@U2 Forum

U2 => General U2 Discussion => Topic started by: parkman on October 17, 2013, 02:38:10 AM

Title: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 17, 2013, 02:38:10 AM
Why do I get the feeling that most of you seem to feel that U2 is only as good as their last performance?
Meaning, their last studio performance. I get the impression, that U2 is no longer worthy in a bunch of your eyes because of the so called "00's".
Now maybe, some of you aren't quite as big of fans of U2 as I am(based off of the, I don't listen to U2 anymore comments), which is fine, but the negativity is heavy. Which is confusing to me.. I mean, it's U2 we're talking about here. I just feel that maybe, they should deserve a little more credibility? Maybe that's just me.. but it's not like they're some totally different band than they were in the 90's.
Please, share your thoughts below!  :)
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soloyan on October 17, 2013, 05:20:38 AM
U2 is the same bunch of people which, in itself, is quite something.
I think it's hard to keep up with the same people over the years it's true with U2, your family, your friends...
Difference is, with U2 you are allowed to your preferences, nostalgia is also OK.

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

There are 1000's ways of being a U2 fan.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: boom boom on October 17, 2013, 05:40:33 AM
U2 are in a position now where they just can't win.  No matter what they put out people will whine and complain that it is either too radio friendly, not experimental enough, too simple, or if they try something really different, they'll say, what were they thinking (remember POP and POPMART).  It seems that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  I for one, love U2's 2000's material.  2 of their most successful albums came from this era.  I have never complained about their output during this era, I only question and complained about their choices of songs when they go on tour when they play the same staples over and over, tour after tour.  The problem is and I think Brian Eno said it, that a band's worst enemy is their own past and especially a past like U2's.  People will always tend to compare their new material with JT and AB.  It's time to let it go and just enjoy new songs for what its is, whether it's straight forward and simple rock tunes or more experimental.  I just hope they mix it up more (like  Springsteen) when they go out on tour.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: eddyjedi on October 17, 2013, 08:02:46 AM
I just hope they release all my life
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: satellitedog01 on October 17, 2013, 08:45:11 AM
How long have you been listening to U2, Parkman?

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 10:07:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How long have you been listening to U2, Parkman?

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

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

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

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

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

               Are you really going to lable Vertigo, Beautiful Day and Get On Your Boots as "Dad Rock", but say that "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" is somehow heavy, progressive, or indie rock? Really?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: satellitedog01 on October 17, 2013, 10:09:16 AM
Enjoy your day Edge245, and maybe try and not read meaning into my post that I never wrote.

SD
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 17, 2013, 10:48:48 AM
Lol!

Yeah everything SD said.

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

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



Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Kurukira on October 17, 2013, 11:06:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How long have you been listening to U2, Parkman?

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

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

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

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

I'm on the exact same wavelength as you, after following U2 for the same period of time (though mine started around mid-late 1992), when they entered more 'dad rock' territory, my interests turned to other bands and I did find one that hit me emotionally the same way U2 did, so I have been keeping up with said band more actively while keeping an ear out for the newer stuff.  I'll be fair, there's a few good gems in U2's 'dad rock' period that I hold dear, "Cedars of Lebanon" being first and foremost in my mind, but like you I'll still give U2 the time of day, but if I don't feel anything sublime out of whatever new music they have, then I'll keep getting that rush from other places.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: satellitedog01 on October 17, 2013, 11:23:15 AM
Yes. I agree that there are quite a few great songs throughout the '00s, but it isn't the same as it used to be, and it definitely isn't just me growing out of U2, before anyone suggests. I haven't grown out of other bands I've loved for similar lengths of time.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: ZooClothes on October 17, 2013, 11:32:39 AM
"Dad rock".

