MERGED ----> Should U2 hang it up? + Why I think U2 should hang it up + U2 finished?

[BVS]

I can't disgree more with One Tree Still. I think first of all your opinion is very age discriminatory. Saying that you couldn't possibly have gotten the full effect if you weren't the right age and that JT produced most of the die-hards. I think there are people who turned diehards with War and even a younger generation who turned diehards with AB that may get a little offended by that. I'm 27 now and I'm just as in tune if not more with the music scene than I was during the years of 17-24.

ATYCLB and the Elevation tour were just as relevant and vital as any other moment in U2 history. The one thing ATYCLB has going against it, are the themes of dealing with your own mortality. It's pretty un-Rock n Roll to deal with subjects like that(most people don't want to hear about it), but that's also what makes this such an amazing album.

Aritist such as Sting, Rolling Stones, etc. have lost relevance as they got older, doesn't mean they're not any good anymore, but U2 is far from losing their place in music.

 

[DaveC]

I agree with daisybean, U2 seems to change their sound with almost each and every album...

Boy: fresh, youthful innocence
October: slightly darker, still youthful
War: angst, political aggravation
UF: more of a transitional album to me, like coming to fruition
JT: contemporary, great songs...more mainstream (not to say the others were crap, just that these were the ones most people seemed to like best)
R&H: more bluesy, american
AB: beginnings of electronica, about Edge's failing marriage and the fall of communism
Zooropa: ripping pop culture
Pop: ripping themselves and consumerism
ATYCLB: mainstream again, more contemporary
Next Album: something different

I think the next album will NOT be the same as ATYCLB in terms of musical quality...I think this next one well probably be a cross between War, AB, and ATYCLB...and if you aren't excited about that, you're obviously not a U2 fan...

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Aritist such as Sting have lost relevance as they got older

WHAT?!

anyway, getting back to the topic on hand, i do agree with most of the original post. i do think they were cutting edge from 1979-1997 as well. i also think that those who were lucky to be around your age group to, frankly, be old enough to go out and really be a fan of U2 (like, getting in line at midnight to buy an album on its release date, going to concerts, etc.) does help one appreciate an album, if that makes sense.

but i don't think U2 should necessarily hang it up. i guess i'm just giving them the benefit of doubt here. i know just because they have a wildly successful album like they did with JT, AB, and ATYCLB doesn't mean they'll repeat themselves. they've never made a JT part 2 or an AB part 2, so i don't think they'll make an ATYCLB part 2. however, if they keep going in the vein they are, i don't think they'll lose popularity, but some fans will start to lose interest. they'll gain more, and maybe even be more successful, as people who hear songs like "beautiful day" and "electrical storm" will think "wow, great song, i should buy the album."

i dunno. i'm still a big fan of the band, and they're still addressing popular issues (walk on? stuck in a moment?) so i still think they're relevent.

 

[medmo]

I can appreciate your point of view, One Tree Still, but it seems a bit one sided. Like they say, it's all relative. Just because ATYCLB didn't "really matter" to you doesn't mean that it didn't matter to others. Every fan looks back fondly on the days when the band was new to them, and in many cases they consider those to be the band's best days.

But you have to consider the fact that literally thousands and thousands of new fans came along with ATYCLB. Just as an example, many became fans after September 11 because U2's music meant something to them at that particular time. It "really mattered" to them. They found comfort in it...........maybe to some of them, "the vague, scary and behemoth idea" of a few people being able to end so many innocent lives was too much to deal with, and those new songs helped them through some tough times. You certainly can't tell them that ATYCLB doesn't "really matter". And that's just one example. The bottom line is, it's all relative.

 

[HelloAngel]

I can appreciate your point of view, One Tree Still, but it seems a bit one sided. Like they say, it's all relative. Just because ATYCLB didn't "really matter" to you doesn't mean that it didn't matter to others. Every fan looks back fondly on the days when the band was new to them, and in many cases they consider those to be the band's best days.

But you have to consider the fact that literally thousands and thousands of new fans came along with ATYCLB. Just as an example, many became fans after September 11 because U2's music meant something to them at that particular time. It "really mattered" to them. They found comfort in it...........maybe to some of them, "the vague, scary and behemoth idea" of a few people being able to end so many innocent lives was too much to deal with, and those new songs helped them through some tough times. You certainly can't tell them that ATYCLB doesn't "really matter". And that's just one example. The bottom line is, it's all relative.

