U2 to quit??

[GibsonGirl]

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.

Have you listened to the radio these days? If U2 want to make it into the Top 30, they'll have to delve into the scary world of R&B (perish the thought) or water down their own sound to the point of Coldplay/Maroon 5. Seriously, the radio is a scary place right now. Yesterday on the "Rock Of The Rock", Oz FM I heard the latest crap from the Black Eyed Peas, followed by Avril Lavigne's "punk," and a fucking Mariah Carey song. And that was on a supposedly "rock" station! If HTDAAB had been released about ten years earlier, I think it would have received a little more airplay than it is currently. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - there are a lot of great songs on HTDAAB, some of them ranking quite high with me. The album is certainly a hell of a lot better than ATYCLB, in my view.

That being said, I honestly think U2 need to dream it up again. Not because of the bloody indie music scene (when have U2 ever been a part of the indie music scene? Passengers? But some people don't even consider that a U2 album anyway) but because it's one of the many things that makes U2 U2. The U2 of the past seemed rather eager to try new things. The U2 of the present seem a little too cautious these days. However, with songs like Love And Peace Or Else and Fast Cars on the latest album, I think there definitely is promise for a new direction in the future. I don't mind if U2's next album is similar to HTDAAB because we all know U2 likes to finish up a sound with a trilogy. But I will mind if the album after that is still the same thing. I don't think that will happen anyway, not with U2... At least I hope it won't.

As someone else here said earlier, U2 could be the type of band to redefine what it means to be a group of rockers in their fourties and fifties.

 

[financeguy]

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.

This is all so much stuff and nonsense. U2 never were 'indie' in the first place, so to accuse some writer of turning his back on them just because they got too big doesn't hold water. Not everyone likes all of U2's albums equally. Deal with it.

 

[financeguy]

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.

Incorrect. The very fact that you make this statement just shows how much you misunderstand what 'musical relevance' really means.

My Bloody Valentine's two albums are among the most influential albums of the 1990's, yet sold in small quantities on their initial release, yet they were a huge influence on U2's Achtung Baby and numerous other 1990's rock albums. But don't take my word for it. Ask the Edge.

The Stone Roses' self titled 1989 album sold in small quantities initially, yet it invented a whole new genre of music - fusing dance and rock which had never been tried before. U2's 'Pop' was clearly influenced by that genre.

The Pixies were an 'indie alternative' band whose albums did not sell in huge quantities upon their initial release, yet they are one of the most influential groups of all time. Almost every new up and coming band these days will cite them as an influence.

The Velvet Underground's albums sold in miniscule quantities on initial release, yet they are among the most influential groups of all time. Why? Because a huge proportion of those who bought the albums, were motivated to go out and start their own bands. This is the key point that should be appreciated.

Television's Marque Moon sold in small quantities, yet was a huge influence on guitarists like the Edge. Again, don't take my word for it, check the interviews or books on U2 where Edge has cited the influence of Television.

Need I go on?

 

[STING2]

Incorrect. The very fact that you make this statement just shows how much you misunderstand what 'musical relevance' really means.

My Bloody Valentine's two albums are among the most influential albums of the 1990's, yet sold in small quantities on their initial release, yet they were a huge influence on U2's Achtung Baby and numerous other 1990's rock albums. But don't take my word for it. Ask the Edge.

The Stone Roses' self titled 1989 album sold in small quantities initially, yet it invented a whole new genre of music - fusing dance and rock which had never been tried before. U2's 'Pop' was clearly influenced by that genre.

The Pixies were an 'indie alternative' band whose albums did not sell in huge quantities upon their initial release, yet they are one of the most influential groups of all time. Almost every new up and coming band these days will cite them as an influence.

The Velvet Underground's albums sold in miniscule quantities on initial release, yet they are among the most influential groups of all time. Why? Because a huge proportion of those who bought the albums, were motivated to go out and start their own bands. This is the key point that should be appreciated.

Television's Marque Moon sold in small quantities, yet was a huge influence on guitarists like the Edge. Again, don't take my word for it, check the interviews or books on U2 where Edge has cited the influence of Television.

