Author Topic: The U2 of the 2000's  (Read 10508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline parkman

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • His love is continually teaching me how to kneel.
The U2 of the 2000's
« on: October 17, 2013, 02:38:10 AM »
Why do I get the feeling that most of you seem to feel that U2 is only as good as their last performance?
Meaning, their last studio performance. I get the impression, that U2 is no longer worthy in a bunch of your eyes because of the so called "00's".
Now maybe, some of you aren't quite as big of fans of U2 as I am(based off of the, I don't listen to U2 anymore comments), which is fine, but the negativity is heavy. Which is confusing to me.. I mean, it's U2 we're talking about here. I just feel that maybe, they should deserve a little more credibility? Maybe that's just me.. but it's not like they're some totally different band than they were in the 90's.
Please, share your thoughts below!  :)



Offline soloyan

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,437
  • A dangerous idea that almost makes sense
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2013, 05:20:38 AM »
U2 is the same bunch of people which, in itself, is quite something.
I think it's hard to keep up with the same people over the years it's true with U2, your family, your friends...
Difference is, with U2 you are allowed to your preferences, nostalgia is also OK.

And you know what, it has ALWAYS been the case.
I remember when the Joshua Tree came out, there were already guys who thought U2 had sold out. That they were not the same during the War tour. And they're not wrong. I mean, pick what you like !

There are 1000's ways of being a U2 fan.

Offline boom boom

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,195
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2013, 05:40:33 AM »
U2 are in a position now where they just can't win.  No matter what they put out people will whine and complain that it is either too radio friendly, not experimental enough, too simple, or if they try something really different, they'll say, what were they thinking (remember POP and POPMART).  It seems that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  I for one, love U2's 2000's material.  2 of their most successful albums came from this era.  I have never complained about their output during this era, I only question and complained about their choices of songs when they go on tour when they play the same staples over and over, tour after tour.  The problem is and I think Brian Eno said it, that a band's worst enemy is their own past and especially a past like U2's.  People will always tend to compare their new material with JT and AB.  It's time to let it go and just enjoy new songs for what its is, whether it's straight forward and simple rock tunes or more experimental.  I just hope they mix it up more (like  Springsteen) when they go out on tour.

Offline eddyjedi

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,662
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2013, 08:02:46 AM »
I just hope they release all my life

satellitedog01

  • Guest
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2013, 08:45:11 AM »
How long have you been listening to U2, Parkman?

Because after an intense ten years of fandom for myself ('93-03) as a kid, after noticing they started to become dad-rock (was very clear even at the time) and offering music that rarely matched the excitement of the "classics", after hearing Bono shredding his voice and changing into a very different, lot less mesmerising singer, and after hearing the first few duds released as singles the time came when I opened my ears to anything that caught me the same way U2 did when I was 12.

They aren't the only good band around and the scene has a vast selection of great music to offer (not most of the typical U2 substitutes mind you, half of whom are rubbish compared to even decent bands, not even U2). You just start digging into a world of music, and obviously some will stick with you, and some will take you to emotional (and physical) places as yet unimagined.

One just moves on after a while, enjoys diversity, finds new greatness, and it becomes true to that person that U2 are only worth as much as their latest product considering worth of their time and money. Time changes tastes.

I'm still willing to give them the time of day, if they give me new music, but they demanded a lot more time in the last ten years than they gave back in the form of sublime musical moments. The waiting didn't turn out to be worth it anymore so I'm sceptical. This of course means the music really has to be special to hold me for more than a few listens.


Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2013, 10:07:10 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How long have you been listening to U2, Parkman?

Because after an intense ten years of fandom for myself ('93-03) as a kid, after noticing they started to become dad-rock (was very clear even at the time) and offering music that rarely matched the excitement of the "classics", after hearing Bono shredding his voice and changing into a very different, lot less mesmerising singer, and after hearing the first few duds released as singles the time came when I opened my ears to anything that caught me the same way U2 did when I was 12.

They aren't the only good band around and the scene has a vast selection of great music to offer (not most of the typical U2 substitutes mind you, half of whom are rubbish compared to even decent bands, not even U2). You just start digging into a world of music, and obviously some will stick with you, and some will take you to emotional (and physical) places as yet unimagined.

One just moves on after a while, enjoys diversity, finds new greatness, and it becomes true to that person that U2 are only worth as much as their latest product considering worth of their time and money. Time changes tastes.

I'm still willing to give them the time of day, if they give me new music, but they demanded a lot more time in the last ten years than they gave back in the form of sublime musical moments. The waiting didn't turn out to be worth it anymore so I'm sceptical. This of course means the music really has to be special to hold me for more than a few listens.

         Well, I've been a U2 fan since 1985. I think the music they have done in the 00s is some of the best of their entire career. HTDAAB is the 3rd greatest U2 album of all time. Only Acthung Baby and Joshua Tree are able to top it. I also think its absurd to lable someone as "dad rock" just because they don't use the same sound that they may have once did or they don't sound as "heavy" in terms of rock or metal that your new favorite artist sounds like.

