U2 to quit??

[Ellay]

Actually excellent news... you know...

DREAM IT ALL UP AGAIN

absolutely

 

[unoscatorce]

Since Bono himself says in the Rolling Stone interview that he figures the band will go on performing for another 10 years or so I'd say we won't have to dread the end of new U2 stuff for a long time.

 

[rjhbonovox]

What's the scarier thought? U2 becoming Rolling Stones or U2 quitting in due time?

Good post, I know their music is not getting better so the more they keep going the more it tarnishes there once great reputation. The past 2 albums have been patchy and not upto the great standard of their past works no matter what album sales have been like for them. Songs such as Beautiful Day, Stuck In A Moment, Vertigo, Sometimes, COBL, Peace on earth, Grace, Crumbs are not up there with their best and never will be. I pray to god they don't become like The Rolling Stones who havent had a decent album out for over 25 years.

Still great versions of Zoo Station and The Fly and Mysterious Ways on the new DVD, worth buying for them 3 versions alone.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Good post, I know their music is not getting better so the more they keep going the more it tarnishes there once great reputation. The past 2 albums have been patchy and not upto the great standard of their past works no matter what album sales have been like for them. Songs such as Beautiful Day, Stuck In A Moment, Vertigo, Sometimes, COBL, Peace on earth, Grace, Crumbs are not up there with their best and never will be. I pray to god they don't become like The Rolling Stones who havent had a decent album out for over 25 years.

Still great versions of Zoo Station and The Fly and Mysterious Ways on the new DVD, worth buying for them 3 versions alone.

no the music is not getting better in your opinion, but imo there are songs from the last 2 albums that are up there with the best

 

[U2girl]

Luckily most U2 fans know a good album when they hear it.

 

[Halup]

What's the scarier thought? U2 becoming Rolling Stones or U2 quitting in due time?

U2 becoming the Rolling Stones is really a compliment. To be able to still enjoy U2 performing recording and touring in 20 years time is something I really hope happens.

Why should a group of musicians break up just because they are no longer young? No one seems to feel that other artists except rock musicians should have to retire as they age. Should an actor like Al Pacino have retired 10 or more years ago because he is now 65?

People continually rip on the Stones for no other reason than they continue to stay together and perform to millions of people who are very happy to see them, even though most of the band are now in their 60s. These people who rip on them are usually those that have never gone to see the Stones in concert. For those who have, you know that the energy exhibited by Mick Jagger is greater than most performers up to 40 years younger and you know you've seen a band still capable of putting on an incredible show. Who really cares if you are seeing "wrinkly rockers" in their 60s when what you are getting is a great experience?

The albums the Stones have released in the past 2 decades have been good with some of them better than albums they released earlier in their career. They have not in any way tarnished what they did in their first first 2 decades.

As far as U2 goes, my guess is that it would be Larry more than any other member who would choose to leave the band. He is already known to not like touring the way the other 2 do, but apparently is enjoying himself enough this tour for them to extend it into 2006. Bono and The Edge have found it easy enough to raise families while undertaking long tours, so I suspect in 10 years time, when their children are grown, their desire to tour and record may only increase.

 

[Lemonfix]

U2 becoming the Rolling Stones is really a compliment. To be able to still enjoy U2 performing recording and touring in 20 years time is something I really hope happens.

Hmm, I don't know, I'm not sure how I feel about the Stones right now, but the issues I have with them are not age issues. U2 could tour until one of them drops dead and that would be fine as long as they keep releasing new (good) albums and playing multiple new songs on tour. And of course, if there is ever the chance of them losing a member to retirement I would a prefer they call it a day.

 

[U2DMfan]

The Stones biggest problem the last 20+ years has been, aside from a couple of pretty good albums (Tattoo You, Bridges to Babylon quickly come to mind) and even those, have been basically musically redundant.

People aren't sick of them because they are 60, they are sick of them because they've heard it before and over and over again. This is where U2 needs to make a distinction.

