Author Topic: We're not just being negative: an open letter to ardent defenders of the new U2  (Read 8717 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline the_chief

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 360
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
awesome, davis!

What I don't understand is that most of my Twitter timeline thinks The Blackout is great.

People lapped up GOYB and THe Miracle too, when they were nice and shiny and new. But i bet when all is said and done, songs like those barely appear in most fans top 50 u2 songs

No they didn't. The Miracle wasn't discussed that much in isolation since the whole album dropped at once, and GOYB got an absolute kicking.

Yep! Each of them got a shoeing. Serious revisionism going on with lots of people here

Rightfully so in the case of GOYB. It was sounded great live though

Offline DK46

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 271
Apologies in advance for this long, rambling post.  This is a nice thread and I agree with much I've seen here.  I came onboard as a fan around ATYLCB, so that album does have some significant meaning for me.  It's not my favorite record of theirs, but I can still listen to it and get something out of it.  So depending on when you come onboard as a fan might certainly shape your perception, there are massive HTDAAB fans out there as I've learned from other U2 forums. 

Having gone back and listened to their discography when I fell in love with them, there's no denying what a run this band had for 2 decades.  I am a big 90s fan, but yeah, I don't expect them to repeat those albums.  Why would they?  As many have said, it's the daring nature, the experimental boldness which is what they miss.  I do miss that, but who's to say U2 isn't making the music they really want to make?  Sure many assume this, the producers they work with do suggest a yearning for hits and I'm sure it must be tough to give that up.  Especially when they did it for nearly 25 years, up until HTDAAB, which is no doubt impressive.

But we grow up, we evolve, we change.  I am happy that these four guys are still together making music and I hope they are doing what they want to be doing.  They've achieved quite a lot, done more than many bands dream of and of course, are still together.  They're one of the most polarizing bands for that (among other reasons), but that's what makes them unique.

If you don't like the new stuff, you can always relisten to whatever era you did like.  Who is to say what you should or shouldn't like?  Taylor Hawkins of the Foo Figthers is a huge U2 fan, but from what I've read and gathered, he isn't huge on their 90s work (he hates Discotheque, which is a sublime song for me).  Their 90s work is ingrained in my DNA nearly, I'm practically obsessed, but he isn't more or a less a fan than me for what he likes.  He just prefers and loves their 80s stuff.  I think Mullen as a drummer was/is a big influence on him and no doubt, Mullen shines there (most especially on War).  We're both still fans at the end of the day.   Adam Scott's favorite U2 album is HTDAAB, it's not mine, but we're both still fans.  But I appreciate that he can get something out of that album that I might not.  Art is subjective and I suppose that's what fascinating and frustrating about it.  We can both listen to the same song and come away with completely different opinions...that's what makes us human after all.

On the topic of music education, well that's interesting, because visiting other band forums or talking to people, U2 is obviously an easy target.  A common criticism I hear is "U2 is music for the uneducated" or "music for people who don't listen to much music/have much taste."  I find that extremely condescending, ignorant and inaccurate, but to each their own.  As a Radiohead fan, I deal with that.  On the flipside, people think Radiohead fans are obnoxious, elitist, art-school hipsters, but that couldn't be further away from the truth.  Perhaps that says something about fandom, I dunno.  I love both bands, but I can be critical of their work, I think that makes me an honest fan.  And while their careers couldn't be more different, I appreciate the roads they went down.

I'm sure U2 lost a lot of 90s fans when they first they heard that stuff, perhaps the irony was lost on them, the new sound, etc.  Of course, the passage of time can do wonders, you come back to something and end up loving it.  What you hated at 25, you may love at 40, and so forth/vice versa.  The irony though is Bono didn't seem to mind if they lost the "cool kids" as he put it, and I guess people miss that Bono.  But the Bono of 30 isn't the Bono of 57, nor should he or could he be. 

