LP13 Discussion - Rock Bottom: Still No F#@&*ng News!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
The_acrobat said:
Invisible was apparently written about the bands first trip to London when they were trying to get a record deal. Maybe the 100 Club promo shows ties in with that?
Click to expand...

Sounds like there could be a sort of 'starting all over' type theme to the album. Makes sense with where they are at.

When you're perhaps considered irrelevant, the way to gain relevancy is to be new maybe? Didn't someone like The Alarm release a record under a different guise a few years ago, which became a hit, that was the basis for a film?

Look out for gigs in small clubs by 'The Pepperonis'

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinyl_(2012_film))
 
DaveC said:
Since the last thread was closed before I could respond over the weekend after my last post, I just want to clarify. Bono_212 said it much better than I did in stating that I don't care if a band wants to take their time in releasing a record. It's the fact that they've promised "new material!" ever since NLOTH (recalling the reports that SoA was basically "ready to go"), again and again and again only to completely not follow through on any of it. It was supposed to be 2010, then fall 2011, then spring 2012, yada yada yada. It's always imminent, just about finished, almost done but just not quite there yet, and then it's not. That's the thing I find most frustrating about this. If they had just worked in the studio and been honest about it not working, or that they have writer's block or prior commitments that prevented them from spending enough time in the studio to finish it, whatver. They're entitled to have lives. Just stop announcing that it's so close to being done that it's imminently about to drop when that's obviously not the case. The public has tuned it out to the point where I just think that people have stopped really caring, unless they're already big fans. Unless this thing is ATYCLB 2.0 I really doubt most people will even notice that it's out, to be honest.

And that's a shame, because U2 have been such an important band over the past 30 years that it really sucks to see them wind up their careers like this. It's been the same since 2000, in that it seems like they don't feel like they have anything left to prove to themselves, but they have to shoot for that #1 single every time, because it's U2, and that's what U2 does - write #1 singles.

The band themselves love to repeatedly state at all their concerts about how lucky they are to have such a great life, and that they owe it all to their fans. They have built a career about being closer to their fans than most bands, even when they were playing giant stadium shows, they have tried to make their experiences with their fans very personal. Repeatedly telling us one thing and doing another makes it seem like they have started to take that fan base a bit for granted, and that's what frustrates me the most about this.

Anyways, I just wanted to follow up to my previous point. I'm sure I'll get cut to ribbons for this, so have at 'er. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I posted this a while back, but I think it speaks to your point; it's not just the lack of delivering material in general, it's also the lack of quality.
Here's the post:

What about a drop in quantity (ouput) and quality (classic songs/albums) at the same time?

1980-1991 (11 years): 7 albums released:

Boy: One of the best debut albums ever. "I Will Follow" is a classic. The other songs are strong.

October: A weaker effort but good nonetheless. Unfortunately no classics.

War: A defining record for U2. "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "New Year's Day" are classics.

The Unforgettable Fire: Pivotal record. "Pride" is a classic. I would argue so is "Bad" and a few others on here but they are not as well known to the general public.

The Joshua Tree: Their first Iconic album.
"Where The Streets Have No Name", "I Still Haven't Found", "With Or Without You": all classics. Almost everyone owns a copy of this album.

Rattle And Hum: The movie was panned by critics but the album contains "Desire", "Angel Of Harlem", and "All I Want Is You", all classics.

Achtung Baby: their second Iconic album. "One", "Mysterious Ways", "Until The End Of The World", all classics. Absolutely the biggest band in the world at that point, and were guaranteed a high place in the panthenon of rock gods at that point.

Ok so in 11 years, they had 2 iconic albums and at least 13 classic songs everyone knows.


Now let's look at 1993-2013 (20 years): 5 albums released.

Zooropa: Fans love it, was praised by critics at the time, but really was riding on the heels of the ZooTV tour. No classic songs (in terms of a wide acknowledgement).

Pop: fans love it, but no classics. The "Discotecque" video alone almost sank their career, in terms of turning people away from the album. The band itself pretty much disavows this record.