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's a difference between constructive criticism and bashing. I don't mind the former but the latter gets old very quickly. I'm excited to grow with the band and see where they go next. I don't expect another Joshua Tree or War or Achtung Baby. I want them to make the music they want to make and as long as they're being faithful to their vision then I will always respect that.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: zooshoes on October 17, 2013, 02:45:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do I get the feeling that most of you seem to feel that U2 is only as good as their last performance?
Meaning, their last studio performance. I get the impression, that U2 is no longer worthy in a bunch of your eyes because of the so called "00's".
Now maybe, some of you aren't quite as big of fans of U2 as I am(based off of the, I don't listen to U2 anymore comments), which is fine, but the negativity is heavy. Which is confusing to me.. I mean, it's U2 we're talking about here. I just feel that maybe, they should deserve a little more credibility? Maybe that's just me.. but it's not like they're some totally different band than they were in the 90's.
Please, share your thoughts below!  :)

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

It wouldn't be like that for someone who really liked their last three albums.  That's fine, I wish I liked them.  But I don't and that's reality for me.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 17, 2013, 03:00:21 PM
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

Others will disagree and thats fine its all subjective - but for me the band I fell in love with ceased to be in the 00's - I used to be proud to play u2 songs to non fans and often would get a "wow i didn't know they could do that" - now i would honestly be embarrassed to play most of their songs from the last decade to people....
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 04:25:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

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

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

           I just hope the 00s haters are not blocking up ticket lines next year. Let the fans that still truly love the bands work get in to see them in the arena's!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 04:30:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Enjoy your day Edge245, and maybe try and not read meaning into my post that I never wrote.

SD

Lets see, did you not write the following?

Quote
Because after an intense ten years of fandom for myself ('93-03) as a kid, after noticing they started to become dad-rock (was very clear even at the time) and offering music that rarely matched the excitement of the "classics", 

My response was simply:

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

                        You've labled U2's 00s music as "dad rock". Vertigo, Beautiful Day, and Get On Your Boots are songs U2 recorded in the 00s. "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" is a U2 classic.

                          I know exactly what you said and meant and gave you a perfect example of what your claiming. Perhaps you've realized the description of U2's 00s music as "dad rock" is not accurate.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 17, 2013, 04:34:34 PM
That ticket comment is completely ridiculous

I'm not a fan of a huge chunk of 00s material,  especially the woeful htdaab, but that's not the entire setlist. Maybe 2 songs max from it. So unless I see an announcement saying they are only playing htdaab I plan on 'blocking the ticket line'

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 04:45:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That ticket comment is completely ridiculous

I'm not a fan of a huge chunk of 00s material,  especially the woeful htdaab, but that's not the entire setlist. Maybe 2 songs max from it. So unless I see an announcement saying they are only playing htdaab I plan on 'blocking the ticket line'

             What if they only play songs that were recorded after January 2000? Why not let the fans that are really into what the band is doing in the 00s in first? If the band is really going back to Arena's only, then lots of fans are going to get blocked out because there is not going to be space. Shouldn't the fans that are enthusiastic about their 00s music get in first instead of the fans that dislike their 00s music and will stand like "unmoving stern old Dad's with their arms crossed" during the show?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
What if my auntie had nads? Then She'd be my uncle


Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 17, 2013, 05:07:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

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

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

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

each to their own i know but to call HTDAAB the greatest album of the 21st century and laud those other songs beggars belief IMO - as for the ticket comments - behave!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 05:07:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What if my auntie had nads? Then She'd be my uncle

               No, she would be your transgender Auntie.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 05:12:30 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
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HTDAAB is a fantastic album and even Bono agrees its their third best. It sold over 10 million copies and won 8 Grammy awards including album of the year. The band worked very hard on it for years, including re-writing songs and throwing out some stuff. They did an amazing job, and after 9 years I still get goose bumps when I listen to it.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 17, 2013, 05:15:36 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
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't give a toss how many grammies it won (is there anything less rock n roll in music?) or how many copies it sold - as far as I am concerned its a dog of an album - you love it, fair do's
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 17, 2013, 05:17:44 PM
I get goosebumps too. It's scary bad.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 05:31:51 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
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Hey, I'm just offering you something other than my own opinion in discussing the albums greatness.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I get goosebumps too. It's scary bad.

Wow, I guess you skipped the Vertigo Tour and the U2 3D movie?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 17, 2013, 05:34:22 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
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we'll agree to disagree, pal
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 17, 2013, 05:36:50 PM
Movie yes. Tour no. I saw some great stuff on that tour. Gloria. An cat. Horses. Please. Sbs. Pride. Streets. Bad. Mw. Zoo station. Etc. Why on earth would I want to miss all that?