Need I go on?

I'm sorry, but no one you mentioned would truely fit the description of obscure or an artist who almost sells nothing. An artist can make the greatest album of all time, but if he is never signed to a label and no one outside his family and friends hears the album, its unlikely to have much influence at all.

Also, just because one of your favorite artist sites band x as an influence does not alone make them relevant.

At the end of the day, "musical relevance" is a matter of opinion. What the media, critics, fans consider to be musically relevant is impacted by exposure and popularity to a certain degree. Yes, there are exceptions to everything, but that does not change the fact that exposure and popularity do impact what the general public, media, critics etc. consider to be musically relevant.

 

[STING2]

This is all so much stuff and nonsense. U2 never were 'indie' in the first place, so to accuse some writer of turning his back on them just because they got too big doesn't hold water. Not everyone likes all of U2's albums equally. Deal with it.

Not when the writer had claimed in the past that U2 were good. The "Indie" scene is notorious for turning their backs on artist that make it big as well as hating anything that sells well.

 

[bono_man2002]

Look, If what Bono Says is true, and it took them 25 years to make the first record...any band who takes 25 years to make one record should quit.

 

[STING2]

Have you listened to the radio these days? If U2 want to make it into the Top 30, they'll have to delve into the scary world of R&B (perish the thought) or water down their own sound to the point of Coldplay/Maroon 5. Seriously, the radio is a scary place right now. Yesterday on the "Rock Of The Rock", Oz FM I heard the latest crap from the Black Eyed Peas, followed by Avril Lavigne's "punk," and a fucking Mariah Carey song. And that was on a supposedly "rock" station! If HTDAAB had been released about ten years earlier, I think it would have received a little more airplay than it is currently. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - there are a lot of great songs on HTDAAB, some of them ranking quite high with me. The album is certainly a hell of a lot better than ATYCLB, in my view.

That being said, I honestly think U2 need to dream it up again. Not because of the bloody indie music scene (when have U2 ever been a part of the indie music scene? Passengers? But some people don't even consider that a U2 album anyway) but because it's one of the many things that makes U2 U2. The U2 of the past seemed rather eager to try new things. The U2 of the present seem a little too cautious these days. However, with songs like Love And Peace Or Else and Fast Cars on the latest album, I think there definitely is promise for a new direction in the future. I don't mind if U2's next album is similar to HTDAAB because we all know U2 likes to finish up a sound with a trilogy. But I will mind if the album after that is still the same thing. I don't think that will happen anyway, not with U2... At least I hope it won't.

As someone else here said earlier, U2 could be the type of band to redefine what it means to be a group of rockers in their fourties and fifties.

I find U2's music today to be just as good and adventurous as it has ever been. But because it does not have all the 90s production on it, people claim its 80s U2. Whats important are the quality of the songs being written, and right now I think U2 are the best they have ever been. BONO even alluded to this in the Rolling Stone interview saying that the only reason HTDAAB is not their best album is because a group of songs they simply did not fit together as well as the songs did on Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree.

 

[STING2]

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!

Well, if you don't find the sales significant at all or the Grammy's significant then your really just down to your own personal opinion. In my opinion, Beautiful Day is one of U2's top 30 songs.

I agree that sales, Grammy's, and music critics saying an album is great does not necessarily mean that it is, but beyond those groups of people, your really come down to your own opinion and who can really claim that their opinion is right while someone elses is wrong in regards to what is best when it comes to music. There are die hard fans who hate POP and Die hard fans who Love POP. HELL your not even going to find the four members of U2 in total agreement on what their best material is.

 

[Zoots]

There are die hard fans who hate POP and Die hard fans who Love POP. HELL your not even going to find the four members of U2 in total agreement on what their best material is.

As far as Pop and ATYCLB go, it is clear as fucking night and day as to which album has the better lyrics! The terrible ending of Kite is proof enough. This is NOT down to personal opinion. When Bono starts rhyming waste with taste and fragrant with basement, it's so obvious that it hits you in the face!

