Why has nothing from Pop been played since Elevation Tour?

[Sugarcube]

I knew you'd say that but I included that line anyway.

If you think every track is crap, then I'm not so sure they could do anything to satisfy you at this point.

And again I ask: what band with three decades behind them made better albums than their first and even second decades?

Exactly. I think this is something some of the "haters" just can't wrap their heads around. It's pretty much impossible for any artist with this sort of longevity to make better music in the third/fourth decade than in the first couple. Springsteen hasn't, the Rolling Stones haven't, and even if the Beatles had stuck around as a band, I doubt they would have been able to, either.

As to the issue of not touring often enough, I can see it both ways. I think it's fantastic that Prince, Springsteen and a number of others are committed to touring and recording new music frequently. But I can also see where artists like U2 might need a break. Touring, even with a couple nights off between gigs (or more) can get hard, no matter how nice your accommodations are. Especially when you have a significant other and kids at home. Who really wants to go weeks or months without seeing their kids?

I can't blame U2 for wanting to take a hiatus, especially now that their kids are growing up and they're getting older themselves. With 30+ years of music under their belts and numerous CDs/tours, they deserve a break and deserve to spend time with their families and pursuing other interests should they choose to do so. It doesn't make them terrible musicians to do that, and it doesn't make them any less "dedicated" to music than others who choose to tour more often. It makes them human. If I were in their shoes, even with how much I love music, I'd do the same thing. In fact, I'm surprised they even did as much touring during the 90s as they did, given the fact that their kids were pretty young back then.

Like someone else said, if U2 were to call it a day now, I'd be sad. But ultimately, I'm just glad they've stuck together for as long as they have and have made a lot of really good/great music during that time. Not many artists can say the same.

Oh good Lord, change the record. NLOTH is horribly produced, a complete mess, has some of the worst lyrics bono has written and has the worst song they've ever recorded on it. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to really dislike a record withouth you dismissing them as 'haters'. I'm not suggesting they can go back to their glory days but surely they can do better than that. You're obviously in denial - either that or you've had a sense of humour bypass.

Many artists have stuck together and made great records - look at Coldplay.

[Sugarcube]

When they say it themselves I think think it can be taken as fact. I trust them as honest people.

I just think that music comes second to them now. That's understandable. They have families, all of them now. That's good.

Radiohead all have families and they're still dedicated to the cause. The Boss too

Yeah, that's right. But I'm saying U2 are not as into music as The Boss or the other previously mentioned artists are. That's my point. If they were, family, politics, etc wouldn't get in the way. It would be "get those things outta the way I'm making music".

But U2 aren't like that.

Oh right I see. Well then they're letting themselves and their long term fans down.

As a long term fan I don't feel let down but interested to hear what you mean?

As someone who's followed them since they started, I feel totally let down by 2000's U2. One puts an emotional investment into a band one has followed for that long.

Aside from the music suffering the sight of bono hanging out with Blair and Bush during the hideous Iraq/Afghanistan debacle made me question what this person was about. I always dug him because he seemed to have ideals - clearly I was wrong.

And don't get me started on them hijacking world events to publicise themselves 

I've followed them from the beginning too - I've had disappointments but cant say I've been let down - I lost the karma so that could be the same thing but I blamed that on Pop at the time 

I always felt what they stood for was as important as the music. I could take the music still being great but them being frauds. Or them not being frauds but the music being rubbish. My sense of they're a bit of both now.

I said it in another thread but name another band that has made better music in their third decade than their first or even second. And I mean band, a group of individuals, not a solo artist.
It's hard enough getting two people to agree on anything. Imagine how tough it is for 4. I'm amazed they haven't made a complete crap album yet.

They have - NLOTH

I knew you'd say that but I included that line anyway.

If you think every track is crap, then I'm not so sure they could do anything to satisfy you at this point.

And again I ask: what band with three decades behind them made better albums than their first and even second decades?

Every track isn't crap (Breathe, Fez, NLOTH). However 70% of it is (the rest of it). That for me makes it a pretty crap album. Even U2 agree its not very good.

