How U2 will deal with rock n roll in their late 40s

[Dorian Gray]

This post isn't concerned with what we think they should do, but what you think they will actually do. Make sense?

We know this is a band that wants to be relevant and respected. This isn't going to change.
So, if we are to assume that they have a record out by late 2007/2008, then they will all be pushing 50 years old. I'm wondering how they see themselves at this age. It seems that there are two sorts of paths they could take:
1) The Aerosmith/Rolling Stones route - promoted commerically, heavily. Regulariy make videos for single releases. Met with commercial success, some critical success.

2) Neil Young/ Springsteen route - still push themselves creatively, but not so much concerned with commercial success. (though it's not like they shy form it either) Regarded with greater respect amognst the indie circles, and by critics.

Both paths end with their music being loved by countless fans. Which, at the end of the day, might be the most important thing.

Personally, I don't see U2 taking the second route. I think they're going to promote the next record to no end, especially if the 'final' tour follows.

What do you folks think?

 

[t8thgr8]

i think theyre tired of people speculating about what u2 is doing. If i had to choose id pick they middle road. They got what they were after. Theyre not worried about pleasing anyone this time around. I think this next record is going to be pure U2. And youre going to be able to smell the u2 ballsweat when you crack open the cellophane trying to get to the new cd.

 

[Dorian Gray]

i think theyre tired of people speculating about what u2 is doing. If i had to choose id pick they middle road.

ah but you see, I wasnt asking what you would choose...

how do you think they will go about defining what U2 is?

 

[ozeeko]

U2 always sets out to experiment with their sound (except for maybe All That You Can't...the primary goal there was hits), but in the end it always comes out to the importance of live performance and how they will take the album on the road. Not to mention Larry Mullen's vetoing of a song he doesn't understand or think is straightforward enough for the band and their audience. So on this upcoming album, U2 will be experiementing until it comes to crunch time, where they will not be able to resist sticking with the pattened U2 ready-for-arena formula. I don't mind them being practical with what they can play live, but...at least write some genuine songs next time around. Otherwise don't tour at all (that would be a novelty). A lot of bands can release albums that are successful without touring (R.e.m. anyone?). It will also allow them freedom to do whatever the fuck they wanna do on record. Of course, in my opinion, this will never happen. U2 is U2 and live is where it's at.

 

[t8thgr8]

i meant if i had to choose as in what choice i thought the band would make.

Larry was vetoing when they were in need of Album of the year and a concrete spot in greatest band of all time debates... Like i said, theyre not thinking hits anymore. They got what they set out to accomplish. Bono even hated on singles taking away the art of the album. Dont expect a bunch o hits this time around. There will be a slew of hits but it wont be because they were designed that way. No other band has been in this position. Bands are supposed to die of old age not grow in their 40's. Theyve shut everyone up.

Their collective mindset this time around is relaxed, confident and eager for change. And their skill and craftmanship is off the charts right now. Bono is writing speeches... writing.. thats a good sign.
Edge is sitting, waiting and tending to his daughter. Hes got nothing but time to come up with material. And a lot of inspiration.
Larry gets his break to rest up and tool around and Adam is in hi spirits over the whole marriage thing.
Im thinking record in late 2006 in time for the new leg of the tour. Their gonna pen in more dates and tour the new record a little bit into 2007.

I bet they get back in the studio around June and create one of the greatest pieces of music ever. And its about due. There hasnt been a joshua tree or a nevermind this decade yet.

 

[t8thgr8]

and all that was experimental in its own right. it doesnt quite sound like anything else in the catalog.

 

[ozeeko]

and all that was experimental in its own right. it doesnt quite sound like anything else in the catalog.