 

[Lemonfix]

Not when the writer had claimed in the past that U2 were good. The "Indie" scene is notorious for turning their backs on artist that make it big as well as hating anything that sells well.

I believe that the CS-T writer wrote that he loved U2 during ZooTV. I agree with you about certain critics dissing bands when they get big, but in this instance that wasn't the case, he loved U2 at one of their biggest moments.

 

[catlhere]

Well, if you don't find the sales significant at all or the Grammy's significant then your really just down to your own personal opinion. In my opinion, Beautiful Day is one of U2's top 30 songs.

I agree that sales, Grammy's, and music critics saying an album is great does not necessarily mean that it is, but beyond those groups of people, your really come down to your own opinion and who can really claim that their opinion is right while someone elses is wrong in regards to what is best when it comes to music. There are die hard fans who hate POP and Die hard fans who Love POP. HELL your not even going to find the four members of U2 in total agreement on what their best material is.

Thank God someone said that. The "True fans" love POP? God, you're gonna make me throw up!

As far as Pop and ATYCLB go, it is clear as fucking night and day as to which album has the better lyrics! The terrible ending of Kite is proof enough. This is NOT down to personal opinion. When Bono starts rhyming waste with taste and fragrant with basement, it's so obvious that it hits you in the face!

And Miami, My Mammy is lyrical gold.

Why must everyone like EVERY single thing U2 did in the 90's more than anything else they have ever done. Do their most recent works really sound THAT bad to all these 90's worshipers? Has anyone thought that the reason Pop didn't do as well as eveyrone hoped is because people just didn't like it? And that people actually LIKED ATYCLB? No that couldn't possibly be it, they failed to get it, they ignored the "lyrical brilliance". BLAH BLAH BLAH. Pop is not their best album, and not even close to being their best, this is NOT down to personal opinion. See what I did there? Everyone likes what they like. People came to see this tour and buy the last albums because they like the sound of their current and old stuff, that makes them no less a fan than all the stuck-in-the-90's sheep. If someone likes the lyrics to Kite, then let them. They aren't stupid or wrong for saying they like the rhyming at the end. If someone thinks that then Pop lovers should be thought of as stupid for loving the Boom-Chas. It's all relative.

 

[chickadee]

As far as Pop and ATYCLB go, it is clear as fucking night and day as to which album has the better lyrics! The terrible ending of Kite is proof enough. This is NOT down to personal opinion. When Bono starts rhyming waste with taste and fragrant with basement, it's so obvious that it hits you in the face!

Yes but the rest of Kite is a hundred times better than any of Miami.

I agree totally with catlhere. Lyrical appreciation is subjective. Sure, there are ones most people love and rather obvious amazing lyrics, but it's a matter of taste which ones make you go all shivery and want to put on the CD again. Some of the stuff on ATYCLB is class, and people comparing it unfavourably to 90s stuff are just missing the point and doing it a disservice. I adore AB but I've never gone 'oh, mustn't listen to JT or something recent.' Like what you like, get over it.

As for them splitting, my other fave group has had split rumours flying around every year and they haven't done it yet. The press love to panic people.

 

[MrBrau1]

This thread went exactly where I thought it would go.

 

[*sofia*]

^yeah, reading this I thought oh god, this'll be another debate about does POP suck or not..

 

[rjhbonovox]

Hey the True U2 fans do love Pop. Everyone knows that. The casual fans like The Joshua Tree and the last 2 albums. Take for example my brother and sister who I would consider as casual fans, yeah take it or leave it. They both love The Joshua Tree and they also love ATYCLB and HTDAAB, they think it is TRUE U2. They are NOT fans of most of the 90's, their opinions would go something like this -
The Joshua Tree - Yeah, ohh I love that but dont the whole world!
Achtung Baby - yeah its ok bit too heavy though
Zooropa - what the fuc# was that
Pop - Mmmmm thats a bit strange sounding for U2, wheres The Edge chimming away
ATYCLB - Ohh yes now thats better Gee where have U2 been for the past 10 years
HTDAAB - yep great stuff.....think I will buy that album.