Excellent post.

 

[One Tree Still]

I wasn't trying to imply that U2 doesn't matter to people personally these days - I tried to address that.

People take U2 songs and apply them to their lives - they've always done that. What made earlier U2 unique was that U2 wrote songs about things that mattered too. No other band did it or does it with the skill that U2 did it up through POP.

In 1991, EVERYONE listened to U2. Kids who were 12 thought U2 was cool - and they were - adults who were 40 listened - U2 was everywhere - because they were still totally relevant to our culture. They were a mouthpiece - and if you didn't like their politics or religion, you could turn Mysterious Ways or Streets or Bad into a love song and get lost in it.

It's just my opinion, having been through it all at the right time, that those days are over. I just don't see U2 becoming relevant to everyone again like that.

Doesn't mean they are a bad band or I am less of a fan, I just think it's over, that's all.

 

[GypsyHeartgirl]

I was 26 in 1987 am I too old?! No way should they hang it up. They are better than they have been in years (yes that is a throwoff on Pop) and they proved with ATYCLB and Elevation that they are not only still around but great and legendary, the best band in the world! One thing is for sure, as long as U2 thinks someone thinks they should hang it up they never will. I saw Larry and Bono on an interview last year that said too many people think when you get to be their age you should just go f- off and buy a fish farm. They said 'we're not f-ing anywhere!' Good for them! You rock guys!

 

[HelloAngel]

I wasn't trying to imply that U2 doesn't matter to people personally these days - I tried to address that.

People take U2 songs and apply them to their lives - they've always done that. What made earlier U2 unique was that U2 wrote songs about things that mattered too. No other band did it or does it with the skill that U2 did it up through POP.

In 1991, EVERYONE listened to U2. Kids who were 12 thought U2 was cool - and they were - adults who were 40 listened - U2 was everywhere - because they were still totally relevant to our culture. They were a mouthpiece - and if you didn't like their politics or religion, you could turn Mysterious Ways or Streets or Bad into a love song and get lost in it.

It's just my opinion, having been through it all at the right time, that those days are over. I just don't see U2 becoming relevant to everyone again like that.

Doesn't mean they are a bad band or I am less of a fan, I just think it's over, that's all.

It would be very presumptive to say EVERYONE did ANYTHING the same as any other person in any year, yet alone 1991. It is simply your perception of any band's prominence. The media tends to inflate how large anyone is. Just look at the hype over American Idol - that song, tho everywhere - is NOT huge.

I only knew perhaps 4 people in 1991 who listened to U2. Today, I now know about 20. I knew NO adults at the time who listened to them. Now I know a handfull.

No one will ever be everything to everyone. It's all a perception.

 

[Diemen]

I see your point, One Tree Still, but I don't agree with it. You may very well be right in saying that U2 may never be as relevant to everyone as they were 10 or 15 years ago, but I don't see why a band should call it quits simply because they're still big, but are not and will not be as big as they once were.

Let's face it, U2 is still BIG. Maybe not as big as before, but they're still BIG and they still matter. Why throw in the towel now, when it's obvious they themselves feel they have a lot of creative gas left in the tank?

 

[wertsie]

Re: Why I think U2 should hang it up

U2 is a fantastic band and they certainly have every right to continue making music ? my opinion has no bearing on them whatsoever ? but I believe they put their untouchable back-catalog at risk if they continue to make music like we got from ATYCLB and even Electrical Storm. There?s very little in their latest music to make anyone stand up and take notice ? which is what U2 was all about for almost 20 years of their career.

But see, many people wouldn't agree that ATYCLB and ES aren't up to par with music they've produced in the past. Yeah, maybe it's a little more mellow than in the "old days" but this is a place they really haven't gone before now, and that's what they've always been about: reinventing themselves and taking their music to new places.

As long as they stay true to themselves and are happy with what they're doing, I say, "keep it rockin'!"

 

[GypsyHeartgirl]

I'm not sure who you were addressing, but One Tree Still's post was very well written and not at all negative.

We are all entitled to express our opinions. You will always encounter fans who have a much different perspective about what the future of U2 should be - that doesn't mean they should find another message board to do it at. Let's keep this friendly.