I try to be open minded, after all, I am a fan, so I will always give their new stuff a chance.   There is also so much music out there, so I can't and won't waste time worrying if the new U2 isn't brilliant.  I am grateful for their music and it is an important part of my life.  Let's enjoy that I suppose.  For me, what's fascinating about a band/artist's career is the evolution.  Seeing how they changed, what they did, etc.   At the end of the day, you just like what you like.  It's what moves you...that's what makes music so personal and special, a song can resonate at any moment and I am thankful for many of those moments.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 09:17:55 AM by DK46 »

Offline aviastar

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 592
  • Feel like trash...you make me feel clean
U2 fans (and anyone) has the right to be critical of U2 albums and output - obviously, nobody would begrudge anyone that.  However, there seems to be a prevailing theme in the criticisms that gets kind of overplayed:

For ___, insert new or previous post-2000ish album

1) ______ is not as good as their peak (TJT, AB, Pop).  Of course it's not.  Every endeavor in the world has a peak and there are no bands that have consistent 40+ years of top-notch performances. 

2) ______ is not as good as the U2 I know and love - typically the album/era that the person came into being a U2 fan. Well, this is simply because the brain associates "newness" of being a devoted fan to memories and nostalgia of that album.  So, naturally, it will always be downhill from there.

3) ______ just shows they are not taking chances/are not experimental enough/are too MOR. Well yes, most of us remember the excitement of the AB or Pop-era U2 where they just totally reinvented themselves and came out with something so off the wall that it blew our minds. It's just probably not going to happen at this point.  U2 is far closer to the end of their careers than the beginning, a group of 60 year old dudes playing a genre that is losing steam in popularity is just not going to reinvent itself into some groundbreaking thing - this is the period of their lives where they naturally coast into retirement (as most of us do).

I am not saying the criticism aren't valid - I'm just saying the critics have to put it in context. U2 have sustained as an act for an incredible period of time and, really...I can't think of any other act that has done it for this long and hasn't already just become a heritage act. So, I give them a ton of credit for putting out new stuff - I know it probably won't be as good as the best albums.  SOI thrilled the hell out of me though - and if SOE approaches it in quality I'll be impressed.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 09:26:44 AM by aviastar »

Offline Saint1322

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,375
U2 could put out a crap record every year for the next 20 years and it wouldn't diminish (insert your favorite album here) at all. R.E.M.'s Around The Sun didn't erase Life's Rich Pageant. Bruce's High Hopes doesn't detract from Darkness On The Edge Of Town. Let everything be its own thing.

Offline ShankAsu

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,015
  • Can't fight for s---, but sure can take a beating
i feel like this post gets re-hashed every year or so on here but it's always a good conversation.  i think for people that experienced u2 music as it was being released  from Boy through Zoo TV, nothing will ever touch that music, time, experience.
I do like their new music and the only album i didn't enjoy was No Line (and the tracks I love from HTDAAB are the ones they didn't release as singles) but still my favorite tunes are from the 80's and 90's.  I don't complain much about the new material if its not up to par of what they were able to accomplish when they were a younger band- this is a veteran rock band that has been together for over 40 years.  The fact they are able to put out anything that people are talking about i think is great.  What other band has been relevant this long with their new music?  Not the Stones- the last song i recall of there's being any good upon release was Long is Strong in the early 90's and that was a bit sh**e all the same.  These days i always welcome new music from u2 and will buy anything they put out- except for yet another collection of the joshua tree for a small fortune, and i don't expect masterpieces anymore but am still happy with the small gems they put put out that i can connect with.

Offline julez728

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 125
In my opinion, I think people forget that it's alright for people to agree to disagree.  I think another thing that people forget is that each person has their own taste in music.  Not all U2 fans are going to like the same albums or the same songs. 

I've listened to Blackout a few times and I like the song.  I think it's a cool, catchy tune.  If someone doesn't like it, that's fine with me.  :)

Offline acrobat62

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,449
  • I'm hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In my opinion, I think people forget that it's alright for people to agree to disagree.  I think another thing that people forget is that each person has their own taste in music.  Not all U2 fans are going to like the same albums or the same songs. 

I've listened to Blackout a few times and I like the song.  I think it's a cool, catchy tune.  If someone doesn't like it, that's fine with me.  :)

Heck, there are those that do not place Streets on the pedestal that other do, I count myself in that group.  I like the song, usually great live, but it's not on my top 5 or possibley even top 10 IMO, but that's just me.  I like TB having listened to it twice.  Looking forward to a "clean" version.