[Droo]

Since when has U2 agreed it's not very good? They seem to have consistently stood by it, even while expressing disappointment in its commercial performance.

The key word in your post is the "FOR ME" aspect. You have an opinion about it. That's fine. But stop expressing it as if it's objective fact. It's obnoxious.

[Sugarcube]

Since when has U2 agreed it's not very good? They seem to have consistently stood by it, even while expressing disappointment in its commercial performance.

The key word in your post is the "FOR ME" aspect. You have an opinion about it. That's fine. But stop expressing it as if it's objective fact. It's obnoxious.

You're getting aggressive - people do that when they don't like the truth.

Obviously it's my opinion rather than objective fact. I thought we'd got past writing IMO after every post. Clearly not.

As for U2 being disappointed, aside from expressing verbal disapointment they also dropped most of the songs from the live set. A clear indication they didn't believe in the songs.

[MLP Midnight]

Since when has U2 agreed it's not very good? They seem to have consistently stood by it, even while expressing disappointment in its commercial performance.

The key word in your post is the "FOR ME" aspect. You have an opinion about it. That's fine. But stop expressing it as if it's objective fact. It's obnoxious.

You're getting aggressive - people do that when they don't like the truth.

Obviously it's my opinion rather than objective fact. I thought we'd got past writing IMO after every post. Clearly not.

As for U2 being disappointed, aside from expressing verbal disapointment they also dropped most of the songs from the live set. A clear indication they didn't believe in the songs.

They're views of the album seem to be solely based on how fans took the album.

In the beginning, there was plenty of support for the album, but once they started to drop songs because of lack of response, you could hear the disappointment when they were asked about how they saw the album.

The only track that they seem to constantly praise is Moment of Surrender. And rightfully so because it happens to be the best track on the album.

[Sugarcube]

Since when has U2 agreed it's not very good? They seem to have consistently stood by it, even while expressing disappointment in its commercial performance.

The key word in your post is the "FOR ME" aspect. You have an opinion about it. That's fine. But stop expressing it as if it's objective fact. It's obnoxious.

You're getting aggressive - people do that when they don't like the truth.

Obviously it's my opinion rather than objective fact. I thought we'd got past writing IMO after every post. Clearly not.

As for U2 being disappointed, aside from expressing verbal disapointment they also dropped most of the songs from the live set. A clear indication they didn't believe in the songs.

They're views of the album seem to be solely based on how fans took the album.

In the beginning, there was plenty of support for the album, but once they started to drop songs because of lack of response, you could hear the disappointment when they were asked about how they saw the album.

The only track that they seem to constantly praise is Moment of Surrender. And rightfully so because it happens to be the best track on the album.

Exactly - just like POP. The fans don't like it therefore U2 don't like it. It's a totally un rock n roll approach. It's not progressive and it doesn't lead to great art. As evidenced by U2's gradual artistic decline

[MLP Midnight]

Since when has U2 agreed it's not very good? They seem to have consistently stood by it, even while expressing disappointment in its commercial performance.

The key word in your post is the "FOR ME" aspect. You have an opinion about it. That's fine. But stop expressing it as if it's objective fact. It's obnoxious.

You're getting aggressive - people do that when they don't like the truth.

Obviously it's my opinion rather than objective fact. I thought we'd got past writing IMO after every post. Clearly not.

As for U2 being disappointed, aside from expressing verbal disapointment they also dropped most of the songs from the live set. A clear indication they didn't believe in the songs.

They're views of the album seem to be solely based on how fans took the album.

In the beginning, there was plenty of support for the album, but once they started to drop songs because of lack of response, you could hear the disappointment when they were asked about how they saw the album.

The only track that they seem to constantly praise is Moment of Surrender. And rightfully so because it happens to be the best track on the album.

Exactly - just like POP. The fans don't like it therefore U2 don't like it. It's a totally un rock n roll approach. It's not progressive and it doesn't lead to great art. As evidenced by U2's gradual artistic decline

I won't call NLOTH a decline in any sense.