All That You Can't Leave Behind": the album that saved u2's career after the Popmart disaster. "Beautiful Day" is a classic, whether it's one's personal taste or not. This album returned U2 to their previous stature.

How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb: "Vertigo" is a classic, largely due to the worldwide promotion of the ipod commercial.

No Line On The Horizon: some fans love it, some don't, but no classics and the general public couldn't have cared less. "Get On Your Boots" was perhaps their weakest first single ever.
However, the 360 was the highest grossing/most attended tour in history.

So, in that 20 year period, 2 classic tunes, one album that saved their legacy, but certainly not an Iconic album.

So.....
 
DaveC said:
Since the last thread was closed before I could respond over the weekend after my last post, I just want to clarify. Bono_212 said it much better than I did in stating that I don't care if a band wants to take their time in releasing a record. It's the fact that they've promised "new material!" ever since NLOTH (recalling the reports that SoA was basically "ready to go"), again and again and again only to completely not follow through on any of it. It was supposed to be 2010, then fall 2011, then spring 2012, yada yada yada. It's always imminent, just about finished, almost done but just not quite there yet, and then it's not. That's the thing I find most frustrating about this. If they had just worked in the studio and been honest about it not working, or that they have writer's block or prior commitments that prevented them from spending enough time in the studio to finish it, whatver. They're entitled to have lives. Just stop announcing that it's so close to being done that it's imminently about to drop when that's obviously not the case. The public has tuned it out to the point where I just think that people have stopped really caring, unless they're already big fans. Unless this thing is ATYCLB 2.0 I really doubt most people will even notice that it's out, to be honest.

And that's a shame, because U2 have been such an important band over the past 30 years that it really sucks to see them wind up their careers like this. It's been the same since 2000, in that it seems like they don't feel like they have anything left to prove to themselves, but they have to shoot for that #1 single every time, because it's U2, and that's what U2 does - write #1 singles.

The band themselves love to repeatedly state at all their concerts about how lucky they are to have such a great life, and that they owe it all to their fans. They have built a career about being closer to their fans than most bands, even when they were playing giant stadium shows, they have tried to make their experiences with their fans very personal. Repeatedly telling us one thing and doing another makes it seem like they have started to take that fan base a bit for granted, and that's what frustrates me the most about this.

Anyways, I just wanted to follow up to my previous point. I'm sure I'll get cut to ribbons for this, so have at 'er. :shrug:
Click to expand...
The issue here is that you're attacking a bad habit as if it's motivated by malice as opposed to a simple lack of self-awareness. And I don't think anyone here would accuse U2 of being self-aware. So, essentially, you're marching in extraordinarily fired up about something everyone has begrudgingly accepted because they've gone through the cycle so many times already, and treating it as if it is more nefarious than it actually is.
 
PhilsFan said:
The issue here is that you're attacking a bad habit as if it's motivated by malice as opposed to a simple lack of self-awareness. And I don't think anyone here would accuse U2 of being self-aware. So, essentially, you're marching in extraordinarily fired up about something everyone has begrudgingly accepted because they've gone through the cycle so many times already, and treating it as if it is more nefarious than it actually is.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point.

I should clarify that I don't think they're doing this deliberately just for kicks or anything. They aren't that kind of band and never have been (at least not with their fans). Although throughout their career U2 have shown to be acutely self-aware to a fault, so I don't know what caused such a change, or when that would have happened.

But in an organization as large as U2, Inc., there has to be someone with enough awareness to realize how off-putting this kind of crap is to the general public. Either the whole thing is blindingly ignorant or they're simply too star-struck about "it's U2 and they can do whatever they feel like and it will be incredible" to actually say anything. I know many people in this forum have the latter attitude, is it possible U2 have simply surrounded themselves with so many yes-men at this point that nobody is willing to give them a slap and say "put up or shut up"? Before someone points it out, I'm not referring to the guy who shines the rims on Adam's car once a week, I'm talking about someone at Universal, or someone in the band's management.

