Some rambling thoughts

[hollywoodswag]

Perhaps, but I don't think that really soured things. They waited that long, released an album that didn't really amount to much, but unleashed the biggest tour on the face of the planet. Clearly they hadn't lost much in the way of goodwill, and I don't think NLOTH's iffy reception was really much of a problem. Plenty of other artists have survived without regularly-released great albums. I mean, The Who have put out exactly one album of new material since 1982, and they still fill arenas just fine playing the music they have for ages. Paul McCartney has a boatload of clunker albums and it hasn't stopped him (okay, maybe being a Beatle gives him an unfair advantage, haha).

I can appreciate U2 not wanting to rest on their laurels, but I fear that attempting to be a name mentioned among Ed Sheeran, Cardi B, Taylor Swift, et al is a losing proposition. They need to know their audience, and I would hope that they're coming to realize it isn't today's youth culture. There's no shame in that. Bruce Springsteen, The Rolling Stones, Bon Jovi, etc., etc. proved that you don't need teenyboppers to fill stadiums.

[u2live]

Perhaps, but I don't think that really soured things. They waited that long, released an album that didn't really amount to much, but unleashed the biggest tour on the face of the planet. Clearly they hadn't lost much in the way of goodwill, and I don't think NLOTH's iffy reception was really much of a problem. Plenty of other artists have survived without regularly-released great albums. I mean, The Who have put out exactly one album of new material since 1982, and they still fill arenas just fine playing the music they have for ages. Paul McCartney has a boatload of clunker albums and it hasn't stopped him (okay, maybe being a Beatle gives him an unfair advantage, haha).

I can appreciate U2 not wanting to rest on their laurels, but I fear that attempting to be a name mentioned among Ed Sheeran, Cardi B, Taylor Swift, et al is a losing proposition. They need to know their audience, and I would hope that they're coming to realize it isn't today's youth culture. There's no shame in that. Bruce Springsteen, The Rolling Stones, Bon Jovi, etc., etc. proved that you don't need teenyboppers to fill stadiums.

Great to read the above as I've felt this for last couple of albums now......

[MinnetonkaMN55345]

I became a fan of U2 when the "I Will Follow" video hit MTV. 1981 (?). Larry intrigued me. He is the only reason I ever watched it again. I am sure I would have became a fan with another song in time though. But to your fans of Snow Patrol thinking U2 are outdated comment, while the thought of music I love so much not being accepted by a new generation I only have to look at my parents music, or my grand parents, and I understand. Even for me in the 90's I started to not know a few bands on the top 100 and it shocked me. Now I look at the top 100 and I might recognize 4 or 5 bands/performers.

[Karmamalaga]

There are some hideous songs by The Beatles on their most iconic albums. I think that they didn't care, and produced nevertheless. I recently read that John Lennon loathed Paul McCartney's O-Bla-Di-O-Bla-Da but eventually gave in providing that the band went along with what first came up to his mind - the brilliant piano intro (sorry for lack of sources).

But the band split... and U2 prevails!

Perhaps, if U2 acknowledges its ageing fan base's** wanting them to perform old tunes live (recently e.g. Red Hill Mining Town, Acrobat etc) they may or might starting to produce songs whenever (singles) meanwhil making a few short tours here and there.

If (pure fantasy) U2 were to do a mini tour with a set list including Wire*, Red Light and Luminous Times (just took a sample here, out of the blue), I reckon they would sell out.

Many people associate Vivaldi with the Four Seasons, sadly, and mostly the spring version (La Primavera). Yet none of us were born at the time, whereas his Music will probably never go out of fashion.

*Stockholm 1985, a wonderful version with The Edge at the edge of his capabilities. Also featured in the series Miami Vice (I remember watching it when that song came up) which used to feature a whole song in each (?) episode.

Well, as the subject title suggests, just some rambling thoughts of mine.

Edit: I found my Concert, searching in French (write U2 Paris 25 juillet 2017)!

[wons]

With Bono appearing on stage with Snow Patrol last night, I'm reading a lot of comments from people much younger than me (I'm 33) about how "obsolete" and "out of date" U2 are. As someone who got into U2 with 'The Sweetest Thing' and then became a fan through ATYCLB and it's singles, it got me thinking how far the perception of U2 has shifted in nearly twenty years.

