Author Topic: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?  (Read 2499 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Starman

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 24,145
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2017, 11:19:18 PM »
I think they messed up when overdid both NLOTH and SOI. The long length between those two albums definitely hurt as well. Also, SOE should be out by now.

Offline soloyan

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,375
  • A dangerous idea that almost makes sense
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2017, 01:00:03 AM »
I have to say... I find this thread deeply unfair.
Imagine people arguing about your life and your career and what you did wrong ? Questioning the hard choices only you could make ?

Pretty sure it would break your heart. Especially if it's from someone who's supposed to love you.

I think sometimes we should write posts keeping in mind the band members might read them. It won't happen but I'm sure we would have more decency.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,562
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2017, 04:08:23 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have to say... I find this thread deeply unfair.
Imagine people arguing about your life and your career and what you did wrong ? Questioning the hard choices only you could make ?

Pretty sure it would break your heart. Especially if it's from someone who's supposed to love you.

I think sometimes we should write posts keeping in mind the band members might read them. It won't happen but I'm sure we would have more decency.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Where is the a lack of decency in this thread?

All I can see myself is people articulating their views in pretty thoughtful and interesting ways and certainly not indecently...

Offline aviastar

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Cleared to flight level 340
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2017, 06:12:36 AM »
During the recording or mixing of NLOTH, somebody stands up and says "This Boots song is utter dreck".  The band sleeps on it for a day or two and decides to leave it off the album.  They release the album with Winter in the place of Boots.  The album sells modestly well, and is more appreciated by the diehard U2 fans.  The "The Future Needs a Big Kiss" tour marketing is lost to history, and the 360 tour sees more NLOTH songs worked in...because the band doesn't feel the need to completely disown the album, as there is no massive disappointment about a song that was junked and maybe quietly released as an experimental b-side at a later date.

The modest sucess of the NLOTH but the overwhelming success of the 360 tour leaves the band with quite a bit of confidence...and they complete SOI in late 2013.  Apple pays them for the rights to release it on the iTunes platform, but they opt not to make a big deal out of it at a press conference.  It is a suprise release, and again is a big hit with U2 diehards and attracts some new fans as well.  The companion SOE album is completed during touring the SOI album and the SOI+E tour continues through late 2015.  The band takes a well-deserved break in 2016 and decides to do a limited run of Joshua Tree in Europe & North America in 2017.

After that, they decide to retire from recording full-length albums, and tours on and off as a legacy band.  This is a phase most successful bands should seek to evolve into - and in U2's case it's well deserved.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 06:23:41 AM by aviastar »

Offline LToy

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 524
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2017, 06:40:23 AM »
If i could change the band's timeline I would go back to 1995 at the start of the recording sessions for POP. I would have directed the band to be more focused & disciplined going into the studio instead of their usual "let's throw stuff at the wall & see what sticks" approach. I think they wasted a lot of time in the studio trying to figure out what sound & arrangements for POP they wanted on the album that caused its delayed release date; that delay also had consequences for the start of the Popmart tour.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 07:09:08 AM by LToy »

Offline soloyan

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,375
  • A dangerous idea that almost makes sense
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2017, 06:43:39 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have to say... I find this thread deeply unfair.
Imagine people arguing about your life and your career and what you did wrong ? Questioning the hard choices only you could make ?

Pretty sure it would break your heart. Especially if it's from someone who's supposed to love you.

I think sometimes we should write posts keeping in mind the band members might read them. It won't happen but I'm sure we would have more decency.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Where is the a lack of decency in this thread?

All I can see myself is people articulating their views in pretty thoughtful and interesting ways and certainly not indecently...

Pretending you know better is indecent.

What this thread is doing is not different from what the people who made alternative cuts of Star Wars did.

It came to a point where George Lucas said : if you guys know better, just do, I quit.

Now, you can do Star Wars without Lucas. You cannot do U2 without U2.

You can as well switch "decency" for "humility", for lack of a better word.

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,562
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2017, 07:08:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have to say... I find this thread deeply unfair.
Imagine people arguing about your life and your career and what you did wrong ? Questioning the hard choices only you could make ?

Pretty sure it would break your heart. Especially if it's from someone who's supposed to love you.

I think sometimes we should write posts keeping in mind the band members might read them. It won't happen but I'm sure we would have more decency.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Where is the a lack of decency in this thread?

All I can see myself is people articulating their views in pretty thoughtful and interesting ways and certainly not indecently...

Pretending you know better is indecent.

What this thread is doing is not different from what the people who made alternative cuts of Star Wars did.

It came to a point where George Lucas said : if you guys know better, just do, I quit.

Now, you can do Star Wars without Lucas. You cannot do U2 without U2.

You can as well switch "decency" for "humility", for lack of a better word.


So what do you make of the alternative tracklist/playlist threads people often make here?

Using your logic they are 'indecent' too as u2 made those albums, chose those songs in the order they were put out in....didn't include other songs etc....

