Age should no longer be an excuse for U2.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

asr

Acrobat
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
396
Age is just a number. For hard evidence of that saying, look no further than the current releases from both of U2's peers: R.E.M.'s Accelerate and the B-52s' Funplex. The members of the B-52's are much older than Larry, Adam, The Edge, And Bono. Mike, Michael, and Peter of R.E.M. are are the same age as U2.

Now, this my opinion, and I know I'm going to get alot of slack for this, but each song from the respective new releases sound more fresh, vivacious, hard rocking, and youthful than all the songs from How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb combined.

On Accelerate, there is hardly a ballad in there. Mostly hard, fast, and loud rock n' roll.

And there is more guitar on, get this, A B-52's ALBUM FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD(!?) than Edge has tried to muster on, say, All That You Can't Leave Behind. So the moral of the story is, Edge needs to REALLY be "on fire" for the next album. From now on, if I hear a member of U2 imply the 'as you get older you mellow out' cliche, than that is just bullshit.
 
It's a matter of opinion, I think u2's latest work is better than ever :shrug:
 
asr said:
From now on, if I hear a member of U2 imply the 'as you get older you mellow out' cliche, than that is just bullshit.

Well, that is true for some people.

To state the obvious, U2 is U2. U2 is not REM. U2 is not The B-52s. I don't think that they should make music based on what other people their age are doing.
 
Yeah, well...um...:huh:

Music is subjective my friends...aged or not...:yes:

I say let the boys play what they wanna play and if it's good we'll listen...fast, loud, soft, slow, guitar, or mandolin driven I don't think it really matters anymore...:no:...as long as it's good...:up:
 
As much as I dig the new REM, it is what is it is: damage control. After a series of disappointments, they are regrouping and trying to latch on to that mid 80's period. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a strategy all the same. I really can't comment on the B-52's as I've never liked them in any incarnation.

U2 don't really have anything to prove at this point. And more guitar doesn't mean better. JT and UF are hardly ROCK records in the strictest sense and I love them dearly. Creating a "ROCK RECORD" these days is only painting yourself into a corner anyway.

They should do what feels right. Not sure if that's going to happen.

But making a calculated rock album sounds like an oxymoron to me.
 
Lets be honest this is REM's best record in ages and the b52's were relevant a very long time ago. U2's last albums have produced some big hits, the same cant be said about the 2 previous bands mentioned as im sure fans of each would agree.
 
Age has never been an excuse for U2, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

REM is no U2 just like the B-52's are no REM.

Remember: U2 are in a class all by themselves.

Also try to remember: (and this is very important) As one gets older, one's perspective on life certainly changes. U2's music is going to be a reflection of that.
 
Well, REMs last few albums were absolutely worthless. I haven't heard the new one yet, but it would be a shock if it were actually good. I hope it is, but I'm in no rush to throw good money after bad on them at this point.

Whereas HTDAAB was brilliant........

:)
 
asr said:

On Accelerate, there is hardly a ballad in there. Mostly hard, fast, and loud rock n' roll.

Umm, don't you think ballads have been a big part of U2's music since, like, forever? :eyebrow:

If you're reading into their recent stuff as being "old", then I think it's just a matter of person taste. Ballads aren't old, and if they are then U2 has always been an old and outdated band (which is obviously ludicrous).

And I'd like to know, when have U2 used age as an excuse? And furthermore, what would they have to make excuses for anyways? I've loved every album they've ever produced. :yes:
 
asr said:
Age is just a number. For hard evidence of that saying, look no further than the current releases from both of U2's peers: R.E.M.'s Accelerate and the B-52s' Funplex. The members of the B-52's are much older than Larry, Adam, The Edge, And Bono. Mike, Michael, and Peter of R.E.M. are are the same age as U2.

Now, this my opinion, and I know I'm going to get alot of slack for this, but each song from the respective new releases sound more fresh, vivacious, hard rocking, and youthful than all the songs from How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb combined.

On Accelerate, there is hardly a ballad in there. Mostly hard, fast, and loud rock n' roll.

And there is more guitar on, get this, A B-52's ALBUM FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD(!?) than Edge has tried to muster on, say, All That You Can't Leave Behind. So the moral of the story is, Edge needs to REALLY be "on fire" for the next album. From now on, if I hear a member of U2 imply the 'as you get older you mellow out' cliche, than that is just bullshit.