               Are you really going to lable Vertigo, Beautiful Day and Get On Your Boots as "Dad Rock", but say that "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" is somehow heavy, progressive, or indie rock? Really?

satellitedog01

  • Guest
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2013, 10:09:16 AM »
Enjoy your day Edge245, and maybe try and not read meaning into my post that I never wrote.

SD

Offline neilkap

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 173
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2013, 10:48:48 AM »
Lol!

Yeah everything SD said.

Personally if I grade the eras its 80s first, then 90s then 00s, with tbe bottom of tbe U2 canon being HTDAAB. Not because its 'dad rock' , but because its 'bad rock'

Im not sure what 'dad rock' means exactly. I'm a dad and I like rock.




Offline Kurukira

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 859
  • Don't Expect, Suggest.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2013, 11:06:36 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How long have you been listening to U2, Parkman?

Because after an intense ten years of fandom for myself ('93-03) as a kid, after noticing they started to become dad-rock (was very clear even at the time) and offering music that rarely matched the excitement of the "classics", after hearing Bono shredding his voice and changing into a very different, lot less mesmerising singer, and after hearing the first few duds released as singles the time came when I opened my ears to anything that caught me the same way U2 did when I was 12.

They aren't the only good band around and the scene has a vast selection of great music to offer (not most of the typical U2 substitutes mind you, half of whom are rubbish compared to even decent bands, not even U2). You just start digging into a world of music, and obviously some will stick with you, and some will take you to emotional (and physical) places as yet unimagined.

One just moves on after a while, enjoys diversity, finds new greatness, and it becomes true to that person that U2 are only worth as much as their latest product considering worth of their time and money. Time changes tastes.

I'm still willing to give them the time of day, if they give me new music, but they demanded a lot more time in the last ten years than they gave back in the form of sublime musical moments. The waiting didn't turn out to be worth it anymore so I'm sceptical. This of course means the music really has to be special to hold me for more than a few listens.

I'm on the exact same wavelength as you, after following U2 for the same period of time (though mine started around mid-late 1992), when they entered more 'dad rock' territory, my interests turned to other bands and I did find one that hit me emotionally the same way U2 did, so I have been keeping up with said band more actively while keeping an ear out for the newer stuff.  I'll be fair, there's a few good gems in U2's 'dad rock' period that I hold dear, "Cedars of Lebanon" being first and foremost in my mind, but like you I'll still give U2 the time of day, but if I don't feel anything sublime out of whatever new music they have, then I'll keep getting that rush from other places.

satellitedog01

  • Guest
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2013, 11:23:15 AM »
Yes. I agree that there are quite a few great songs throughout the '00s, but it isn't the same as it used to be, and it definitely isn't just me growing out of U2, before anyone suggests. I haven't grown out of other bands I've loved for similar lengths of time.

Offline ZooClothes

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,616
  • This is where you can reach me now.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2013, 11:32:39 AM »
"Dad rock".

Well then I guess the whole other category is  "kid rock" then, eh?

Whatever "dad rock" is, the tracks NLOTH, Fez, Magnificent, GOYB, Breathe, Moment of Surrender, are not it. Or are they?

Lots of songs on AB dealt squarely with fractured relationships, of which I'm sure "dads" have been involved; "Dirty Day" has been described as a bunch of sayings Bono's dad used to throw around; Johnny Cash's character in "The Wanderer" sounds like a dad checking out of his house; "Wake Up Dead Man" asks Jesus to put a word in with his dad. Is this all dad rock too?

It's not a derogatory term to me. Fatherhood and mortality are addressed directly and obliquely on many U2 songs since 2000 and it's just as much a part of life as any other topic in rock and roll.

Offline Thunder Peel

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,549
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2013, 11:57:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 are in a position now where they just can't win.  No matter what they put out people will whine and complain that it is either too radio friendly, not experimental enough, too simple, or if they try something really different, they'll say, what were they thinking (remember POP and POPMART).  It seems that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  I for one, love U2's 2000's material.  2 of their most successful albums came from this era.  I have never complained about their output during this era, I only question and complained about their choices of songs when they go on tour when they play the same staples over and over, tour after tour.  The problem is and I think Brian Eno said it, that a band's worst enemy is their own past and especially a past like U2's.  People will always tend to compare their new material with JT and AB.  It's time to let it go and just enjoy new songs for what its is, whether it's straight forward and simple rock tunes or more experimental.  I just hope they mix it up more (like  Springsteen) when they go out on tour.

This sums up much of my feelings too. I think they're in a place where anything they do will be picked apart by fans and some of those are fans who will be dissatisfied regardless of the outcome. If some have moved on from the band or aren't interested anymore then that's totally fine. I don't begrudge them that at all. However, it seems strange to me that they will hang around waiting to bash anything the band does while bringing up the fact that the band's glory days are behind them. They're entitled to their opinions but it seems like some of them are in an abusive relationship: they gripe about the band but won't actually move on and leave the band to those of us who still enjoy their music. Thankfully there isn't a lot of that here on the forums but just search across the web and you'll find plenty of people who feel this way. I personally love their 2000's output and listen to those records just as much as the ones from the 80's and 90's.

