U2, Please: Get Up Off Your Knees

[an tha]

I'm pretty tired of all the "U2 should do this or that" discussions.  I should do a lot of things too...but I don't. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

So we should all just sit back and, in a Zen-like state, just accept whatever happens without resisting, offering differing opinions, or wrestling through U2's decisions together?

Nah, sounds way too boring. The "U2 should do this or that" discussions are one of the reasons forums like this exist. I don't want to see this place domesticated or made too safe. I like being challenged.

It always makes me smile how people chime in playing the 'sick of people being negative' or 'sick of these type of threads' card.....or worse the old 'u2 owe us nothing' card.

So what they effectively want then when doing so is a forum to just discuss what is actually happening (which most of the time is nothing) and of course everything must be 'positive' as well....

Well - I suppose people can have that if they want by just not contributing to threads they don't like the look of......i mean we have all seen the long and deep debate about contributing respectfully that has taken place here and how what we post affects others etc......but still people can crash into threads like this one and state they are 'sick and tired' of what others want to and are talking about.

I'd bet you my last pound that if i waded into an appreciation thread about elevation and said i was 'tired of people praising the song' or 'sick of people liking songs i don't' that i would be getting my collar felt in no time......respect reall does have to fly both ways.

All i have seen here is largely respectful and interesting sharing of views and respectful but differing views being put forward punctured by the odd jibe by those who hide behind a 'i am positive' mask dragging the tone down...

Forums are built on discussion and people exchanging views...on people having interesting conversations and the best ones most importantly with people doing so in a respectful, intelligent and engaging manner....

'I am sick of this u2 do what they do take it or leave it' or 'go find another band' or 'why hang here' etc are in my view equally as bad as the sort of stuff that has been raised at length about 'negativity' and how that 'negativity' affects others stops them wanting to contribute, makes them send feedback to forum admin saying the 'place is negative' etc.

Respect and posting in a manner thay encourages cordial discourse and acting in am agreeable manner even when you disagree - especially when you disagree works both ways and I feel people would do well to remember that!

I honestly feel those perceived as 'negative' seem to have really taken that ethos on and run with it and the board is better for it....i would suggest some who deem themselves 'positive' could learn a thing or two in that area....

The forum is a better one when people engage in discussion in a respectful and open manner regardless of agreeing.

I realise that some of u2's most passionate and dedicated fans are in this community including those who run it and i also realise that to some any 'criticism' of the band may be almost heresy!....Here is the thing though - forums have space for all kinds of views....if you want to start a thread called 'u2 are the best band ever and have never made a mistep ever' and engage in a long thread that agrees with that and discusses why - you can!....If you want to start a thread called 'What colour undies do you think Bono wears most?' - you can (if you really must)....if you want a thread that praises Yahweh - you can and so on and so on.......By the same token people have exactly the same freedom to post 'I wish u2 would' 'i think u2 are' 'u2 could do better' etc threads.

All add to the rich tapestry and all have the choice to get involved or swerve - the way it should be.

[dwaltman]

I'm pretty tired of all the "U2 should do this or that" discussions.  I should do a lot of things too...but I don't. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

So we should all just sit back and, in a Zen-like state, just accept whatever happens without resisting, offering differing opinions, or wrestling through U2's decisions together?

Nah, sounds way too boring. The "U2 should do this or that" discussions are one of the reasons forums like this exist. I don't want to see this place domesticated or made too safe. I like being challenged.

It always makes me smile how people chime in playing the 'sick of people being negative' or 'sick of these type of threads' card.....or worse the old 'u2 owe us nothing' card.

So what they effectively want then when doing so is a forum to just discuss what is actually happening (which most of the time is nothing) and of course everything must be 'positive' as well....

Well - I suppose people can have that if they want by just not contributing to threads they don't like the look of......i mean we have all seen the long and deep debate about contributing respectfully that has taken place here and how what we post affects others etc......but still people can crash into threads like this one and state they are 'sick and tired' of what others want to and are talking about.

I'd bet you my last pound that if i waded into an appreciation thread about elevation and said i was 'tired of people praising the song' or 'sick of people liking songs i don't' that i would be getting my collar felt in no time......respect reall does have to fly both ways.

All i have seen here is largely respectful and interesting sharing of views and respectful but differing views being put forward punctured by the odd jibe by those who hide behind a 'i am positive' mask dragging the tone down...

Forums are built on discussion and people exchanging views...on people having interesting conversations and the best ones most importantly with people doing so in a respectful, intelligent and engaging manner....

'I am sick of this u2 do what they do take it or leave it' or 'go find another band' or 'why hang here' etc are in my view equally as bad as the sort of stuff that has been raised at length about 'negativity' and how that 'negativity' affects others stops them wanting to contribute, makes them send feedback to forum admin saying the 'place is negative' etc.

Respect and posting in a manner thay encourages cordial discourse and acting in am agreeable manner even when you disagree - especially when you disagree works both ways and I feel people would do well to remember that!

I honestly feel those perceived as 'negative' seem to have really taken that ethos on and run with it and the board is better for it....i would suggest some who deem themselves 'positive' could learn a thing or two in that area....

The forum is a better one when people engage in discussion in a respectful and open manner regardless of agreeing.

I realise that some of u2's most passionate and dedicated fans are in this community including those who run it and i also realise that to some any 'criticism' of the band may be almost heresy!....Here is the thing though - forums have space for all kinds of views....if you want to start a thread called 'u2 are the best band ever and have never made a mistep ever' and engage in a long thread that agrees with that and discusses why - you can!....If you want to start a thread called 'What colour undies do you think Bono wears most?' - you can (if you really must)....if you want a thread that praises Yahweh - you can and so on and so on.......By the same token people have exactly the same freedom to post 'I wish u2 would' 'i think u2 are' 'u2 could do better' etc threads.

All add to the rich tapestry and all have the choice to get involved or swerve - the way it should be.

I guess it's the word "should." I would enjoy a return to the  the aggression of War. I would love to hear an experimental path a la Zooropa/Pop. I would love to hear an album going off the jazzy chill vibe of xxx. But for me to say they SHOULD  do this or that....who am I to say. It's just been talked to death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviastar]

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do.  Can you expand on the collaboration issue?  Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The Exile]

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do.  Can you expand on the collaboration issue?  Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

[Midnight is Where the Day Begins]

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do.  Can you expand on the collaboration issue?  Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

To be fair, I'm curious how much commercial factors had to do with their decision to work on a song with Kendrick Lamar. There was no huge publicity made about it, and nobody even knew U2 was involved until Lamar himself released the track listing for the album that featured U2s name on a song. Seems like to me that if they really wanted to make it a big deal commercially, you would have had interviews or at least something out of the U2 camp, and we haven't heard much of anything.

Also, to answer your question about Kendrick Lamar's standing in the genre of hip-hop, he's probably one of if not the most critically acclaimed artists in the genre active today, and he's a fantastic lyricist, storyteller, and producer.

[The Exile]

To be fair, I'm curious how much commercial factors had to do with their decision to work on a song with Kendrick Lamar. There was no huge publicity made about it, and nobody even knew U2 was involved until Lamar himself released the track listing for the album that featured U2s name on a song. Seems like to me that if they really wanted to make it a big deal commercially, you would have had interviews or at least something out of the U2 camp, and we haven't heard much of anything.

Right, which is why I said that my broader complaint had nothing to do with Kendrick Lamar. XXX could not exist and my concern would still be valid.

And glad to hear that KL has the cred you say he does. That makes the collab more stomach-able (at least for me).

[dwaltman]

Save for a couple feeble tracks, I didn't think NLOTH or SOI had commercialism written all over them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DGordon1]

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do.  Can you expand on the collaboration issue?  Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

They've been doing that since day dot though Exile. How could you see the transformation from R&H to AB as having no commercial motive? As long as the end product is worthwhile, surely that's the only thing that even matters.

There's a small few artists out there for whom commercial interests don't factor into their artistic choices but they're extremely rare. And U2 have never been this at any time in their existence (I mean you don't become, and stay, the biggest band in the world for so long with this mentality).

[Spaderholic]

Finally listened to the XXX song. I'm not a fan of rap at all (apart from the odd song here and there, mostly from the 80's or 90's) but this track isn't bad. Kendrick's voice is different to the usual whiney drawl of so many rappers, who have a sort of lazy way of rapping that usually irritates the hell out of me (rapping about the cliched stuff like flash cars, bling, pimps and ho's, like Snoop Dogg, etc, urgh I hate that stuff!) Kendrick sounds more like an old school rapper from the 80's and this track certainly has a serious subject matter, lyrics with a conscience. Bono is barely on the track but his bit of singing sounds good. This isn't something I could listen to repeatedly but it's not as bad as I'd feared!

[The Exile]

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do.  Can you expand on the collaboration issue?  Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

They've been doing that since day dot though Exile. How could you see the transformation from R&H to AB as having no commercial motive? As long as the end product is worthwhile, surely that's the only thing that even matters.

There's a small few artists out there for whom commercial interests don't factor into their artistic choices but they're extremely rare. And U2 have never been this at any time in their existence (I mean you don't become, and stay, the biggest band in the world for so long with this mentality).

Doing what? Allowing commercial concerns to drive their art? I disagree. You brought up AB as your example. While the band surely welcomed the commercial success of that album, it was born in a crucible of fractured relationships and fragile loyalties, and as such it comes off as completely authentic.

Whereas Bono insisting that if he doesn't go crazy tonight he will go crazy, well, just doesn't.