That just sounds like ageism from young people.

[Jarasang]

If they cared less about the "youngsters" (who don't have any money anyway) and "pop hits" and more about just making music for the sake of making music without overthinking it, we might end up with more great stuff like SLABT or The Troubles and less insipid muzak like SOE.

[Alpha]

Most of you have got it all wrong.
U2 should never tour with old songs, just for the tours sake, like just about any other older act out there, like Rolling Stones, KISS, Madonna, McCartney, and so on. They travel with nostalgia and old songs, like a cover band of themselves. It's painful to watch.

U2 gets a narrow pass for 30th of Joshua, because the album was such a worldwide monster. But they can't ever do i again.

U2 make new music for a new generation and tour it. Look at the set lists for SOI and SOE, for SOE all Joshua songs were even banned. Not playing With or Without You is like The Beatles not playing Yesterday. Ballsy! Like U2 should be. Their set lists have always been heavy with the current albums songs, like it should be.

Also, if the fan base is aging, the average age should be around 50 by now. I'm 38 and I've seen all tours since Popmart. I keep feeling older, on SOI (in Paris) and SOE (in Madrid) I felt surrounded by kids and I loved it. That's how a U2 concert should be. Joshua 30th (in Brussels) had an older crowd it seemed, and I still think they should have celebrated the album with a cake video on Instagram or something instead.

Either way, the next album I hope is cutting edge for 2021/22 and highly relevant, listened to by the kids and on top of the charts. It's the U2 way. If they can't make that happen. Retire. Touring with ancient songs is painful and would be a terrible ending for them. They would still make money, people would buy tickets, but it's like the Rolling Stones, Springsteen, Elton John or McCartney or other cover bands. Or they could just move to Vegas and do years of concert recidency. *puke*

[ian ryan]

U2 make new music for a new generation and tour it. Look at the set lists for SOI and SOE, for SOE all Joshua songs were even banned. Not playing With or Without You is like The Beatles not playing Yesterday. Ballsy! Like U2 should be. Their set lists have always been heavy with the current albums songs, like it should be.

🎯🎯🎯

[Tortuga]

All I want is for U2 to just make good music.  Who cares if young people like it or not?  All of this worry about relevance with young people sounds more like longtime U2 Fans being worried about getting old, dying, and their culture being forgotten.  Did you like your parents or grandparents music?  Did it matter to you?  If you did, great!  You had something to share together.  If you didn’t it shouldn’t have diminished your parents appreciation of it.

Why not just enjoy the music and quit worrying about whether or not other people do.  This idea that if U2 can’t make music that is on the top of the charts they should quit is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard.

[dwaltman]

I, for one, enjoyed recent shows I've seen by McCartney, Rolling Stones, and Elton John.  I saw the Stones in 1981 and Elton John in 1982 but it was great seeing them again.  I never had the chance to see McCartney until recently and it was not painful for me, it was a very enjoyable evening.  He even joked about doing new stuff as he was well aware that this was the time some might go to the bathroom or get a beer.  Besides just having an enjoyable evening, I got to share the shows with my g/f who never saw any of the bands before.  I got to see the Rolling Stones with my son and he loved the opportunity to see a nostalgic Rolling Stones show.  Jagger still has got what it takes to entertain at the highest level.  I am well aware that my demographic is being targeted by marketing for many products (Rocketman, Bohemian Rhapsody, for example) but in the end, it is my choice to revel in some nostalgia or not. And I really don't think the legacy of the Stones, Elton, or McCartney is damaged in any real way as a result of celebrating their careers.

Most of you have got it all wrong.
U2 should never tour with old songs, just for the tours sake, like just about any other older act out there, like Rolling Stones, KISS, Madonna, McCartney, and so on. They travel with nostalgia and old songs, like a cover band of themselves. It's painful to watch.

U2 gets a narrow pass for 30th of Joshua, because the album was such a worldwide monster. But they can't ever do i again.

U2 make new music for a new generation and tour it. Look at the set lists for SOI and SOE, for SOE all Joshua songs were even banned. Not playing With or Without You is like The Beatles not playing Yesterday. Ballsy! Like U2 should be. Their set lists have always been heavy with the current albums songs, like it should be.