Thats an overall opinion of how my brother and sister(casual fans of U2) would rate the albums from The Joshua Tree and by the way my sister also likes Cliff Richard. So as you see the casual fans hate Pop, the TRUE U2 fans love POP! True!

 

[GibsonGirl]

This thread went exactly where I thought it would go.

Yeah. Everything turns into Pop vs ATYCLB/HTDAAB somewhere along the line. And I bet, in three year's time, it's going to be Pop vs ATYCLB/HTDAAB/The New Album. It's a vicious circle.

Originally posted by STING2
I find U2's music today to be just as good and adventurous as it has ever been. But because it does not have all the 90s production on it, people claim its 80s U2. Whats important are the quality of the songs being written, and right now I think U2 are the best they have ever been. BONO even alluded to this in the Rolling Stone interview saying that the only reason HTDAAB is not their best album is because a group of songs they simply did not fit together as well as the songs did on Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree.

Oh, I think there's wonderful stuff in U2's latest music as well. I never said there wasn't. Some of the songs on the album are fantastic, some in my personal top 30 even. But as Bono said, it doesn't really gel as a unit. That's the point. I don't know why U2 suddenly decided that every song HAS to be single-worthy, because they don't. Some of the best songs they've ever made wouldn't last a day on the radio. They might not even sound all that great on their own. But when they're part of a cohesive unit on an album like Achtung Baby, The Unforgettable Fire, or The Joshua Tree, they become part of that magnificent story written by the band. That's what U2 need to get back to...having a central theme.

I disagree with you, however, on HTDAAB being adventurous. I admit that there are certain songs that have this quality - namely Love And Peace Or Else, Fast Cars, maybe Original Of The Species (though, to be honest, not really) and (begrudgingly speaking) A Man And A Woman. The idea of having an "upbeat" song closing the album is kind of cool too. As for the rest? It doesn't really jump out at you as the sound of U2 exploring new directions. Do you think songs like Miracle Drug or City Of Blinding Lights sound like musical progression for U2? Would they spark the imaginations of all the younger bands out there and have them thinking, "wow, what a sound, we've got to try this?" Unless you're Coldplay, no. They're wonderful songs, yes, perfectly constructed. I love them. But I just feel like I've heard them before. And this has nothing to do with it not being "90s production."

So really, don't get me wrong, I think HTDAAB is a wonderful album. I just kind of think this current sound is starting to feel a little stale as time wears on. I do feel optimistic for the future, though, based upon what the band have been saying.

 

[rjhbonovox]

Do you think songs like Miracle Drug or City Of Blinding Lights sound like musical progression for U2? Would they spark the imaginations of all the younger bands out there and have them thinking, "wow, what a sound, we've got to try this?" Unless you're Coldplay, no. They're wonderful songs, yes, perfectly constructed. I love them. But I just feel like I've heard them before. And this has nothing to do with it not being "90s production."

True very true!

 

[Queen Bee]

Oh, I think there's wonderful stuff in U2's latest music as well. I never said there wasn't. Some of the songs on the album are fantastic, some in my personal top 30 even. But as Bono said, it doesn't really gel as a unit. That's the point. I don't know why U2 suddenly decided that every song HAS to be single-worthy, because they don't. Some of the best songs they've ever made wouldn't last a day on the radio. They might not even sound all that great on their own. But when they're part of a cohesive unit on an album like Achtung Baby, The Unforgettable Fire, or The Joshua Tree, they become part of that magnificent story written by the band. That's what U2 need to get back to...having a central theme.

I disagree with you, however, on HTDAAB being adventurous. I admit that there are certain songs that have this quality - namely Love And Peace Or Else, Fast Cars, maybe Original Of The Species (though, to be honest, not really) and (begrudgingly speaking) A Man And A Woman. The idea of having an "upbeat" song closing the album is kind of cool too. As for the rest? It doesn't really jump out at you as the sound of U2 exploring new directions. Do you think songs like Miracle Drug or City Of Blinding Lights sound like musical progression for U2? Would they spark the imaginations of all the younger bands out there and have them thinking, "wow, what a sound, we've got to try this?" Unless you're Coldplay, no. They're wonderful songs, yes, perfectly constructed. I love them. But I just feel like I've heard them before. And this has nothing to do with it not being "90s production."