I think I know what that means. I have noticed that the majority of his posts are very negative toward current U2 and ATYCLB. He did start the 'sucks the big one' thread didn't he? I'm sick of hearing him complain about U2. It does look like most of the time he starts a thread it's something he's moaning about. They have done great recently and there is no need to complain about them, they're a success! The majority of fans are very happy with current U2! I know everyone has a right to their opinion but so do I and I'm just as sick of his endless ATYCLB bashing as many of you are of my hating Pop.

 

[BVS]

One Tree Hill, I don't think anyone misinterpretted your intent. Your intent was made pretty clear, that U2 was no longer relevant in your eyes, and that's what we were disagreeing with. U2 is still very relevant today. Look at the Elevation tour, look at the fact that several magazines calling them "Band of the Year", everytime I pick up a magazine some band is talking about how U2 and their last tour has been an inspiration.

With every album you are going to have people who discredit what a band is doing. AB came out and I heard people talking about how they "sold out", same with Pop, and same with ATYCLB.

I guess the question is how do you define relevance?

 

[GypsyHeartgirl]

Re: Re: Why I think U2 should hang it up

But see, many people wouldn't agree that ATYCLB and ES aren't up to par with music they've produced in the past. Yeah, maybe it's a little more mellow than in the "old days" but this is a place they really haven't gone before now, and that's what they've always been about: reinventing themselves and taking their music to new places.

As long as they stay true to themselves and are happy with what they're doing, I say, "keep it rockin'!"

 

[One Tree Still]

Hey Gypsy - for the record, it doesn't matter to me if you hate POP. That's your perogative.

I've been around this forum for over 2 years now and as far as I can tell, this is simply a place for people to talk U2. Nobody has the market cornered on "correct" U2 info here, do they?

I'm not bashing U2. More than anything else, I am sad to see that the era that made them what they were is over.

They can still make good music - especially in comparison to the crap that is out there - but it's not what it once was, IMO.

(please take note of the IMO)

 

[Bonofire]

I'm not bashing U2. More than anything else, I am sad to see that the era that made them what they were is over.

Huh? I don't get this. EVERY era made them what they are because they are not any particular thing but one great one! If you're so unhappy with U2 now why not just stop griping and complaining about it and find another band to like and discuss? U2 aren't going to change to your way of seeing things because they are having much more success doing it there way. They're fine with me just like they are and they don't need to change a thing. They have been a lot of things but this is what they have become, the result, and it looks and sounds good to me and millions of other fans.

 

[One Tree Still]

Huh? I don't get this. EVERY era made them what they are because they are not any particular thing but one great one! If you're so unhappy with U2 now why not just stop griping and complaining about it and find another band to like and discuss? U2 aren't going to change to your way of seeing things because they are having much more success doing it there way. They're fine with me just like they are and they don't need to change a thing. They have been a lot of things but this is what they have become, the result, and it looks and sounds good to me and millions of other fans.

Glad you like 'em as they are today. I prefer the earlier version, that's all.

Millions of people still see the Stones on tour, but the Stones aren't what they used to be either.

 

[gherman]

Why I think your post is a piece of shit nobody gives a fuck about!

 

[daisybean]

Can't we just agree to disagree for once

If you're so unhappy with U2 now why not just stop griping and complaining about it and find another band to like and discuss? U2 aren't going to change to your way of seeing things because they are having much more success doing it there way. They're fine with me just like they are and they don't need to change a thing. They have been a lot of things but this is what they have become, the result, and it looks and sounds good to me and millions of other fans.

It possible to not like a song or album that a group produces, that does not make you a bad fan. I think the original poster's intent is being misunderstood here, and it's creating more conflict then there needs to be.

 

[Bonofire]

Re: Can't we just agree to disagree for once

It possible to not like a song or album that a group produces, that does not make you a bad fan. I think the original poster's intent is being misunderstood here, and it's creating more conflict then there needs to be.

Nope. Not misunderstood. He is always starting threads like this. It is clear he is not happy with U2 anymore and wants them to quit, so I say please just go away, find another band to like and stop complaining about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

One Tree Hill, I don't think anyone misinterpretted your intent. Your intent was made pretty clear, that U2 was no longer relevant in your eyes, and that's what we were disagreeing with. U2 is still very relevant today. Look at the Elevation tour, look at the fact that several magazines calling them "Band of the Year", everytime I pick up a magazine some band is talking about how U2 and their last tour has been an inspiration.