U2 have hinted at this direction, but so have others. They will be ultimately defined by their next big step, IMO. Right now in a lot of people's minds they are either enjoying a revival of greatness or taking a trip down memory lane to mediocrity. I think it's the next thing that will be the tipping point to their overall legacy.
If they can change the hearts of the 'mediocrity' crowd, and remain revived, I think they could really last for several more years.

A true compliment would be that U2 would become more like David Bowie, Bob Dylan or Springsteen than the Stones. I like the Stones, love some of it.

U2, 25 years into their recording career are less iconic and more relevant than the Stones were 25 years in. The question just might be, "do they want to become more iconic, or more relevant?" and if they believe that the disctinction is the same, they'll be off the mark, IMO.

Because right now, what fuels them is attaining popularity which doesn't ensure relevance in the music world, but it does ensure a certain status that they could be seen as iconic merely becasuse they are popular for so long. Musically, that doesn't mean a damn thing.

I've said it before, and I'll stick with it, they need to redefine what being relevant means to them. Because if they stay on this particular path, it could only get worse. That doesn't mean that ATYCLB part 3 and 4 wouldn't be great albums, but when you space them out 3/4 years apart, who's left to really give a shit?

Top 40 rockers who left their roots years ago, buy your album and tickets because it's more or less nostalic and iconic to go see the big 'name band'. Do U2 really want this? Do they really want to be Aero-fucking-smith?

It will be the music that defines them. Aerosmith, beleive it or not was once a great band, and they've been making Get A Grip part 3,4 or 5 for years now. Nobody gives a shit but the people I am talking about. It's the same, you see Aeromsith now as an old tired and dried up act, musically redundant, I am saying once they were great and I fear that U2 will want to be relevant so bad they become an iconic charicature of themselves.

I don't think U2 want to be relevant like this.
I think they want to redefine what it means to be 40 or 50 in a rock and roll band. They can't do it with ATYCLB part 3 or 4, even if that wouldn't be the worst music we've ever heard.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Kudo's to the above. Couldn't have dreamed of saying it better.

 

[rjhbonovox]

U2 becoming the Rolling Stones is really a compliment. To be able to still enjoy U2 performing recording and touring in 20 years time is something I really hope happens.

How in the hell can becoming the Rolling Stones be a compliment. A washed up band that nobody wants to hear new material from? When you go to a Rolling Stones concert I wonder how many go to hear songs off their newer albums????? They are a joke, ok as a live show but a serious music band of today? I think not!

 

[AtomicBono]

The Stones biggest problem the last 20+ years has been, aside from a couple of pretty good albums (Tattoo You, Bridges to Babylon quickly come to mind) and even those, have been basically musically redundant.

People aren't sick of them because they are 60, they are sick of them because they've heard it before and over and over again. This is where U2 needs to make a distinction.

U2 have hinted at this direction, but so have others. They will be ultimately defined by their next big step, IMO. Right now in a lot of people's minds they are either enjoying a revival of greatness or taking a trip down memory lane to mediocrity. I think it's the next thing that will be the tipping point to their overall legacy.
If they can change the hearts of the 'mediocrity' crowd, and remain revived, I think they could really last for several more years.

A true compliment would be that U2 would become more like David Bowie, Bob Dylan or Springsteen than the Stones. I like the Stones, love some of it.

U2, 25 years into their recording career are less iconic and more relevant than the Stones were 25 years in. The question just might be, "do they want to become more iconic, or more relevant?" and if they believe that the disctinction is the same, they'll be off the mark, IMO.

Because right now, what fuels them is attaining popularity which doesn't ensure relevance in the music world, but it does ensure a certain status that they could be seen as iconic merely becasuse they are popular for so long. Musically, that doesn't mean a damn thing.

I've said it before, and I'll stick with it, they need to redefine what being relevant means to them. Because if they stay on this particular path, it could only get worse. That doesn't mean that ATYCLB part 3 and 4 wouldn't be great albums, but when you space them out 3/4 years apart, who's left to really give a shit?

