Author Topic: The U2 of the 2000's  (Read 10445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2013, 05:52:59 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Movie yes. Tour no. I saw some great stuff on that tour. Gloria. An cat. Horses. Please. Sbs. Pride. Streets. Bad. Mw. Zoo station. Etc. Why on earth would I want to miss all that?

             Because you'd have to hear the songs from HTDAAB, and ALTYCLB which you don't like. I mean, if I didn't like a bands material from the previous decade, but I did like their old stuff, I would not rush out to get tickets, to a concert that would rapidly sellout. Why? Because I'd be preventing other fans that would enjoy the experience more from seeing it. Now, if the show was not in danger of selling out, I'd probably go, buy the ticket the day of the show.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2013, 05:54:07 PM »
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
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
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!

each to their own i know but to call HTDAAB the greatest album of the 21st century and laud those other songs beggars belief IMO - as for the ticket comments - behave!

HTDAAB is a fantastic album and even Bono agrees its their third best. It sold over 10 million copies and won 8 Grammy awards including album of the year. The band worked very hard on it for years, including re-writing songs and throwing out some stuff. They did an amazing job, and after 9 years I still get goose bumps when I listen to it.

I couldn't give a toss how many grammies it won (is there anything less rock n roll in music?) or how many copies it sold - as far as I am concerned its a dog of an album - you love it, fair do's

            Hey, I'm just offering you something other than my own opinion in discussing the albums greatness.

huge sales numbers dont mean great - neither do grammies - and i dont trust bonos opinion on music that much these days either!

you'll be quoting the tour attendances next..........

we'll agree to disagree, pal

             Maybe, but at least its something more than just our individual opinions. I mean, besides your individual opinion, what do you have to back up your idea that HTDAAB is not a great album?

the same as you - nothing that is worth too much..... its a big part of what forums are about, discussion and debate.... oh and my mate dave said its sh**e too!  ;)

Who's Dave?

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2013, 05:56:26 PM »
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
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
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!

each to their own i know but to call HTDAAB the greatest album of the 21st century and laud those other songs beggars belief IMO - as for the ticket comments - behave!

HTDAAB is a fantastic album and even Bono agrees its their third best. It sold over 10 million copies and won 8 Grammy awards including album of the year. The band worked very hard on it for years, including re-writing songs and throwing out some stuff. They did an amazing job, and after 9 years I still get goose bumps when I listen to it.

I couldn't give a toss how many grammies it won (is there anything less rock n roll in music?) or how many copies it sold - as far as I am concerned its a dog of an album - you love it, fair do's

            Hey, I'm just offering you something other than my own opinion in discussing the albums greatness.

huge sales numbers dont mean great - neither do grammies - and i dont trust bonos opinion on music that much these days either!

you'll be quoting the tour attendances next..........

we'll agree to disagree, pal

             Maybe, but at least its something more than just our individual opinions. I mean, besides your individual opinion, what do you have to back up your idea that HTDAAB is not a great album?

the same as you - nothing that is worth too much..... its a big part of what forums are about, discussion and debate.... oh and my mate dave said its sh**e too!  ;)

Who's Dave?

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline neilkap

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 173
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2013, 06:01:01 PM »
I said in the other thread that I would always go to a new tour to give the new songs a chance. Plus I knew I would hear more songs I do like than song that I dont. Either way when the next tour rolls around I will Be There.

Offline KenpoMatt

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 346
  • The first wealth is health.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2013, 08:37:26 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I just hope they release all my life

X's 100! I even have the beach recording on my IPOD in my U2 rarities section. I really wish they would have done an entire "Rubin produced" album. 

Offline parkman

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • His love is continually teaching me how to kneel.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2013, 12:37:03 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've been listening since I could comprehend what music was. Like at 3-4 years old.
I'm now 17.
Look it really does matter to me how well U2 does in the present too, but I'm certainly no fan to move on to "get a rush" from other bands. No band, can rival U2 to me. I'm not ragging you for not feeling that way, but I'd Go listen to bootlegs, that's what I do  :) Feels fresh and new!

Offline parkman

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • His love is continually teaching me how to kneel.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2013, 12:40:01 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.

I totally agree.  :)

Offline soapit

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,527
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #37 on: October 18, 2013, 12:52:18 AM »
thats rubbish. music should never be about pleasing the fans. the band should just do something they like.

Offline parkman

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • His love is continually teaching me how to kneel.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2013, 01:23:08 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
thats rubbish. music should never be about pleasing the fans. the band should just do something they like.

I'm clapping right now.. literally!  ;D

satellitedog01

  • Guest
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #39 on: October 18, 2013, 02:55:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've been listening since I could comprehend what music was. Like at 3-4 years old.
I'm now 17.
Look it really does matter to me how well U2 does in the present too, but I'm certainly no fan to move on to "get a rush" from other bands. No band, can rival U2 to me. I'm not ragging you for not feeling that way, but I'd Go listen to bootlegs, that's what I do  :) Feels fresh and new!

Well, then you are still in the honeymoon phase, which you should enjoy. I fell in love with a very different U2 to today's, and maybe it will happen to you as well when they become something different still. My negativity comes from the ten years I gave U2 to convince me they still have what I've fallen in love with at 12 (or 7 even).

jacob

  • Guest
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2013, 08:13:07 AM »
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!  :)

Even this question raises a storm of negativity.
I am puzzled by people who loathe u2 for their 00s output, and spent 13 years on this forum explaining us why. What is wrong with them?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 08:21:49 AM by jacob »

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2013, 08:42:54 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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!  :)

Even this question raises a storm of negativity.
I am puzzled by people who loathe u2 for their 00s output, and spent 13 years on this forum explaining us why. What is wrong with them?

Interesting observation!

Offline mdmomof7

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,694
  • Im born again to the latest sound
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2013, 11:07:07 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
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!  :)

Even this question raises a storm of negativity.
I am puzzled by people who loathe u2 for their 00s output, and spent 13 years on this forum explaining us why. What is wrong with them?

Interesting observation!

Ironic and spot on.

Offline parkman

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • His love is continually teaching me how to kneel.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2013, 02:51:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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!  :)

Even this question raises a storm of negativity.
I am puzzled by people who loathe u2 for their 00s output, and spent 13 years on this forum explaining us why. What is wrong with them?

Very true. I was hoping for maybe a change of heart. LOL. At least I've found not everyone on here feels that U2 is no longer good! It just seems unusual that these fans would hang 'round the forums so much if they hate on U2 so much? Not to say they can't.. but I find it peculiar... not so much in not liking them now, but the forum dynamic. And Ordinary Love for example, people are saying already "It sounds like the U2 of the 00's, I don't like it. They aren't reinventing themselves." And such. They're seems to be a HEAVY interest in Zoo TV and Achtung Baby, just not much of anything else for these people. In fairness, I'm sorry to those who don't like what U2 is coming out with. To me, it sounds more like early 80's and the beginning of the 00's. After all, U2 started out with music like this, NOT Achtung. 
But I for one, love U2 in the 80's, 90's, and 00's!  :)

Offline LToy

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 562
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2013, 03:17:01 PM »
Remember when U2's mantra during the War Tour was "we're waging a war against boring, wallpaper music"?  Well the irony is that for the last 13 years U2's music has become exactly that.  It's safe, radio-friendly, commercial; it will get played on all the adult rock stations, etc.  They became the band that NARAS (the governing body that votes on the grammys) said in 2000, "you know what, you're still standing after more than 2+ decades, will give you our votes to give you more grammys, even though your hardcore fans would probably argue that your peak creative, artistic years were from the mid-80's to early 90's."