With every album you are going to have people who discredit what a band is doing. AB came out and I heard people talking about how they "sold out", same with Pop, and same with ATYCLB.

I guess the question is how do you define relevance?

I AGREE WITH THIS PERSON 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[HelloAngel]

Re: Can't we just agree to disagree for once

It possible to not like a song or album that a group produces, that does not make you a bad fan. I think the original poster's intent is being misunderstood here, and it's creating more conflict then there needs to be.

Exactly. We all need to agree to disagree agreeably.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and my advice is that if someone is posting something about an era you are fond of that you don't agree with, don't continue to post in their thread. Asking someone to leave is not agreeing to disagree. Everyone brings something to the table here, and unless they have done something truly offensive, they are still welcome.

 

[Zoots]

same old ATYCLB discussion

Allright, stop the fighting!!
I think there are way too many rabid ATYCLB fans in this forum. One Tree Still is entitled to his opinion and can post whatever he wants. He hasnt used any foul language and has completely explained why HE THINKS U2 isn't relevant anymore.

Okay, my 2 cents: I disagree with you about the band not being relevant anymore. The whole world's talking about them. They were the biggest band in 2001. They've appeared on more magazine covers than anyone else over the past 2 years. The Elevation tour was probably more successful than even the Zoo TV tour. But as an album, ATYCLB is IMO among the worst. Its the first U2 album that:
a. Did not hit me in the face like any previous one did. Had to listen to it again and again and of course it grew on me.
b. has (if not mediocre) simple lyrics. More effort could've gone into them...example: Elevation, Wild Honey
c. has R&B sounding songs like In A Little While. What the fuck is that?

But of course I still have hope in U2 because Electrical Storm is so much better. And they do keep reinventing themselves.

 

[Zoomerang96]

gypseyheartgirl, you bring nothing to these debates. noones care that you hate pop. the guy made a decent thread and gets slammed by idiots. if you dont agree with him, thats wonderful, but just cause someone isnt blindly in love with every u2 project doesnt mean hes crazy.

Jipcee ive noticed YOUR posts are constantly tiring, and i do believe a great deal of people find you to be boring what with all your pop bashing. so can it.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

I think U2 probably has another good 10 years left in them. Tom Petty is 52 & his new album is great. Bruce Springsteen is 53 and he still produces good work. (Although I don't think "The Rising" lives up to all the hype-It's good though.) Neil Young usually doesn't let me down.... and David Bowie is 55. His new album is fantastic and he sings better than ever live. I believe U2 can continue to put out good work with the relevance of the artists I just mentioned. Their sales may taper off a bit, but as long as they can make good music, who cares. I wouldn't mind seeing U2 in a theater in 10 years. I just hope they don't turn into the Rolling Stones or The Who, playing stadiums & bordering on self-parody. At least these bands have realized that most fans just want to hear the hits and that's what they are giving them. I saw the Stones on the Voodoo Lounge Tour, and the show was kind of Las Vegasy to begin with, but when they played new material, it was obvious it wasn't connecting with most of the audience. I would hate to see this happen to U2. I hope they would have the self respect to bow out before this happens. But I don't think we have to be concerned just yet.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

While I haven't tremendously enjoyed U2's output since 1994, I was 14 when Achtung Baby came out, and although I wasn't aware enough to understand the world-weariness that fed into the recording of the album, my life was in such a personal maelstrom back then that the album was my solitary salvation, and has been ever since. The darkness,.. it spoke to me then as it speaks to me now.. If they aren't able to recreate that (to me, at least, it's all subjective anyway), I will be okay with that because I'll know that it's quite possible that each of their songs means as much to someone else who needs it as AB did for me way back when.

Agree with everything but the first part. (POP lover here...spare the boos )

 

[wertsie]

Although I have noticed that many of One Tree Still's threads have been a tad on the negative side, at least they are "intelligently negative." In other words, he's not just spouting off meaningless slams like "U2 sucks ass" or something along those lines. So while I totally disagree with his opinion, at least I can respect the fact that he was able to state it without making a complete ass of himself! Bravo!