Top 40 rockers who left their roots years ago, buy your album and tickets because it's more or less nostalic and iconic to go see the big 'name band'. Do U2 really want this? Do they really want to be Aero-fucking-smith?

It will be the music that defines them. Aerosmith, beleive it or not was once a great band, and they've been making Get A Grip part 3,4 or 5 for years now. Nobody gives a shit but the people I am talking about. It's the same, you see Aeromsith now as an old tired and dried up act, musically redundant, I am saying once they were great and I fear that U2 will want to be relevant so bad they become an iconic charicature of themselves.

I don't think U2 want to be relevant like this.
I think they want to redefine what it means to be 40 or 50 in a rock and roll band. They can't do it with ATYCLB part 3 or 4, even if that wouldn't be the worst music we've ever heard.

I agree with that pretty much. The only thing is I think everyone's a little too quick to say that U2's gonna be re-making ATYCLB for the rest of their lives. I think the new U2 is a shift in direction just as much as UF or AB was, and I fully believe that they will shift direction again. Maybe not next album, but definitely after that. I'm afraid if their next album is too much like the last two (even though they're two fucking brilliant albums), they will get backlash like they did for RH and Pop.

 

[Halup]

How in the hell can becoming the Rolling Stones be a compliment. A washed up band that nobody wants to hear new material from? When you go to a Rolling Stones concert I wonder how many go to hear songs off their newer albums????? They are a joke, ok as a live show but a serious music band of today? I think not!

They are hardly a washed up band and their latest album has been getting some fantastic reviews, probably better reviews than Atomic Bomb received.

Bono in the Rolling Stone interview even says he's a fan of the later Stones albums. I talked to The Edge and Paul McGuinness at the Stones show last Sunday at the Hollywood Bowl, so it's obvious they hold a lot of respect for the Stones of today. On the Stones fan site iorr.org, the guy in charge was even seated next to teh edge at the show and commented that he could tell Edge was very impressed.

Hard core fans do go to hear new songs, which is the same as with U2. U2 has a higher percentage of people wanting to hear new songs than do the Stones, but U2 is already falling into where many of the people filling the arenas are strictly there for the 80s and early 90s songs they remember.

Have you ever seen a Stones concert or played any of their albums of the past 20 years? There is a lot of quality in both.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I don't think they'll get a backlash, I think it will create an indifferent support base who just won't care. They'll still sell millions, still sell out every concert, still have a huge media profile, but people won't complain because they simply won't be relevant musicaly, therefore, the kind of people who care aren't paying attention anyway. Does that make sense?

 

[AtomicBono]

I don't think they'll get a backlash, I think it will create an indifferent support base who just won't care. They'll still sell millions, still sell out every concert, still have a huge media profile, but people won't complain because they simply won't be relevant musicaly, therefore, the kind of people who care aren't paying attention anyway. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think I know what you're saying, that U2's on the safe radio-friendly route now so they'll sell well regardless, and the people that are upset by that will just give up caring. But I really do think people will get tired of U2 doing the same thing over and over, I really do. It's interesting because I'd say in the U2 fan community HTDAAB is generally considered a better album than ATYCLB. Critically, however, I remember ATYCLB getting all these 5-star reviews and being declared U2's third masterpiece and a return to greatness and all that. HTDAAB on the other hand got mostly 4-star reviews... it was considered good, very good even, but nothing that blew people away. Some review said that at this point U2 were only competing with themselves, and I agree with that. I guess when there's no serious competition it's hard to come up with anything mindblowing, but I think U2 will do it. They could continue down this album of singles route, but I think even if the audience doesn't bore of it, U2 will. But I think unless U2 changes direction they're never going to get the response they got with ATYCLB, they're gonna get "yeah, this is good, nice stuff, best band in the world" just because they're U2. But U2 will hunger for more than that. That's what I think, anyway.