Spacejunk69

  • Guest
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In my opinion, I think people forget that it's alright for people to agree to disagree.  I think another thing that people forget is that each person has their own taste in music.  Not all U2 fans are going to like the same albums or the same songs. 

I've listened to Blackout a few times and I like the song.  I think it's a cool, catchy tune.  If someone doesn't like it, that's fine with me.  :)

Heck, there are those that do not place Streets on the pedestal that other do, I count myself in that group.  I like the song, usually great live, but it's not on my top 5 or possibley even top 10 IMO, but that's just me.  I like TB having listened to it twice.  Looking forward to a "clean" version.

FIVE of my least favorite U2 songs: Streets, With Or Without You, Elevation, Beautiful Day and City Of Blinding Lights.

FIVE of my favorites: Miami, The Playboy Mansion, Elvis Presley And America, Shadows And Tall Trees and Grace.

Do I care what anyone else thinks? No.

Offline acrobat62

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,449
  • I'm hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
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
In my opinion, I think people forget that it's alright for people to agree to disagree.  I think another thing that people forget is that each person has their own taste in music.  Not all U2 fans are going to like the same albums or the same songs. 

I've listened to Blackout a few times and I like the song.  I think it's a cool, catchy tune.  If someone doesn't like it, that's fine with me.  :)

Heck, there are those that do not place Streets on the pedestal that other do, I count myself in that group.  I like the song, usually great live, but it's not on my top 5 or possibley even top 10 IMO, but that's just me.  I like TB having listened to it twice.  Looking forward to a "clean" version.


Do I care what anyone else thinks? No.


I am interested hearing and discussing other points of view, but it would be rare for my mind to be changed when it come to music.

Offline lucas.homem

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 774
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
Dear davis,

I'd say 99% of U2's fanbase like old U2 much more than 21th century U2. Everybody is aware that U2 are not as prolific and great as they once were (they lost their 'mojo'). I'm not different from these people, since I love U2's 80s and 90s much more than anything they ever did after. In fact, most people moved on to other bands and don't even bother with U2 anymore (and I'm a little bit like that too).

However, one thing is putting your sentiments into words as you just did (it's a little old stories now, but it's fine)... But there's another thing completely diferent that some other people are doing: being pedantic and not emphatic to how other people feel. In this forum, you'll see people bringing the same (negative) subject over and over again regardless of the theme of the thread, or being unnecessarily agressive, or finding the one thing to complain while overshadowing the other things they could praise, or just overexaggerating things (like saying the SOE is crap based on a 15 seconds snippet).

Also, when we read about human behaviour (in psychology or behavioral economics), we lear how irrational and biased is our perception about things. Never forget to consider that your thoughts on the U2 of the 80s and 90s are completely embebbed by your feelings and music knowledge of that time (and, of course, you were younger). With time, along your life you also developed a lot of emotional bonds with all of those songs. There is a clear bias. And this same bias is affected by a lot of superficial things that happen alongside the music: the current marketing of the band, the looks of the band, your friend's reactions to the band and even the negativity or positivity of the fanbase.

It's not a surprise, then, when we see that people that are constantly negative tend to only notice the things that they don't like (suddenly, the glasses are a major problem or whatever) and get really obsessed about it. When they praise, it is also a little bitter, as if they are betraying their persona. Of course, I'm not saying that everybody here is like that (and I respect the opinions of guys like an tha, Exile and Wookiee). However, people have to look after their manias too to not exarcebate it.

At last, there is a trend of IMPOSING things as objective facts here without any kind of criteria. Overall, and I don't mean that as an insult, most people here are uneducated in music, and because of that they are very hasty in their judgements. It's not rare to see commentaries that don't make any sense comparing it to that person's own opinion, applying double standards that are clearly biased.

Well, that's my 2 cents.

You make some good points but how is it not an insult to say that "most people here are uneducated in music?"

Whether or not anyone is fluent in music terminology, chords, notes, music history, etc., everyone has their own personal music history and catalog to use as reference and whether it's timbre, music of one time period vs. another of a band's history, people like what they like, don't like what they don't like, and have every right to like it or not like it for whatever reason they want to.

Regardless, everyone on here has a lifetime of musical education behind them, and seeing as one's musical self-education is quite private (home alone, headphones), it's actually a monk-like devotion to the art form everyone possesses from an early age.