In its own right, it was a fairly simplistic album. Some production tricks that were dazzling (beautiful day, elevation, grace...yea i know but i like that song). Anyway, I do love that album. I think they wrote top notch pop songs. Bono even said in Rolling Stone he wanted to write a song called "I Love You" because he was all about simplicity. Wow I'm glad that song never panned out.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I'd like them to make an album of little songs. By that I mean not an album loaded with ultra ambitious BIG FUCKING !!!!U2!!!!! songs. Nice, melodic, layered, beautiful little songs (think Velvet Dress, Stateless, Ground Beneath, Your Blue Room etc). Late night U2. In line with that, as an alternative, if they want to 'rock', actually strip it back to four guys in a room. Think of the sound of something like Xanax & Wine. Really limit the thousand layers of sounds and lose the bright neon lit convenience store production. That works with them making a statement in their late 40's as well. Beautiful little songs that show off their musicianship, and stripped back upbeat rock numbers. If you want U2 to prove that they can do it in their late 40's, there's no better way than to lose everything except the sound of the 4 of them, at an age where most artists are amping up the production tricks to hide what naturaly they are losing.

 

[U2mixer]

A lot depends on who and what they're being influenced by.

As long as they don't record a C&W or a R&B album then I'm up for something new.

The problem with the band getting back to the '4 guys in a room' sound is that Edge has 'been there and done that' and like many musicians as they age, maybe he wants to achieve something that appeals to other musicians as well as something that pushes his creativity.

Not that I want Edge to go that way because better musicianship does not necessarily lead to better music.

Anthemic rock happened with HTDAAB so maybe something more stripped down, but done with a raw edge - like Earnie (above) is gunning for.

 

[t8thgr8]

Grace and new york are my favorites from all that.

 

[ozeeko]

Grace and new york are my favorites from all that.

Yeah I don't know why Grace gets such a bad rep. It's a chillaxing masterpiece. The lyrics are a bit rhymey but who gives a shit, the music and vocal melodies are majestic as hell..or heaven. It even has my favorite 21st century Bono lyric "And when she walks down the street you can hear the strings." Second fave being from Electrical Storm, the whole first verse: "The sea it swells like a sore head, and the night it is aching. Two lovers lie with no sheets on their bed, and the day it is breaking. On rainy days we go swimming out. On rainy days swimming in the sound. On rainy days we go swimming out." - Bono's so much better when he's creating characters and situations over the more latent autobiographical shit he's been wallowing in.

 

[Zoots]

Nice, melodic, layered, beautiful little songs (think Velvet Dress, Stateless, Ground Beneath, Your Blue Room etc). Late night U2.

Really limit the thousand layers of sounds and lose the bright neon lit convenience store production. That works with them making a statement in their late 40's as well. Beautiful little songs that show off their musicianship, and stripped back upbeat rock numbers. If you want U2 to prove that they can do it in their late 40's, there's no better way than to lose everything except the sound of the 4 of them

 

[t8thgr8]

Yeah I don't know why Grace gets such a bad rep. It's a chillaxing masterpiece. The lyrics are a bit rhymey but who gives a shit, the music and vocal melodies are majestic as hell..or heaven. It even has my favorite 21st century Bono lyric "And when she walks down the street you can hear the strings." Second fave being from Electrical Storm, the whole first verse: "The sea it swells like a sore head, and the night it is aching. Two lovers lie with no sheets on their bed, and the day it is breaking. On rainy days we go swimming out. On rainy days swimming in the sound. On rainy days we go swimming out." - Bono's so much better when he's creating characters and situations over the more latent autobiographical shit he's been wallowing in.

word. I guess thats my only complaint of the current u2 is the subject matter of bonos lyrics. and the cute sounds.

I like grace's bass. i never noticed how cool it was until i heard it with a proper system.

 

[whitefire]

I'd rather they went out with a bang. One unreal double album, and a farewell tour lasting 2 years. I' d hate if they became like the Rolling Stones. Look at Guns N' Roses, they went out on a high and their music still attracts new fans.

 

[U2girl]

This post isn't concerned with what we think they should do, but what you think they will actually do. Make sense?