 

[STING2]

Good post, I know their music is not getting better so the more they keep going the more it tarnishes there once great reputation. The past 2 albums have been patchy and not upto the great standard of their past works no matter what album sales have been like for them. Songs such as Beautiful Day, Stuck In A Moment, Vertigo, Sometimes, COBL, Peace on earth, Grace, Crumbs are not up there with their best and never will be. I pray to god they don't become like The Rolling Stones who havent had a decent album out for over 25 years.

Still great versions of Zoo Station and The Fly and Mysterious Ways on the new DVD, worth buying for them 3 versions alone.

A lot of people love the past two albums. ATYCLB and HTDAAB are two of the biggest selling albums worldwide so far in this decade with combined sales of over 20 million copies.

So you say thats just popularity, does not mean the music great. Ok, well the band has won 10 Grammy awards, awards voted on and given to them by other musicians and producers that make of the acadamy. Just a different sort of popularity contest? Maybe, but it does show the band is just as critically acclaimed now for their work if not more so than they have been in the past.

But if one, disagree's with these two factors, then it just comes down to ones personal opinion. The opinions of most fans support the fact that the band are just as relevant today as they have ever been.

 

[STING2]

The Stones biggest problem the last 20+ years has been, aside from a couple of pretty good albums (Tattoo You, Bridges to Babylon quickly come to mind) and even those, have been basically musically redundant.

People aren't sick of them because they are 60, they are sick of them because they've heard it before and over and over again. This is where U2 needs to make a distinction.

U2 have hinted at this direction, but so have others. They will be ultimately defined by their next big step, IMO. Right now in a lot of people's minds they are either enjoying a revival of greatness or taking a trip down memory lane to mediocrity. I think it's the next thing that will be the tipping point to their overall legacy.
If they can change the hearts of the 'mediocrity' crowd, and remain revived, I think they could really last for several more years.

A true compliment would be that U2 would become more like David Bowie, Bob Dylan or Springsteen than the Stones. I like the Stones, love some of it.

U2, 25 years into their recording career are less iconic and more relevant than the Stones were 25 years in. The question just might be, "do they want to become more iconic, or more relevant?" and if they believe that the disctinction is the same, they'll be off the mark, IMO.

Because right now, what fuels them is attaining popularity which doesn't ensure relevance in the music world, but it does ensure a certain status that they could be seen as iconic merely becasuse they are popular for so long. Musically, that doesn't mean a damn thing.

I've said it before, and I'll stick with it, they need to redefine what being relevant means to them. Because if they stay on this particular path, it could only get worse. That doesn't mean that ATYCLB part 3 and 4 wouldn't be great albums, but when you space them out 3/4 years apart, who's left to really give a shit?

Top 40 rockers who left their roots years ago, buy your album and tickets because it's more or less nostalic and iconic to go see the big 'name band'. Do U2 really want this? Do they really want to be Aero-fucking-smith?

It will be the music that defines them. Aerosmith, beleive it or not was once a great band, and they've been making Get A Grip part 3,4 or 5 for years now. Nobody gives a shit but the people I am talking about. It's the same, you see Aeromsith now as an old tired and dried up act, musically redundant, I am saying once they were great and I fear that U2 will want to be relevant so bad they become an iconic charicature of themselves.

I don't think U2 want to be relevant like this.
I think they want to redefine what it means to be 40 or 50 in a rock and roll band. They can't do it with ATYCLB part 3 or 4, even if that wouldn't be the worst music we've ever heard.

Based on the record breaking success of the past two tours plus massive album sales of their latest material, those in the "'mediocrity' crowd" are definitely in the minority.

As far as relevance in the music world, the band have won 10 Grammy's in just the past 5 years and could pick up another 5 to 10 a few months from now. The Grammy nominations and wins are decided by the "music world", musicians, artist, producers and other people involved with the production of music are the people that form the acadamy.

Then again, some people define relevance in terms of how popularity a certain artist is on the "indie scene". But the indie scene, already rejected U2 a long time ago and U2 never really aspired to be in their camp from day 1. The indie scene is what is new and non-mainstream, it is not necessarily what is musically relevant.