I see numerous examples of those threads on the forum and there are a number of posters who are particularly active at that and in those threads re-arranging the order of those albums/cutting tracks/adding tracks etc....

Are they acting 'indecently' or 'without humility'....I ask as i have never noticed you criticising people on those threads....
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 07:10:05 AM by an tha »

Offline podiumboy

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 330
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2017, 07:08:57 AM »
ATYCLB, HTDAAB and their respective tours, grammy awards, super bowl performances, etc... cemented U2's legacy forever.  After the Vertigo tour, I think they should have "retired" from the game of trying to make HITS, and just focused on making good,  uncompromised music.  Just put out new music whenever, and tour whenever.  Release new music with Danger Mouse, Ryan Tedder, RedOne, Rick Rubin, etc.  Go to Fez with Danny and Brian, and make the truly interesting album NLOTH almost was, before it was compromised. Hell, it could've been a Passengers vol. 2.  Open the vaults.  Collaborate with other artists.  Make soundtrack songs.  Be in a state of regularly releasing new material just because, instead of releasing a new album every 5 years after numerous delays and rewrites.

Another idea... go back to September 2014, and think "hey, instead of pushing this album onto all of Apple's devices, let's just offer everyone a free download if they choose to want it".  Turns an extremely negative thing into an extremely positive thing.  Public perception of U2 and SOI does a complete 180.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 07:11:19 AM by podiumboy »

Offline soloyan

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,375
  • A dangerous idea that almost makes sense
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2017, 08:36:07 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have to say... I find this thread deeply unfair.
Imagine people arguing about your life and your career and what you did wrong ? Questioning the hard choices only you could make ?

Pretty sure it would break your heart. Especially if it's from someone who's supposed to love you.

I think sometimes we should write posts keeping in mind the band members might read them. It won't happen but I'm sure we would have more decency.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Where is the a lack of decency in this thread?

All I can see myself is people articulating their views in pretty thoughtful and interesting ways and certainly not indecently...

Pretending you know better is indecent.

What this thread is doing is not different from what the people who made alternative cuts of Star Wars did.

It came to a point where George Lucas said : if you guys know better, just do, I quit.

Now, you can do Star Wars without Lucas. You cannot do U2 without U2.

You can as well switch "decency" for "humility", for lack of a better word.


So what do you make of the alternative tracklist/playlist threads people often make here?

Using your logic they are 'indecent' too as u2 made those albums, chose those songs in the order they were put out in....didn't include other songs etc....

I see numerous examples of those threads on the forum and there are a number of posters who are particularly active at that and in those threads re-arranging the order of those albums/cutting tracks/adding tracks etc....

Are they acting 'indecently' or 'without humility'....I ask as i have never noticed you criticising people on those threads....

That's a good question since I'm using playlists myself.

Ok, first I'll give you that I must have overreacted a bit. Apologies for this. I think Thunder Peel's comment about "wasting time" got on my nerves. I mean, U2 deserve to live their private lives too, you know ? Anyway...

I think listening to the songs in another order or whatever is fine : songs have always been a entity of their own. The band themselves acknowledge that when they release singles, agree for their songs to appear on soundtracks and compilations...

I see where you're going with the George Lucas analogy but I think it would be more like tribute bands actually claiming their covers are better than the original tune.

Would you care to answer this please ? Imagine people arguing about your life and your career and what you did wrong ? Questioning the hard choices only you could make ? How would you feel like ?

LightMyWay92

  • Guest
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2017, 08:46:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I LOVED the Vertigo Tour shows - especially the early ones that brought back Electric Co and An Cat Dubh / Into the Heart - and wish they had channeled that energy into a quick follow-up album instead of settling into that interminable wait until No Line on the Horizon.
They really did seem to lose some energy and inspiration following the Vertigo Tour.  It's sad to say it, but it's natural:  they just started to get older.  It happens to everyone eventually.  With U2 we got to see it, but with so many other legendary bands, we never got to since they didn't stay together or stay popular as long.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 08:51:11 AM by LightMyWay92 »

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,562
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #25 on: February 25, 2017, 09:10:22 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have to say... I find this thread deeply unfair.
Imagine people arguing about your life and your career and what you did wrong ? Questioning the hard choices only you could make ?

Pretty sure it would break your heart. Especially if it's from someone who's supposed to love you.

I think sometimes we should write posts keeping in mind the band members might read them. It won't happen but I'm sure we would have more decency.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Where is the a lack of decency in this thread?

All I can see myself is people articulating their views in pretty thoughtful and interesting ways and certainly not indecently...

Pretending you know better is indecent.

What this thread is doing is not different from what the people who made alternative cuts of Star Wars did.

It came to a point where George Lucas said : if you guys know better, just do, I quit.

Now, you can do Star Wars without Lucas. You cannot do U2 without U2.

You can as well switch "decency" for "humility", for lack of a better word.