We know this is a band that wants to be relevant and respected. This isn't going to change.
So, if we are to assume that they have a record out by late 2007/2008, then they will all be pushing 50 years old. I'm wondering how they see themselves at this age. It seems that there are two sorts of paths they could take:
1) The Aerosmith/Rolling Stones route - promoted commerically, heavily. Regulariy make videos for single releases. Met with commercial success, some critical success.

2) Neil Young/ Springsteen route - still push themselves creatively, but not so much concerned with commercial success. (though it's not like they shy form it either) Regarded with greater respect amognst the indie circles, and by critics.

Both paths end with their music being loved by countless fans. Which, at the end of the day, might be the most important thing.

Personally, I don't see U2 taking the second route. I think they're going to promote the next record to no end, especially if the 'final' tour follows.

What do you folks think?

How about a mix of both?

Promoted heavily, but not necessarily as accessible as last two albums.
I really think they reached the end of "U2 sound" with Bomb, as Fast cars and Mercy indicate. I also think that whitefire is right: IMO that is why they keep making albums; to get the masterpiece and go out on a high.
After all; 3 main producers, 3 eras. Why not 3 great albums?

 

[BVS]

I'd rather they went out with a bang. One unreal double album, and a farewell tour lasting 2 years. I' d hate if they became like the Rolling Stones. Look at Guns N' Roses, they went out on a high and their music still attracts new fans.

I'd say they burned out while they were on top, and I don't see many "new" fans of theirs.

 

[Hallucination]

I'd say they burned out while they were on top, and I don't see many "new" fans of theirs.

Well do you post at Gn'R forums? Trust me there are alot of new GnR fans out there. How else do you explain why their Greatest hits album is still selling so well almost two years after it's release. It's not long time fans like myself buying it(I didn't even buy it), it's a younger generation of kids buying it. Plus when I'm djing in the bar if I play Welcome to the Jungle or even loop the intro into a techno set it gets a bigger/better reaction from the crowd than anything I could ever play by U2 and we all know the clubs are filled with young/younger people. I'll agree with you though and say that Gn'R kinda fizzled out rather than going out witha bang. Their own doing of course by never "officially" breaking up.

As for U2's new direction I agree with those of you who say they've accomplished what they wanted to do by regaining the "Biggest band in the World" title and now it's gonna be more about the music. I think Mercy is an indication of that. We're gonna hear U2 do what they want regardless of the appeal it may or may not have on the public. That's not to say they'll intentionally alienate their fans but I think the next album will be for themselves and if we love it great if not then oh well. I just hope they don't follow a trend. The thought of them trying hip hop or R&B makes me sick because it would be so transparent and obvious that they're just trying to fit in.

 

[STING2]

This post isn't concerned with what we think they should do, but what you think they will actually do. Make sense?

We know this is a band that wants to be relevant and respected. This isn't going to change.
So, if we are to assume that they have a record out by late 2007/2008, then they will all be pushing 50 years old. I'm wondering how they see themselves at this age. It seems that there are two sorts of paths they could take:
1) The Aerosmith/Rolling Stones route - promoted commerically, heavily. Regulariy make videos for single releases. Met with commercial success, some critical success.

2) Neil Young/ Springsteen route - still push themselves creatively, but not so much concerned with commercial success. (though it's not like they shy form it either) Regarded with greater respect amognst the indie circles, and by critics.

Both paths end with their music being loved by countless fans. Which, at the end of the day, might be the most important thing.

Personally, I don't see U2 taking the second route. I think they're going to promote the next record to no end, especially if the 'final' tour follows.

What do you folks think?

The band is going to continue doing what they have been doing since the Boy album and tour in 1980. Their not following anyone, their blazing their own path and they can do what they do now for as long as they want to.

Its funny how many fans always say, "their old now", "this is the last album", "this is the last tour", etc. Fans starting making these comments towards the end of the 1980s.

 

[STING2]

i meant if i had to choose as in what choice i thought the band would make.

Larry was vetoing when they were in need of Album of the year and a concrete spot in greatest band of all time debates... Like i said, theyre not thinking hits anymore. They got what they set out to accomplish. Bono even hated on singles taking away the art of the album. Dont expect a bunch o hits this time around. There will be a slew of hits but it wont be because they were designed that way. No other band has been in this position. Bands are supposed to die of old age not grow in their 40's. Theyve shut everyone up.

Their collective mindset this time around is relaxed, confident and eager for change. And their skill and craftmanship is off the charts right now. Bono is writing speeches... writing.. thats a good sign.
Edge is sitting, waiting and tending to his daughter. Hes got nothing but time to come up with material. And a lot of inspiration.
Larry gets his break to rest up and tool around and Adam is in hi spirits over the whole marriage thing.
Im thinking record in late 2006 in time for the new leg of the tour. Their gonna pen in more dates and tour the new record a little bit into 2007.

I bet they get back in the studio around June and create one of the greatest pieces of music ever. And its about due. There hasnt been a joshua tree or a nevermind this decade yet.

I think HTDAAB is the best album of the decade and the band love the work they have done. I reject this notion that the band simply made ATYCLB for hits. POP received more radio airplay in the USA than ATYCLB, but of course ATYCLB had triple the sales, mainly because it was a much better album in my opinion.

The band are going to be taking a long break. The postponement of the tour unfortunately means were not likely to see a new album until late 2009 as opposed to late 2008. The new tour will then be in 2010. Unfortunately, BONO said the they would be going wild at the shows in November, because it would be the last time they would play for a while.

 

[STING2]

If you want U2 to prove that they can do it in their late 40's, there's no better way than to lose everything except the sound of the 4 of them, at an age where most artists are amping up the production tricks to hide what naturaly they are losing.

An artist is not naturally losing anything in their 40s. Their artist, NOT football players. There is a big difference.

 

[STING2]

I'd rather they went out with a bang. One unreal double album, and a farewell tour lasting 2 years. I' d hate if they became like the Rolling Stones. Look at Guns N' Roses, they went out on a high and their music still attracts new fans.

They did not go out on a high, they burned out, although Chinese Democracy is rumored to be released this year. The Use Your Illusion double album was essentially their second full length studio album. But it did not sell as well and is not consider to be as good as their debut album.

 

[STING2]

Well do you post at Gn'R forums? Trust me there are alot of new GnR fans out there. How else do you explain why their Greatest hits album is still selling so well almost two years after it's release. It's not long time fans like myself buying it(I didn't even buy it), it's a younger generation of kids buying it. Plus when I'm djing in the bar if I play Welcome to the Jungle or even loop the intro into a techno set it gets a bigger/better reaction from the crowd than anything I could ever play by U2 and we all know the clubs are filled with young/younger people. I'll agree with you though and say that Gn'R kinda fizzled out rather than going out witha bang. Their own doing of course by never "officially" breaking up.

As for U2's new direction I agree with those of you who say they've accomplished what they wanted to do by regaining the "Biggest band in the World" title and now it's gonna be more about the music. I think Mercy is an indication of that. We're gonna hear U2 do what they want regardless of the appeal it may or may not have on the public. That's not to say they'll intentionally alienate their fans but I think the next album will be for themselves and if we love it great if not then oh well. I just hope they don't follow a trend. The thought of them trying hip hop or R&B makes me sick because it would be so transparent and obvious that they're just trying to fit in.

The next time you're at that club, trying playing something from any Guns N' Roses album besides the three singles from Appetite For Destruction and see if you get the same reaction. In addition, did you know that Axl's version of GNR failed to sellout any of the Arena shows they played? Most were at below 50% capacity.