Honestly, I really can't make sense of any of this...:huh:

More guitar isn't good or bad, it is totally irrelevant how guitar-oriented an album is...so I have no clue where you're going with that :shrug:

Guitar can be simple, subtle, and minimal and still be brilliant, I think you're missing the point big time..

As a few have already said, age has never been an excuse for U2...so I have no idea what you're talking about :shrug:

And don't you think each song off Accelerate sounds "more fresh"because it came out yesterday, whereas HTDMAAB was released 4 years ago.......................:slant:

Ok so "On Accelerate, there is hardly a ballad in there. Mostly hard, fast, and loud rock n' roll"........and your point is...........? What does that have to do with anything? Who cares if there isn't a ballad....that's meaningless....You say Accelerate is "hard, fast, and loud rock n' roll"....OK?!? Are you saying that equates to a good record, hard, fast and loud? :confused:

If anything, an album that maintains a fast tempo for the entire time is a mistake...The listener is more likely to become bored, and the songs start running together in a negative, repetitive way...

That aside, I listened to Accelerate a few days ago and was not impressed, but I just listened to it again and I'm enjoying it more, I think it'll grow on me :)
 
Last edited:
vaz02 said:
Lets be honest this is REM's best record in ages and the b52's were relevant a very long time ago. U2's last albums have produced some big hits, the same cant be said about the 2 previous bands mentioned as im sure fans of each would agree.

:up: While REM and the B-52s had faded into relative obscurity by the end of the 90s, U2 had released one of their most daring albums (POP), had embarked on a global tour, and then reinvented themselves in 2000 with ATYCLB. They've got ten years on both these bands.
 
Reggie Thee Dog said:
Yeah, well...um...:huh:

Music is subjective my friends...aged or not...:yes:

I say let the boys play what they wanna play and if it's good we'll listen...fast, loud, soft, slow, guitar, or mandolin driven I don't think it really matters anymore...:no:...as long as it's good...:up:


Totally agree with you! :wink:
 
I really hope U2 are at there prime for this album (in the 00's) because i really want to go to a concert and still be with a band thats 'with the times' rather than seeing them go downhill... (because this will be my first U2 concert and possible first ever concert)

Agh, math homework is terrrible... :mad:
 
By the way: Age never was an excuse for them – and never will be. The best work is in front of them; at least they'll try to stand up to this idea ...:wave:
 
I don't understand this argument. Age an excuse? For what? Have U2 ever needed an excuse for anyting?

And since when is a rock song or are guitars an indication of age or youth?

Many say R. E. M. have gone back to their roots with their latest album because they have lost their creative freshness.

I don't say this, I love R. E. M. and like their latest release. But I'd never say the new songs make them sound "younger", really.

The Stones make rock songs and still sound old. Sorry.

I don't get it. I'd rather have U2 making a supreme ballad with depth and feeling than them trying too hard to pull a "rock song".

I know some people don't agree, but I've always wanted to hear more accoustic stuff by U2. It's one thing to shout out a rock song, but it's another one to really play and sing and show off your musical skills and your voice. I would love to hear more of that.
 
I'm actually very glad that U2 are not the B-52's.....

And I don't think that quality has anything to do with age in case of U2.

And finally, the new REM is great, a lot faster than the 2-3 previous albums, but is clearly not their best at all!
UP was really good, so are New Adventure in Hi-Fi and MONSTER.....
 
It's one thing to shout out a rock song, but it's another one to really play and sing and show off your musical skills and your voice. I would love to hear more of that. [/B][/QUOTE]
:up:
That's exactly why A Man And A Woman is such a beauty !!!
 
last unicorn said:
It's one thing to shout out a rock song, but it's another one to really play and sing and show off your musical skills and your voice. I would love to hear more of that.

:up:
That's exactly why A Man And A Woman is such a beauty !!!
 
Niceman said:
Well, REMs last few albums were absolutely worthless. I haven't heard the new one yet, but it would be a shock if it were actually good. I hope it is, but I'm in no rush to throw good money after bad on them at this point.

Whereas HTDAAB was brilliant........

:)

I agree, but I am shocked by how good REM's new album is. It is very good and nice to hear them rock again.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom