Coming to accept that U2 is an aging rock band

[MrBrau1]

No, it's you that's resorted to name calling and unfounded accusations. But I know you. That's your style. I see you let the whole rant on HTDAAB slip by without any reply, to concentrate on other artists. And in your mind, I only listen to MTV and "it" bands. Again, all YOUR words. I've heard new Springsteen, new Petty, new Aimme Mann. For Christ's sake--that song she did for "Melrose Place" 12 years ago was better. The original point of this thread was that U2 is an aging band with subpar recent songs. And they are. As are most other recent releases by older bands. These guys are mailing it in and you know it. Or maybe you don't. Your gonna sit here and tell me that a cover of "Froggy's Gone A Courtin" is as vibrant and passionate as "The River"? Why don't YOU make a case for the newer stuff? All I see is a list of older artists and their current releases. All of which pale in comparison to their back catalogs.

What was your least favorite song off the latest Aimee Mann album and why?

 

[MrBrau1]

No, it's you that's resorted to name calling and unfounded accusations. But I know you. That's your style. I see you let the whole rant on HTDAAB slip by without any reply, to concentrate on other artists. And in your mind, I only listen to MTV and "it" bands. Again, all YOUR words. I've heard new Springsteen, new Petty, new Aimme Mann. For Christ's sake--that song she did for "Melrose Place" 12 years ago was better. The original point of this thread was that U2 is an aging band with subpar recent songs. And they are. As are most other recent releases by older bands. These guys are mailing it in and you know it. Or maybe you don't. Your gonna sit here and tell me that a cover of "Froggy's Gone A Courtin" is as vibrant and passionate as "The River"? Why don't YOU make a case for the newer stuff? All I see is a list of older artists and their current releases. All of which pale in comparison to their back catalogs.

What was your favorite lyric off the latest sub-par Petty album and why didn't you like it?

 

[MrBrau1]

And please talk about Bob Dylan's Modern Times and how it's a sub-par album.

 

[RobH]

ROCK music inspiration.

Again, check the facts. It's YOU that had the problem with the definition of "Rock". You just botched my quote. Or twisted it to make it suit your needs. You know, I'm starting to think you're just an angry guy Brau. You have a hard time keeping things non-personal. It always goes back to some kind of uncalled for insult. "Trolling high schools". I do love mixing it up on here with people who don't get personally vindictive. Nobody kicked your dog Brau. Lighten up. Let the curses, opinions, rants fly. Keep it focused.

 

[MrBrau1]

c'mom Bobby.

get to the point. you're a master at avoiding it.

talk about music you've heard.

 

[MrBrau1]

What are your thoughts on "Delirious Love" by 65 year old, good for nothing Neil Diamond?

We know it's crap, he's fucking old. But what did you think the first time you heard it?

 

[MrBrau1]

And please talk about Bob Dylan's Modern Times and how it's a sub-par album.

I'm waiting.

 

[RobH]

And please talk about Bob Dylan's Modern Times and how it's a sub-par album.

Ok...so this is your way of saying "You haven't heard every lyric/song off of all these albums" Got it. But why would I when I haven't liked what I've heard? Which is a lot Brau. So again, don't play the "You just don't get it card." And I repeat, I don't not like what I've heard because they're old. It's because it's not good. And maybe the standard they've set is so high that if I heard it for the first time, maybe I'd have a better opinion of it. But I firmly believe the fact that they are getting older has negatively affected the music in the first place. Yes, Old Artist=Bad Music is just as an erroneous assumption as Old Once Great Artist= Good Music. Which is the argument you same to be making. You accuse me of exactly the opposite of what you seem to be doing.

 

[RobH]

The new Petty stuff seems like lite rock to me. Nothing innovative sonically. Compare to the opening riff of "Don't Come Around Here No More" Where's the hook? It's not there. He's mellowing. Slowing down. Whatever you want to call it. It's just not catchy dammit!

 

[MrBrau1]

Yes, Old Artist=Bad Music is just as an erroneous assumption as Old Once Great Artist= Good Music. Which is the argument you same to be making.

How?

I listed specific albums or time periods which I thought were excellent.

I never said every Dylan record was great. I never said every Neil Diamond record was great.

I pointed out specific examples to support my opinion.

They happen to be recent.

You haven't done that.

List some recent albums you think suck. Be specific. And talk about them.

"New Dylan sucks" is far too general.

Match my assertions that certain albums are good. Meet them head on.

You haven't heard them, have you?

You're full of it?

 

[MrBrau1]

The new Petty stuff seems like lite rock to me. Nothing innovative sonically. Compare to the opening riff of "Don't Come Around Here No More" Where's the hook? It's not there. He's mellowing. Slowing down. Whatever you want to call it. It's just not catchy dammit!

NAME A FUCKING SONG.

you name a classic, and not 1 new tune. Describe it. I'll know if your lying. Maybe that's why your afraid?

You're a liar. You're faking it right now.

 

[MrBrau1]

The new Petty stuff seems like lite rock to me. Nothing innovative sonically.

Well, when was Petty ever innovative sonically?

Have you ever heard Tom Petty?

 

[MrBrau1]

Seriously Rob, is this your first time on the internet?

On a music message board?

Ever talking to a living person about music?

 

[RobH]

Why would I buy the albums and know the lyrics!!! Of course I don't have the albums! I don't WANT the albums! But I hear the stuff on the radio...KFOG plays all this stuff. Have I heard the new Neil Diamond song? No! Or that band with the initials you mentioned earlier? I don't know who that is. (Or maybe I do, depending on what the initilas stand for) Have I heard the Petty stuff, the Mann stuff, the Dylan? The Springsteen? Absolutely! Just because I haven't bought all the songs and given each and every one a chance doesn't mean I haven't heard the stuff on the radio. Or at friends' houses. Again, this must be a "You haven't heard it!". Well of course not all of it!! I don't know the names. Never claimed to. And when did this become a referendum on only the artists you choose? The original argument is that older artists' material is not as vibrant as younger artists. (Specifically U2 in this case) And I have a hard time coming up with ANY band or artist whose second half of their carreer matches up with their first half. And I stand by that--absolutely.

 

[david]

And I have a hard time coming up with ANY band or artist whose second half of their carreer matches up with their first half. And I stand by that--absolutely.

U2's.

 

[RobH]

Let me ask you...do you and go buy the new stuff by older artists without listening to it first? If you do, do you give it automatic credence simply because it's from that artist? I can't do that anymore. My days of buying the new (Substitute name of artist here) album just because it went on sale that day are over. I actually have to like what I hear. And it's just not happening with these artists. I want to like the new U2. I really do. But my heart and my brain are just telling me two different things. If you're looking for a long debate about the merits/shortcomings of each and every artst you mention, I'm not the guy. I just know I'd rather hear War than All That You Can't leave Behind.

 

[david]

I bought Neil Young's "Greendale" album after driving home one night when the college radio station played a song off of it. It was the best Neil Young song I heard in years.

I love that album. His last album was great too.

 

[david]

The Flaming Lips are another band that got better during the second half of their career. (Soft Bulletin, Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots etc)

They're in their 40's as well.

 

[hcbiggs2002]

So if U2 is, in some people's opinions, are just a bunch of washed up old geezers and that "Rock and Roll is for the young", then how come U2 still attracts fans of ALL ages from different walks of life?!? If you're of the opinion that U2 are past it then fine! But let's keep this in some sort of perspective, it' just an OPINION and not a fact that's written in stone some where!!! It's obvious that a lot of people still think U2 are getting better with each album (your's truly included!) coz otherwise U2 wouldn't be selling the albums and sold out stadium shows and continuing the attain new young fans!! But again that's just my opinion and I personally don't care if any one disagrees with me!!!

 

[RobH]

It's been fun Brau. Contrary to my earlier comments, I do actually have to get up early with my kids tomorrow. You obviously have strong opinions and a good knowledge of the music you like. But you should really try and refrain from the personal attacks. It's debate at it's lowest form and it comes across as being very mean-spirited instead of light-hearted and in the spirit of a good musical argument. I'm going to put my new Pussycat Dolls album on now while I fall asleep.

 

[indra]

I think bands and musicians with long careers are bound to have ups and downs creatively. It's fairly easy to keep a high level going for five years and two or three albums, but try doing that for 25-35 years and 10-20 albums and it's a lot harder. That doesn't mean it's necessarily all downhill from a certain point. What it does mean is that even if you think a band's last couple of albums are subpar it doesn't mean that they are completely down and out and it's entirely possible to put out really superb material on down the road.