Ultimately, what is musically relevant is a matter of personal opinion, otherwise its up to certain groups or all groups and the general population to determine that. The demand to see U2 in 2005 is just incredible. So in the minds of millions of people, U2 is the most relevant musical artist out there.

 

[STING2]

I don't think they'll get a backlash, I think it will create an indifferent support base who just won't care. They'll still sell millions, still sell out every concert, still have a huge media profile, but people won't complain because they simply won't be relevant musicaly, therefore, the kind of people who care aren't paying attention anyway. Does that make sense?

No. It implies certain idea's on the musical relevance of the past two albums as well as what the next album would be like as well as what would constitute relevancy that are not shared by a majority of people. Lots of people care about the music they love as well as the amount of income their willing to spend to see an artist in concert. People or certain groups of people can claim an artist is not relevant, but thats really more of a personal opinion or a group of opinions. Just because the "Indie scene" or a group of people who claim to be "serious" about their music decide that X artist is no longer relevant does not make it so.

 

[STING2]

Yeah, I think I know what you're saying, that U2's on the safe radio-friendly route now so they'll sell well regardless, and the people that are upset by that will just give up caring. But I really do think people will get tired of U2 doing the same thing over and over, I really do. It's interesting because I'd say in the U2 fan community HTDAAB is generally considered a better album than ATYCLB. Critically, however, I remember ATYCLB getting all these 5-star reviews and being declared U2's third masterpiece and a return to greatness and all that. HTDAAB on the other hand got mostly 4-star reviews... it was considered good, very good even, but nothing that blew people away. Some review said that at this point U2 were only competing with themselves, and I agree with that. I guess when there's no serious competition it's hard to come up with anything mindblowing, but I think U2 will do it. They could continue down this album of singles route, but I think even if the audience doesn't bore of it, U2 will. But I think unless U2 changes direction they're never going to get the response they got with ATYCLB, they're gonna get "yeah, this is good, nice stuff, best band in the world" just because they're U2. But U2 will hunger for more than that. That's what I think, anyway.

Safe radio friendly route? Do you realize that the songs on the POP album received more airplay on radio stations than songs from either of the last two albums did.

Discotheque and Staring at the Sun both cracked the US national top 75 radio airplay chart making it into the top 30. Hell, even "Last Night On Earth" made it on to that chart spending a few weeks at #74.

But with BOMB, only ONE song, Vertigo made the top 75 airplay chart and it did not crack the top 30! BOMB has been U2's least friendly radio album since the Unforgettable Fire in the United States.

Despite that, the album is one of the 10 biggest selling albums in the United States over the past year, and that alone speaks levels about this whole debate of musical relevance. Comparitively minimal US radio airplay, but massive album sales.

 

[doctorwho]

Are we sure this article isn't from 1989? or 1993? or 1997? or 2001?

There's also other things to consider! Will U2 suddenly zip into the studio and pull off a R&H or "Zooropa" album and incorporate that into an extended tour?

We all know about the fourth leg of the tour, but there are now rumors of a fifth leg of the tour - which would be stadiums in the U.S. (and then perhaps back to Europe??). To return to the U.S. yet again with the overall same set-list might be too much, even if it is a stadium tour. Therefore, I could see U2 having some sort of quick release of new material, whether that be a short album, an E.P., a half-live/half-studio project or even a strong single. This will give people a reason to see this summer stadium 2006 "Vertigo Tour" - a tour that was originally designed to support an album that will be nearly 2 years old at that point!

However, if U2 have no such intentions of returning to the studio or hitting the U.S. again (with a summer '06 stadium tour), then the pattern is already set. Either U2 releases something in late 2006 or spring 2007, but doesn't have a massive tour surrounding it, or we'll see a late 2007 to late 2008 release with another massive tour. Past history suggests that if U2 want another big tour, they'll need time to create another album - and that could be a year or more. If U2 want a quickee release to support another leg of the tour (ala the Love Town or Zooropa tours), then we might get something sooner.