Take Switchfoot for example. I'm a big fan of theirs and have been since 1999 when New Way to Be Human was released. Back then only a few people in the Christian community knew who they were or had heard any of their songs. Then in 2003 they released The Beautiful Letdown on a major label and become international successes. It's hard to find someone now who doesn't at least recognize their name or isn't familiar with one or two of their songs. I'm still a big fan but I do feel that a couple of their albums in the past decade were a bit patchy, though most of it was still extremely good. I don't believe I'm some kind of super-fan because I knew them before the mainstream did or because I found a couple of their recent albums to be a bit underwhelming. Those fans who just recently came on board are just as valid and it's thrilling to see them having so much success. If I didn't like their new material I would just call it a day and stick with their older albums; I wouldn't waste time complaining about each new record or tour or whatever. I still love their music but I know some fans who don't care for the new stuff but at least they don't spend all their time criticizing the band and posting their dissatisfaction all over the Internet. I guess when you have the status and fame that U2 does everyone wants a piece of it.

There's a difference between constructive criticism and bashing. I don't mind the former but the latter gets old very quickly. I'm excited to grow with the band and see where they go next. I don't expect another Joshua Tree or War or Achtung Baby. I want them to make the music they want to make and as long as they're being faithful to their vision then I will always respect that.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 12:02:03 PM by Thunder Peel »

Offline zooshoes

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 180
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2013, 02:45:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do I get the feeling that most of you seem to feel that U2 is only as good as their last performance?
Meaning, their last studio performance. I get the impression, that U2 is no longer worthy in a bunch of your eyes because of the so called "00's".
Now maybe, some of you aren't quite as big of fans of U2 as I am(based off of the, I don't listen to U2 anymore comments), which is fine, but the negativity is heavy. Which is confusing to me.. I mean, it's U2 we're talking about here. I just feel that maybe, they should deserve a little more credibility? Maybe that's just me.. but it's not like they're some totally different band than they were in the 90's.
Please, share your thoughts below!  :)

It's been 16 years since U2 released an album I liked from start to finish (Pop), 13 years since they released an album I liked half of (ATYCLB) and 9 years since they released an album I liked more than a third of (HTDAAB). I liked 2 songs from NLTH.  With stats like that it's hard for me to keep saying that U2 are a great band.  The truth is they were a great band in my eyes but they are not anymore.

It wouldn't be like that for someone who really liked their last three albums.  That's fine, I wish I liked them.  But I don't and that's reality for me.

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2013, 03:00:21 PM »
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

It's almost unbelievable to me that the band who became the biggest and best band on the planet could become what they became for the most part in the 00's - if you played Stand Up Comedy, Crazy Tonight or Peace on Earth for example to someone who knows nothing about u2 and said "this is the band who are/were considered the biggest rock n roll band on the planet" for me they'd just laugh.... U2 in the 00's lost their bo****ks, lost the magic that made them what they were and I fear it will never return - how many artists have made great music in their 50's....?

To go from songs like The Fly, Acrobat, Mofo, UTEOTW, Ultra Violet, Dirty Day et al to Peace on Earth, Love and Peace, SUC, Crazy Tonight, Elevation, Yahweh et al - in just a few years is criminal IMO.

Others will disagree and thats fine its all subjective - but for me the band I fell in love with ceased to be in the 00's - I used to be proud to play u2 songs to non fans and often would get a "wow i didn't know they could do that" - now i would honestly be embarrassed to play most of their songs from the last decade to people....

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2013, 04:25:11 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

It's almost unbelievable to me that the band who became the biggest and best band on the planet could become what they became for the most part in the 00's - if you played Stand Up Comedy, Crazy Tonight or Peace on Earth for example to someone who knows nothing about u2 and said "this is the band who are/were considered the biggest rock n roll band on the planet" for me they'd just laugh.... U2 in the 00's lost their bo****ks, lost the magic that made them what they were and I fear it will never return - how many artists have made great music in their 50's....?

To go from songs like The Fly, Acrobat, Mofo, UTEOTW, Ultra Violet, Dirty Day et al to Peace on Earth, Love and Peace, SUC, Crazy Tonight, Elevation, Yahweh et al - in just a few years is criminal IMO.

Others will disagree and thats fine its all subjective - but for me the band I fell in love with ceased to be in the 00's - I used to be proud to play u2 songs to non fans and often would get a "wow i didn't know they could do that" - now i would honestly be embarrassed to play most of their songs from the last decade to people....

           HTDAAB is U2's 3rd greatest album and easily the greatest album of music released so far in the 21st century. The songs you listed from the 90s and the 00s are all of the same quality and on the same level. Just because music has a more light hearted or uplifting tone does not make it inferior to something that is darker.

           I just hope the 00s haters are not blocking up ticket lines next year. Let the fans that still truly love the bands work get in to see them in the arena's!