"Your skin is white, but you think you're a brother. Some days are better than others."
I rest my case.
Favorite U2 Song
- Thread starter AchtungBaby
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
I rest my case.
The Nameless
M-O-O-N - That spells Nameless
I hate u2. There are only 2 u2 songs I can listen to, my favourite of those is 'still haven't found what I'm looking for'. The other is beautiful day.
Then U2's going to win this trial because there's nothing wrong with that lyric, which I imagine is a rather autobiographical one.
There are four criteria that instantly determine someone is not a person I'm interested in getting to know on any level:
1) he/she hates STAR TREK
2) he/she hates Steven Spielberg
3) he/she hates Stephen King
4) he/she hates U2
Hating U2 sits at the top of that list.
Bad week for Bono.
First he has an in-air mishap and now he fell of his bike in Central Park. Need to wrap him up in some bubblewrap or he isn't going to make it to the next tour!
First he has an in-air mishap and now he fell of his bike in Central Park. Need to wrap him up in some bubblewrap or he isn't going to make it to the next tour!
He also hurt his back pretty badly in 2010, in the middle of the 360 Tour. Sending positive vibes his way.
I keep meaning to get back to this discussion and forget/get distracted. I think you're still being unfair and making some specious corollaries (for example, "Vertigo" was a huge hit for the band less than a decade ago, whereas I don't believe there's been a Rolling Stones hit of note since the '80s, or perhaps early '90s, and you skipped right over the fact that well over 30 million people chose to download U2's latest "inferior" album) but I'll go with your argument for the point of positing this question--what, then, defines musical relevance in our modern age?
Is it media attention? U2 owned the musical headlines for most of September and October, so they must be relevant.
Is it album downloads? U2's new album was downloaded over 30 million times in a single month, so they must be relevant.
Is it album sales? U2 barely cracked 25,000 physical albums sold of their newest release in its debut week, so they must no longer be relevant.
Is it radio play? U2 has seen a fair amount of airplay of "The Miracle (of Joey Ramone)" but nothing to the level of their pre-2006 numbers, so their relevance must be waning.
Is it name recognition from music fans aged 25 and under? As with any and all bands of U2's vintage, save the teflon-coated Beatles and Elvis, this will always be a rapidly fading number, so their relevance (despite the peak of attention gained from the release strategy "stunt" of SONGS OF INNOCENCE) must be waning.
Is it selling out stadium tours? Considering the number pulled in from the 360° tour just a few short years ago, U2 must be the most relevant band on the planet.
Is it being recognized as one of the defining greats of rock-and-roll? U2 is often hailed as the last great rock band standing, with the largest number of Grammys ever earned by a band, with strong record sales for decades, with numerous Top Ten hits, and is generally considered by critics, professionals, fans and non-fans alike to be one of the names who's place in history along The Beatles, Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Michael Jackson and Prince, is secured, so they must be forever relevant.
To me, that last criteria is the most critical, and the fact that they're still trying (despite everyone's subjective sense of the band's success or failure at it) to grow, to evolve, to try out new challenges and to rail against settling on the laurels of their past, on their hits, on taking the safe bet, to reach for new listeners with one hand while pulling their fans of old along with the other. When it comes to music, the word "relevance" can be applied a multitude of (usually incompatible) ways. In my book, with the arguable concession of The Beatles, there's never been a band as continually relevant as U2.
My favorite song has to be the first one I ever heard from the band, I Will Follow. Back in 1981 when this song came out NOTHING else sounded like this. The sheer power of the guitar and the vocals stirred something in us that we did not know was within us, but were somehow looking for. To this day I love this song even though I have heard it countless times in the last 33 years. Seeing U2 live in NYC (I believe they were touring for October) at a small club was a transcendent experience. I have to admit I have not followed their music in a number of years; I think the "arena rock" era rubbed me the wrong way and I just lost interest. Still, I respect them as a band that has lasted the test of time. They are true music legends.
That's some pretty strange criteria to live your life by!
So, how do you feel about people who used to love U2, but grew to dislike them after Achtung Baby? Where do they fit in?
Last edited:
If they dislike Zooropa/POP, I'm mildly annoyed because those albums take patience and time to grow on the listener--there are no grandiose, change-the-world rock anthems like in the '80s. I understand just plain not liking those two albums, but usually I find it's just people spin through them once, get annoyed, and give up.
ATYCLB/HTDAAB -- I like those albums, but it does feel like the boys were trying too hard to get back into the public's good graces.
NLOTH -- seriously--such a good album. The track listing is off, and there are a couple of weak tracks in there (Boots as the lead single was f*cking awful). I think of it as the POP of '00s. I find most people don't even know this album, aside from hardcore fans of U2.
SOI--this album was screwed from the beginning because of the way it was distributed. Haters gonna hate.
In a way, they're worse. They're like a guy who gets a nymphomaniac supermodel to marry him, but would rather just spend his nights playing Xbox.
I'm a fan of good music. I don't have a sense of blind, unquestioning loyalty to any band. It just so happens that U2 released a lot of very good music back in the 80s and I was a fan of that music. I was not a fan of them as such.
They started losing me when they released Achtung Baby. The only song on it that even sounded like a U2 song was One. I'd be perfectly happy if I never heard any of the other tracks on that album ever again. I also didn't like all the "Zoo" crap that went with it. Imagine my disappointment when they named their next album "Zooropa." Still, I gave it a chance and bought it because it was a U2 album, but that album is the worst piece of crap I've ever spent my money on. It's just awful.
For me Zooropa signalled the end of U2, and it also signalled the beginning of people making excuses for them. Instead of just calling it crap, people called it "alternative" or a "concept" album, which are the two terms wheeled out when a band has lost it and started producing music so inferior to their previous work that it's become embarrassing.
They ran out of good songs, plain and simple. Rather than simply admit that and call it a day, they hide behind the excuse that they are reinventing themselves. The reality is, they can't write good songs any more and have completely lost their identity. Messing around with their sound is just their attempt to divert attention from the lack of writing quality.
The Joshua Tree was a work of pure genius and all that went before it was sincere, genuine and simply brilliant music. The stuff they have been putting out for the past twenty years is absolute crap by comparison. They know it themselves.
Yea, verily, troth hast thou spake.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but here's how I view it.
The creative reservoir got fully tapped. The allusions, the sly illustrative references, the poetic obscurities, all done in brilliant fashion, ran their course. The well ran dry.
But that doesn't mean they wanted to stop creating (or draw a paycheck). Perhaps a new path would spark new creativity. Well... they tried.
It's just really tough when someone's brilliance reaches an end, particular when that someone still has bills. That sounds like a comment on avarice or even mendacity, but I swear it's not. We live in a world fueled by money. We do what we have to do to supply the fuel. If you're a drill press operator, you keep on pressing that drill. If you're a musician, you keep on making music. Those are the rules. We can lambaste someone for not being brilliant and creative every time they put their brains on the paper, but how realistic is that? Certainly, we don't want to live up to that standard ourselves.
So if you're like Matt and me and like the old stuff, geez, listen and buy it. If you don't like the newer stuff, then don't. There's really nothing to criticize the band in terms of honorable intent. They've done far, far too many charity concerts to question their character. If you don't like their music, that's grand. If everyone likes a particular art form, then we must question how artistic it is.
But some of their older stuff is achingly artistic. No, that doesn't require you to like it. But it still is.