So what do you make of the alternative tracklist/playlist threads people often make here?

Using your logic they are 'indecent' too as u2 made those albums, chose those songs in the order they were put out in....didn't include other songs etc....

I see numerous examples of those threads on the forum and there are a number of posters who are particularly active at that and in those threads re-arranging the order of those albums/cutting tracks/adding tracks etc....

Are they acting 'indecently' or 'without humility'....I ask as i have never noticed you criticising people on those threads....

That's a good question since I'm using playlists myself.

Ok, first I'll give you that I must have overreacted a bit. Apologies for this. I think Thunder Peel's comment about "wasting time" got on my nerves. I mean, U2 deserve to live their private lives too, you know ? Anyway...

I think listening to the songs in another order or whatever is fine : songs have always been a entity of their own. The band themselves acknowledge that when they release singles, agree for their songs to appear on soundtracks and compilations...

I see where you're going with the George Lucas analogy but I think it would be more like tribute bands actually claiming their covers are better than the original tune.

Would you care to answer this please ? Imagine people arguing about your life and your career and what you did wrong ? Questioning the hard choices only you could make ? How would you feel like ?

Fair do's on your reply....I appreciate the effort you have made to consider it.

As for your question....If i was an artist in the public eye then personally i would accept that it comes with the territory.....the adulation, hero worship, the criticism, the commentary etc.etc. it is all part of it in my eyes.

There is if course obviously a line though when it ventures into their private lives - but I don't see any of that here.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 09:13:20 AM by an tha »

Offline imaginary friend

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,096
  • take the long way home
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2017, 10:02:11 AM »
Where I'd change the U2 timeline, and how I'd change it:

1994: every member of the band dives full-force into learning at least one instrument they don't already play, along with instruction/coaching on how to expand their skills on the ones they do.


Offline tigerfan41

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,476
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2017, 01:35:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I wouldn't really change what they released but rather the amount of output. If they could release an album every two or three years I'd be thrilled, with intermittent tours in-between. They've wasted so much time over the last 15 years.

This. One of the things I respect so much about Springsteen is that he releases albums pretty frequently and tours a good amount in between. He doesn't seem to care about getting another radio hit, he just puts stuff out there.

If rumors are to be believed, U2 have probably 3-4 albums that are 90% completed since the 00s but were never released due to their own self doubt/quest for pop relevance. I'm not going to assume all of those songs were good, but I am going to assume a lot of them had the potential to be good or even great. They could have easily put out another album a year or two after NLOTH; they could have easily put out SoI earlier than 2014 and SoE should have been out in 2015. But they didn't and instead overcooked both NLOTH and SoI....and are probably overcooking SoE.

I would much rather they release music frequently (without a care about "relevance") and tour frequently than spend ages between albums tweaking and retweaking them. They all seem to be in good health (or have been over the past 15 years), so it's disappointing to see a lot of time wasted not making music or touring. Obviously, they deserve time off, but it seems like it's less an issue of wanting to rest/spend time with family than it is of second guessing the music they make.

Offline Zoomerang77

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 127
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #28 on: February 25, 2017, 03:00:13 PM »
In the moment that Bono and Edge sat at a table discussing whether it'd be a good idea for them to launch a foray into Broadway with the Spiderman musical, I wish Larry had burst in and shaken sense into them to return their focus to U2 and the next album.

Offline Blueyedboy

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 845
  • Embrace the challenge
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #29 on: February 25, 2017, 09:21:28 PM »
I did write an even longer  reply to this great question than this one, but in reading it back realised that, as a U2 fan it boils down to just a couple of things that I would change about the timeline of the band who were the focus of my fandom for so long.

1. U2 changed from being a band and became a brand following the release of the Best Of albums and ATYCLB. It seemed that each release since needs to meet a predictable sounding template.
The songs that stray away from the template are beaten back into shape in the studio until we're left with a formulaic and predictable "U2" track.

2. Again since ATYCLB, I feel more like a customer than a fan. High ticket prices, multi platforms of albums, multi-option tracklists of albums, are aimed at exploiting the U2 fan who needs to own everything in the U2 catalogue. It's seems that this is a million miles away from what was appealing and attracted me to the band in the first place.

So, in answer to the original question, I guess anytime after ATYCLB would be the answer but, although I'm not a fan of their post 2000 output (I don't think I would be a fan of U2 if they began in 2000), it's not entirely musically based. Things just don't feel like they used to, the band no longer speak to me, or for me, in the way that they once did, possibly to do with my progressing years and the different priorities and perspectives on life that fatherhood brings as much as my percieved change in the band.

But in truth, why should U2 be any different to any other band who are fortunate enough to reach this stage of their career. They've put in the hard yards in the first decade and a half of their career, maybe it's time for them to reap the rewards of having a large static fanbase who will buy anything with their name on it.



« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 09:25:50 PM by Blueyedboy »