Have U2's 21st century releases done irreparable damage to their legacy?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
ohhhh it was new to vinyl. i stand corrected.

and that pearl jam shot is not the insult you think it is.

Oh what, are you still going to pretend like they didn't do a lot more when it comes to JT30 because you don't care about vinyl? Try not to forget that a different live show was released, too. That alone is100 percent more than they did for AB30.

The Pearl Jam shot is exactly the insult that I think it is. You've known exactly what you're going to get from a Pearl Jam record for almost 25 years. The big difference is that they were never as unpredictable as U2 so their predictability is less disappointing. But at least U2 never made records as pointless as Backspacer and Lightning Bolt.
Then 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut are Kid A, Amnesiac, and In Rainbows in that they’re all incredible start to finish.
Oh you’d be fiiine. I don’t think us loonies need any further cause for chaos. It’s snarky enough in here as is.
With the benefit of much hindsight at this point, I can say that all my favorite U2 albums have Brian Eno's production in common—and, yes, I can even say that my favorite U2 album of the last 20 years is "No Line on the Horizon," which is the last one Eno produced.

I don't really feel the need to concern myself with U2's overall legacy, but they had enough great albums in the 1980s and 90s that I think it will be quite secure in the long run. People will just choose to remember and forget what they want about U2's album catalogue, just like they do with other veteran acts.
Top Bottom