As I mentioned previously, I think from my perspective the band is really just finding it hard to keep doing this. It really seems as if they've got nothing else to prove to themselves after basically being the biggest band on the planet consistently for 25+ years. When every tour has to be the "biggest ever" it sort of loses a bit of its appeal to work so hard when you've already done it half a dozen times over decades. Bradley Wiggins won the Tour de France two years ago and basically gave up trying to win major bike races immediately afterwards because he said in the media "I've won the biggest one and now it's very hard to motivate myself to do it again and again simply because it's so hard" (paraphrasing). U2 seems to feel like they need to keep churning this cycle of album-tour-recording going simply because they always have. Maybe it's the fact that they don't want to tell the other guys that they don't feel like doing it anymore, or they feel like they have no choice or whatever. I want new material and I want it to be great and successful of course, but from a human perspective I hope for their own and their families' sakes that if that really is the case they just can admit it to themselves after this one and take a break.
 
The issue is also that you feel entitled to an album, or to music. You aren't. Te money you have paid in the past was for what you received in the past. If they don't feel the quality is there yet, I'd rather than hold it back. As you were so fond of analogies in the last thread, if a car manufacturer promised a revolutionary new brake system, but delayed to perfect it, you'd be pretty happy about it I'm sure. And the money you spent on your previous cars is totally irrelevant. Your argument is tantamount to asking for the new car without the brake system, because you feel entitled to it because a) it was promised to you, and b) you have bought cars in the past. Enjoy your car with no brakes, just be careful :)


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
So, U2invisible.com (previously owned by Headache) is now in the hands of Live Nation in the person of Django Bayless.

Django Bayless serves as Senior Vice President of New Media Technology/Artist Relations of Signatures Network. (...) Mr. Bayless launched the official web sites for major artists ranging from U2 and Madonna to KISS and Britney Spears.
Click to expand...

So far, nothing new after the brilliant Headache's move.

Now, this got me looking up u2songforsomeone.com (which is registered by a Tim dude, he must be a fan who reads Interference and wanted to do something similar to what Headache did, because I found his name on some fansites ;)), u2thetroubles.com and u2ordinarylove.com (yes, I'm THAT desperate).

What I got from this searching is that, from the titles (or working titles) we have, only U2invisible.com is registered by Live Nation. This could mean:

1. the other ones were *just* working titles;
2. 'Invisible', maybe the non-RED version which will end up on the album, must be some sort of crucial milestone of the next album. First single? Doesn't make sense, having already been a single last February;
3. a slightly more plausible explanation: 'Invisible' will be on the new album AND, when they're gonna launch the new U2 site, a subpage may be dedicated to 'Invisible' and the importance of being tied to RED et cetera...
 
I bought earth2030 for my upcoming movie, currently in negotiations with John Waters to possibly direct and maybe Thom Yorke to play Vladimir Putin
 
dan_smee said:
The issue is also that you feel entitled to an album, or to music. You aren't. Te money you have paid in the past was for what you received in the past. If they don't feel the quality is there yet, I'd rather than hold it back. As you were so fond of analogies in the last thread, if a car manufacturer promised a revolutionary new brake system, but delayed to perfect it, you'd be pretty happy about it I'm sure. And the money you spent on your previous cars is totally irrelevant. Your argument is tantamount to asking for the new car without the brake system, because you feel entitled to it because a) it was promised to you, and b) you have bought cars in the past. Enjoy your car with no brakes, just be careful :)


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...


No, that analogy sucks. A car is a machine, and will not function correctly without brakes. An album does not need every single song to be listened to for the others to make sense, unless it's some wacky ass concept album which clearly this is not.

Here's another one: you've been a customer at a book store for years and have spent hundreds of dollars there. You go in one day and find that suddenly the staff is rude and unavailable, the store is a complete mess, and stock is very low. Is this acceptable simply because you have not yet paid for something on this particular visit? Of course not, even if you had never bought anything in your life from that store you still expect a certain standard of service. If you do end up purchasing a product, does this change that level of expectation? No, it doesn't. Also, you seem to imply that my expectation of quality and service should only apply to that particular product which I've paid money for. Does you liking the book mean the shitty service you received is perfectly ok? Does your purchase mean that your service expectations can only apply to the specific product purchased and to no other aspect of the buying experience?

