cobl04
45:33
Man, thank you
I don't want to speak for Lazarus, but my response to that would be it's not a criticism of fans wanting to see U2 play their 'best material' but rather the idea that the band has apparently given up on creating new 'best material' and, rather, are resting on their laurels.
Forward progress has always been a key part of this band's DNA. Remaining relevant is something they've always worked towards. They even tried to explain away the Joshua Tree tour by claiming that the album had found new relevance in the political climate of 2017. It's just strange to see them fall back on a nostalgia tour. 2 years ago, they could somewhat explain it away by using the 30th anniversary. But two years later? Why not just take the E+I tour down under and sub in some JT songs? Exit next to Acrobat would have been pretty cool.
It's just kind of jarring to see the band start the I+E tour, shoehorn the JT tour in the middle of it, then pick it back up with the E+I tour (same basic concept), and then...go back to the JT tour.
i found the u2iest song the verve ever made today - the chorus especially sounds like it could be a HTDAAB/NLOTH era outtake:
The whole idea of a "dinosaur act" is kind of obnoxious anyways.
At some point an act that stays together is going to get to a point where their catalog and body of work is going to outweigh their new work no matter the quality. That's just reality.
At that point a band can go one of four ways
A) quit
B) have such a focus on the new stuff that they are no longer a draw
C) stop recording new music altogether and just live off the past
D) balance. Continue to create and care abou new music while also acknowledging and celebrating the past
U2 just did a tour where they didn't play a single song off of their biggest album, while playing a shit ton off their most recent two albums.
Now they're playing like a dozen shows celebrating their biggest album.
I just can't understand how that is "giving up."
That's not what giving up is.Apparently multiple people missed that I accused various fans here of "giving up", and not actually using that term with the band itself. Merely that this JT 32 move reduces the integrity of what was their mission statement for so long. And I'm apparently one of few around here who still wants them to defiantly hold that position for as long as possible.
They're not at the downside of "B" yet, considering the i+e tour did very well, and if the numbers for e+i weren't as good, it's because they were touring some markets for the 3rd time in 4 years. But when 1/3 of your show is new material, that's definitely putting "such a focus" on it and not giving a damn what the fair-weather attendees want to hear. Unfortunately, it appears some of our Interference members are those fair-weather attendees, and would prefer a greatest hits tour to hearing SOI and SOE material. That's what "giving up" is.
You fail to factor quality into the equation. If U2 had new songs that were good, that's what I would want to hear. But they aren't playing new good songs, so I don't care if they tour greatest hits stuff. Pretty simple.would prefer a greatest hits tour to hearing SOI and SOE material. That's what "giving up" is.
You are missing the point by light years.I didn't care much for the direction they took on ATYCLB, and I prefer almost every song from the previous 3 albums to everything on it.
Would I have preferred they did a 90s or 80s retrospective instead of the Elevation tour? No.
So, anyone is free to not care for their recent material. But if you don't think the band should continue to favor that stuff when they tour, for better or worse, you've become the enemy of their progression. Some people didn't care for No Line, but liked the last two better. Or didn't like The Bomb but loved NLOTH. One has to hold out hope that there is something appealing in the future, or why bother calling yourself an active fan?
I get it, this is something that happens to most people. They start to want the artists they love entombed and frozen at a point when it was at its best. I just thought that the people on this forum understood what set U2 apart and wanted to stand by that ethos.
You are missing the point by light years.
We know that they're going to take 4-5 years to create a new album.
Would you rather just wait 4-5 years and have them do nothing, or would you rather they stay active during that time?
What is wrong with them continuing to be active in between album cycles? Why is this a bad thing? Especially considering as these fuckers are old and have almost died like a dozen times over the past 5 years. Exactly what part of still being able to enjoy and celebrate the band between album cycles is a bad thing?
I think Laz's privilege is starting to show as he lives in a part of the world where U2 goes to every tour cycle and can't even fathom why someone would want to watch their all-time favourite band – whether they're playing new material or not – when they decide to finally have a handful of shows in their home country.
Is it that hard to understand that my opinion has fuck to do with Australia?