But I don't support how they never take into account how they actually feel about things. They brought in Zooropa and wanted to play it, even if many fans didn't remember it. And they went through with it, and fans embraced the return of the song.

If the band can't show their own support for their own work, how can they expect to make another successful album?

[Sugarcube]

Since when has U2 agreed it's not very good? They seem to have consistently stood by it, even while expressing disappointment in its commercial performance.

The key word in your post is the "FOR ME" aspect. You have an opinion about it. That's fine. But stop expressing it as if it's objective fact. It's obnoxious.

You're getting aggressive - people do that when they don't like the truth.

Obviously it's my opinion rather than objective fact. I thought we'd got past writing IMO after every post. Clearly not.

As for U2 being disappointed, aside from expressing verbal disapointment they also dropped most of the songs from the live set. A clear indication they didn't believe in the songs.

They're views of the album seem to be solely based on how fans took the album.

In the beginning, there was plenty of support for the album, but once they started to drop songs because of lack of response, you could hear the disappointment when they were asked about how they saw the album.

The only track that they seem to constantly praise is Moment of Surrender. And rightfully so because it happens to be the best track on the album.

Exactly - just like POP. The fans don't like it therefore U2 don't like it. It's a totally un rock n roll approach. It's not progressive and it doesn't lead to great art. As evidenced by U2's gradual artistic decline

I won't call NLOTH a decline in any sense.

But I don't support how they never take into account how they actually feel about things. They brought in Zooropa and wanted to play it, even if many fans didn't remember it. And they went through with it, and fans embraced the return of the song.

If the band can't show their own support for their own work, how can they expect to make another successful album?

Your last 2 points are spot on.

[Tumbling Dice]

When they say it themselves I think think it can be taken as fact. I trust them as honest people.

I just think that music comes second to them now. That's understandable. They have families, all of them now. That's good.

Radiohead all have families and they're still dedicated to the cause. The Boss too

Yeah, that's right. But I'm saying U2 are not as into music as The Boss or the other previously mentioned artists are. That's my point. If they were, family, politics, etc wouldn't get in the way. It would be "get those things outta the way I'm making music".

But U2 aren't like that.

Oh right I see. Well then they're letting themselves and their long term fans down.

As a long term fan I don't feel let down but interested to hear what you mean?

As someone who's followed them since they started, I feel totally let down by 2000's U2. One puts an emotional investment into a band one has followed for that long.

Aside from the music suffering the sight of bono hanging out with Blair and Bush during the hideous Iraq/Afghanistan debacle made me question what this person was about. I always dug him because he seemed to have ideals - clearly I was wrong.

And don't get me started on them hijacking world events to publicise themselves 

I've followed them from the beginning too - I've had disappointments but cant say I've been let down - I lost the karma so that could be the same thing but I blamed that on Pop at the time 

I always felt what they stood for was as important as the music. I could take the music still being great but them being frauds. Or them not being frauds but the music being rubbish. My sense of they're a bit of both now.

I said it in another thread but name another band that has made better music in their third decade than their first or even second. And I mean band, a group of individuals, not a solo artist.
It's hard enough getting two people to agree on anything. Imagine how tough it is for 4. I'm amazed they haven't made a complete crap album yet.

They have - NLOTH

I knew you'd say that but I included that line anyway.

If you think every track is crap, then I'm not so sure they could do anything to satisfy you at this point.

And again I ask: what band with three decades behind them made better albums than their first and even second decades?

Every track isn't crap (Breathe, Fez, NLOTH). However 70% of it is (the rest of it). That for me makes it a pretty crap album. Even U2 agree its not very good.

Cedars, MOS, White as Snow and Magnificent are definitely not 'crap', either musically or lyrically.

[tigerfan41]

I knew you'd say that but I included that line anyway.

If you think every track is crap, then I'm not so sure they could do anything to satisfy you at this point.

And again I ask: what band with three decades behind them made better albums than their first and even second decades?

Exactly. I think this is something some of the "haters" just can't wrap their heads around. It's pretty much impossible for any artist with this sort of longevity to make better music in the third/fourth decade than in the first couple. Springsteen hasn't, the Rolling Stones haven't, and even if the Beatles had stuck around as a band, I doubt they would have been able to, either.