Again, you intend to rent a car. The guy tells you to go fuck yourself and your mother. Since you haven't paid for anything yet by your logic this is perfectly fine as you have no right to expect any kind of standard of care until you fork over your cash and only then specifically and directly relating to the product itself. Let's go further and say that despite this you rent the vehicle, the car runs great and gets you where you need to go, so are you not allowed to be upset since the actual product you paid for was acceptable?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
JOFO said:
I posted this a while back, but I think it speaks to your point; it's not just the lack of delivering material in general, it's also the lack of quality.

Here's the post:



What about a drop in quantity (ouput) and quality (classic songs/albums) at the same time?



1980-1991 (11 years): 7 albums released:



Boy: One of the best debut albums ever. "I Will Follow" is a classic. The other songs are strong.



October: A weaker effort but good nonetheless. Unfortunately no classics.



War: A defining record for U2. "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "New Year's Day" are classics.



The Unforgettable Fire: Pivotal record. "Pride" is a classic. I would argue so is "Bad" and a few others on here but they are not as well known to the general public.



The Joshua Tree: Their first Iconic album.

"Where The Streets Have No Name", "I Still Haven't Found", "With Or Without You": all classics. Almost everyone owns a copy of this album.



Rattle And Hum: The movie was panned by critics but the album contains "Desire", "Angel Of Harlem", and "All I Want Is You", all classics.



Achtung Baby: their second Iconic album. "One", "Mysterious Ways", "Until The End Of The World", all classics. Absolutely the biggest band in the world at that point, and were guaranteed a high place in the panthenon of rock gods at that point.



Ok so in 11 years, they had 2 iconic albums and at least 13 classic songs everyone knows.





Now let's look at 1993-2013 (20 years): 5 albums released.



Zooropa: Fans love it, was praised by critics at the time, but really was riding on the heels of the ZooTV tour. No classic songs (in terms of a wide acknowledgement).



Pop: fans love it, but no classics. The "Discotecque" video alone almost sank their career, in terms of turning people away from the album. The band itself pretty much disavows this record.



All That You Can't Leave Behind": the album that saved u2's career after the Popmart disaster. "Beautiful Day" is a classic, whether it's one's personal taste or not. This album returned U2 to their previous stature.



How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb: "Vertigo" is a classic, largely due to the worldwide promotion of the ipod commercial.



No Line On The Horizon: some fans love it, some don't, but no classics and the general public couldn't have cared less. "Get On Your Boots" was perhaps their weakest first single ever.

However, the 360 was the highest grossing/most attended tour in history.



So, in that 20 year period, 2 classic tunes, one album that saved their legacy, but certainly not an Iconic album.



So.....
Click to expand...


That does speak to my point but I do want to make it clear that I don't expect something on the level of the 85-95 years. I'm certainly not expecting Achtung Baby 2014 (or whenever it ends up coming out). One issue I have with this is that you could arbitrarily choose the dividing line to be 1990 instead and both sides would look pretty even, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Your continued attempts to compare writing music to other jobs is a fruitless endeavor. It was your post comparing the band to a lazy, unproductive employee that was really the problem, but this is not much of an improvement.

U2's problem is that they're scared that people are going to be indifferent to or dislike their work. They're not cussing out people or being lazy at a desk job.
 
I'm aware there's a difference and I think what a lot of people aren't getting is that I'm not saying it's the same thing, just roughly analogous in an indirect way.

I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right because I quite frankly don't care about anyone else's opinion. I'm just speaking to how my own opinions have been formed on this topic, and folks are acting like I'm trying to sway consensus. Maybe 10 years ago I might have tried to do something like that here but I'm definitely not the narcissistic little shit head kid I used to be (now I'm a narcissistic shit head adult! :wink: ).

Anyways I do think you're right in saying that U2 is too focused on avoiding any sort of negative reaction to the detriment of forward progress. Whether that's a result of Pop or NLOTH not doing maybe as well as they would have hoped in terms of sales is a debate for another thread.