And you also have to remember that what you think is crap someone else might find wonderful. That's the beauty of art and music -- there is no one correct answer.

 

[Bug]

I accetped it a while ago.
Doesn't really bother me anymore, but it will if they're still going at 60.

They've still got damn good stuff left in them.. but not until 60. *Cringe*
Of course I could be wrong.

 

[U2girl]

Aging?
Well yes, they're 45 now. You can't expect a 40+ year old to have the energy of a 20 something year old. Being mellow-er is a natural process.

That said, I don't think that means that an old-er artist can't make good music period. (Dylan, Cash...) I think even most avid ATYCLB-Bomb opposition members have to admit U2 hasn't lost the ability to write good songs. The craft may have gotten in the way of the magic in making them a little, but I believe they can get inspired again and make an album that will be better than their last 4 albums and the current phase will end and we will get a new direction again.
If they were totaly complacent they wouldn't be trying out new producers at 25+ years into their career. And they'd be banging out albums at a quicker pace.

"have a hard time coming up with ANY band or artist whose second half of their carreer matches up with their first half"

I don't know about solo artists but I'd suggest the Beatles. Which of their pre-66 albums comes close to the works like Revolver, Sgt Pepper, White album, Let it be, Abbey Road?

 

[rihannsu]

pigeonholing U2

One of the problems with the complaints about U2 is that most of the complaints I see are from people who want U2 to remain in a certain niche. Now that niche may not be the same from fan to fan. There are those who want the old 80's U2 who somehow don't like the new stuff which according to the 90's U2 nicher's is just recycled 80's U2. There are those who apparently want every single song to be some all-out balls to the wall rocker, who mysteriously to me don't find Vertigo or All Because of You or Love and Peace rocking enough? Some of these I can't figure out what they do want except for U2 to continue making (insert favorite album here) forever. Maybe Rock and Roll is for the young if you define it as eardrum shattering sonic assault.

U2 has never liked being classified. They don't want to be put into a box. They have called themselves punk, rock, loudest folk band in the world, etc. because they want to be seen as artists. Their goal for this decade if anyone has bothered to listen to them has been to be heard on the radio and other media as widely as possible. That translates into making music that is widely accessible. Does that make it any less creative? I don't think so. The last two albums brought in a large number of new fans in the 12 to college age bracket because that is what they marketed to. They specifically campaigned these albums as if they were a new band breaking in because that is what they were doing for that age group. When I was in high school (born in '61) teenagers wouldn't be caught dead listening to artist who were 40 plus years old no matter how good their music. The fact that U2 have picked up a younger audience is testiment to the fact that they are not all washed up.

When you compare album sales over the course of their career I think you will find few bands who consistently sell well even on their "failures". U2 goes consistently multi-platinum every time since I think War. Even Springsteen didn't do that. He had several that I think didn't even go gold after "Born in the USA". A lot of the supposed failure of POP was manufactured by the media. The US was the only country in the world that seemed to not like Pop, it did very well everywhere else as did the tour. If you read archives of interviews from the different eras you can see the trend quite spectacularly. The first negative reviews of Pop were probably deserved but it started a feeding frenzy that never abated even once the tour took off and even when the album sales although not fantastic were respectable. It seems that the last part of every decade is open season on U2 time and this one is no different, it just seems to be starting earlier.

I find that with U2 since every album is different which albums you like says more about you than it does about them. One of the best reviews I remember reading was a post 911 review, or re-review actually. This was a music critic from New York who hated ATYCLB and trashed it as rehashed 80's U2 blah, blah. After 911 he re reviewed the album admitting that the problem was not the album but his perspective on the album. Songs that he thought were weak and bland before became powerful and moving from the post 911 perspective. He concluded by saying that he truly felt that U2 never writes bad music just that it may not be the music you need then. He couldn't see the music properly because it didn't apply to his life but he conceded that was not the band's fault. So not every U2 album touchs you, so what. Their worst stuff is still better than average. And I can appreciate seeing that they obviously love what they are doing. When you watch them on stage and see the sheer joy they take in the whole thing it is truly amazing. Hell, the last two tours even Larry has been smiling once in a while. I don't see any less energy in Bono now than when looking at early videos. What I see is maybe more directed and more focused but that is not a bad thing necessarily. At lot of the early concerts with Bono all over the place were like that because he didn't have the mastery over the audience connection that he has now. Sometimes it is painful to watch early stuff because if you watch his eyes you can sometimes see him getting lost and desperate. I much prefer the look now that he can relax in his stage craft and revel in the energy of the audience.