Regardless, I think U2 will be on too much of a high from the success of the album and the tour to let it go just yet. Hence "quitting" doesn't seem realistic. Extensive breaks? Hell, I know I would if I were them!

 

[doctorwho]

No. It implies certain idea's on the musical relevance of the past two albums as well as what the next album would be like as well as what would constitute relevancy that are not shared by a majority of people. Lots of people care about the music they love as well as the amount of income their willing to spend to see an artist in concert. People or certain groups of people can claim an artist is not relevant, but thats really more of a personal opinion or a group of opinions. Just because the "Indie scene" or a group of people who claim to be "serious" about their music decide that X artist is no longer relevant does not make it so.

Great post. The "indie" scene or "college music" scene is often quite snobbish. The music writer in the Chicago Sun-Times must be part of this group. If any artist suddenly hits it big, it's as if he turns his back on them. I've known people like this before - bands are great as long as they remain unknown and obscure. Their anonymity makes these bands "hip, relevant and cool". The irony is that relevancy and hip are defined by popular culture, not small cliques, despite what these small cliques claim.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Could you pack more stereotypes from 1995 into one post?

Britney Spears is one of the single most influential and relevent artists of the 21st Century as well, and I'm being serious.

Do you absolutely need to put everything into little boxes?

I think U2 can be both. They can be mainstream/commercial and progressive/exciting/challenging/interesting at once. I'd love to see them do it, they are probably the only band in the world who really can, certainly the only ones who could do it on such a scale.

This whole indie/clique/sellout thing is pretty much completely redundant in 2005, yet it's always quickly brought back up here as soon as someone dares challenge the perceived location of a U2 song or album.

 

[U2DMfan]

Based on the record breaking success of the past two tours plus massive album sales of their latest material, those in the "'mediocrity' crowd" are definitely in the minority.

As far as relevance in the music world, the band have won 10 Grammy's in just the past 5 years and could pick up another 5 to 10 a few months from now. The Grammy nominations and wins are decided by the "music world", musicians, artist, producers and other people involved with the production of music are the people that form the acadamy.

Then again, some people define relevance in terms of how popularity a certain artist is on the "indie scene". But the indie scene, already rejected U2 a long time ago and U2 never really aspired to be in their camp from day 1. The indie scene is what is new and non-mainstream, it is not necessarily what is musically relevant.

Ultimately, what is musically relevant is a matter of personal opinion, otherwise its up to certain groups or all groups and the general population to determine that. The demand to see U2 in 2005 is just incredible. So in the minds of millions of people, U2 is the most relevant musical artist out there.

Yes, because the majority always knows best.

Popularity on the billboard charts, concert boxscores and fucking grammies mean the most. Of course, how was I so stupid?

They define what is good, all by itself. I think the best movie is always the one that made the most money and I think the #1 song on billboard is always the bestest song in the land.

Thanks for showing me the light.

I always thought Ace of Base would have a deeper impact than Nirvana back in 1993, I just was so caught up in the 'scene' I couldn't see it.

Damn, I always thought Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath's influence over hard rock was a fraud, I always knew it was Journey. thanks for clearing that up, where would I be without this insight.

 

[U2DMfan]

Great post. The "indie" scene or "college music" scene is often quite snobbish. The music writer in the Chicago Sun-Times must be part of this group. If any artist suddenly hits it big, it's as if he turns his back on them. I've known people like this before - bands are great as long as they remain unknown and obscure. Their anonymity makes these bands "hip, relevant and cool". The irony is that relevancy and hip are defined by popular culture, not small cliques, despite what these small cliques claim.

Pop culture defines what is hip based on just about everything under the sun other than the music itself.

The irony is in what Sting says, and what you agree with.

That there is something tangible to a chart position or a grammy, when in fact it's nothing more than a popularity contest not unlike a fucking homecoming queen dance like we were in high school.

There isn't anything more "pop culture" than that.

Music is subjective for sure, but there is something to be said for what is influential and was is inspirational to the next generation of music artists.