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

I think I know what that means. I have noticed that the majority of his posts are very negative toward current U2 and ATYCLB. He did start the 'sucks the big one' thread didn't he? I'm sick of hearing him complain about U2. It does look like most of the time he starts a thread it's something he's moaning about. They have done great recently and there is no need to complain about them, they're a success! The majority of fans are very happy with current U2! I know everyone has a right to their opinion but so do I and I'm just as sick of his endless ATYCLB bashing as many of you are of my hating Pop.

well, you could replace "he" with "she," and switch pop and atyclb and it's the same things others have said about you. you mention that you seem to be well aware of this, yet you still find a way to mention your disliking, no, hatred of pop. believe me, your opinion is appreciated, and valued, as is everyone's is, really. but, after a while it starts to come out sounding like a broken record. i wish everyone could hold off on their disliking of a particular album, regardless of whatever it is, since it's all just opinion anyway and a really stupid debate.

they've also done really great in the past and been an even bigger success. since sales figures seem to be the only way of "proving" one album is "better" than the other (even though the debate is tireless, as everyone has their own rankings of what album is better than the others) then one could argue that even atyclb sucks in comparison to joshua tree or achtung baby.

why? because they sold more! and big sales figures makes it the be all and end all of album debates, right? to compare only u.s. sales figures (as i believe the rankings would still hold true, and i don't have the data readily available at my fingertips.) then if only sales figures mattered, this would be the ranking of albums, best to worst (courtesy riaa):

1. the joshua tree (10 million)
2. achtung baby (8 million)
3. rattle and hum (5 million)
4. war (4 million)
5. the unforgettable fire (3 million)
6. all that you can't leave behind (3 million)
7. best of 1980-1990 (2 million)
8. zooropa (2 million)
9. pop (1 million)
10. boy (1 million)
11. october (1 million)

so i guess those of us who don't feel that the joshua tree is the best album ever or don't think achtung baby is really as great as everyone says are just idiots?

 

[U2Kitten]

One Tree Hill, I don't think anyone misinterpretted your intent. Your intent was made pretty clear, that U2 was no longer relevant in your eyes, and that's what we were disagreeing with. U2 is still very relevant today. Look at the Elevation tour, look at the fact that several magazines calling them "Band of the Year", everytime I pick up a magazine some band is talking about how U2 and their last tour has been an inspiration.


I guess the question is how do you define relevance?

Exactly. I really don't think there are a lot of people, fans or general public, who feel this is a low point in the bands' career or that they are near the end. U2 are an extremely relevant band, at this point I can't think of a more relevant currently active band. They will continue to matter for years to come. I am confident of that.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Allright, stop the fighting!!
I think there are way too many rabid ATYCLB fans in this forum. One Tree Still is entitled to his opinion and can post whatever he wants. He hasnt used any foul language and has completely explained why HE THINKS U2 isn't relevant anymore.

i can't believe i totally missed out on this post!!

btw, i think it's funny that one tree still also started a similar thread here a while ago.

and yes, while they also did start that infamous atyclb thread, as others have stated, i think the criticisms have always been thoughtfully argued out, with logical opinions and no stupid insults.

 

[wertsie]

so i guess those of us who don't feel that the joshua tree is the best album ever or don't think achtung baby is really as great as everyone says are just idiots?

Of course not! It just so happens that my second-favorite album had the lowest album sales... Maybe it has to do with publicity??? I don't know!

 

[Hawkfire]

Excellent post One Tree Still. while I'm not quite ready to call for their retirement, I agree that ATYCLB and any like product in the future will start damaging their formidable back catelogue.

What discourages me most is the way the band in 1998 began back-tracking so suddenly from everything they had done from 1990-1997 (their most experimental and groundbreaking stuff, in my opinion). With the release of the Best Of 80-90, I felt U2 was placating their 80's fanbase. Obviously the negative press from PopMart really hit them hard (some of it deserved...they weren't adequately prepared to start that tour, though a single viewing of Mexico City can accurately convey the ultimate quality of that show). While the MDH sndtrk was quite good, ATYCLB was a very simplistic album that was incredible safe and deliberately fine-tuned to AOR radio format (think: Stuck in a Moment).

I'm not holding out much hope for a return to the 1990's U2, where anything was possible. Do you see them recording something as bizarre as 'Lemon' now? Doubtful. 'Tis a shame...in the early 1990's U2 could basically do ANYTHING... what a trip it was!!!!

Hopefully they'll put out one more halfway-decent album and pack it in. I seriously hope Bono's cameo with the Rolling Stones last month isn't an indication of the lead U2 is following....