Almost Finished with U2

[Hollow Island]

They’re talented writers whose image as a four piece has long since eliminated welcoming or working with additional artists on stage (e.g. they are old). They’re not the most talented of musicians and I love them for that, since music doesn’t have to be about how tactical and skilled you are. I hate that shit.

They wanted Terry Lawless to play on stage with them but he didn't want to. They should have hired someone else then because it looks and sounds weird to have so much music that isn't played by the people on stage.

They've been piping music in since 84 but it used to just be the occasional synth or sequencer - now it's synths, guitars, vocals...it's gotten out of hand, and it's unnecessary.

 

[Hollow Island]

Much like almost every other job or trade in the entire history of civilization, musicians have always looked for ways to make playing their music easier. There are virtuosos and try-hards and elitists, sure but they're few and far between and niche.

They've earned the right to be lazy so that they can present the songs in a way that they're expected to present them... as they are on the record. Also, backing tracks are just an evolution of the Edge using delay. Trickery has always been a part of their sound. That showbiz, baby.

Playing to backing tracks is in no way analogous to using delay, and using effects isn't "trickery." Playing a song that has piped in synths and guitars is, though.

Would you say REM were virtuosos, try hards or elitists? I think that being committed to having the music at a concert come from the musicians on stage is more a matter of integrity.

U2 aren't expected to present the songs as they are on record - they're expected to present them well.

Musicians haven't always looked for ways to make playing easier. They generally try to look for ways to play better.

 

[Irvine511]

Playing to backing tracks is in no way analogous to using delay, and using effects isn't "trickery." Playing a song that has piped in synths and guitars is, though.



Would you say REM were virtuosos, try hards or elitists? I think that being committed to having the music at a concert come from the musicians on stage is more a matter of integrity.



U2 aren't expected to present the songs as they are on record - they're expected to present them well.



Musicians haven't always looked for ways to make playing easier. They generally try to look for ways to play better.

I saw REM half a dozen times from 1995 onwards. They always had 2-3 additional musicians on stage.

 

[The Panther]

Personally speaking, I do not EVER want to see bands on stage with pre-recorded anything or extra musicians. Sure, there are studio hits you can't reproduce in the same way on stage with three or four players and a singer, but that's why arranging songs exists.

One of the things I enjoyed about The Stone Roses' live show I caught here in Tokyo in 2013 was that The Roses, for all their hit-and-miss quality live, don't use anything pre-recorded or any extra musicians. The noise you hear is always the four guys playing. So be it.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

U2's two most famous live tracks - Bad and Where The Streets Have No Name - rely heavily on backing tracks, and have since day one.

this is honestly the most tired thread in all of interference, and that's really saying something. there's plenty of lazy shit this band does to critique them on. bashing them for something they've been doing for decades but acting as if it's a recent phenomenon is just weird.

 

[womanfish]

U2's two most famous live tracks - Bad and Where The Streets Have No Name - rely heavily on backing tracks, and have since day one.

this is honestly the most tired thread in all of interference, and that's really saying something. there's plenty of lazy shit this band does to critique them on. bashing them for something they've been doing for decades but acting as if it's a recent phenomenon is just weird.

Sooooooooooo agreed. Don't forget The Unforgettable Fire which has used the opening synth sounds from day one. The song NEEDS that opening sound and I for one would take pre-recorded elements any day over having random extra people on stage.

Let's move on.

 

[Irvine511]

U2's two most famous live tracks - Bad and Where The Streets Have No Name - rely heavily on backing tracks, and have since day one.

this is honestly the most tired thread in all of interference, and that's really saying something. there's plenty of lazy shit this band does to critique them on. bashing them for something they've been doing for decades but acting as if it's a recent phenomenon is just weird.

Agreed. The backing track to Bad is incredible. It instantly puts me in a mood. I don’t want to hear the song without it.

They wrote it. We should hear it.

 

[The Panther]

U2's two most famous live tracks - Bad and Where The Streets Have No Name - rely heavily on backing tracks, and have since day one.

this is honestly the most tired thread in all of interference, and that's really saying something. there's plenty of lazy shit this band does to critique them on. bashing them for something they've been doing for decades but acting as if it's a recent phenomenon is just weird.

They've-been-doing-it-since-day-one doesn't mean they should have been doing it from day one.

 

[pacemaker]

They've-been-doing-it-since-day-one doesn't mean they should have been doing it from day one.