As to the issue of not touring often enough, I can see it both ways. I think it's fantastic that Prince, Springsteen and a number of others are committed to touring and recording new music frequently. But I can also see where artists like U2 might need a break. Touring, even with a couple nights off between gigs (or more) can get hard, no matter how nice your accommodations are. Especially when you have a significant other and kids at home. Who really wants to go weeks or months without seeing their kids?

I can't blame U2 for wanting to take a hiatus, especially now that their kids are growing up and they're getting older themselves. With 30+ years of music under their belts and numerous CDs/tours, they deserve a break and deserve to spend time with their families and pursuing other interests should they choose to do so. It doesn't make them terrible musicians to do that, and it doesn't make them any less "dedicated" to music than others who choose to tour more often. It makes them human. If I were in their shoes, even with how much I love music, I'd do the same thing. In fact, I'm surprised they even did as much touring during the 90s as they did, given the fact that their kids were pretty young back then.

Like someone else said, if U2 were to call it a day now, I'd be sad. But ultimately, I'm just glad they've stuck together for as long as they have and have made a lot of really good/great music during that time. Not many artists can say the same.

Oh good Lord, change the record. NLOTH is horribly produced, a complete mess, has some of the worst lyrics bono has written and has the worst song they've ever recorded on it. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to really dislike a record withouth you dismissing them as 'haters'. I'm not suggesting they can go back to their glory days but surely they can do better than that. You're obviously in denial - either that or you've had a sense of humour bypass.

Many artists have stuck together and made great records - look at Coldplay.

The difference is, Coldplay have only been together, what, 12 years? And their music has already suffered. Perhaps your "point" may be more valid in 10-15 years when Coldplay have been together almost as long as U2.  I don't see anyone proclaiming Mylo as being a brilliant album--like Achtung was for U2 at that stage of their career.

Your opinion about the lyrics is completely subjective. Let me ask you: have you ever written lyrics? Do you know anything about the process behind it? It's not as easy as you think, especially when you've been at it as long as Bono. Also, keep in mind, not all of the lyrics on NLOTH were written by Bono. I believe Edge did at least one or two of the songs (from what I remember of the liner notes) and I think that shows (I want to say it was "Magnificent" and "NLOTH" that he co-wrote with Bono on, and those are two of my least favorite songs lyrically).

Also, the point about the fans not liking NLOTH.......I think that's sort of crap. The album received positive reviews from the critics and many fans (check out any review site like Amazon to see fan reviews) liked the CD. When I first picked it up (on release day) I initially thought it was a very different sound for them....but after a few listens, I warmed up to it. Still an album I listen to regularly today. Judging by reviews and what I've read here/other places, lots of other people feel the same.

I don't think U2 are caught up on the fans "not liking it" so much as they are on the decreased album sales. Thing is, no artist, not even a great band like U2, is capable of selling 10 or 20 million albums nowadays. Digital music has made that impossible. Those days of selling 10 million+ albums are over. For a band like U2, I'm sure that's quite an adjustment, but it's one they must make. And 5 million albums sold is certainly nothing to sneeze at. Not many artists are able to do that now.

[MLP Midnight]

Since when has U2 agreed it's not very good? They seem to have consistently stood by it, even while expressing disappointment in its commercial performance.

The key word in your post is the "FOR ME" aspect. You have an opinion about it. That's fine. But stop expressing it as if it's objective fact. It's obnoxious.

You're getting aggressive - people do that when they don't like the truth.

Obviously it's my opinion rather than objective fact. I thought we'd got past writing IMO after every post. Clearly not.

As for U2 being disappointed, aside from expressing verbal disapointment they also dropped most of the songs from the live set. A clear indication they didn't believe in the songs.

They're views of the album seem to be solely based on how fans took the album.

In the beginning, there was plenty of support for the album, but once they started to drop songs because of lack of response, you could hear the disappointment when they were asked about how they saw the album.

The only track that they seem to constantly praise is Moment of Surrender. And rightfully so because it happens to be the best track on the album.

Exactly - just like POP. The fans don't like it therefore U2 don't like it. It's a totally un rock n roll approach. It's not progressive and it doesn't lead to great art. As evidenced by U2's gradual artistic decline

I won't call NLOTH a decline in any sense.

But I don't support how they never take into account how they actually feel about things. They brought in Zooropa and wanted to play it, even if many fans didn't remember it. And they went through with it, and fans embraced the return of the song.

If the band can't show their own support for their own work, how can they expect to make another successful album?

Your last 2 points are spot on.

I will certainly advertise my filling in for Paul McGuinness.

[Sugarcube]

I knew you'd say that but I included that line anyway.

If you think every track is crap, then I'm not so sure they could do anything to satisfy you at this point.

And again I ask: what band with three decades behind them made better albums than their first and even second decades?

Exactly. I think this is something some of the "haters" just can't wrap their heads around. It's pretty much impossible for any artist with this sort of longevity to make better music in the third/fourth decade than in the first couple. Springsteen hasn't, the Rolling Stones haven't, and even if the Beatles had stuck around as a band, I doubt they would have been able to, either.

As to the issue of not touring often enough, I can see it both ways. I think it's fantastic that Prince, Springsteen and a number of others are committed to touring and recording new music frequently. But I can also see where artists like U2 might need a break. Touring, even with a couple nights off between gigs (or more) can get hard, no matter how nice your accommodations are. Especially when you have a significant other and kids at home. Who really wants to go weeks or months without seeing their kids?

I can't blame U2 for wanting to take a hiatus, especially now that their kids are growing up and they're getting older themselves. With 30+ years of music under their belts and numerous CDs/tours, they deserve a break and deserve to spend time with their families and pursuing other interests should they choose to do so. It doesn't make them terrible musicians to do that, and it doesn't make them any less "dedicated" to music than others who choose to tour more often. It makes them human. If I were in their shoes, even with how much I love music, I'd do the same thing. In fact, I'm surprised they even did as much touring during the 90s as they did, given the fact that their kids were pretty young back then.

Like someone else said, if U2 were to call it a day now, I'd be sad. But ultimately, I'm just glad they've stuck together for as long as they have and have made a lot of really good/great music during that time. Not many artists can say the same.

Oh good Lord, change the record. NLOTH is horribly produced, a complete mess, has some of the worst lyrics bono has written and has the worst song they've ever recorded on it. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to really dislike a record withouth you dismissing them as 'haters'. I'm not suggesting they can go back to their glory days but surely they can do better than that. You're obviously in denial - either that or you've had a sense of humour bypass.

Many artists have stuck together and made great records - look at Coldplay.

The difference is, Coldplay have only been together, what, 12 years? And their music has already suffered. Perhaps your "point" may be more valid in 10-15 years when Coldplay have been together almost as long as U2.  I don't see anyone proclaiming Mylo as being a brilliant album--like Achtung was for U2 at that stage of their career.

Your opinion about the lyrics is completely subjective. Let me ask you: have you ever written lyrics? Do you know anything about the process behind it? It's not as easy as you think, especially when you've been at it as long as Bono. Also, keep in mind, not all of the lyrics on NLOTH were written by Bono. I believe Edge did at least one or two of the songs (from what I remember of the liner notes) and I think that shows (I want to say it was "Magnificent" and "NLOTH" that he co-wrote with Bono on, and those are two of my least favorite songs lyrically).

Also, the point about the fans not liking NLOTH.......I think that's sort of crap. The album received positive reviews from the critics and many fans (check out any review site like Amazon to see fan reviews) liked the CD. When I first picked it up (on release day) I initially thought it was a very different sound for them....but after a few listens, I warmed up to it. Still an album I listen to regularly today. Judging by reviews and what I've read here/other places, lots of other people feel the same.

I don't think U2 are caught up on the fans "not liking it" so much as they are on the decreased album sales. Thing is, no artist, not even a great band like U2, is capable of selling 10 or 20 million albums nowadays. Digital music has made that impossible. Those days of selling 10 million+ albums are over. For a band like U2, I'm sure that's quite an adjustment, but it's one they must make. And 5 million albums sold is certainly nothing to sneeze at. Not many artists are able to do that now.

Your point about Coldplay is totally subjective. If you don't accept that then you are in no position to be calling other people 'haters' or whatever degoritary term is currently in vogue. Are you on any Coldplay message boards? Are you privy to every Coldplay fans personal feelings about their output? No? Then don't have an opinion on the global appeal of their records.

Lyrics - let's work on the presumption that I haven't written any lyrics. Have you ever had an opinion about a book, a film, an historical event without being an author, filmmaker or say, terrorist? Just because you haven't had first hand experience of something it doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on it. People tend to agree with things that suit them and consider others opinions 'negative' when it doesn't. I know my opinion is subjective - did I say it wasn't?

Regarding reviews of NLOTH - I didn't say every person in the world thought it was crap (unlike your contention regarding Coldplay). I said I thought it was crap. Which it is. In my opinion. Equally, U2 distanced themselves from it too which say more than any illiterate idiot writing an Amazon review or an out of work musician writing for a music paper.

As for sales, you're falling back on that as you don't have a substantial argument. NLOTH will be judged historically in the same way POP was - the fans didn't like it therefore U2 decided they didn't like it. Sometimes you argue it sold well - and sometimes you argue it didn't sell well given market conditions.

Do think about how many holes your arguments have before getting on your high horse. 

[mattressjedi]

I knew you'd say that but I included that line anyway.

If you think every track is crap, then I'm not so sure they could do anything to satisfy you at this point.

And again I ask: what band with three decades behind them made better albums than their first and even second decades?

Exactly. I think this is something some of the "haters" just can't wrap their heads around. It's pretty much impossible for any artist with this sort of longevity to make better music in the third/fourth decade than in the first couple. Springsteen hasn't, the Rolling Stones haven't, and even if the Beatles had stuck around as a band, I doubt they would have been able to, either.

As to the issue of not touring often enough, I can see it both ways. I think it's fantastic that Prince, Springsteen and a number of others are committed to touring and recording new music frequently. But I can also see where artists like U2 might need a break. Touring, even with a couple nights off between gigs (or more) can get hard, no matter how nice your accommodations are. Especially when you have a significant other and kids at home. Who really wants to go weeks or months without seeing their kids?

I can't blame U2 for wanting to take a hiatus, especially now that their kids are growing up and they're getting older themselves. With 30+ years of music under their belts and numerous CDs/tours, they deserve a break and deserve to spend time with their families and pursuing other interests should they choose to do so. It doesn't make them terrible musicians to do that, and it doesn't make them any less "dedicated" to music than others who choose to tour more often. It makes them human. If I were in their shoes, even with how much I love music, I'd do the same thing. In fact, I'm surprised they even did as much touring during the 90s as they did, given the fact that their kids were pretty young back then.

Like someone else said, if U2 were to call it a day now, I'd be sad. But ultimately, I'm just glad they've stuck together for as long as they have and have made a lot of really good/great music during that time. Not many artists can say the same.

Oh good Lord, change the record. NLOTH is horribly produced, a complete mess, has some of the worst lyrics bono has written and has the worst song they've ever recorded on it. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to really dislike a record withouth you dismissing them as 'haters'. I'm not suggesting they can go back to their glory days but surely they can do better than that. You're obviously in denial - either that or you've had a sense of humour bypass.

Many artists have stuck together and made great records - look at Coldplay.

Pot. Meet Black Kettle.

Coldplay rules*skip*Coldplay rules*skip*Coldplay rules*skip*   

[Tumbling Dice]

I have a low opinion of the opinion of anyone who regards the NLOTH album as 'crap'.  Unless they're exaggerating for effect.

[Sugarcube]

I have a low opinion of the opinion of anyone who regards the NLOTH album as 'crap'.  Unless they're exaggerating for effect.

I love you - love conquers all. It's all we have left. Anyone will tell you that