That is relevance that cannot be bought by a fucking record companies promotions and you can't fucking count it on a billboard chart or embody it with a grammy.

Relevance is bigger than all of that. U2 always had 'this' among all of things they didn't have, which now are suddenly important?
I call bullshit.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Based on the record breaking success of the past two tours plus massive album sales of their latest material, those in the "'mediocrity' crowd" are definitely in the minority.

As far as relevance in the music world, the band have won 10 Grammy's in just the past 5 years and could pick up another 5 to 10 a few months from now. The Grammy nominations and wins are decided by the "music world", musicians, artist, producers and other people involved with the production of music are the people that form the acadamy.

Then again, some people define relevance in terms of how popularity a certain artist is on the "indie scene". But the indie scene, already rejected U2 a long time ago and U2 never really aspired to be in their camp from day 1. The indie scene is what is new and non-mainstream, it is not necessarily what is musically relevant.

Ultimately, what is musically relevant is a matter of personal opinion, otherwise its up to certain groups or all groups and the general population to determine that. The demand to see U2 in 2005 is just incredible. So in the minds of millions of people, U2 is the most relevant musical artist out there.

I'm curious, Sting, do you work in the music industry? Do you work for a record company, a chart organisation or the like? Because rating a band's greatness on the number of Grammys they've won is completely fatuous. It might be important to label executives but to an ordinary listener of music outside of the US it means jack shit. To me, Grammys are awarded to artists who sell shitloads, not because they're good. The year Michael Jackson won hundreds of Grammys does not mean there was no other artist deserving of attention that year (and yes, that artist was probably not being played on the radio). And you've probably never read Bill Flanagan's book: Larry himself vowed he would never go to a Grammys ceremony again, or even vote in it. (Well, he fucked up the first promise, I hope he's still keeping the second!)

 

[U2DMfan]

Honey PIEEEE

Honey PIEEEEE


that song is good

 

[STING2]

Could you pack more stereotypes from 1995 into one post?

Britney Spears is one of the single most influential and relevent artists of the 21st Century as well, and I'm being serious.

Do you absolutely need to put everything into little boxes?

I think U2 can be both. They can be mainstream/commercial and progressive/exciting/challenging/interesting at once. I'd love to see them do it, they are probably the only band in the world who really can, certainly the only ones who could do it on such a scale.

This whole indie/clique/sellout thing is pretty much completely redundant in 2005, yet it's always quickly brought back up here as soon as someone dares challenge the perceived location of a U2 song or album.

Well, many people including myself believe that the band is currently progressive/exciting/challenging/interesting/ while obviously at the same time remaining massively popular. I totally disagree with the theory that this condition the band had in the 1990s or earlier ended upon the release of ATYCLB.

 

[STING2]

I'm curious, Sting, do you work in the music industry? Do you work for a record company, a chart organisation or the like? Because rating a band's greatness on the number of Grammys they've won is completely fatuous. It might be important to label executives but to an ordinary listener of music outside of the US it means jack shit. To me, Grammys are awarded to artists who sell shitloads, not because they're good. The year Michael Jackson won hundreds of Grammys does not mean there was no other artist deserving of attention that year (and yes, that artist was probably not being played on the radio). And you've probably never read Bill Flanagan's book: Larry himself vowed he would never go to a Grammys ceremony again, or even vote in it. (Well, he fucked up the first promise, I hope he's still keeping the second!)

I agree that music sales do not necessarily equal greatness.

The Grammy's by the why are voted on by people who are involved in the production of music whether it be writing songs, playing or performing, producing a record etc. When an artist is nominated for a Grammy, they are being nominated by people who are essentially their peers as far as being involved in the production of music. But once again, although its musicians that are voting, it does not necessarily mean that the album that gets album of the year is the greatest album of the year.

Ultimately as I have already stated, what music you think is great, progressive, relevant, etc. is a matter of personal opinion. What is most popular though among the general public, or a particular group of critics is not and can be measured.