The social aspect of sharing music and opinions about music is a different thing.  I think tensions arise on discussion forums because people read things that call into question their monk-like ascetic studies and devotion to the music they love...or spur them to try to convert the others who don't see things their way.

I'm a middle age U2 fan who started listening to them in 1980.  I've enjoyed virtually every incarnation of the band and look forward to every album.  That being said, there's an album's worth of clunkers they've put out (listed in another chain), all of which arrived post-All That You Can't Leave Behind.  Someone else might love each of these songs, but for me I was surprised to NOT like them after liking pretty much...every...song...they...did.

You wrote a very detailed and eloquent post in another chain about why The Blackout is a well-made, interesting song, and I listened to it again after reading it to pay attention to all those details, but my gut response was still the same: great energy, funky bass, the song's got hips, and hits you over the head, but damn that chorus stuck in my head is annoying!

Rising Sun, I think you didn't understand my point, because I agree with you.

A person "educated in music" is not someone better than others, or someone whose opinions should be prevalent over others. First because music is subjetive. Second, there's all these things you've said about how everybody have a lifetime experience listening to music and developing their musical perception and tastes about music. This person is entitled to his own opinion and this opinion what matters to appreciate music in a personal level.

For exemple, I don't expect people to read my observations of The Blackout and like the song because of that. Those are just my feelings that I'm pointing out by highlighting some details that made me appreciate the song in a personal level. It could be said that someone more trained in music than I am can make a much more in depht analysis of the song and then conclude that it is dreadful lol. It happens. Otherwise, all the music masters would have the same opinion on every subject.

My point is that there is a big distance between people's "impressions" and their own "rationalization" of music (I'm not sure these are the best words here, but they are the one I'm using). Here, "impression" is the act of listening to a song, reacting to it and even trying to identify what you like and what you don't like in that song. As for "rationalization", it is the act of making further conclusions to investigate "why" you like it (or "why" it is good), creating thesis and propositions that would fit not only that specific song, but music in general. At this moment, you start to give intrinsic value to a lot of general characteristics (that should not be seen as something stable).

The problem with rationalization is that it is too easy to pinpoint the wrong reasons for why you liked something... and then you can reach even 'wronger' conclusions further down the road. This can happen to anyone really, but it is even more the case of someone who is untrained in music, because this person doesn't have access to some abilities and overall knowledge that studying music can give you to make this "rationalization".

This effect is pretty much clear when you come to this forum and read about the reasons of people for why their favorite U2 era is good: "it is bold", "raw", "courageous", "experimental", "soulful", "well produced". And then the bad U2 is "MOR", "unimaginative", or whatever else. Do you see how each one of these adjectives do NOT have a cohesive and clear meaning? And do you see that these adjectives do NOT really describe the music? (they are beyond the "impression" realm I talked about).
So we have all these rationalizations that can be very misleading about a lot of things. Suddenly, (1) an actually progressive song can be seen as "unimaginative" and "by the numbers" (maybe because it uses familiar timbres and effects), (2) an overproduced song is called "raw" (only because it uses distortion), (3) a very traditional song is seen as "bold" (because the lyrics are sarcastic), (4) a peculiar song is said to "not really be a song" (lol), (5) a basic song is elected as "experimental" (because of some gimmick), (6) a particular melody is said to be too "generic" (while others in the same vein are "creative" because of something entirely subjective), (7) a certain era is the band's "essence" and "soul" (just because the person likes it more), (8 ) a different era is said to be "commercial" (a lot of arbitrariness here)... and the list goes on (even with nonmusical things like marketing, image etc).

Of course, all those words should be used freely because they convey an idea. And even when used too vaguely we can figure out what the other person is trying to say (not always though). The problem is when, in a forum full of negativity, all these generic terms are thrown around to complain about things in a way that is disrespectful. Sometimes people use a strong word to belittle a song when their criticism have another explanation.

I understand your point and agree in general that the world could use more critical thinking before reacting to things to allow for more nuanced expressions of opinions.

I just don't think music is one of those things, though, because of how it is received on gut levels, and your further explanations here of impressions vs. rationalizations, while interesting and well-explained, seem dismissive of how people listen to music and arrive at the opinions they do...instinctively, primally, emotionally, and in many cases, instantly...and a little dismissive of peoples' musical intelligence, or at least whatever naysayers on here you are responding to or trying to explain.

