Is there nothing left?

[Zoots]

Hi. This is a pretty impressive and solid article on where U2 is right now. Its quite long but be patient, its well written.

http://www.popmatters.com/music/features/011011-u2.html

Enjoy!

 

[HeartlandGirl]

Sorry, but I've got to disagree with most of what that article said. I, for one, don't think U2 need to retire just yet. And that's just the beginning of where I disagree.

 

[Salome]

well, it's one way to look at U2's career I suppose
but I don't really get why this article was written?

 

[U2girl]

Interesting.

While i agree ATYCLB was the most U2 sounding album in a looong time and that it will be hard to match this album and tour's success and find new directions for U2 and that it's good if you can stop with a good (if not great) album, i don't think U2 should quit just now.

I see the album (and the tour) as a push into the 3rd decade instead. There's always gonna be ups and downs in sales anyway.

 

[zoocarolina]

Sounds like the author wants U2 to hang it up bc they can't reinvent themselves again?? Please, they will continue to evolve and make great music for years to come. And the Elevation tour as the capstone for a remarkable career and that's the reason it was such a huge success, c'mon, U2 gained tons of new fans and the new Best Of will introduce those fans to a deacde most of them missed.

I agree, this article doesn't have much of a point, just a bunch of opinions with no conclusion....

 

[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.

 

[wertsie]

Okay, here we go...

All That You Can't Leave Behind, U2 intend to give their fans the long-awaited follow-up to 1987's The Joshua Tree, an overdue homecoming from ten years spent on a detour of experimental excess that much of their ardent rock base found enormously disconcerting.

Um...What is this information based on? Maybe the author found the "experimental excess" disconcerting, but to say that the majority of their fan base was turned off...I'm sorry, but that's the biggest load of crap I've heard in quite awhile!

that U2 never should have strayed from America's embrace of The Joshua Tree's rootsy, self-righteous political spiritualism.

WTF????!!!! If they hadn't "strayed," there probably wouldn't be a U2 today. Did this person forget about the backlash the band received after the release of R&H?

So as the band itself once asked rhetorically on War: "is there nothing left?" Probably not. It's hard to innovate once, much less twice, over the course of a career. And as hard as it must be to exit on top -- to recognize that the enormous goodwill generated from the Elevation tour is more likely a capstone to a career rather than a call for a new beginning -- one has to hope that when the tour ends U2 will leave the house lights on forever.

Oh, really? One does? (note sarcasm)

At least this person gave AB props, but as far as U2 being over...I think not!

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i totally agree with doctorwho's post in its entirety.

it's not up to this "critic" or even us fans when U2 will retire. it's when they stop enjoying what they're doing and think they've become irrelevent. i only think this cuz it's what they've been saying all along.

 

[wertsie]

i totally agree with doctorwho's post in its entirety.

it's not up to this "critic" or even us fans when U2 will retire. it's when they stop enjoying what they're doing and think they've become irrelevent. i only think this cuz it's what they've been saying all along.

Right! And anybody who saw them play during the last tour can attest that they're still having a blast with what they're doing!

 

[gherman]

How the fuck can anybody say U2 should retire. After POP every, single, fuckin person in the entertainment industry said U2 is OVER. Then look what they did. U2 took everything they said and stuck it up their asses and!!!

U2 you keep on doing what your doing... Kicking Ass

 

[Bono's shades]

Did anyone but me notice that this guy thinks War came out in 1984 and UF came out in 1985? That kind of lessens his credibility right off the bat.

As for the rest of the article, anyone who thinks With or Without You is a "pouty ballad" and disses Where the Streets Have No Name, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking for and Bullet the Blue Sky is clearly an idiot.

 

[wertsie]

How the fuck can anybody say U2 should retire. After POP every, single, fuckin person in the entertainment industry said U2 is OVER. Then look what they did. U2 took everything they said and stuck it up their asses and!!!

U2 you keep on doing what your doing... Kicking Ass

How many times have the critics said this? Probably after R&H and October too.