Also, if the fan base is aging, the average age should be around 50 by now. I'm 38 and I've seen all tours since Popmart. I keep feeling older, on SOI (in Paris) and SOE (in Madrid) I felt surrounded by kids and I loved it. That's how a U2 concert should be. Joshua 30th (in Brussels) had an older crowd it seemed, and I still think they should have celebrated the album with a cake video on Instagram or something instead.

Either way, the next album I hope is cutting edge for 2021/22 and highly relevant, listened to by the kids and on top of the charts. It's the U2 way. If they can't make that happen. Retire. Touring with ancient songs is painful and would be a terrible ending for them. They would still make money, people would buy tickets, but it's like the Rolling Stones, Springsteen, Elton John or McCartney or other cover bands. Or they could just move to Vegas and do years of concert recidency. *puke*

[Tortuga]

And I really don't think the legacy of the Stones, Elton, or McCartney is damaged in any real way as a result of celebrating their careers.

I agree, and even if their “legacy” was damaged....who cares?

All of this talk about a band becoming a nostalgia act, or being irrelevant to today’s youth or pop culture, etc.  What does it really matter?  Are we all still high school kids looking to co-opt the identity of our favorite band as our own?  Is it so important that what we like be cool?

I have never understood these concepts of fandom.  I like U2’s music.  Period.  I don’t care if they are nice guys or jerks cause...guess what...I’m never going to hang with them.  I don’t care what they look like or how well they’ve aged or how long they’ve been married or how many times they’ve been divorced.  None of that has anything to do with the music.  I am a fan of the music, not the people who made it.

I don’t care about ticket sales or grammies.  I couldn’t care less if Ed Sheeran had more tour revenue.  I’m interested in the art itself, not the artist.  I get that some people are the opposite and to each their own but the focus of these forums seems flip-flopped to me.  Very little discussion about the music and too much about revenues and grammies and Ed Sheeran and how cute Bono was 30 years ago.

Am I the odd duck?

[Argo]

I tend to agree with you Tortuga. Thinking about other bands that I like but not on the same level as U2, I kind of want greatest hits stuff when I see them. So, makes sense that more casual fans would want that with U2.

Having said that, I do hope they keep making music for some time yet. SOI and SOE shows they still have enough in the tank, but everyone just needs to accept they will never produce another JT or AB and to be honest, even if they did, it would never receive the same acclaim as they are now seen as old and yesterday's news and younger people would never flock to an older band even if the music is great (with some exceptions of course). So much of the entertainment industry is perception and U2 could never be perceived by teenagers as being cool (and yes that is relevant to people liking the music enough for them to have a hit album).

At the end of the day, it is up to U2 to do what they want. They don't really owe us anything (especially now that they played Acrobat live!). If they just want to go nostalgia tours then fine, if they just want to make music and not tour then fine, if they want to retire then also fine if that is what they want.

[ian ryan]

I guess the reason I don't want them to become a legacy act that is more focused on rehashing what they've done in the past is that I like it when they create new art. Their words and their music and their performances, their art, are the primary reason why I'm such a fan. I could absolutely find happiness in them just re-exploring their old work, but it would NEVER be the same as that moment of discovery that occurred when I heard Love Is All We Have Left, with the minor key violins playing and the nervousness ratcheted to 11. Rehashing old music will NEVER be the same as that utterly sinister feeling that occurred when The Blackout started playing and all these skeletal, spectral shapes started pressing themselves up against the screens for the first E + I show. I still love it when this band can make something new that utterly enchants me. That's what I'd love for them to continue to do.

[Tortuga]

I don’t want them to quit making new music.  That would be pretty much the same as just retiring.  (The live show component of U2 is good, but not enough to excite me if they’re only playing old stuff.)

All I’m saying is that I don’t care how popular, relevant, or “critically admired” they are in mainstream culture.  The original post I was responding too was suggesting that if they can’t be those things they should quit.  I think we are confusing two different things:  not wanting them become a legacy act vs not worrying about their “legacy” if they don’t end on a high note as defined by today’s mainstream culture.

IMHO, when they worry about relevance and popularity with today’s youth their art suffers.  Their artistic ethos does not morph well into what is popular today.  SOI and SOE are evidence of that.  (My opinion.)