Author Topic: U2 used to be a real band  (Read 6909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline brendan,belfast

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 82
U2 used to be a real band
« on: January 22, 2009, 03:52:27 AM »
This record is lazy, boring rubbish. I would love U2 to be great again - and i really liked HTDAAB and the first half of ATYCLB. But this is drivel. 'sexy boots'? ffs.

U2 used to be a real live, ongoing band of four dedicated guys putting on the best live shows in the world. Now we get, what? an album every 4 years if lucky? and every one is the 'best one yet'.

I look forward to the album but this is a very poor indicator of its quality.



Offline braxhunt

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 225
  • Feel like trash - you make me feel clean
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2009, 07:16:48 AM »
I'll repeat what others have said. You can't really say the "record is lazy" if you haven't heard it yet. And boots takes time to get into.

Offline jick

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,754
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2009, 07:35:16 AM »
"Used to be"???

Say it isn't so.

In God Part II, they sang "you glorify the past when the future dries up."

Can we just stop reminiscing on the past please?

Cheers,

J

Offline onetreehill

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,684
  • to the rhythm of my soul
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2009, 07:40:33 AM »
umm....hasn't it pretty much always been three to four years between albums?

Offline Starfish

  • Acrobat
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,069
  • Yay, it's Larry!!!
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2009, 08:21:06 AM »
Moving on folks, nothing to see around here  8)

Offline Lesmo

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 562
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2009, 08:25:32 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Moving on folks, nothing to see around here  8)

They still are. A mediocre song domes't mean anything... What ABout SImple Minds? (mmm, bad example)... What about oasis? (Worse)... What about Kajagoogoo?? (that's the one!)

Offline Starfish

  • Acrobat
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,069
  • Yay, it's Larry!!!
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2009, 08:32:00 AM »
Holy Smokes Lesmo! Kajagoogoo!!! Where did that come from? That's like BC!  :D

Offline brendan,belfast

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2009, 02:47:35 PM »
By 'record' I meant GOYB which we have all heard. And no, it didnt used to be always 4 years between records / tours. Think Boy / October / War into Unforgettable Fire. Even the gap between that sublime record and the Joshua Tree was only three years. Rattle & Hum into Acthung baby was a couple of years.

And the tours were 83, 85, 87, 89. My point is they were a band who meant it back then. When Bono urged an audience to 'never forget this' I think he meant it. I just get the feeling they dont mean it anymore. Otherwise there would not be 4.5 years between records and a minimum of four years between gigs.

A summer tour in Ireland will be the last we will see of them this decade and will represent a grand total of three sets of concerts. A poor return.

And that single is just bloody awful!!
« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 03:13:42 PM by brendan,belfast »

Offline Evil Bono

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 882
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2009, 03:02:11 PM »
They also have families now so no matter how big of a rockstar you are you're one main thing is your family and that's why they probably disappear for 4 years in between albums. 

Offline Lesmo

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 562
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2009, 03:12:27 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Holy Smokes Lesmo! Kajagoogoo!!! Where did that come from? That's like BC!  :D


Dunno, I think I didn't have breakfast yet...  ::)

Offline toolz2112

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • they just.. sound different
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2009, 03:18:29 PM »
lets also remember, that the vertigo tour didnt offically finish until the 9th of dec, so its only been 2 yrs since their last tour....plus with families it makes it hard to go off around the world on massive tours every 6 months.....

lets just be happy the album will soon be out, and we can hear the realness of u2 live very soon after that.

Offline Anthony02

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,089
  • And I know that the tide is turning 'round....
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2009, 03:49:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Moving on folks, nothing to see around here  8)


DITTO! And as I recall, its always been about 3 or 4 years for an album to come out. But I dont know, Ive only been listening to them since the JT came out. (smart ass, arrogant smirk on my face).  ;D.

Offline Bono in Bonolands

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 881
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2009, 03:54:06 PM »
See if you think that when you see the NLOTH concerts.

Offline Anthony02

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,089
  • And I know that the tide is turning 'round....
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2009, 03:58:27 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
By 'record' I meant GOYB which we have all heard. And no, it didnt used to be always 4 years between records / tours. Think Boy / October / War into Unforgettable Fire. Even the gap between that sublime record and the Joshua Tree was only three years. Rattle & Hum into Acthung baby was a couple of years.

And the tours were 83, 85, 87, 89. My point is they were a band who meant it back then. When Bono urged an audience to 'never forget this' I think he meant it. I just get the feeling they dont mean it anymore. Otherwise there would not be 4.5 years between records and a minimum of four years between gigs.

A summer tour in Ireland will be the last we will see of them this decade and will represent a grand total of three sets of concerts. A poor return.

And that single is just bloody awful!!



Lets see- Well your right about the first four albums.

BOY release-Oct./1980

OCTOBER release-Oct./1981

WAR release-March./1983

UF release-Oct./1984

JT release-Mar./1987

AB release-Nov./1991

POP release-Mar./1997

ATYCLB release-Oct./2000

HTDAAB release- Nov./2004

Offline TraKianLite/Zooropa

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 877
  • The land was flat, the highway straight and wide.
Re: U2 used to be a real band
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2009, 04:15:21 PM »
All bands get less prolific as they get older* - I don't really see how this is something to complain about, because it's fairly inevitable. What you gonna do? Turn up to a U2 Ltd. board meeting, thump the table and demand a strict deadline? U2 as individuals are almost certainly rich enough to never have to work again, assuming no-one's Madoff** with their wealth, so on a certain level it's great that we get anything at all. Ditto for R.E.M., Metallica and any other band whose lifetime sales stack up into the 75-150m region.

*Nine Inch Nails being an obvious exception, and the five-year gaps previously were down to Trent Reznor's addictions, battles with labels and obsessive tedencies, all of which he seems to have settled in some way. Indeed, Year Zero would have taken at least three years were it not for both this and the decision to record much of it on tour, Zooropa-style.
**that internship at The Sun is looming ever closer.