So really, don't get me wrong, I think HTDAAB is a wonderful album. I just kind of think this current sound is starting to feel a little stale as time wears on. I do feel optimistic for the future, though, based upon what the band have been saying.

 

[GibsonGirl]

Hey the True U2 fans do love Pop. Everyone knows that. The casual fans like The Joshua Tree and the last 2 albums. Take for example my brother and sister who I would consider as casual fans, yeah take it or leave it. They both love The Joshua Tree and they also love ATYCLB and HTDAAB, they think it is TRUE U2. They are NOT fans of most of the 90's, their opinions would go something like this -
The Joshua Tree - Yeah, ohh I love that but dont the whole world!
Achtung Baby - yeah its ok bit too heavy though
Zooropa - what the fuc# was that
Pop - Mmmmm thats a bit strange sounding for U2, wheres The Edge chimming away
ATYCLB - Ohh yes now thats better Gee where have U2 been for the past 10 years
HTDAAB - yep great stuff.....think I will buy that album.

Thats an overall opinion of how my brother and sister(casual fans of U2) would rate the albums from The Joshua Tree and by the way my sister also likes Cliff Richard. So as you see the casual fans hate Pop, the TRUE U2 fans love POP! True!

I hope you're joking, because I completely disagree. My sister thinks that The Joshua Tree is boring and that the songs on Zooropa/Pop are really cool. And believe me, she's a casual fan - she told me the other day that she always thought that Larry was the one who played the bass! So you can't use the argument, "oh, so-and-so said this and what's-her-face said that," because everyone has different tastes.

I do hate it, though, that those of us who enjoy all of U2's albums are labelled "blind sheep" by some fans.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Pop also 'just happens' to be the album that came before ATYCLB, and the last album before the shift.

If I had one wish in here it would be that those who aren't so happy about the last two albums weren't instantly labelled as 90's fanatics as if we all just want to hear Bono's voice drowned in distortion and we'll be fine. Not just in U2-Land, but on every calander in the world, the 90's came directly before the 00's so they are always going to be the most compared. I'm just as happy to ignore the 90's albums all together and argue my case using only 80's albums. Problem is those 90's albums are part of the story and happen to be the chapter right before this one. Deal with it, but don't patronise people by assuming they are so limited as to having no appreciation outside of anything other than those 3 albums, simply because they aren't jumping for joy about the last two. The chasm between The Bomb and The Unforgettable Fire is just as wide as the one between The Bomb and Pop, in my opinion, and I sure as fuck don't ever want to ever hear Achtung Baby Part 2 or Pop Part 2 as much as I don't want to hear The Joshua Tree Part 2 or HTDAAB Part 2. It seems very difficult for some people to understand that.

 

[Zoots]

If I had one wish in here it would be that those who aren't so happy about the last two albums weren't instantly labelled as 90's fanatics as if we all just want to hear Bono's voice drowned in distortion and we'll be fine. Not just in U2-Land, but on every calander in the world, the 90's came directly before the 00's so they are always going to be the most compared. I'm just as happy to ignore the 90's albums all together and argue my case using only 80's albums. Problem is those 90's albums are part of the story and happen to be the chapter right before this one. Deal with it, but don't patronise people by assuming they are so limited as to having no appreciation outside of anything other than those 3 albums, simply because they aren't jumping for joy about the last two. The chasm between The Bomb and The Unforgettable Fire is just as wide as the one between The Bomb and Pop, in my opinion, and I sure as fuck don't ever want to ever hear Achtung Baby Part 2 or Pop Part 2 as much as I don't want to hear The Joshua Tree Part 2 or HTDAAB Part 2. It seems very difficult for some people to understand that.

Great post as usual, Earnie! I agree with every word!