[Kmama07]

... it sounds like Exile is elitist enough for the band and most of their fans too. I completely get that being a lifelong hardcore fan of U2 is a precious thing but it doesn't do anyone any good to be so possessive about it.

Let's not devolve into personal insults.

But yeah, I am an elitist of sorts. I think U2 is better than Coldplay, better than Katy Perry, and better than Fetty Wap. I think they are tarnishing their legacy by desperately pining to be popular. It's like they have PLEASE LIKE US painted across their chests, and it's kinda unseemly.

Like many of us, I have invested the majority of my life (not to mention plenty of money) into my U2 fandom. While I wouldn't say they owe me anything, I can still mourn when I see them collaborate with Wyclef Jean or Missy Elliot.

To anyone outside this forum I am a fierce U2 defender. But this should be a safe place to rant every now and then.

Agreed. AND thanks for the laugh with the Amstel Lite remark!

[lucas.homem]

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do.  Can you expand on the collaboration issue?  Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

They've been doing that since day dot though Exile. How could you see the transformation from R&H to AB as having no commercial motive? As long as the end product is worthwhile, surely that's the only thing that even matters.

There's a small few artists out there for whom commercial interests don't factor into their artistic choices but they're extremely rare. And U2 have never been this at any time in their existence (I mean you don't become, and stay, the biggest band in the world for so long with this mentality).

Doing what? Allowing commercial concerns to drive their art? I disagree. You brought up AB as your example. While the band surely welcomed the commercial success of that album, it was born in a crucible of fractured relationships and fragile loyalties, and as such it comes off as completely authentic.

Whereas Bono insisting that if he doesn't go crazy tonight he will go crazy, well, just doesn't.

There's an early interview of Bono speaking about how he perceives U2 as a business too. The question is: what exactly does that mean?

For me, most of their best decisions were made trying to reach more relevance (the thing we want them to avoid now). So, as documented in "U2 by U2", the band searching for Eno after War was because the knew they'd be pigeonholed (and then fade away) if they made another album in the same vein. After that, one could argue that The Joshua Tree was the result of U2 trying to touch a broader audience with their homage to more traditional music (even if Bono was really inspired by that). And Achtung Baby is clearly a consequence of R&H, getting hippier and more european after the "cowboy" fiasco.

The differences between now and the golden days are three, in my opinion: (1) dedication, (2) inspiration and (3) what they perceive as being relevant at the moment. Back in the day, calling Eno to make an experimental album (TUF) sounded like a great idea to bring them critical acclaim and more recognition to their brand (like a better and more complete curriculum). A smart move. Nowadays, for some reason, maybe because they were so gigantic before (something that throws a big shadow), or because they got scared after POP and NLOTH, U2 don't think anymore that they have the opportunity to rink being experimental in order to get relevant and successful. So going safe is the only route that they can see... (although I think they don't understand contemporary music and trends, and that's why they fail so hard [unless Kendrick Lamar is in the command]).

Also, there's a fourth reason too, me thinks. As we all know, U2 is a live band, so they crave for an enthusiastic response from the crowd in a show. Because of that, they release music that they imagine the whole crowd will be singing along to. They are terrifyed of a quiet crowd. Then, between Cedars of Lebanon and Get On Your Boots, which one is answer? Yes, the latter.

[THRILLHO]

I don't see the huge deal...yeah, it plays a little like trying too hard to be relevant, but at the end of the day they are a rock band.  It's not the worst thing in the world for them to try and stay current.  U2 has collaborated with lots of artists throughout the years....not sure why collaborating with current ones draw more scorn than artists 20 years ago...is it just an age thing?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

see, the people they were collaborating with were U2's peers, BB King, Keith Richards, Willie Nelson, not to mention Johnny Cash. The post-Pop era has been them reaching out to the new, cool kids. It should be the other way around.

[lucas.homem]

I don't see the huge deal...yeah, it plays a little like trying too hard to be relevant, but at the end of the day they are a rock band.  It's not the worst thing in the world for them to try and stay current.  U2 has collaborated with lots of artists throughout the years....not sure why collaborating with current ones draw more scorn than artists 20 years ago...is it just an age thing?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

see, the people they were collaborating with were U2's peers, BB King, Keith Richards, Willie Nelson, not to mention Johnny Cash. The post-Pop era has been them reaching out to the new, cool kids. It should be the other way around.

Those guys are U2's peers? Now that they all are all in the classic territory, I guess everybody is peers... but I wonder what BB King's conservative fans thought of him fooling around with the new "band of the moment" in 1988 (the King of the Blues with a post-punk band).

Now U2 is the old act meeting the new generation. We can just hope that they will reach the right ones.

[THRILLHO]

well maybe im using the wrong word. they were the "classic artists" when U2 was just hitting the mainstream in a big way.

oops sorry

Peers: a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.

yes thats the opposite of what i meant.