well......

[U2girl]

!

since their last album, we have heard great albums from Radiohead, Pearl Jam, Coldplay, Doves, etc..., that have only made us hungrier for new U2 material. but personally, U2's absence has only made me hungry for more Radiohead, Pearl Jam, Coldplay, and Doves, because at least they're dedicated to their jobs.

Also, keep in mind unlike those bands U2's members have families and their singers don't have an "outside" activity the size of Bono's activism.

 

[jick]

Coming from someone who hails Avril Lavine and Bon Jovi as great music.

I never said Avril Lavigne and Bon Jovi are "great music", I just said I listen to them. There is a world of difference in that. Just because I wear a cheap t-shirt for sleeping doesn't mean it is a great t-shirt for me.

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

It's the natural course of the life cycle for bands to be less productive and less 'relevant' as they get older and/or advance in their career. There is no way the happy, rich middle aged man can or should write the same song the angry young man scrapping his way up did. It is no offense, it happens to all the best, including the Stones, Dylan, and members of the Beatles and Led Zeppelin. It's really not a big deal or a problem, I don't think. As long as there is music I enjoy, old or new, they are worth something to me and I don't expect them to go out there and compete with the new, young stars because they are not in that category.

The problem I have is people putting them down while holding fucking Pearl Jam up as some kind of example, when, though you have every right to love and adore them, haven't been 'relevant' in 10 years! WHY are they so fucking glorified?? They can't hold a candle to U2. They are more in the category with Phish, a cult following band with diehard fans, but not important on the scene.

But really, WHO CARES? Also, what is the definition of 'relevant' to you people? Do you have to be followed by teenage gangs to be 'relevant?' In that case, rap bands are! Do you have to sell oodles of records? In that case, Britney and the boy bands are! I mean, please! Just be glad they are still alive, still together and still productive!

U2 and relevance have been discussed to death. U2 is on a league of its own - managing to be relevant over two decades after they started out. So while it is easy to predict when other bands will go out-of-fashion or burn out or break up based on normal rock-n-roll trends, U2 live outside the trend. They sort of belong to a parallel dimension free from the traditional downfalls of all rock bands. The bottom line is that one can never predict what's next for U2.

After JT and R&H, Achtung Baby supposed to have been the album U2 would go downhill following the normal life expectancy of a rock band. After having poor sales with POP, it was supposed to be the end of U2 as their fan base have been too alienated and they were too old in age to make a comeback from that mini-fall. Yet, ATYCLB became big ---and U2's members were already 40.

U2 belong in a vacuum none of us can quite grasp. There is absolutely no way anyone can forecast what will happen when the next album comes out. U2 always exceeds expectations for some reason or the other.

Cheers,

J

 

[Salome]

U2 and relevance have been discussed to death. U2 is on a league of its own - managing to be relevant over two decades after they started out. So while it is easy to predict when other bands will go out-of-fashion or burn out or break up based on normal rock-n-roll trends, U2 live outside the trend. They sort of belong to a parallel dimension free from the traditional downfalls of all rock bands. The bottom line is that one can never predict what's next for U2.

yep, definately

 

[U2Kitten]

J, you're right. U2 are in a class all by themselves that no one can quite explain. But that's all the more reason for people to stop complaining and comparing!

 

[mikal]

Re: Re: well......

Also, keep in mind unlike those bands U2's members have families and their singers don't have an "outside" activity the size of Bono's activism.

they all have families, and friends outside of their bands. nothing different from U2. except their lead singers stick to their day jobs.

 

[U2girl]

I don't know about Doves or Pearl Jam, but Chris Martin and Thom Yorke recently got or will get only their first child, while U2 members have more children - growing up, and all of them have not been around as long as U2 have. It is different.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

U2 and relevance have been discussed to death. U2 is on a league of its own - managing to be relevant over two decades after they started out. So while it is easy to predict when other bands will go out-of-fashion or burn out or break up based on normal rock-n-roll trends, U2 live outside the trend. They sort of belong to a parallel dimension free from the traditional downfalls of all rock bands. The bottom line is that one can never predict what's next for U2.

After JT and R&H, Achtung Baby supposed to have been the album U2 would go downhill following the normal life expectancy of a rock band. After having poor sales with POP, it was supposed to be the end of U2 as their fan base have been too alienated and they were too old in age to make a comeback from that mini-fall. Yet, ATYCLB became big ---and U2's members were already 40.