As for U2, they accomplished the whole "regaining the title of biggest band in the world thing" with ATYCLB.(although I don't think they ever lost it). They then went away for a few years and came out with HTDAAB which sold extremely well and won the band 8 Grammy awards. The current tour is the biggest tour of their career. I think the band has always been about the music period, whether its Boy, POP or ATYCLB.

I'm convinced the next album will disapoint those who are always screaming for some epic hard/rock/metal U2 album. Its always puzzling why some people demand that.

 

[ntalwar]

An artist is not naturally losing anything in their 40s. Their artist, NOT football players. There is a big difference.

Vocal cords lose elasticity though, with age.

The postponement of the tour unfortunately means were not likely to see a new album until late 2009
as opposed to late 2008. The new tour will then be in 2010. Unfortunately, BONO said the they would
be going wild at the shows in November, because it would be the last time they would play for a while.

I thought he said it would be because they hadn't performed those songs IN a while, not for a while.

 

[BVS]

Well do you post at Gn'R forums? Trust me there are alot of new GnR fans out there. How else do you explain why their Greatest hits album is still selling so well almost two years after it's release.

No, I don't have to, to know they are really gaining a whole new generation of fans. Sure their may be some, but like Sting said, they can't even sell out an arena now. Even though it's not the same line up, Axl would be able to do so if what you are saying is true. On name alone.

GnR came out during a time when cassettes and CD were on the market together. Many people who loved GnR in high school back then may have the albums on cassette and don't feel like rebuying all the albums on CD, a greatest hits is perfect. Greatest hits in general do really well, they're a safe purchase.

Hell Wham has a greatest hits that does really well, and they only had 3 true albums.

 

[Bono's shades]

Personally I hope they go the Springsteen/Neil Young route, but I'm afraid they are too caught up in the notion of "commercial success = good music."

 

[JOFO]

POP received more radio airplay in the USA than ATYCLB

there's no way that's correct.

 

[JOFO]

I blew my 3000th post on that?????

 

[jacknife23]

Once U2 have retired, from there on every band would want to retire the U2 way

 

[STING2]

there's no way that's correct.

On the HOT 100 Airplay chart for the United States, Discotheque made it to #22, Staring At The Sun made it to #16, Last Night On Earth made it to #74. Please and If God Would Send... failed to chart.

For ATYCLB, Beautiful Day made it to #19, and Stuck in A Moment You Can't Get Out Of made it to #52. Elevation and Walk On while they did get airplay at rock stations failed to chart on the HOT 100 Airplay chart which measures all airplay regardless of type of music.

So we have

POP

Discotheque #22
Staring At The Sun #16
Last Night On Earth #74


ATYCLB

Beautiful Day #19
Stuck In A Moment.....#52


HTDAAB

Vertigo #30



There are only 3 U2 albums that received more radio airplay than POP, during their first year of release, in the United States and they are Joshua Tree, Rattle And Hum, and Achtung Baby.

 

[Aygo]

On the HOT 100 Airplay chart for the United States, Discotheque made it to #22, Staring At The Sun made it to #16, Last Night On Earth made it to #74. Please and If God Would Send... failed to chart.

For ATYCLB, Beautiful Day made it to #19, and Stuck in A Moment You Can't Get Out Of made it to #52. Elevation and Walk On while they did get airplay at rock stations failed to chart on the HOT 100 Airplay chart which measures all airplay regardless of type of music.

So we have

POP

Discotheque #22
Staring At The Sun #16
Last Night On Earth #74


ATYCLB

Beautiful Day #19
Stuck In A Moment.....#52


HTDAAB

Vertigo #30



There are only 3 U2 albums that received more radio airplay than POP, during their first year of release, in the United States and they are Joshua Tree, Rattle And Hum, and Achtung Baby.

I thought it was more like:
Discotheque #10
Staring at the sun #26
LNOE #57
Beautiful day #21
SIAMYCGOO #52
Elevation #116
Walk on #118 (?)
Vertigo #31

...or am I confusing it all and mixing this numbers with something else ?
Clarify me please...