There's an entire sub-forum dedicated to U2 fan fiction, you know.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

A familiar sound from Dik Evans. Keys, like wind chimes forming a natural rhythm. A peace settles in, almost as though the crowd has been fed and burped. Suddenly… a spotlight. Paul McGuinness’ cello slowly released the ethereal intro of WOWY into the air The crowd new it was time, for Bono would be nigh. The lighters came out.

 

[Joey788]

I wonder if part of the issue with U2's current output, besides the usual topics of their desperate need for relevancy and their piss-poor choice in lead singles, is maybe they just can't inspire each other like they used to. These four musicians have played nearly exclusively with each other for their entire career. Yes, there have been occasional soundtracks and other projects, but those are few and far between. Maybe it's limiting the influx of new ideas and perspectives and just causing the band to go back to the same well.

I know the Radiohead comparisons are very tiring, but between their albums, which now arrive with a similar frequency as U2, most of the band members are off doing other projects. Since A Moon Shaped Pool dropped in 2016, Thom Yorke has released a solo album and a full movie score, Jonny Greenwood has done five soundtracks. Ed O'Brien released his solo debut. Phil Selway's done two solo records over the last decade. And now Thom and Jonny have the new band, The Smile, starting up. All of this seems to reinvigorate the members for Radiohead and lets them stretch their wings in ways outside the confines of a collaborative band.

Meanwhile, since Songs of Experience in 2017, outside of U2, Bono and Edge did a song with Martin Garrix and that's about it, right? I get that Radiohead's members are just more prolific but I wish members of U2 would find a way to reignite that spark and try something new, even if they do so outside of the confines of "being U2."

 

[The Panther]

There's an entire sub-forum dedicated to U2 fan fiction, you know.

 

[lazarus]

I wonder if part of the issue with U2's current output, besides the usual topics of their desperate need for relevancy and their piss-poor choice in lead singles, is maybe they just can't inspire each other like they used to. These four musicians have played nearly exclusively with each other for their entire career. Yes, there have been occasional soundtracks and other projects, but those are few and far between. Maybe it's limiting the influx of new ideas and perspectives and just causing the band to go back to the same well.

The producers are where the new ideas and inspiration can come from and provide the spark, and even when they made a good step in that direction (Danger Mouse), they didn't have the guts to stick with it. On the last album, for every good choice like Andy Barlow, there were several that were bad (Brent Kutzle, Ryan Tedder, Paul Epworth).

If they don't go back to the Eno/Lanois well, I hope they make a more interesting decision in that regard next time. But after hearing stories, who with integrity would want to submit themselves to that at this point?

 

[The Panther]

I wonder if part of the issue with U2's current output, besides the usual topics of their desperate need for relevancy and their piss-poor choice in lead singles, is maybe they just can't inspire each other like they used to. These four musicians have played nearly exclusively with each other for their entire career. Yes, there have been occasional soundtracks and other projects, but those are few and far between. Maybe it's limiting the influx of new ideas and perspectives and just causing the band to go back to the same well.

I know the Radiohead comparisons are very tiring, but between their albums, which now arrive with a similar frequency as U2, most of the band members are off doing other projects. Since A Moon Shaped Pool dropped in 2016, Thom Yorke has released a solo album and a full movie score, Jonny Greenwood has done five soundtracks. Ed O'Brien released his solo debut. Phil Selway's done two solo records over the last decade. And now Thom and Jonny have the new band, The Smile, starting up. All of this seems to reinvigorate the members for Radiohead and lets them stretch their wings in ways outside the confines of a collaborative band.

Meanwhile, since Songs of Experience in 2017, outside of U2, Bono and Edge did a song with Martin Garrix and that's about it, right? I get that Radiohead's members are just more prolific but I wish members of U2 would find a way to reignite that spark and try something new, even if they do so outside of the confines of "being U2."

Good post, and I think I agree with you.

One of the really interesting things about U2 is how protective they are of each other, and of the "band exclusivity". Like, it's okay for Edge to go alone and do some soundtrack stuff (as he did way back in 1985-86), or for Bono / Edge to do some musical stuff, or for Larry / Adam to do a soundtrack tune, or whatnot, BUT we almost never see a member of U2 go away and make music with other guitarists, drummers, singers, etc.

But maybe they should have. Might be an exercise in re-gaining some enthusiasm for the U2 thing.

 

[DeVaul]

Ah yes, the ridiculous fantasy that ends with the crowd singing “Your Song Saved My Life” back to the band.

 

[wolbersu2]

Asides of being productive between the long gaps between albums nowadays they really do nothing to keep the fanbase excited. The release of vinyls in various colours doesn't keep.me warm. They could 've released the Heartland movie with a live-album, there could've been a huge Pop anniversary in march, various releases of material that didn't see the light if day or even HD releases of prevous released material.
The only things we got are those commercially lousy songs like the Garrix songs, nothing to do with u2-sound at all, the rsd releases which are limited with limited material. Then the fanclub gift which is, most probably full of songs we already own.
I'm losing interest in this band I've been adoring since the early eighties. Let them retire and let's focus on bands that can excite fans.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm losing interest in this band I've been adoring since the early eighties.

In fairness, are there any other bands that regularly hold people’s attention for 40+ years? Solo artists are different — Sting or Bruce or Macca can come and go with different musicians and projects, but U2 is always U2.

REM ended it a long time ago. Radiohead is probably close, but they are band age-wise a dozen years younger than U2.

Who else is there?

 

[wolbersu2]

In fairness, are there any other bands that regularly hold people’s attention for 40+ years? Solo artists are different — Sting or Bruce or Macca can come and go with different musicians and projects, but U2 is always U2.

REM ended it a long time ago. Radiohead is probably close, but they are band age-wise a dozen years younger than U2.

Who else is there?

Depeche Mode, Marillion, Duran Duran, Simple Minds... First two mentioned deliver regularly great releases from re-issues in HD.

 

[Irvine511]

Depeche Mode, Marillion, Duran Duran, Simple Minds... First two mentioned deliver regularly great releases from re-issues in HD.

I realize these may be of importance to you and that’s cool and music is mostly about personal taste and I’m glad you have them … but looking st it more broadly, none of these bands are anywhere close to U2’s stature, past or present. They don’t have the built in expectations of every U2 release that I think hampers then creatively (and ruined NLOTH).

 

[Hollow Island]

Maybe not Duran Duran, Simple Minds or Marillion, but Depeche Mode are massively popular around the world and they still sell a tonne of records and play stadiums. Their last album sold 800,000 compared to 1.3 million for U2. Not really worlds apart, though it would seem that way if the US is the focus. They also have built in expectations, but they handle them better than U2 do.

Depeche were close to U2's stature in the 90s, too. U2 were bigger, but I think that distinctions between bands as big as Metallica, GnR, Depeche, U2, Pearl Jam and REM were comes down to hair splitting and what team you're on. 5 million, 7 million, 10 million copies sold; one night in a stadium or two nights...it doesn't matter. They all mean the same thing: the band is hugely popular.

 

[Hollow Island]

In fairness, are there any other bands that regularly hold people’s attention for 40+ years? Solo artists are different — Sting or Bruce or Macca can come and go with different musicians and projects, but U2 is always U2.

REM ended it a long time ago. Radiohead is probably close, but they are band age-wise a dozen years younger than U2.

Who else is there?

Rush, AC/DC, the Cure. They still play big shows and headline festivals, but it's been a long time since they last decided they want to disappoint everyone by releasing a new album. I imagine the next one will do quite well because of the gap between albums.

 

[Hewson]

Rush retired years ago (last show in 2015) and Neil Peart passed away in January 2020, so I don't think they belong on your list.

AC/DC released their most recent album November of 2020.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I can't wait to see the band famous for still playing with their original lineup, AC/DC

 

[lazarus]

This thread has been here a month. Do we think the OP is now, at last, finished with U2? How long can "almost" last?

 

[DeVaul]

Almost Forever Now

 

[david]

I’ll never be finished. I had a dream the other night that Bono was tickling me.

I googled Dream meanings and couldn’t find any meaning.

 

[bono_man2002]

Maybe the tickle saved your life?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Maybe the dingo ate your baby

 

[pacemaker]

Didn't Bono write Mystery Girl after dreaming that Roy Orbison was tickling him... ?

 

[Party Boy]

I always remember one of the last scenes in The Truman Show. When Truman finally escapes and everyone watching cheers, once the transmission ends, someone asks what else is on TV.

U2, Interference, your fav. shoes etc. It's easy to get caught up in something that can last for years.. but when it ends.. or doesn't give you the same enjoyment it once did, there's no harm in switching off and trying something new.