U2 belong in a vacuum none of us can quite grasp. There is absolutely no way anyone can forecast what will happen when the next album comes out. U2 always exceeds expectations for some reason or the other.

Cheers,

J

J, we actually completely agree here.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I never said Avril Lavigne and Bon Jovi are "great music", I just said I listen to them. There is a world of difference in that. Just because I wear a cheap t-shirt for sleeping doesn't mean it is a great t-shirt for me.

Cheers,

J

I know you never said it in those words, J. I'm not one to hark on people simply because their taste is different to mine. I just found it ironic you were harking on others for the reason of having "bad taste", especially if you listen to manufactured pop music written for a teenage demographic. By the way, you should really listen to The Last Broadcast by Doves from start to finish. You might be surprised. They are a great band...and in many ways are not like U2 at all, but I can see why you'd make the connection. Their first album (Lost Souls) doesn't at all sound like U2, except for maybe one song. That one song is The Cedar Room, and I highly recommend you check it out. It's one of the best songs written over the past 10 years.

 

[Salome]

they all have families, and friends outside of their bands. nothing different from U2. except their lead singers stick to their day jobs.

Bono has 2 day jobs

suggesting that he's mainly a singer in a band seems like an insult to me re. all the time & effort he puts into projects which in the end are far more worthier causes than having a new U2 album done a year sooner or later

 

[gareth brown]

I have never stopped liking U2 ever since my Dad first played his 'illegal' home taping of Zooropa in the car back in 1993. (I was only five, bless...) but, although I'm desperatley awaiting this new album and expectedly mind-blowing tour, I don't think I'm going to lose any awe or absolute devotion I've built over the years, as I've been buying all the SALE PRICED albums I haven't already got by my favourite band, Pink Floyd. But in terms of devotion, I'd have to choose U2 as they're still around, still going strong, I can experience the thrill of anticipation for an album from a favourite band, which I've never actually experienced on such a scale....

 

[mikal]

Bono has 2 day jobs

suggesting that he's mainly a singer in a band seems like an insult to me re. all the time & effort he puts into projects which in the end are far more worthier causes than having a new U2 album done a year sooner or later

but we're not discussing bono's progress in his poitical life. we're discussing his work in the band U2. don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Liesje]

Though people keep complaining that Bono's spending too much time in politics and not enough time with the band, after checking the Band Meetings... forum, Bono's sure been in Dublin and at the studios a LOT lately. People have been meeting him at least on a weekly basis. The arguement that he's not spending enought time filling his role as a frontman just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Salome]

but we're not discussing bono's progress in his poitical life. we're discussing his work in the band U2. don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not putting any words in your mouth

unless I misread something you compare U2's output to other bands and you state that the reason why U2 doesn't release as many albums is because Bono doesn't stick to his day job

I stated why I don't agree with that

 

[jick]

J, you're right. U2 are in a class all by themselves that no one can quite explain. But that's all the more reason for people to stop complaining and comparing!

To me the only fair comparison to U2 is themselves. So when I diss a U2 album, it is in relation to other U2 albums and not in relation to other music. POP failed miserably artistically, commercially, and innovatively against previous U2 albums. ATYCLB blew POP to death in my mind. So does that mean POP sucks? Perhaps it does - as a U2 album. But U2 have a different standard and live in a different plane. But for 1997 ....or even for the entire period 1994 to 1999 --- POP was the best album of that era - definitely better than Passengers, or Time Out Of Mind, or OK Computer.

Cheers,

J

 

[melon]

Re: Re: well......

As the saying goes, there's no accounting for poor taste. I'm sorry if you find satisfaction with cheap-U2-clones, over-the-hill-acts, and one-hit-wonders. I'd rather wait for the genuine article.

I think that this is just as much in poor taste as mikal's original post, but maybe that's just me.

Melon

 

[mikal]

Re: Re: Re: well......

I think that this is just as much in poor taste as mikal's original post, but maybe that's just me.

Melon

i already admitted that mine was. why do you feel the need to point it out again?

 

[melon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: well......

i already admitted that mine was. why do you feel the need to point it out again?

This was not directed at you, mikal. It was directed at jick.

And I'm playing too many semantical games. You can feel whatever way you want about U2. You owe them just as much as they owe you: nothing. So, I don't think your original post is in poor taste at all--and, hence, jick's post is just as much in poor taste, which is not at all. You're entitled to your opinion, and if you sincerely believe that the last U2 album was mediocre, then say it aloud!

Melon

 

[mikal]

cool. thanks for clearing that up.