For me personally I love all of U2. I've only been a true fan since about a year ago but I'd always liked what I heard on the radio. But last year when I say them on Conan I was captured by Bono's energy and enthusiasm. I bought BOMB and loved it. Then I bought the 80-90 Best of. Not the limited edition because at the time I didn't know about it. To say I was hooked is putting it mildly. I've since collected every album, both the limited edition collections, several DVD's and a gazillion books. I've spent more on U2 this year than I have ever spent on any band in my life. I have been listening to their entire collection by just cycling through the albums from start to finish and I haven't gotten sick of any of it. There is no track that I am tempted to skip. While some don't stick in my memory in a way that is good because when I do recognize them it is like discovering them again. I love all the albums for different reasons. But all of them make me feel something. The sheer range of their work over the course of their career is phenomenal. I would love to hear of any other artists who have covered such a wide range of genre's. The immense respect that other artists have for U2 is amazing as well. From all genres of music as well as other areas of entertainment and art U2 are recognized. Often even those who don't particularly like their music have great respect for them as artist and as people and that is rare. I don't think they are anywhere near a down swing. You may not like the direction the ride is taking but it's still a hell of a trip in my book. May they go on forever.

Dana

 

[U2lunatic]

Completely agree with you But I think Bono has lost a little bit of his energy and passion since POP. POP Mart tour was turning point for him, but on the other hand , I think that Adam is at his best now - have you ever seen him smiling or having fun at Zoo TV or POP Mart tour? Previously he was fairly despondent, but now when you watch him on stage, he's happy and having fun like never before

 

[Greenlight]

Good post Rihannsu Yes it'a a fact of life that U2 are now middle aged and some may think that they've already peaked at some point in their past, but what's important is that they themselves don't seem to believe that's so. I don't think they have become complacent at all -they still seem completely driven to be the best band in the world and maintain that mantle as long as possible by being relevant, not turning out "crap albums" and in doing so attracting hoards of new fans in the process.

 

[LemonMelon]

U2's.

OWNED.

There's nothing wrong with U2 now, and there never has been. HTDAAB was brilliant, and I see little "mediocrity" in their current releases. Age, sure, but the inspiration is still there. When they stop making quality work, THEN you can make the broad generalization...

"THE NEW STUFF SUCKS" ©RobH circa page 3

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't know about solo artists but I'd suggest the Beatles. Which of their pre-66 albums comes close to the works like Revolver, Sgt Pepper, White album, Let it be, Abbey Road?

Rubber Soul > Revolver, but hey, that's just me.

 

[bgmckinney]

Ageing is a curious process. Among other things, the value you place on pushing limits changes. The emotional angst of a 25 year-old is not, and should not be, the same as the emotional angst of a 45 year-old. I'm 27 now. I first heard (and loved) Achtung Baby, Rattle and Hum, and UF when I was 12. In order to appreciate HTDAAB - which is a masterpiece - I had to make the momentary mental adjustment of imagining myself as someone in a different period of like than I actually am. At forty-five, Bono should not be on stage dressed as MacPhisto; he should not be writing Sunday Bloody Sunday, or Drowning Man, or Acrobat. To do so would be to stagnate, not develop. I understand of course that the musical styles are less adventurous; but the songs themselves are fantastic, and the attention to detail has not changed. I have no problem at all with the idea of U2 as "an ageing rock band" - as long as we don't presume, consciously or not, that ageing implies getting crappy. It doesn't. Adventurousness is overrated. Bands experiment when they don't know where else to go. Masters don't have to experiment - they are where they want to go.

 

[JCOSTER]

Well yes, they're 45 now. You can't expect a 40+ year old to have the energy of a 20 something year old.

As a 40 year old I can say OOOOhhhh yes you can!!!