 

[Zoocifer]

This was my favorite part well written, but ignorant article.

All of that charge, however, fizzled with the release of The Joshua Tree in 1987. Ostensibly wanting to conquer commercial, as opposed to college, radio, U2 opened the album with four songs that were shallow approximations of the band's previous work -- a mindless anthem ("Where the Streets Have No Name") an uninspiring faux-gospel number ("I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"), a pouty ballad ("With or Without You"), and a political harangue that wore thin after a couple of listens ("Bullet the Blue Sky").

"With or Without You" a pouty ballad?

Somebody get some rope...

-[z]-

 

[brettig]

Yeah screw the critics, what do they know.

Seriously though, not everyone loves U2, some people round here need to realise this. To say 'I'm not even going to read this' is not the right attitude. Read what they say, listen to their viewpoint, you don't have to agree, but don't dismiss. Admittedly, this guy did shoot himself in the foot by not getting his facts right, but there are others who don't.

Also, self satisifed gloating/bloating over U2's success is one of the main reasons there are people who despise the group. Think about it.

 

[Zoots]

Mixed feelings

Yeah...apart from those comments about JT's first four tracks being total bull crap, I thought overall the article was well written. Despite errors like War from 1984, I think the article has been written in a very interesting and informative way. For instance, I agree with the following:
1. How he describes them (esp. Bono) getting overblown to god status during Rattle and Hum. (I love the album though)
2. His praise for Achtung Baby, the way he's described Zoo Station as a train ride into a new Berlin (awesome!).

I dont agree with 'Elevation' or 'In A Little While' fitting well into Achtung Baby though. Nothing IMHO from ATYCLB is good enough for Achtung.

Why I wasn't shocked with this guy's opinion that U2 is over is because as much as I like Electrical Storm, it doesnt excite me like say Achtung once did. The video for ES I thought was pretty unimpressive and boring. ES pretty much has the same tempo as many songs from ATYCLB. If U2 go on like this, I dont know how long they're gonna last. I seriously hope they reinvent themselves into some other exciting genre (as long as it isnt nu metal)

 

[kingofsorrow]

ATTN: CHARLES MARSHALL
it's amazing that you mentioned the fans in this article. did you interview any of them? i'm talking about the fans who can quote any detail of U2's 20+yr. career, not the fools who think U2 is so cool to listen to(not that fans don't think that).
what was the point of your article? to tell everyone that you don't like U2? DUDE aren't YOU a little to old to try an start a rebellion? maybe you should retire.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I wonder if someone who is not a fan of the band can even be fair. If you don't like what they do, it becomes very hard to be objective. I guess the other viewpoint is just as valid, that being quite a fan may make someone more willing to gloss over the somewhat mediocre aspects. But who cares. We are fans, not objective, rational and fair critics. We love them for whatever reasons. To hear someone with a less than favourable opinion of the band overall, try to dissect their careers is a bitter one to swallow.
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?
All I have just said may be irrelevant, but I dont like to read a critic's viewpoint. It means nothing to me what someone else thinks. I have my own loves and less than loves of the albums they have done. I could write up an analysis of each album and tell the world why I like certain things and others a bit less. Some people would agree with me, and some, even bigger fans perhaps would disagree - who knows, but really who cares. We can all make our own minds up.
U2 is over when they have had enough. If they produce material I am not keen on, no biggie. I still love plenty of their work. It is a bit ridiculous to assume that because you dont like what they are currently doing, it is time for them to retire. No one can speak on an entire fan base's behalf, with opinion.

 

[daisybean]

Seriously though, not everyone loves U2, some people round here need to realise this.

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.

 

[jick]

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?

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

 

[jick]

Hi. This is a pretty impressive and solid article on where U2 is right now. Its quite long but be patient, its well written.

http://www.popmatters.com/music/features/011011-u2.html

Enjoy!

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

 

[UltravioletU2]

Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

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.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

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]

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]

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.

 

[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!

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

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.

 

[Whats The Story?]

Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

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.

 

[jick]

Re: Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

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