As I mentioned, if they can't do it anymore, that's fine. If they need another year with the album, then just say so and people would understand (after an initial outcry I really think that most people would realize that they want it to be done right). I just wish they would be honest with themselves and with us if either of those scenarios are the case.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
DaveC said:
One issue I have with this is that you could arbitrarily choose the dividing line to be 1990 instead and both sides would look pretty even, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...


That's a fair point.

I think what I was thinking is that their arc was so steady upwards until 93 I tried to illustrate the rough path since.

But yeah, 1980-2009 is 29 years (let's make it 30) so cut it in half it's 15 years in (so 1980-1995) and 1995-2010.

Doesn't change much though....:huh:
 
DaveC said:
As I mentioned, if they can't do it anymore, that's fine. If they need another year with the album, then just say so and people would understand (after an initial outcry I really think that most people would realize that they want it to be done right). I just wish they would be honest with themselves and with us if either of those scenarios are the case.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...


You need to tell us exactly when you'll be writing another long bad entitled analogy. You owe it to us. If you can't, that's fine, we just wish you'd be honest with us.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
DaveC said:
Here's another one: you've been a customer at a book store for years and have spent hundreds of dollars there. You go in one day and find that suddenly the staff is rude and unavailable, the store is a complete mess, and stock is very low. Is this acceptable simply because you have not yet paid for something on this particular visit? Of course not, even if you had never bought anything in your life from that store you still expect a certain standard of service. If you do end up purchasing a product, does this change that level of expectation? No, it doesn't. Also, you seem to imply that my expectation of quality and service should only apply to that particular product which I've paid money for. Does you liking the book mean the shitty service you received is perfectly ok? Does your purchase mean that your service expectations can only apply to the specific product purchased and to no other aspect of the buying experience?

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

So you're saying U2 is like a once reliable book store that you spent a lot of money at until recently when they seem to have become mismanaged and run by incompetent rude staff?
 
Mrs. Garrison said:
not u2 related at all, but this is a nice story which gives me hope for kids these days

Starstruck Kids Post Picture With Paul McCartney and Warren Buffett on Instagram
Click to expand...

Talk about being raised well, I too would be starstruck if Paul McCartney was a few feet away from me.

(U2-related, I remember when Bono lowered his window as the band's motorcade arrived at the stadium for my first U2 show - only 15 feet away. My excitement was uncontrollable from that point on)
 
That Schart bloke whose tweets are regularly mentioned/'discussed' used to post here.
 
Zoo Lemon said:
So, U2invisible.com (previously owned by Headache) is now in the hands of Live Nation in the person of Django Bayless.



So far, nothing new after the brilliant Headache's move.

Now, this got me looking up u2songforsomeone.com (which is registered by a Tim dude, he must be a fan who reads Interference and wanted to do something similar to what Headache did, because I found his name on some fansites ;)), u2thetroubles.com and u2ordinarylove.com (yes, I'm THAT desperate).

What I got from this searching is that, from the titles (or working titles) we have, only U2invisible.com is registered by Live Nation. This could mean:

1. the other ones were *just* working titles;
2. 'Invisible', maybe the non-RED version which will end up on the album, must be some sort of crucial milestone of the next album. First single? Doesn't make sense, having already been a single last February;
3. a slightly more plausible explanation: 'Invisible' will be on the new album AND, when they're gonna launch the new U2 site, a subpage may be dedicated to 'Invisible' and the importance of being tied to RED et cetera...
Click to expand...

Ya know...

I wasn't going to share my story, and hadn't for some time, out of fear of some one doing the same thing, but for nefarious reasons...

I'm hoping that's not what happened here.
 
I'll say it right now:

If a new U2 album comes out in 2014, be it a "surprise" release or a "normal release", between now and December, I'll eat whatever Bono ate at his most recent meal. That may seem impossible, but I think I can stomach it. At any rate, it doesn't matter because I'll "release" said meal either as a surprise or normally a few hours later.
Now I just raised the bet (bar); the stakes (steaks) are high. Who else is in?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

prbiker15
LP13 Discussion - Rumor Has It: Sirens, iTunes Festival, etc.
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
72K
kingofsorrow
kingofsorrow
salomeU2000
The Month in U2 : May 2003 *
Replies
1
Views
4K
GrIND.
G

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom