Is there nothing left? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-01-2002, 09:30 AM   #21
The Fly
 
UltravioletU2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 222
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

Quote:
Originally posted by jick


The end of U2 is near, so be prepared.
I wouldn't be so sure.

U2 may not reach the caliber where they were with JT sales, but they are still going strong.

I didn't like the article for all the same reasons as those of you who also didn't like it.

But, I'll admit it. I'm an opinated fan who loves the band, wants them to keep going, loves the 90's stuff, hates 90's criticism, and can't get enough of U2. I didn't care for ATYCLB as much, but I still want new U2 and I'll get it. They're not done yet.
__________________

UltravioletU2 is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 11:16 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

Quote:
Originally posted by jick


That author is a moron. not because he doesn't make sense -- he does. He is a moron because he plagiarized my ideas. I was the one who originally broached that U2 has no more gas left in their tank. They have achieved all there is to achieve and there is nowhere else for them to go but away. Check out many posts back with the subject "Does U2 Have Any Gas Left In Their Tank?"

U2 have done everything, achieved everything. The Elevation Tour was a fitting farewell tour. No matter how talented they are, they are no longer as hungry as an upstart band trying to make a name for themselves. U2 was hungry in 1983 but not anymore. Even if they claim they still want to make great music - they really have already made it in the past. What else can they do that they haven't done? Nothing. What have they to prove? Nothing.

Many other younger bands are still hungry. They still want to be as successful as U2. I don't think the public's tastes are fickle. It's just that it's hard for a band to stay hungry, so they become commercialized and think too highly of themselves.

I am of the opinion that U2 is already done. As successful as ATYCLB was, it paled in comparison to the Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree ballpark sales figures. Nevertheless, U2 does not have any album in their bag that can sell that much --- none, zip, zero. U2 will NEVER ever get to release a 4 million US and 12 million worldwide mega-selling album. They just don't have it in them. And U2 will never relegate themselves to be a band that sells only 500,000 albums in America and 1.5 million worldwide. They'd rather retire if that's the case. They don't want to be like Depeche Mode, REM, or the Rolling Stones who are nothing but mere shadows of their old selves.

The end of U2 is near, so be prepared.

Cheers,

J
I respect your right to your opinion, and I'm not even going to waste my time countering it. I just had to correct you on one small thing (what else is new!): You wrote your "Does U2 Have Any Gas Left In Their Tank" post LONG after this guy wrote his article. I read his article over a year ago. Just had to let you know. So, whose doing the plagiarizing?
__________________

Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 11:22 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
I'm also quite frankly tired of hearing the JT comparisons, the comments returning the band to what they did in the 80's and linking it to more recent sales and successes. I also get really annoyed by the view that U2 do no produce material which is 'U2'. Really, what the hell is that?
Actually, to be fair (and to be fair to you as well, I'm not sure if you were saying this, but...), this critic wasn't actually saying ATYCLB sounded like JT. In fact, like you, he said the JT comparisons are wrong. He just said that ATYCLB is a distillation of the bands career. I agree to some extent with that, but I also believe that within that process, U2 made something entirely new. It's a soul record, in the traditional sense. Al Green, Otis Redding, John Lennon, Van Morrison kind of soul. U2 have never done that before.
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 11:26 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by daisybean


Exactly....While I don't like seeing a negative review.... it's just an opinion. So this guy doesn't like U2, what is the big deal....For every positive there is going to be a negative, it's the nature of the universe. No need to get all upset about what some other guy thinks....all that is important is what you think.
Actually, I think this guy does like U2. I'd say he is a huge fan. His over-all knowledge of the band (exluding not knowing the exact release dates of War and UF) exemplify this. I just think he has a different perspective on U2 than most fans do. He is, after-all, a critic. His job is to be critical. And fair enough.
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 11:29 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
wertsie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: on a country road...
Posts: 4,752
Local Time: 09:20 AM
The way I see it...as long as these critics keep pronouncing U2's death, U2 is going to keep plugging away. And we can laugh in the faces of these critics when we are proven right!
wertsie is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 01:33 PM   #26
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,682
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
why is it acceptable for other artists to repeat themselves over and over? Aerosmith, Enya, the Stones, Springsteen, Spears, Backstreet Boys, Eminem, Cher - all of these artists have failed to revolutionize their sound over the years.
i think it's because those artists have never really changed their sound. it's a sucky double standard, but i think critics and music fans in general come to expect a certain something from every artist. for someone like eminem, we all know his next single will be another angry rap record, lashing out at critics, his mom, and his ex-wife. with U2, you never know what their next move will be. (especially since the band doesn't seem to know how to accurately describe their albums!

for people like madonna and U2 who are constantly innovating themselves, and trying to outdo themselves - not commercially, but artistically, we know their next album won't sound like the last one. with the backstreet boys and britney spears, we know to expect the same bubblegum pop we've been getting since their first release. i think that's why for them, (i may be wrong about the sales figures) none of their albums top their previous stuff in sales. why? because the older fans grow up and move on, and get tired of hearing duplications of previous works. the younger fans stay with them until they're old enough to realize the same thing. imo, that's why teeniebopper artists never have a long and fruitful career: fans and critics just got tired of listening to the same album time after time, but with a different name.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 03:05 PM   #27
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 266
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

Quote:
Originally posted by jick
[B]

That author is a moron. not because he doesn't make sense -- he does. He is a moron because he plagiarized my ideas. I was the one who originally broached that U2 has no more gas left in their tank. They have achieved all there is to achieve and there is nowhere else for them to go but away. Check out many posts back with the subject "Does U2 Have Any Gas Left In Their Tank?"

U2 have done everything, achieved everything. The Elevation Tour was a fitting farewell tour. No matter how talented they are, they are no longer as hungry as an upstart band trying to make a name for themselves. U2 was hungry in 1983 but not anymore. Even if they claim they still want to make great music - they really have already made it in the past. What else can they do that they haven't done? Nothing. What have they to prove? Nothing.

Many other younger bands are still hungry. They still want to be as successful as U2. I don't think the public's tastes are fickle. It's just that it's hard for a band to stay hungry, so they become commercialized and think too highly of themselves.

I am of the opinion that U2 is already done. As successful as ATYCLB was, it paled in comparison to the Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree ballpark sales figures. Nevertheless, U2 does not have any album in their bag that can sell that much --- none, zip, zero. U2 will NEVER ever get to release a 4 million US and 12 million worldwide mega-selling album. They just don't have it in them. And U2 will never relegate themselves to be a band that sells only 500,000 albums in America and 1.5 million worldwide. They'd rather retire if that's the case. They don't want to be like Depeche Mode, REM, or the Rolling Stones who are nothing but mere shadows of their old selves.

The end of U2 is near, so be prepared.
REM's last album sold 5 million worldwide, eclipsing the previous album's sales.

Bon Jovi only got to no.2 in the UK charys with their new album in its first week of release, selling a paltry 60,000 copies, while REM's Reveal topped the UK charts for 2 weeks at least selling several hundred thousand copies ( at least, because I'm not sure of overall UK figures). This disproves that Bon Jovi are U2's contemporaries even in sales like you say....never mind the fact that artisticaly they are nothing alike.
Whats The Story? is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 07:25 PM   #28
Refugee
 
jick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,054
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Re: Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

I respect your right to your opinion, and I'm not even going to waste my time countering it. I just had to correct you on one small thing (what else is new!): You wrote your "Does U2 Have Any Gas Left In Their Tank" post LONG after this guy wrote his article. I read his article over a year ago. Just had to let you know. So, whose doing the plagiarizing?
Oh my bad! I thought it was a new article because the link was just posted recenty! Oh well ...we all make mistakes.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP
jick is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 07:38 PM   #29
Refugee
 
jick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,054
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by wertsie
The way I see it...as long as these critics keep pronouncing U2's death, U2 is going to keep plugging away. And we can laugh in the faces of these critics when we are proven right!
Just like how Bon Jovi's critics predict their death because their new music allegedly sounds the same as their old ones all the time - yet Bon Jovi keeps plugging away and proving the critics wrong while the Bon Jovi fans get to laugh in the face of the critics.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP
jick is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 07:42 PM   #30
Refugee
 
jick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,054
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Re: Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

Quote:
Originally posted by Whats The Story?


REM's last album sold 5 million worldwide, eclipsing the previous album's sales.

Bon Jovi only got to no.2 in the UK charys with their new album in its first week of release, selling a paltry 60,000 copies, while REM's Reveal topped the UK charts for 2 weeks at least selling several hundred thousand copies ( at least, because I'm not sure of overall UK figures). This disproves that Bon Jovi are U2's contemporaries even in sales like you say....never mind the fact that artisticaly they are nothing alike.
You contradict yourself, admitting you are not sure of overall UK sales figures for REM. ATYCLB debuted at #3 only in the USA but it sold better in its first week than POP's first week despite POP debuting at #1. It's all a matter of timing.

UK is only a small part of the world anyway.

REM's 5 million is not even in the POP ballpark figure, and to think POP was considered a commercial bomb-out for U2, it still handlity beat REM with a million to spare.

5 million for REM versus 10 million for Bon Jovi's Crush. Not even close.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP
jick is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 07:59 PM   #31
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 266
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

Quote:
Originally posted by jick


You contradict yourself, admitting you are not sure of overall UK sales figures for REM. ATYCLB debuted at #3 only in the USA but it sold better in its first week than POP's first week despite POP debuting at #1. It's all a matter of timing.

UK is only a small part of the world anyway.

REM's 5 million is not even in the POP ballpark figure, and to think POP was considered a commercial bomb-out for U2, it still handlity beat REM with a million to spare.

5 million for REM versus 10 million for Bon Jovi's Crush. Not even close.

Cheers,

J


The King Of POP
I'm comparing it to Bon Jovi's latest album, not Crush. Reveal had sold at least 300,000 in the UK before I couldn't find information on it....

For your information the UK is the second largest music-buying zone in the world too. And didn't POP do around 6million worldwide? Not too far from the 5 million of REM. Also, I'mnot saying REM are U2's comercial contemporaries anymore, I merely used their statistics to highlight why BON JOVI weren't U2's commercial contemporaries.
Whats The Story? is offline  
Old 10-01-2002, 08:31 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Zoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: the great beyond
Posts: 36,802
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Quote:
Actually, I think this guy does like U2. I'd say he is a huge fan. His over-all knowledge of the band (exluding not knowing the exact release dates of War and UF) exemplify this. I just think he has a different perspective on U2 than most fans do. He is, after-all, a critic. His job is to be critical. And fair enough.
Totally agree with you, man.
Zoots is offline  
Old 10-02-2002, 01:10 AM   #33
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

Actually, to be fair (and to be fair to you as well, I'm not sure if you were saying this, but...), this critic wasn't actually saying ATYCLB sounded like JT. In fact, like you, he said the JT comparisons are wrong. He just said that ATYCLB is a distillation of the bands career. I agree to some extent with that, but I also believe that within that process, U2 made something entirely new. It's a soul record, in the traditional sense. Al Green, Otis Redding, John Lennon, Van Morrison kind of soul. U2 have never done that before.
Hi Michael,
I didn't actually read the article, so I expected I would be off base. I'm glad he didn't compare either the sound or the success of the 2 albums, so thats a plus for him I spose. My ramble was a bit aimless, much like it sounds this article perhaps was. I really should read it I guess! For me each album is always a new sound for them, there are smilarities sure, but people are just so harsh. I suppose i'm just whinging that people cannot accept they may not like something and leave it at that. Like someone said, it may have been you, he is a critic, and I guess its his job.

...More irrelevance from me...
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 10-02-2002, 06:02 AM   #34
Refugee
 
jick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,054
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

Quote:
Originally posted by Whats The Story?


I'm comparing it to Bon Jovi's latest album, not Crush. Reveal had sold at least 300,000 in the UK before I couldn't find information on it....

For your information the UK is the second largest music-buying zone in the world too. And didn't POP do around 6million worldwide? Not too far from the 5 million of REM. Also, I'mnot saying REM are U2's comercial contemporaries anymore, I merely used their statistics to highlight why BON JOVI weren't U2's commercial contemporaries.
Even in my posts about U2 and Bon Jovi sepratated at birth, I never made any misrepresentations about both bands having the same sales figures. I just said Bon Jovi is what is closest to U2 in terms of commercial success. I even said something like Bon Jovi was a mini-U2.

My point is that Bon Jovi is closer to U2 commercially than REM is closer to U2 commercially. That is fact. Now, when you talk about the quality of music, that is not fact but a matter of preference. I personally prefer U2's music over REM and Bon Jovi but your mileage may vary.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP
jick is offline  
Old 10-02-2002, 06:05 AM   #35
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,044
Local Time: 04:20 PM
I still don't see why this article "needed" to be written
if you want to research some facts (and even then mess some of them up) to give your own twist about a subject then there must be something more worthwhile out there than U2

the man is entitled to his opinion
but that doesn't mean it should be published
I still don't see why this article "needed" to be written
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 10-02-2002, 08:52 AM   #36
New Yorker
 
brettig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 09:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
I still don't see why this article "needed" to be written
if you want to research some facts (and even then mess some of them up) to give your own twist about a subject then there must be something more worthwhile out there than U2

the man is entitled to his opinion
but that doesn't mean it should be published
I still don't see why this article "needed" to be written
All I can say is if journalists waited for an obvious need before they acted they'd be pretty awful journalists...the profession requires initiative, whether that means following a story no-one else is or going out on an opinionated limb ala here...
brettig is offline  
Old 10-02-2002, 02:13 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by jick