This is so typical. These Pop vs. ATYCLB arguments always end with a very good post from a person critical of the last 2 albums and then nobody responds! I said 'person critical of the last 2 albums' mind you... NOT 90s fan! Cos this is not supposed to be 90s U2 against ATYCLB/HTDAAB!!! This is not about the experimentation of the 90s! Why don't people here get that?

There was that something in their music, a fire, a passion, a spark.. from 1980's Boy up until 1997's Pop, that's missing in the last 2 albums. Again... not talking about the 90s alone. But I don't hate the last 2 albums. In fact I burnt one and bought the other.. and I like it more than the majority of what's out there right now. But they're still capable of so much more judging by their past work. That's all I'm saying and it's just an opinion. So I'm not trying to state a fact. But I've had enough of this 'The 90s fans keep complaining' shit. Sure, I prefer the 90s albums but only cos I grew up with them. But I like Lemon just as much as Like A Song or Gone or Promenade! But in comparison, Vertigo, COBL, Sometimes etc. definitely fall short IMO.

 

[STING2]

Yeah. Everything turns into Pop vs ATYCLB/HTDAAB somewhere along the line. And I bet, in three year's time, it's going to be Pop vs ATYCLB/HTDAAB/The New Album. It's a vicious circle.



Oh, I think there's wonderful stuff in U2's latest music as well. I never said there wasn't. Some of the songs on the album are fantastic, some in my personal top 30 even. But as Bono said, it doesn't really gel as a unit. That's the point. I don't know why U2 suddenly decided that every song HAS to be single-worthy, because they don't. Some of the best songs they've ever made wouldn't last a day on the radio. They might not even sound all that great on their own. But when they're part of a cohesive unit on an album like Achtung Baby, The Unforgettable Fire, or The Joshua Tree, they become part of that magnificent story written by the band. That's what U2 need to get back to...having a central theme.

I disagree with you, however, on HTDAAB being adventurous. I admit that there are certain songs that have this quality - namely Love And Peace Or Else, Fast Cars, maybe Original Of The Species (though, to be honest, not really) and (begrudgingly speaking) A Man And A Woman. The idea of having an "upbeat" song closing the album is kind of cool too. As for the rest? It doesn't really jump out at you as the sound of U2 exploring new directions. Do you think songs like Miracle Drug or City Of Blinding Lights sound like musical progression for U2? Would they spark the imaginations of all the younger bands out there and have them thinking, "wow, what a sound, we've got to try this?" Unless you're Coldplay, no. They're wonderful songs, yes, perfectly constructed. I love them. But I just feel like I've heard them before. And this has nothing to do with it not being "90s production."

So really, don't get me wrong, I think HTDAAB is a wonderful album. I just kind of think this current sound is starting to feel a little stale as time wears on. I do feel optimistic for the future, though, based upon what the band have been saying.

In my opinion, Miracle Drug is one of the 10 best songs U2 have ever recorded. Its definitely in my opinion the best song they have recorded since 1988. I would prefer a whole album of these songs long before I'd like to see what people here define as being "experimental".

At the end of the day in my opinion, without great songs, "style" and "sound" mean nothing.

When I first listened to HTDAAB, I did not get the impression this was something I had heard before. But even if I had, I'd take that over something many here would regard as "new" that was only average or poor.

Oh, and I understand perfectly that this is not about the 90s vs. the last two albums for several people in here. But as I said before, I think the last two albums are amazing and well ahead of most of the previous work, with the exception of the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. Not only that, but the bands current live performances are some of the best I have seen in their career. I think the band could not be in a better place than they are right now. Plus, if MERCY is any indication of what the next album is going to be like, U2 may be on track to finally top the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby.

 

[clifedge]

Clearly this article is just taking the fact that U2 will eventually stop the Vertigo tour and is blowing it out of proportion.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

isn't this thread about u2 quitting?

 

[ElectricalVoice]

Yeah, back on topic.

Guess you have all read: http://forum.interference.com/t147142.html

According to this article, they are not quitting:

And Bono said he has no intention of slowing down. He noted that people in rock 'n roll burn out at age 40, and said he wanted to see if his band could continue making "extraordinary" music.