 

[U2girl]

I don't think a single album - even as controversial as Pop or ATYCLB - can ruin U2's legacy.
Nothing can erase that they've made War, JT and AB and that they're one of, if not the best, live band today.

That said, this is probably the most interesting - and the hardest - period for them.
Most interesting because what way is a rock band after 40 supposed to be? They tried writing pop on the previous, and they tried going back to the roots for most of the Bomb. I think they know that backlash is coming if they do another album sounding like U2. No era has lasted forever, and neither will the current one.
The hardest period because they're competing against their own standards from the past and because, in most cases, bands get worse as time goes by. Also, what else can they try? They've been influenced punk, ambiental sounds, blues/country, dance music, pop. The only things left IMO are either a hard hitting rock album or something more mellow ala MDH soundtrack music.

 

[STING2]

Pop culture defines what is hip based on just about everything under the sun other than the music itself.

The irony is in what Sting says, and what you agree with.

That there is something tangible to a chart position or a grammy, when in fact it's nothing more than a popularity contest not unlike a fucking homecoming queen dance like we were in high school.

There isn't anything more "pop culture" than that.

Music is subjective for sure, but there is something to be said for what is influential and was is inspirational to the next generation of music artists.

That is relevance that cannot be bought by a fucking record companies promotions and you can't fucking count it on a billboard chart or embody it with a grammy.

Relevance is bigger than all of that. U2 always had 'this' among all of things they didn't have, which now are suddenly important?
I call bullshit.

ahhh, but what is influential and inspirational to the next generation of music artist is just as much a popularity contest as the Billboard charts or Grammy awards.

An artist can make the greatest album of all time, but if few if anyone hears the album, its unlikely to have much influence at all. The fact that the Beatles have sold more albums than any artist in history does indeed have an impact on how much they influence the current music scene. You can't be influenced by something you have never heard or are less likely to be influenced by something you rarely hear as opposed to something you hear all the time. Exposure and popularity does have an impact on what the next generation records and listens to. What is most influential is not necessarily what is greatest either.

For U2, being the biggest band in the world has always been as important as being the best. The band have always strived to play bigger halls, sell more albums, and win the praise of the critics from day 1. I can go back and site examples if needed.

 

[rjhbonovox]

A lot of people love the past two albums. ATYCLB and HTDAAB are two of the biggest selling albums worldwide so far in this decade with combined sales of over 20 million copies.

So you say thats just popularity, does not mean the music great. Ok, well the band has won 10 Grammy awards, awards voted on and given to them by other musicians and producers that make of the acadamy. Just a different sort of popularity contest? Maybe, but it does show the band is just as critically acclaimed now for their work if not more so than they have been in the past.

As I said before fantastic sales does not mean great music. It means music for the masses and casual fans. It makes me laugh that whenever you see programmes like Music Hall Of Fame last week on channel 4 U2 were in the top 20 selling artists for the 2000's in the UK and they were saying that after Pop they were dead cos it didn't sell well. And you get some twat coming on saying that Pop was the worst album the band had ever done cos it didn't sell as great as the last 2 and that it had alienated a lot of fans, which is bollox. The only fans (mostly) that don't like Pop are the casual fans who only like the albums that are full of hit singles like The Joshua Tree, them are the 'fans' that Pop alienated. U2's true fans (mostly) loved Pop and loved the rawness of it.

Also your point about winning grammys. Is this such a great thing? Didn't Santana win loads of grammys the other year for his crappy later album which I can't remember the name of but it was the album that had the really annoying single on it. Didn't The Grateful Dead also win loads of grammys when they were practically in their graves, also Eric Clapton for his terribly dross later music as well. Winning Grammys does not mean the music is great! Often means their honouring you for your past work but seen as how you have had a recent big selling album here have a grammy or two. I mean is "Beautiful Day" which won 2 or 3 grammys or something, is that really one of U2's best ever songs????? Its pretty ordinary compared to past work and wouldn't even get in a top 30 of U2's songs.

Still the DVD's worth buying it has great versions of the Achtung Baby songs. Worth buying the DVD for that reaon alone!