You included Springsteen but omitted Bon Jovi! That is way cool! I always thought Bon Jovi is New Jersey's best anyway! But some people have gone on record tosay Bon Jovi has failed to revolutionize their sound. I disagree though.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

For the most part, I was listing artists that have been critically and/or commercially loved in recent years. Bon Jovi doesn't really qualify.
__________________
https://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 10-03-2002, 07:58 AM   #38
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 333
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
I'm not even going to read this article. Anyone who writes that U2 should retire clearly has too much time on his/her hands or has absolutely no musical ear, despite what he/she may think.

U2 just won a whopping 7 Grammy's for one album! They had a wildly successful tour that probably could still be going on if they wanted. Their last album just sold 11 million copies worldwide and with 4 million copies sold in the U.S., it became their best selling album since AB. "Electrical Storm" is becoming a hit based on hype alone! Those types of sales, anticipation AND awards show that U2 are hardly ready to retire.

Even if U2's more recent work isn't quite as "adventurous" as it was in the past, does it mean they should retire? U2 have changed their sound again and again - and succeeded. Aren't they allowed one album to sound, well, like themselves?? Have we come to expect SO much from U2 that we are disappointed when they dare sound like U2? And if so, why is it acceptable for other artists to repeat themselves over and over? Aerosmith, Enya, the Stones, Springsteen, Spears, Backstreet Boys, Eminem, Cher - all of these artists have failed to revolutionize their sound over the years. But they are loved critically and/or commercially. Why the double standard for U2?

When U2 decide to retire, I'll be happy to have had them in my life for as long as I did. But I'll let U2 make that decision, thank you, not some wannabe critic.
I hvae not read the article, nor do I intend to. I don't feel U2 should retire. however, I just wanted to respond to one thing that you said here.

I think the simple reason there is a double standard for U2 regarding relevance and critical appeal is because they bring it on themselves. This is not to say other artists don't but I can't think of another mainstream group that is as vocal as U2 when it comes to their relevance. They have said repeatedly that when it gets crap, they want out. They have also changed, and rebuilt themselves umpteen times to remain relevant. The band have made it such a priority that I think they open themselves up a bit to this kind of criticism.

I don't know. This is just my opinion. I hope U2 continue for several more years simply because they are blowing their own minds as well as mine.

Peace.
pop_mofo is offline  
Old 10-03-2002, 01:45 PM   #39
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,044
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by brettig


All I can say is if journalists waited for an obvious need before they acted they'd be pretty awful journalists...the profession requires initiative, whether that means following a story no-one else is or going out on an opinionated limb ala here...
I agree
but there must have been a story more wortwhile out there
at least I hope so
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 10-05-2002, 03:01 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

Quote:
Originally posted by jick


U2 have done everything, achieved everything. The Elevation Tour was a fitting farewell tour. No matter how talented they are, they are no longer as hungry as an upstart band trying to make a name for themselves. U2 was hungry in 1983 but not anymore. Even if they claim they still want to make great music - they really have already made it in the past. What else can they do that they haven't done? Nothing. What have they to prove? Nothing.

Many other younger bands are still hungry. They still want to be as successful as U2. I don't think the public's tastes are fickle. It's just that it's hard for a band to stay hungry, so they become commercialized and think too highly of themselves.

I am of the opinion that U2 is already done. As successful as ATYCLB was, it paled in comparison to the Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree ballpark sales figures. Nevertheless, U2 does not have any album in their bag that can sell that much --- none, zip, zero. U2 will NEVER ever get to release a 4 million US and 12 million worldwide mega-selling album. They just don't have it in them. And U2 will never relegate themselves to be a band that sells only 500,000 albums in America and 1.5 million worldwide. They'd rather retire if that's the case. They don't want to be like Depeche Mode, REM, or the Rolling Stones who are nothing but mere shadows of their old selves.

The end of U2 is near, so be prepared.

Cheers,

J
I think you kinda contradict yourself here. First you say that U2 aren't longer hungry for success and don't have anything to prove anymore, then you turn around and say that U2 would rather retire than be a band with mediocre sales. To me that doesn't sound like something a band that has lost all ambition and hunger would do. If you look at the ATYCLB promotion they did, it's clear that they were willing to work as hard as any young band trying to make a name for itself.
__________________

Saracene is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×