to jump in here and draw light to this. It was the Guardian who titled the article with the "Disband" word and not Interference. If you click on the link to the Guardian article within my news post, you'll notice at the top of the browser that it does indeed say "Why Don't U2 Disband?" or something.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I don't understand where Waters is coming from, I really don't. This might be the *wierdest* article I've read about U2 lately.
I agree and disagree with the new at the same time 
First: what I disagree. I don´t think U2 have release 4 white albums after Achtung Baby. Actually They have release 2 white albums: ATYCLB and HTDAAB.
Second: What I agree. It´s time to retire, indeed. This ATYCLB hyped era really pissed me off
The band have become liar, safe, commercial, uninspired, tired, bored, used to success, sponsored by iPod, Apple tunes, etc
Just check it out what a friend from u2star posted:
'It's hard to describe it other than it's just a very rock and roll album. A bound bass, drums, in its primary colours of guitar, voice..'
The Edge 05/2003
'I just came frome the studio today and it's ridiculius what's going on. Edge is just on fire- he's making the most extraordinary things come out of his guitar. It's astonishing.'
Bono
'I like to try and make as few notes as I can get away with... create as big on effects as I can, to really explore what guitar could and really push the boundaries of guitar in a rock and roll song can sound like'
The Edge
'It's full on, a full throttle record. It's like punk rock from Venus. It is a mad sound the Edge is making.'
Bono
'Edge I must say is doing some extraordinary stuff. It's a guitar record.'
Bono
'Pedal to the metal. It is high energy, joyous rock and roll.'
Bono
'If I were a betting man, I'd put money on a record dedicated to the life force and vitality of a rock band in full flight.'
The Edge
'Our hope is for a harder record focused on the rock side of U2.'
Larry Mullen
'It's going to blow your mind. It's real punk rock.'
Bono
'It's a very full-on rock and roll album.'
Bono
'Right now my instinct is to make a very raw kind of guitar-bass-drums, an album with a lot of attitude and a lot of that kind of life force, the vitality I associate with guitar bands in full flight.'
The Edge
No words needed
First: what I disagree. I don´t think U2 have release 4 white albums after Achtung Baby. Actually They have release 2 white albums: ATYCLB and HTDAAB.
Second: What I agree. It´s time to retire, indeed. This ATYCLB hyped era really pissed me off
The band have become liar, safe, commercial, uninspired, tired, bored, used to success, sponsored by iPod, Apple tunes, etc Just check it out what a friend from u2star posted:
'It's hard to describe it other than it's just a very rock and roll album. A bound bass, drums, in its primary colours of guitar, voice..'
The Edge 05/2003
'I just came frome the studio today and it's ridiculius what's going on. Edge is just on fire- he's making the most extraordinary things come out of his guitar. It's astonishing.'
Bono
'I like to try and make as few notes as I can get away with... create as big on effects as I can, to really explore what guitar could and really push the boundaries of guitar in a rock and roll song can sound like'
The Edge
'It's full on, a full throttle record. It's like punk rock from Venus. It is a mad sound the Edge is making.'
Bono
'Edge I must say is doing some extraordinary stuff. It's a guitar record.'
Bono
'Pedal to the metal. It is high energy, joyous rock and roll.'
Bono
'If I were a betting man, I'd put money on a record dedicated to the life force and vitality of a rock band in full flight.'
The Edge
'Our hope is for a harder record focused on the rock side of U2.'
Larry Mullen
'It's going to blow your mind. It's real punk rock.'
Bono
'It's a very full-on rock and roll album.'
Bono
'Right now my instinct is to make a very raw kind of guitar-bass-drums, an album with a lot of attitude and a lot of that kind of life force, the vitality I associate with guitar bands in full flight.'
The Edge
No words needed
biff
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Ponkine, those quotes were from early in the recording process, and are describing the album (a full year's worth of work) that was scrapped.
I know that my friend, but sadly U2 keeped on that "rock punk" album when they made propaganda until album was leaked . Many fans believed this album would be rock. I never believed that, neither I never believed "stolen Album" stories, then "Leaked album", etc. Remember when principal management said in badly "unfinished copy stolen", "demo stolen", etc... the demo was the actual album
That kind of things makes me feel ashamed of U2, really
. Many fans believed this album would be rock. I never believed that, neither I never believed "stolen Album" stories, then "Leaked album", etc. Remember when principal management said in badly "unfinished copy stolen", "demo stolen", etc... the demo was the actual album That kind of things makes me feel ashamed of U2, really
caragriff
War Child
it's a wonder a band can stay on top for 25 years when every time they put out a new album, a different fraction/portion of their fan base is inevitably passionately and intensely disappointed. i think when other bands put out a record you don't love, whatever. but some U2 fans act like the band broke the law or committed a crime.