And again, you refer to people not having access to abilities and knowledge as they relate to music as a cause of what are, apparently, incorrect or incorrectly-expressed opinions. 

Your explanations are almost scientific in their detail, but your choice of words makes it sound like you're saying that a lot of people on the forum are either wrong or don't know what they're talking about (or don't know they don't know what they're talking about) when most, regardless of education levels musically or in general (high school graduate, college graduate, grad school graduate, culinary school graduate, etc.) don't approach listening to music intellectually or analytically.

I don't "like" heavy metal, for example, but a long time ago I ended up in the basement of a rowdy house party where a local heavy metal band played as people took turns doing keg stands.  I don't know that house party basements are anyone's chosen scene and I knew at the time that it certainly wasn't mine, but all I could think and say to the friends who took me there was, "this is f'ing sick!" as I waited for my turn at the keg.

You make an admirable argument for across the board music criticism, but I just think we surrender the intellect to music and that it hasn't worked any differently since the cave days when we sat around the fire banging rocks.

I agree that we surrender intellect to music, and thankfully this idea is stronger than ever nowadays. As I said, my intention is not to hierarchize opinions and tastes, for the reason thar people should follow their gut feeling to mold their opinions. I just think we should be more tactful with our opinions when we're talking about something so subjective. For example, as you mentioned, I made a long analysis of the details that made me appreciate The Blackout, but I never stated any of them as "undeniable proofs of quality" that couldn't be rejected. I'm just giving my impressions. So I expect that other people will be equally polite with their opinions.

Of course, most people here are not bullies against other members of the forum. But sometimes they get into other people's nerves because they put a lot of scorn and snobbery upon the things they don't like: "this is for kids and the masses", "this is selling out", "this is MOR", "this is not artistic/genuine". Really, this is so intense and REPETITIVE here that whoever likes what's being critized probably feel like sh** for liking that thing...

And what's more intriguing is that the majority of these statements aren't really justifiable musically (as I explained before, they are probably misleading "rationalizations" of instinctive impressions). Unfortunatelly, this happens more frequently with people not trained in music (and yes, I do think we frequently don't know what we're talking about, even the pros). So that's why I make my point of being humble, and that will only happen after some self criticism about our own lack of musical understandment (something that not even the most trained person in music will fully acchieve).

So, yes, I agree with you again when you say that the process of "rationalizing" our "impressions" is almost automatic. Sure, that's how things work indeed. Nonetheless, people have control over what they are speaking in forums, and they can avoid all those pejorative terms that don't mean anything other than enigmatic messages of contempt.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 12:44:19 PM by lucas.homem »

Offline robgalloway

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 499
I think it's absolutely fine to dislike the song but when fans were tearing up their membership after hearing a 20 second clip or writing off a whole album based on one song or the style of Bonos glasses then it's just plain negative. There is NOTHING to even suggest that The Blackout will even be on the album.

Invisible didn't make it on to SOI proper. Holy Joe turned out to be a B Side. The Ground Beneath Your Feet came a short while before ALTYCLB. Window in the Skies before NLOTH.

It's early days yet and U2 have obviously picked a reason why The Blackout is shared ONE WEEK before the 1st single.

Fair enough you don't like the song but it's certainly not rubbish. It is pushing U2 boundaries. I've never heard The Edge play funk on a record. Or Adam with a Nile Rodgers groove. It's familiar but also new.

I'm just asking for a little calm with the negativity. Enjoy the music and the promo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 02:01:38 PM by robgalloway »

Offline NOLA Fly

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,388
  • Feel like trash, You make me feel clean...
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is not a post about "The Blackout" or whether Songs of Experience is going to be a great album.  This is a post about why some of us seem so critical of 21st century U2 music. 

What we wish you understood (and, frankly, are confused that you don't understand) is that this band once made great music that was somehow more than great music--it was sublime.  No one knew how they did it.  They didn't even know how they did it.  But they did it.

As far back as Boy, we could sense that sublimity in their songs--in the passion, energy, freshness, and sense of reaching toward something.  Their best songs always had that sense of reaching, of longing.  Think of "Out of Control" or "Sunday Bloody Sunday" or "Forty" or "Bad" or "Where the Streets Have No Name" or "With or Without You" or "One" or "Until the End of the World" or "Discotheque" or "Gone."  And those songs were deepened by the other side of all that longing and aspiration--by a sense of brokenness, of loss, of not being who/where you want to be.  Those songs were vulnerable, authentic, and intimate, even while they were soaring above.  The writer and singer of those lyrics was mining his own deepest hurts and hopes and taking us to places we knew and felt too, places that no pop/rock music had ever gone before.  I won't pretend to diagnose where that spirit went and why Bono is unable to get to such places anymore as a writer or singer (I think it has something to do with the differences between yearning and knowing), but the last time I felt a U2 song going to such an authentic, searching place was "Kite."

And not just this.  Musically, the band in its first two decades was restless, experimental.  For us, it's a sad commentary that critics, professional and amateur alike, can now use phrases like "generic U2", "the U2 sound," or "paint by numbers U2."  For the first two decades, there was no U2 sound!  Think of how daring, inventive, and surprising the first 17 years were.  Just reflect for a minute on this string of albums: War--The Unforgettable Fire--The Joshua Tree--Achtung Baby.  No one not named the Beatles or Bob Dylan has ever produced such a run of diverse artistic excellence in a whole career, let alone a span of 8 years.  And the 90s work kept it going.  Say what you will about Zooropa and Pop--nothing on either album can be accused of being uninteresting.  Can the same thing be said about their output of the last 17 years?

I still listen to, and buy, everything they put out.  Most of it I enjoy for awhile.  Some of it I think is pretty good.  I admire that they're still together and still writing and recording music.  I still go to as many shows as possible (and have never really been disappointed live).  But it's painful to realize U2 is no longer a surprising, essential band.  They will always be the band of my lifetime (I'm 44).  Achtung Baby will always be one of my touchstones for supreme artistic greatness.  But the music U2 makes now--and the lyrics Bono writes and sings--is the work of mere mortals, not of prophets and bards. 

We feel that loss...

What I wish you understood (and, frankly, am confused that you don't understand) -- I'm hoping you hear how condescending this sounds when it's written back to you -- is that many of us think that U2 can still get to that sublime place.

It's great that you love 80s and 90s U2. I love them, too. They were great. I also think that their subsequent evolution has been pretty great, as well. To my ears, that singer/writer is still mining his hurts and hopes and taking us to places we know and feel too. It's fine if you disagree, but that "loss" you feel is entirely subjective. I would also echo the pushback of other posters in not agreeing that there was no "U2 sound" for the first two decades. That's just not true. And that some critics like to throw out something about "generic U2 sound" just sounds like laziness to me. Bands have signature sounds/characteristics that are going to shine through at times. Also, the sun is hot and water is wet. U2 is gonna U2.

The attitude towards U2's new music (or really anything post-Pop) by some on this forum reminds me of what an acquaintance who worked as a waiter in college told me years ago: "Some people secretly love bad service. They like to complain and love having something to complain about. There's really no pleasing them. They will find something wrong." It feels like something similar happens here with U2's new music. Some people walk through the door with an eye toward what they can critique -- usually in an effort to lift up their favorite era/iteration of the band. New music has become merely fodder for talking about how good U2 used to be. And everything circles back to that. Ad nauseam. Regardless of what a thread may be about. That's what I think irks "defenders" of new U2, not that someone happens to not like a song or album. It's wearying.

Offline Allhorizonbomb

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 96
  • Self proclaimed biggest U2 fan in New York State
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dear davis,

I'd say 99% of U2's fanbase like old U2 much more than 21th century U2. Everybody is aware that U2 are not as prolific and great as they once were (they lost their 'mojo'). I'm not different from these people, since I love U2's 80s and 90s much more than anything they ever did after. In fact, most people moved on to other bands and don't even bother with U2 anymore (and I'm a little bit like that too).

However, one thing is putting your sentiments into words as you just did (it's a little old stories now, but it's fine)... But there's another thing completely diferent that some other people are doing: being pedantic and not emphatic to how other people feel. In this forum, you'll see people bringing the same (negative) subject over and over again regardless of the theme of the thread, or being unnecessarily agressive, or finding the one thing to complain while overshadowing the other things they could praise, or just overexaggerating things (like saying the SOE is crap based on a 15 seconds snippet).

