Author Topic: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE  (Read 17363 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Volcanogirl

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,836
  • The goal is Elevation !
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #75 on: February 20, 2016, 04:59:53 PM »
^ I think that U2 are not that obsessed with being top tour. And the whole thing isn't over. We had the Innocence part. Now get ready for the next leg, the Experience leg of the tour. I hope they find a way to make this special. I know they can. For instance start with POP. Love to hear the crowd go
"Mooofoooh ...!!" when it starts. They can handle a tour like this, but i don't think not a big stadium one......

Offline Giga Razor

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 195
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2016, 05:00:38 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
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

Lord knows, we all know this, but with Apple deals, lucrative Live Nation deals, Guy Oseary, their U2 corp tax affairs and Edge's property fiasco in California, does this really speak of a band that used to push the creative boundaries? All that sh**e is now getting in the way of creative instincts and sapping their mind as they slowly morph into businessmen and we're left with sloppy sappy tunes like Song For Someone and other generic pieces (The Miracle, etc).

I mean, come on, no good artist has ever come off well when they have such uber material interest at heart? And U2 are wasting all that talent now in the chase of playing the markets basically.

Their live performances still amaze, but for the rest? They've only got themselves to blame.

Most absolutely spot on post I've read in quite some time. These are the reasons the band simply no longer resonates the way it used to for me. Their creative energy and vibe is severely lacking at this point as their music is mediocre at best these days. Personally, I would not even go so far as to say that their "live performances still amaze" comparatively speaking. Choreographed well..yes...creative ..to a certain degree...passionate to the core..not even close.

I second all of this.

i enjoyed the I+E shows I saw but yes there is no doubt that much of the former passion seems to be ebbing... I have commented before on how Streets for me is the shining example of where the spark is really fading.  yes it is still great, relatively speaking but it's nowhere near what it used to be and I attribute this to the meticulous scripted nature of every show plus Bono's insistence to trumpet his humanitarian and social activism into these shows... it started with Vertigo Tour and I really wish they would stifle it and get more spontaneous... I have limited expectations...

at the end of the day they need to get pi**ed and bring some of the contender/challenger mojo back... these days every show is a victory tour stop and while joy is great, a little simmering anger and rage are great fuel for rock n roll show...

Well said! Enjoyed the shows... yes I did for the most part. Solid night out.  Did I leave there feeling "touched" by the experience like I used too..... no way.  The mojo is lost. This is my opinion because I have seen every tour multiple times since War. I can fully understand how some fans loved the shows because they have less mileage to compare it to. I would never want to yuck their yum. In the end, the tours are driven by the power of the songs and the strength and power of most (not all) of the material has been  lost  since POP.   It's that simple. I mean seriously, for Cedar Road to be the "fans" favorite new live song from SOI says it all. It will be a complete afterthought in the future.  On second thought, maybe it won't because it is not challenging sonically and easy for Bono to sing (he can easily talk his way through most of it without singing). So in that case, we may see it again and again.
If u saw the war tour u must be getting on in years like the band,as u well know nothing stays the same and if u expect U2 to be the same as they were in 83 or 87 your off your rocker,name one band that has as much drive and power as they had 30 years ago  ,I can't think of any because there is none ,for U2 to be still doing big tours and big album's this late into their careers is amazing ,How long did the Beatles last less than 10 years,could u imagine the drivel they would have put out in the 70s,80s,going by McCartney and lennons solo output it wouldn't have been very good bar the odd moment,For U2 the last album was a major recovery after noloth it's as good as anything they have done since Achtung Baby ,and still certain fans aren't happy.

Offline Mr. Red

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 312
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2016, 07:11:21 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
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

Lord knows, we all know this, but with Apple deals, lucrative Live Nation deals, Guy Oseary, their U2 corp tax affairs and Edge's property fiasco in California, does this really speak of a band that used to push the creative boundaries? All that sh**e is now getting in the way of creative instincts and sapping their mind as they slowly morph into businessmen and we're left with sloppy sappy tunes like Song For Someone and other generic pieces (The Miracle, etc).

I mean, come on, no good artist has ever come off well when they have such uber material interest at heart? And U2 are wasting all that talent now in the chase of playing the markets basically.

Their live performances still amaze, but for the rest? They've only got themselves to blame.

Most absolutely spot on post I've read in quite some time. These are the reasons the band simply no longer resonates the way it used to for me. Their creative energy and vibe is severely lacking at this point as their music is mediocre at best these days. Personally, I would not even go so far as to say that their "live performances still amaze" comparatively speaking. Choreographed well..yes...creative ..to a certain degree...passionate to the core..not even close.

I second all of this.

i enjoyed the I+E shows I saw but yes there is no doubt that much of the former passion seems to be ebbing... I have commented before on how Streets for me is the shining example of where the spark is really fading.  yes it is still great, relatively speaking but it's nowhere near what it used to be and I attribute this to the meticulous scripted nature of every show plus Bono's insistence to trumpet his humanitarian and social activism into these shows... it started with Vertigo Tour and I really wish they would stifle it and get more spontaneous... I have limited expectations...

at the end of the day they need to get pi**ed and bring some of the contender/challenger mojo back... these days every show is a victory tour stop and while joy is great, a little simmering anger and rage are great fuel for rock n roll show...

Well said! Enjoyed the shows... yes I did for the most part. Solid night out.  Did I leave there feeling "touched" by the experience like I used too..... no way.  The mojo is lost. This is my opinion because I have seen every tour multiple times since War. I can fully understand how some fans loved the shows because they have less mileage to compare it to. I would never want to yuck their yum. In the end, the tours are driven by the power of the songs and the strength and power of most (not all) of the material has been  lost  since POP.   It's that simple. I mean seriously, for Cedar Road to be the "fans" favorite new live song from SOI says it all. It will be a complete afterthought in the future.  On second thought, maybe it won't because it is not challenging sonically and easy for Bono to sing (he can easily talk his way through most of it without singing). So in that case, we may see it again and again.
If u saw the war tour u must be getting on in years like the band,as u well know nothing stays the same and if u expect U2 to be the same as they were in 83 or 87 your off your rocker,name one band that has as much drive and power as they had 30 years ago  ,I can't think of any because there is none ,for U2 to be still doing big tours and big album's this late into their careers is amazing ,How long did the Beatles last less than 10 years,could u imagine the drivel they would have put out in the 70s,80s,going by McCartney and lennons solo output it wouldn't have been very good bar the odd moment,For U2 the last album was a major recovery after noloth it's as good as anything they have done since Achtung Baby ,and still certain fans aren't happy.

Clearly you haven't read my posts properly. I never talked about the band having to be  "the same" as they were in 83 or 87 as you mentioned. I was referring to what the band no longer does for me. I believe that if they have the same "passion" it is not translating to the records and for me did not translate to the tour  either. Age has nothing to do with being innovative. They have locked themselves into mediocre music because it is safe for them and they are very focused on how much they are liked by the masses.  Thus, their music ( not all of it) now is no longer innovative or fresh. I would agree that SOI is their best output since 2000 but again, most of it does not resonate for me except for the Danger Mouse productions. I truly believe that if they had the balls to stick with the Danger Mouse tunes instead of bringing in the other guys, SOI would have absolutely delivered. But, as they have always done from 2000 on, they crapped out. Some tunes on NLOTH I really liked but they bastardized it with the GOYB etc of the world. So no, I'm no off my "rocker." I do appreciate that they are still making records but too often, it's not doing it for me. No Mojo.

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!

Waffles

  • Guest
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #78 on: February 21, 2016, 12:12:46 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

Lord knows, we all know this, but with Apple deals, lucrative Live Nation deals, Guy Oseary, their U2 corp tax affairs and Edge's property fiasco in California, does this really speak of a band that used to push the creative boundaries? All that sh**e is now getting in the way of creative instincts and sapping their mind as they slowly morph into businessmen and we're left with sloppy sappy tunes like Song For Someone and other generic pieces (The Miracle, etc).

I mean, come on, no good artist has ever come off well when they have such uber material interest at heart? And U2 are wasting all that talent now in the chase of playing the markets basically.

Their live performances still amaze, but for the rest? They've only got themselves to blame.

Most absolutely spot on post I've read in quite some time. These are the reasons the band simply no longer resonates the way it used to for me. Their creative energy and vibe is severely lacking at this point as their music is mediocre at best these days. Personally, I would not even go so far as to say that their "live performances still amaze" comparatively speaking. Choreographed well..yes...creative ..to a certain degree...passionate to the core..not even close.

I second all of this.

i enjoyed the I+E shows I saw but yes there is no doubt that much of the former passion seems to be ebbing... I have commented before on how Streets for me is the shining example of where the spark is really fading.  yes it is still great, relatively speaking but it's nowhere near what it used to be and I attribute this to the meticulous scripted nature of every show plus Bono's insistence to trumpet his humanitarian and social activism into these shows... it started with Vertigo Tour and I really wish they would stifle it and get more spontaneous... I have limited expectations...

at the end of the day they need to get pi**ed and bring some of the contender/challenger mojo back... these days every show is a victory tour stop and while joy is great, a little simmering anger and rage are great fuel for rock n roll show...

Well said! Enjoyed the shows... yes I did for the most part. Solid night out.  Did I leave there feeling "touched" by the experience like I used too..... no way.  The mojo is lost. This is my opinion because I have seen every tour multiple times since War. I can fully understand how some fans loved the shows because they have less mileage to compare it to. I would never want to yuck their yum. In the end, the tours are driven by the power of the songs and the strength and power of most (not all) of the material has been  lost  since POP.   It's that simple. I mean seriously, for Cedar Road to be the "fans" favorite new live song from SOI says it all. It will be a complete afterthought in the future.  On second thought, maybe it won't because it is not challenging sonically and easy for Bono to sing (he can easily talk his way through most of it without singing). So in that case, we may see it again and again.
If u saw the war tour u must be getting on in years like the band,as u well know nothing stays the same and if u expect U2 to be the same as they were in 83 or 87 your off your rocker,name one band that has as much drive and power as they had 30 years ago  ,I can't think of any because there is none ,for U2 to be still doing big tours and big album's this late into their careers is amazing ,How long did the Beatles last less than 10 years,could u imagine the drivel they would have put out in the 70s,80s,going by McCartney and lennons solo output it wouldn't have been very good bar the odd moment,For U2 the last album was a major recovery after noloth it's as good as anything they have done since Achtung Baby ,and still certain fans aren't happy.

Clearly you haven't read my posts properly. I never talked about the band having to be  "the same" as they were in 83 or 87 as you mentioned. I was referring to what the band no longer does for me. I believe that if they have the same "passion" it is not translating to the records and for me did not translate to the tour  either. Age has nothing to do with being innovative. They have locked themselves into mediocre music because it is safe for them and they are very focused on how much they are liked by the masses.  Thus, their music ( not all of it) now is no longer innovative or fresh. I would agree that SOI is their best output since 2000 but again, most of it does not resonate for me except for the Danger Mouse productions. I truly believe that if they had the balls to stick with the Danger Mouse tunes instead of bringing in the other guys, SOI would have absolutely delivered. But, as they have always done from 2000 on, they crapped out. Some tunes on NLOTH I really liked but they bastardized it with the GOYB etc of the world. So no, I'm no off my "rocker." I do appreciate that they are still making records but too often, it's not doing it for me. No Mojo.

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!

SOI is perfect. It's a perfect of mix of new and old territory. To a u2 fan, we want to see radica changes in the music. We want a change as big as achtung to JT. But the band can't do that. Not because it's not what they want, but they know it won't work for the general public. You can go on and on about how they shouldn't give a crap about meeting the genera publics appeal, but it's a necessity in the music world. Without the other producers to make the songs more attractive to radio, u2 would be deterred to play new songs live that just don't click. SLABT may be one of their best in decades, but there's no chorus for the audience to interact with. When you don't have songs for people to truly experience, you get a NLOTH. Without new classics and popular songs, u2 is just a heritage act. And I don't want to see my favorite band stop making beautiful music to become a heritage act for at least 15 more years

Offline Nico

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 243
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #79 on: February 21, 2016, 02:44:27 AM »
Agreed.

Offline Kite32

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 363
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #80 on: February 21, 2016, 03:35:34 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
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
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

Lord knows, we all know this, but with Apple deals, lucrative Live Nation deals, Guy Oseary, their U2 corp tax affairs and Edge's property fiasco in California, does this really speak of a band that used to push the creative boundaries? All that sh**e is now getting in the way of creative instincts and sapping their mind as they slowly morph into businessmen and we're left with sloppy sappy tunes like Song For Someone and other generic pieces (The Miracle, etc).

I mean, come on, no good artist has ever come off well when they have such uber material interest at heart? And U2 are wasting all that talent now in the chase of playing the markets basically.

Their live performances still amaze, but for the rest? They've only got themselves to blame.

Most absolutely spot on post I've read in quite some time. These are the reasons the band simply no longer resonates the way it used to for me. Their creative energy and vibe is severely lacking at this point as their music is mediocre at best these days. Personally, I would not even go so far as to say that their "live performances still amaze" comparatively speaking. Choreographed well..yes...creative ..to a certain degree...passionate to the core..not even close.

I second all of this.

i enjoyed the I+E shows I saw but yes there is no doubt that much of the former passion seems to be ebbing... I have commented before on how Streets for me is the shining example of where the spark is really fading.  yes it is still great, relatively speaking but it's nowhere near what it used to be and I attribute this to the meticulous scripted nature of every show plus Bono's insistence to trumpet his humanitarian and social activism into these shows... it started with Vertigo Tour and I really wish they would stifle it and get more spontaneous... I have limited expectations...

at the end of the day they need to get pi**ed and bring some of the contender/challenger mojo back... these days every show is a victory tour stop and while joy is great, a little simmering anger and rage are great fuel for rock n roll show...

Well said! Enjoyed the shows... yes I did for the most part. Solid night out.  Did I leave there feeling "touched" by the experience like I used too..... no way.  The mojo is lost. This is my opinion because I have seen every tour multiple times since War. I can fully understand how some fans loved the shows because they have less mileage to compare it to. I would never want to yuck their yum. In the end, the tours are driven by the power of the songs and the strength and power of most (not all) of the material has been  lost  since POP.   It's that simple. I mean seriously, for Cedar Road to be the "fans" favorite new live song from SOI says it all. It will be a complete afterthought in the future.  On second thought, maybe it won't because it is not challenging sonically and easy for Bono to sing (he can easily talk his way through most of it without singing). So in that case, we may see it again and again.
If u saw the war tour u must be getting on in years like the band,as u well know nothing stays the same and if u expect U2 to be the same as they were in 83 or 87 your off your rocker,name one band that has as much drive and power as they had 30 years ago  ,I can't think of any because there is none ,for U2 to be still doing big tours and big album's this late into their careers is amazing ,How long did the Beatles last less than 10 years,could u imagine the drivel they would have put out in the 70s,80s,going by McCartney and lennons solo output it wouldn't have been very good bar the odd moment,For U2 the last album was a major recovery after noloth it's as good as anything they have done since Achtung Baby ,and still certain fans aren't happy.

Clearly you haven't read my posts properly. I never talked about the band having to be  "the same" as they were in 83 or 87 as you mentioned. I was referring to what the band no longer does for me. I believe that if they have the same "passion" it is not translating to the records and for me did not translate to the tour  either. Age has nothing to do with being innovative. They have locked themselves into mediocre music because it is safe for them and they are very focused on how much they are liked by the masses.  Thus, their music ( not all of it) now is no longer innovative or fresh. I would agree that SOI is their best output since 2000 but again, most of it does not resonate for me except for the Danger Mouse productions. I truly believe that if they had the balls to stick with the Danger Mouse tunes instead of bringing in the other guys, SOI would have absolutely delivered. But, as they have always done from 2000 on, they crapped out. Some tunes on NLOTH I really liked but they bastardized it with the GOYB etc of the world. So no, I'm no off my "rocker." I do appreciate that they are still making records but too often, it's not doing it for me. No Mojo.

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!

SOI is perfect. It's a perfect of mix of new and old territory. To a u2 fan, we want to see radica changes in the music. We want a change as big as achtung to JT. But the band can't do that. Not because it's not what they want, but they know it won't work for the general public. You can go on and on about how they shouldn't give a crap about meeting the genera publics appeal, but it's a necessity in the music world. Without the other producers to make the songs more attractive to radio, u2 would be deterred to play new songs live that just don't click. SLABT may be one of their best in decades, but there's no chorus for the audience to interact with. When you don't have songs for people to truly experience, you get a NLOTH. Without new classics and popular songs, u2 is just a heritage act. And I don't want to see my favorite band stop making beautiful music to become a heritage act for at least 15 more years

Sorry but I don't agree with this at all - U2 really DON'T have to keep churning out bland pop rock to remain massive. Interesting you pick on SLABT - I would argue that has a stronger melody than running to stand still for instance. SLABT is the only interesting song on SOI with a nod to the troubles.

As for 'new classics' the last 'new classic' U2 made was probably beautiful day. I don't particularly like it as a song but I think it's broadly accepted as a 'classic' U2 song. Nothing off SOI or NLOTH will be well remembered by a wider audience (ie not people on a fan site) but for different reasons. Bomb had vertigo I guess which was the obligatory 'big single' but I think most people would struggle to call it a 'classic'. So really their attempts to make Classic and popular songs hasn't worked anyway.

I guarantee if U2 could 'dream it all up again' they would still be as popular as they are now. They either can't be Ar**d, have burnt out talent wise or are comfortable sounding like Coldplay.

Besides NLOTH was an embarrassing mess of an album which didn't go down well live yet they still played the biggest grossing tour in history. By your logic the tour should have flopped too.

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #81 on: February 21, 2016, 03:50:34 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
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
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

Lord knows, we all know this, but with Apple deals, lucrative Live Nation deals, Guy Oseary, their U2 corp tax affairs and Edge's property fiasco in California, does this really speak of a band that used to push the creative boundaries? All that sh**e is now getting in the way of creative instincts and sapping their mind as they slowly morph into businessmen and we're left with sloppy sappy tunes like Song For Someone and other generic pieces (The Miracle, etc).

I mean, come on, no good artist has ever come off well when they have such uber material interest at heart? And U2 are wasting all that talent now in the chase of playing the markets basically.

Their live performances still amaze, but for the rest? They've only got themselves to blame.

Most absolutely spot on post I've read in quite some time. These are the reasons the band simply no longer resonates the way it used to for me. Their creative energy and vibe is severely lacking at this point as their music is mediocre at best these days. Personally, I would not even go so far as to say that their "live performances still amaze" comparatively speaking. Choreographed well..yes...creative ..to a certain degree...passionate to the core..not even close.

I second all of this.

i enjoyed the I+E shows I saw but yes there is no doubt that much of the former passion seems to be ebbing... I have commented before on how Streets for me is the shining example of where the spark is really fading.  yes it is still great, relatively speaking but it's nowhere near what it used to be and I attribute this to the meticulous scripted nature of every show plus Bono's insistence to trumpet his humanitarian and social activism into these shows... it started with Vertigo Tour and I really wish they would stifle it and get more spontaneous... I have limited expectations...

at the end of the day they need to get pi**ed and bring some of the contender/challenger mojo back... these days every show is a victory tour stop and while joy is great, a little simmering anger and rage are great fuel for rock n roll show...

Well said! Enjoyed the shows... yes I did for the most part. Solid night out.  Did I leave there feeling "touched" by the experience like I used too..... no way.  The mojo is lost. This is my opinion because I have seen every tour multiple times since War. I can fully understand how some fans loved the shows because they have less mileage to compare it to. I would never want to yuck their yum. In the end, the tours are driven by the power of the songs and the strength and power of most (not all) of the material has been  lost  since POP.   It's that simple. I mean seriously, for Cedar Road to be the "fans" favorite new live song from SOI says it all. It will be a complete afterthought in the future.  On second thought, maybe it won't because it is not challenging sonically and easy for Bono to sing (he can easily talk his way through most of it without singing). So in that case, we may see it again and again.
If u saw the war tour u must be getting on in years like the band,as u well know nothing stays the same and if u expect U2 to be the same as they were in 83 or 87 your off your rocker,name one band that has as much drive and power as they had 30 years ago  ,I can't think of any because there is none ,for U2 to be still doing big tours and big album's this late into their careers is amazing ,How long did the Beatles last less than 10 years,could u imagine the drivel they would have put out in the 70s,80s,going by McCartney and lennons solo output it wouldn't have been very good bar the odd moment,For U2 the last album was a major recovery after noloth it's as good as anything they have done since Achtung Baby ,and still certain fans aren't happy.

Clearly you haven't read my posts properly. I never talked about the band having to be  "the same" as they were in 83 or 87 as you mentioned. I was referring to what the band no longer does for me. I believe that if they have the same "passion" it is not translating to the records and for me did not translate to the tour  either. Age has nothing to do with being innovative. They have locked themselves into mediocre music because it is safe for them and they are very focused on how much they are liked by the masses.  Thus, their music ( not all of it) now is no longer innovative or fresh. I would agree that SOI is their best output since 2000 but again, most of it does not resonate for me except for the Danger Mouse productions. I truly believe that if they had the balls to stick with the Danger Mouse tunes instead of bringing in the other guys, SOI would have absolutely delivered. But, as they have always done from 2000 on, they crapped out. Some tunes on NLOTH I really liked but they bastardized it with the GOYB etc of the world. So no, I'm no off my "rocker." I do appreciate that they are still making records but too often, it's not doing it for me. No Mojo.

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!
We want a change as big as achtung to JT. But the band can't do that. Not because it's not what they want, but they know it won't work for the general public. You can go on and on about how they shouldn't give a crap about meeting the genera publics appeal, but it's a necessity in the music world. Without the other producers to make the songs more attractive to radio, u2 would be deterred to play new songs live that just don't click. SLABT may be one of their best in decades, but there's no chorus for the audience to interact with. When you don't have songs for people to truly experience, you get a NLOTH. Without new classics and popular songs, u2 is just a heritage act. And I don't want to see my favorite band stop making beautiful music to become a heritage act for at least 15 more years

Sorry but whilst I respect your argument and the eloquent presentation of it I couldn't disgaree with it more...

U2 probably more than most artists have absolutely earned the right to not pander to radio, to not pander to Joe Public, not becoming a heritage act has nothing to do with hiring some Pop music producer to add a shiny, sugary coating to their songs.

Ultimately of course it is what the band have chosen to do because they think it is what they need - hopefully the fact that they didn't get the big hit and the masses of radio play will make them realise that they don't need it.

They still sold plenty of tickets to their shows but lets face it the overwhelming majority of the people who bought them were long term fans and this will be the case for the rest of their career.

They simply aren't going to catch fire with the masses like they did in 1987 - and if by some miracle they did it won't be with muck like Song for Someone for example.

The more they chase it the worse the music gets in my opinion and the more sad they sound and look - when they step away from the chase they sound like the u2 i for one fell in love with again....a band with a sound of their own rather than a band trying to sound like others/fit in....

The irony is though when they did explode into the masses living rooms they did so with a record that was actually pretty unusual for the mainstream....a record that whilst not especially experimental or unusual was certainly not a typical popular music one.

U2 are a good rock band (with their own flavour of rock) but a very mediocre pop rock one.

They have a legacy, they have a huge and loyal fan base, they have only a limited time left - for me they are wasting it trying to win battles that don't matter - Of course they will do what they feel is right but if they are balancing on the tipping point between Song for Someone and Sleep Like a Baby then I hope they jump both feet into the Sleep Like a Baby camp and return to making music that leads rather than follows - never mind the pop kids you don't need them anyway, boys.......


Oh and they don't want you no matter how much you hang around them trying to catch their eye.

Bono once said 'he will be a badass when he is old' I look forward to seeing it, Sir.....start by jibbing Ryan Tedder!








Offline boom boom

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,195
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #82 on: February 21, 2016, 05:53:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is a head scratcher that livenation and Guy only booked U2 in total NA/Europe to only play 22 cities and 76 shows which only grossed 152.2 million and good for 4th place.  They left so many markets not played.  They could have easily got the number 1 tour if they just only added 20 more shows considering that Taylor Swift only played 83 shows and grossed 250.4 million which was good for top tour.  I'm sure U2 is not happy ending up in 4th especially behind the likes of Taylor Swift and One Direction as they take great pride on being the biggest live attraction in the world (at least not in 2015 anyway).  So it would be of no surprise that they are just a little pi**ed of with Livenation right now.

I don't think the current U2 tour is over yet and they have every intention of resuming the tour and playing those untapped markets in due course, whether with the current stage setup or in stadiums.  The thing is that as U2 get older they haven't got the energy to play a 150 date tour in one go anymore, they need to take a lengthy break.  So you can stop scratching your head now.
Thanks, but it still feels itchy.  It's not like they are playing 3 and a half hour shows (like Springsteen) and they don't play more than 2 shows in a row without a couple of days of in between the next show.  they wouldn't even have had to play 150 dates to beat taylor swift.  90-100 shows would have done it.  Maybe I should switch to head and shoulders.

Behind the Barricade

  • Guest
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #83 on: February 21, 2016, 10:24:00 AM »
Age and health takes its toll.  The Stones are down to playing about 15 shows a year now.

If you really care about the boxscore, add it all up at the end of the Experience part of the tour.  U2 will show these young whippersnappers they have to be quick to beat U2 to a buck.


Offline Volcanogirl

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,836
  • The goal is Elevation !
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #84 on: February 21, 2016, 11:03:07 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Age and health takes its toll.  The Stones are down to playing about 15 shows a year now.

If you really care about the boxscore, add it all up at the end of the Experience part of the tour.  U2 will show these young whippersnappers they have to be quick to beat U2 to a buck.

 ;)

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #85 on: February 21, 2016, 11:16:13 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Age and health takes its toll.  The Stones are down to playing about 15 shows a year now.

If you really care about the boxscore, add it all up at the end of the Experience part of the tour.  U2 will show these young whippersnappers they have to be quick to beat U2 to a buck.

In a straight fight for a pound note i would back u2 against a prime Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali, Marvin Hagler and The Incredible Hulk.

Offline xy

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,548
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #86 on: February 21, 2016, 11:16:41 AM »

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #87 on: February 21, 2016, 12:12:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!


I've seen Pearl Jam. Different type of show than U2, both great at what they do. That said, I will take Bono's charisma over everything PJ throws at you any time.

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.

Offline xy

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,548
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #88 on: February 21, 2016, 02:03:10 PM »
Just saying.

Offline SlyDanner

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,520
  • A white dope on punk staring into the flash.
Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
« Reply #89 on: February 21, 2016, 02:59:45 PM »
this has certainly evolved to an interesting thread with lots of different perspectives.

the one common idea running through, stated or not, seems to be this next album will be a reckoning of sorts.  If it lands creatively (meaning it truly is either a departure or an extension of their more experimental sounds) then I think the show goes on.  If we get more Songs For Someone then it feels like a lot of us won't be hanging around much longer.

2016 will be a very interesting year I think.