Palace_Hero
Refugee, Note: Troll-like
Zooropa
Numb
Lemon
Stay
The First Time
HMTMKMKM
Your Blue Room
Discotheque
Do You Feel Loved
Mofo
IGWSHA
Staring at the Sun
LNOE
Please
Wake Up Dead Man
Beautiful Day
Kite
Walk On
When I Look At The World
New York
Vertigo
Miracle Drug
Sometimes
LAPOE
COBL
Crumbs
OOTS
Yahweh
Mercy
Levitate
Xanax & Wine
Yup, U2 should REALLY have just given up back in 91, they've been pish ever since.
Numb
Lemon
Stay
The First Time
HMTMKMKM
Your Blue Room
Discotheque
Do You Feel Loved
Mofo
IGWSHA
Staring at the Sun
LNOE
Please
Wake Up Dead Man
Beautiful Day
Kite
Walk On
When I Look At The World
New York
Vertigo
Miracle Drug
Sometimes
LAPOE
COBL
Crumbs
OOTS
Yahweh
Mercy
Levitate
Xanax & Wine
Yup, U2 should REALLY have just given up back in 91, they've been pish ever since.
Amerizoe
Babyface
ponkine said:
Nice to finally see all of that collected in one spot. I would agree that up until this album was released that they were still trying to promote this album as some crazy-ass guitar love fest. I understand that these things change in the production process, but they didn't tone down the verbiage the closer the album came to being released.
chad@vfgloans
Babyface
I feel sorry for this guy. He must not have anything good to listen to now, with all of his higher expectations. Maybe God can write an album he might enjoy.
bananacologne
The Fly
Pah!
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
This is the second review I have read from the Guardian that is in a negative tone. Honestly, I couldn't care less what their opinion is but I feel something else is going on here.
Maybe they wanted an actual interview with the band and Paul M. denied them the right to sit and trash U2 to their face. I can't explain it but it just sounds like sour grapes too me.
I read no less than 4 or 5 reviews a day, from various newspapers around the world and not all are completely favorable. Even so, not one has said they should quit. I don't think one should give up their passion untill they no longer feel relevant. What does it say about a band when 870,000 + people think you are relevant? And even prior to that, the recording industry gives you acclaim and awards for your previous work. John Waters is basically saying all these people are either insane or don't know what sounds good and he's the only one who does.
He's just the product of his own inflated ego.
Like I said something is amiss here and it isn't U2.
I'm not sure if I still have it but I'll try to find the other article.
Maybe they wanted an actual interview with the band and Paul M. denied them the right to sit and trash U2 to their face. I can't explain it but it just sounds like sour grapes too me.
I read no less than 4 or 5 reviews a day, from various newspapers around the world and not all are completely favorable. Even so, not one has said they should quit. I don't think one should give up their passion untill they no longer feel relevant. What does it say about a band when 870,000 + people think you are relevant? And even prior to that, the recording industry gives you acclaim and awards for your previous work. John Waters is basically saying all these people are either insane or don't know what sounds good and he's the only one who does.
He's just the product of his own inflated ego.
Like I said something is amiss here and it isn't U2.
I'm not sure if I still have it but I'll try to find the other article.
roy
Refugee
So the guy is intimating that Zooropa marked the beginning of the end . Absolute nonsense.
Matthew_Page2000
War Child
popshopper said:
He's not just talking about the last two albums. He's talking about Pop, Zooropa and Passengers as well.
roy
Refugee
Amerizoe said:
Nonsense, I think most (if not all) of those quotes were made over a year before the actual release of the album...
U2 Dismantle?
That sucks. I understand some of what he's saying: that U2 is in a new era... but They've only grown up, not gotten wimpy! THat's what we dont hear anger anymore. I miss those days, but I also love the philosophical outlook that the band has developed. I will always love them, and it will be a very very sad day for all of us when they do 'dismantle'. So let's not push them along, huh?
Maybe we'll get expecially lucky and they'll stick around until 2010 like Adam quoted in 2000... "...we're actually just gonna try and pole-vault into the next century and be in people's faces for the next ten years at least."
-- "Hot Press" magazine, November 1998 @U2.com
W00t to that y'all!!!
That sucks. I understand some of what he's saying: that U2 is in a new era... but They've only grown up, not gotten wimpy! THat's what we dont hear anger anymore. I miss those days, but I also love the philosophical outlook that the band has developed. I will always love them, and it will be a very very sad day for all of us when they do 'dismantle'. So let's not push them along, huh?
Maybe we'll get expecially lucky and they'll stick around until 2010 like Adam quoted in 2000... "...we're actually just gonna try and pole-vault into the next century and be in people's faces for the next ten years at least."
-- "Hot Press" magazine, November 1998 @U2.com
W00t to that y'all!!!