Also, when we read about human behaviour (in psychology or behavioral economics), we lear how irrational and biased is our perception about things. Never forget to consider that your thoughts on the U2 of the 80s and 90s are completely embebbed by your feelings and music knowledge of that time (and, of course, you were younger). With time, along your life you also developed a lot of emotional bonds with all of those songs. There is a clear bias. And this same bias is affected by a lot of superficial things that happen alongside the music: the current marketing of the band, the looks of the band, your friend's reactions to the band and even the negativity or positivity of the fanbase.

It's not a surprise, then, when we see that people that are constantly negative tend to only notice the things that they don't like (suddenly, the glasses are a major problem or whatever) and get really obsessed about it. When they praise, it is also a little bitter, as if they are betraying their persona. Of course, I'm not saying that everybody here is like that (and I respect the opinions of guys like an tha, Exile and Wookiee). However, people have to look after their manias too to not exarcebate it.

At last, there is a trend of IMPOSING things as objective facts here without any kind of criteria. Overall, and I don't mean that as an insult, most people here are uneducated in music, and because of that they are very hasty in their judgements. It's not rare to see commentaries that don't make any sense comparing it to that person's own opinion, applying double standards that are clearly biased.

Well, that's my 2 cents.


Guess I'm the 1%

Offline timeisatrain

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 47

U2, a band famous for creating amazing sonic landscapes with a sound that no one can replicate....


I honestly think that the band will end just because their ego is so big that they don´t want to admit they need Eno.


Eno gives the perfect balance.. He wants ambient music, U2 want rock... in the middle (atmospheric rock) we have U2 best songs.

Offline ecadad

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,407
  • 🐍
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dear davis,

I'd say 99% of U2's fanbase like old U2 much more than 21th century U2. Everybody is aware that U2 are not as prolific and great as they once were (they lost their 'mojo'). I'm not different from these people, since I love U2's 80s and 90s much more than anything they ever did after. In fact, most people moved on to other bands and don't even bother with U2 anymore (and I'm a little bit like that too).

However, one thing is putting your sentiments into words as you just did (it's a little old stories now, but it's fine)... But there's another thing completely diferent that some other people are doing: being pedantic and not emphatic to how other people feel. In this forum, you'll see people bringing the same (negative) subject over and over again regardless of the theme of the thread, or being unnecessarily agressive, or finding the one thing to complain while overshadowing the other things they could praise, or just overexaggerating things (like saying the SOE is crap based on a 15 seconds snippet).

Also, when we read about human behaviour (in psychology or behavioral economics), we lear how irrational and biased is our perception about things. Never forget to consider that your thoughts on the U2 of the 80s and 90s are completely embebbed by your feelings and music knowledge of that time (and, of course, you were younger). With time, along your life you also developed a lot of emotional bonds with all of those songs. There is a clear bias. And this same bias is affected by a lot of superficial things that happen alongside the music: the current marketing of the band, the looks of the band, your friend's reactions to the band and even the negativity or positivity of the fanbase.

It's not a surprise, then, when we see that people that are constantly negative tend to only notice the things that they don't like (suddenly, the glasses are a major problem or whatever) and get really obsessed about it. When they praise, it is also a little bitter, as if they are betraying their persona. Of course, I'm not saying that everybody here is like that (and I respect the opinions of guys like an tha, Exile and Wookiee). However, people have to look after their manias too to not exarcebate it.

At last, there is a trend of IMPOSING things as objective facts here without any kind of criteria. Overall, and I don't mean that as an insult, most people here are uneducated in music, and because of that they are very hasty in their judgements. It's not rare to see commentaries that don't make any sense comparing it to that person's own opinion, applying double standards that are clearly biased.

Well, that's my 2 cents.


Guess I'm the 1%

Yes, me too, and most of the people know...

Most people I know who like U2 think that "Beautiful Day", "Vertigo", "With or Without You" and "One" are really good, they really like the album HTDAAB, they sorta remember that "Ordinary Love" is a good one, they've heard "Mysterious Ways" a lot on the radio and it's cool. And they see them live because they're a good live band.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 05:59:52 PM by ecadad »