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
This is the other article I was referring to:
Don't believe the hype
Ever felt you're missing the point with some of our biggest cultural heroes? Admit it - everyone can name at least one hip, wildly praised band, album, film, TV show or author that they've never really rated. In this special issue, Guide writers get personal and demolish some of the greats they hate
Saturday December 4, 2004
The Guardian
U2
U2 are probably the most over-rated band in history. Their debut, Boy, was a classic and still sounds fresh and impassioned. Fatally though, they became a band that believed their own (fawning) press and whose egotism has devoured their talent. The Joshua Tree showed what a good guitar group/stadium rock band U2 could be. Sadly, they had the sort of pretensions that usually afflict mediocre American outfits like the Chili Peppers. On Achtung Baby and Zooropa they started plundering other bands' innovations and moving into "dance music" - though only the whitest, geekiest student could dance to them. Bono's ego meanwhile became so over-inflated he made Robbie Williams look camera-shy. As a political mouthpiece, the effectiveness of what he's spoken out about has always been over-shadowed by the column inches he's received. His insistence on singing the key line in the new version of Band Aid for example hardly seems very... charitable. By: Jim Shelley
But they not only hate U2, these people also hate: David Bowie,
Bob Marley, The Clash, Elvis and Elvis Costello and Neil Young of all people - Nirvana, Prince & The Rolling Stones.
Edited to say: I can't imagine what they must like
Full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/features/story/0,,1364531,00.html
Don't believe the hype
Ever felt you're missing the point with some of our biggest cultural heroes? Admit it - everyone can name at least one hip, wildly praised band, album, film, TV show or author that they've never really rated. In this special issue, Guide writers get personal and demolish some of the greats they hate
Saturday December 4, 2004
The Guardian
U2
U2 are probably the most over-rated band in history. Their debut, Boy, was a classic and still sounds fresh and impassioned. Fatally though, they became a band that believed their own (fawning) press and whose egotism has devoured their talent. The Joshua Tree showed what a good guitar group/stadium rock band U2 could be. Sadly, they had the sort of pretensions that usually afflict mediocre American outfits like the Chili Peppers. On Achtung Baby and Zooropa they started plundering other bands' innovations and moving into "dance music" - though only the whitest, geekiest student could dance to them. Bono's ego meanwhile became so over-inflated he made Robbie Williams look camera-shy. As a political mouthpiece, the effectiveness of what he's spoken out about has always been over-shadowed by the column inches he's received. His insistence on singing the key line in the new version of Band Aid for example hardly seems very... charitable. By: Jim Shelley
But they not only hate U2, these people also hate: David Bowie,
Bob Marley, The Clash, Elvis and Elvis Costello and Neil Young of all people - Nirvana, Prince & The Rolling Stones.
Edited to say: I can't imagine what they must like
Full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/features/story/0,,1364531,00.html
Last edited:
BluRmGrl
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
OK - a question for the over-30 crowd here: Is there one of you who still has the I'm-gonna'-change-the-world, balls to the wall, ain't-no-stoppin'-me fire burning in them as strongly as it did in your late teens, early 20's?????? For me, the answer is certainly not. That kind of passion and drive takes energy that a married person with a full time job, family commitments, and social responsibilities just doesn't have.
I saw sooo much wrong in the world at 20 years old - I see even more wrong now. The difference is, at age 20 I could afford to focus my whole attention on how I was going to resolve those issues. I don't have that luxury anymore because I chose to form a partnership with the love of my life... and that choice took me on a path that doesn't allow for 24/7 activism. That's not to say I've stopped trying to make a difference in the world, not at all. I'm just doing it on a smaller, more manageable scale now. Why? Because reality set in, and my, but the years do bring some wisdom, don't they? And with wisdom and experience, I've found time and again that some of my long-held opinions had to be revisted. Slightly adjusted; sometimes even reversed.
My point is: we're discussing 40+ year-old men who have essentially grown up in the public eye. 75% of them now have long-term, committed relationships and children. Is is not conceivable that in 25 years their ideals have changed, along with how they want to accomplish them? So they've made a "safe" album - what? To the guillotine with them??? I don't think so. So long as U2's fans are happy with the albums produced, and the band's happy making them, I'll take the "adolescent attitude" toward reviews such as John Waters':
FUCK 'EM IF THEY DON'T KNOW GOOD MUSIC!!!
I saw sooo much wrong in the world at 20 years old - I see even more wrong now. The difference is, at age 20 I could afford to focus my whole attention on how I was going to resolve those issues. I don't have that luxury anymore because I chose to form a partnership with the love of my life... and that choice took me on a path that doesn't allow for 24/7 activism. That's not to say I've stopped trying to make a difference in the world, not at all. I'm just doing it on a smaller, more manageable scale now. Why? Because reality set in, and my, but the years do bring some wisdom, don't they? And with wisdom and experience, I've found time and again that some of my long-held opinions had to be revisted. Slightly adjusted; sometimes even reversed.
My point is: we're discussing 40+ year-old men who have essentially grown up in the public eye. 75% of them now have long-term, committed relationships and children. Is is not conceivable that in 25 years their ideals have changed, along with how they want to accomplish them? So they've made a "safe" album - what? To the guillotine with them??? I don't think so. So long as U2's fans are happy with the albums produced, and the band's happy making them, I'll take the "adolescent attitude" toward reviews such as John Waters':
FUCK 'EM IF THEY DON'T KNOW GOOD MUSIC!!!
youtwohearts
New Yorker
What????
Okay, maybe it is me being stupid but I didn't understand one point to this article.
Okay, maybe it is me being stupid but I didn't understand one point to this article.
Similar threads