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 05:48:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we'll agree to disagree, pal

             Maybe, but at least its something more than just our individual opinions. I mean, besides your individual opinion, what do you have to back up your idea that HTDAAB is not a great album?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 17, 2013, 05:52:38 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we'll agree to disagree, pal

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

the same as you - nothing that is worth too much..... its a big part of what forums are about, discussion and debate.... oh and my mate dave said its sh**e too!  ;)
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 05:52:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Movie yes. Tour no. I saw some great stuff on that tour. Gloria. An cat. Horses. Please. Sbs. Pride. Streets. Bad. Mw. Zoo station. Etc. Why on earth would I want to miss all that?

             Because you'd have to hear the songs from HTDAAB, and ALTYCLB which you don't like. I mean, if I didn't like a bands material from the previous decade, but I did like their old stuff, I would not rush out to get tickets, to a concert that would rapidly sellout. Why? Because I'd be preventing other fans that would enjoy the experience more from seeing it. Now, if the show was not in danger of selling out, I'd probably go, buy the ticket the day of the show.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 17, 2013, 05:54:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we'll agree to disagree, pal

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

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

Who's Dave?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 17, 2013, 05:56:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The problem with U2 in the 00's IMO is that they back pedaled from their most creative and interesting era, but it wasn't just a retreat to their 80's sound or style - which was unique and still often had that feel of something that had more substance, had more mystique and just more magic than most - and was the sound of a band who were a rock band but different to the rest - it was a retreat firmly and fully into the middle of the road - with when they tried to be a rock n roll band they had almost no swagger, none of the spark they had before and made ham fisted songs and when they tried to be a pop rock band they came across bland and cheesy and lightweight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we'll agree to disagree, pal

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

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

Who's Dave?

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 17, 2013, 06:01:01 PM
I said in the other thread that I would always go to a new tour to give the new songs a chance. Plus I knew I would hear more songs I do like than song that I dont. Either way when the next tour rolls around I will Be There.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: KenpoMatt on October 17, 2013, 08:37:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I just hope they release all my life

X's 100! I even have the beach recording on my IPOD in my U2 rarities section. I really wish they would have done an entire "Rubin produced" album. 
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 18, 2013, 12:37:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How long have you been listening to U2, Parkman?

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

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

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

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

I've been listening since I could comprehend what music was. Like at 3-4 years old.
I'm now 17.
Look it really does matter to me how well U2 does in the present too, but I'm certainly no fan to move on to "get a rush" from other bands. No band, can rival U2 to me. I'm not ragging you for not feeling that way, but I'd Go listen to bootlegs, that's what I do  :) Feels fresh and new!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 18, 2013, 12:40:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 are in a position now where they just can't win.  No matter what they put out people will whine and complain that it is either too radio friendly, not experimental enough, too simple, or if they try something really different, they'll say, what were they thinking (remember POP and POPMART).  It seems that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  I for one, love U2's 2000's material.  2 of their most successful albums came from this era.  I have never complained about their output during this era, I only question and complained about their choices of songs when they go on tour when they play the same staples over and over, tour after tour.  The problem is and I think Brian Eno said it, that a band's worst enemy is their own past and especially a past like U2's.  People will always tend to compare their new material with JT and AB.  It's time to let it go and just enjoy new songs for what its is, whether it's straight forward and simple rock tunes or more experimental.  I just hope they mix it up more (like  Springsteen) when they go out on tour.

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

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

There's a difference between constructive criticism and bashing. I don't mind the former but the latter gets old very quickly. I'm excited to grow with the band and see where they go next. I don't expect another Joshua Tree or War or Achtung Baby. I want them to make the music they want to make and as long as they're being faithful to their vision then I will always respect that.

I totally agree.  :)
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 18, 2013, 12:52:18 AM
thats rubbish. music should never be about pleasing the fans. the band should just do something they like.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 18, 2013, 01:23:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
thats rubbish. music should never be about pleasing the fans. the band should just do something they like.

I'm clapping right now.. literally!  ;D
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: satellitedog01 on October 18, 2013, 02:55:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've been listening since I could comprehend what music was. Like at 3-4 years old.
I'm now 17.
Look it really does matter to me how well U2 does in the present too, but I'm certainly no fan to move on to "get a rush" from other bands. No band, can rival U2 to me. I'm not ragging you for not feeling that way, but I'd Go listen to bootlegs, that's what I do  :) Feels fresh and new!

Well, then you are still in the honeymoon phase, which you should enjoy. I fell in love with a very different U2 to today's, and maybe it will happen to you as well when they become something different still. My negativity comes from the ten years I gave U2 to convince me they still have what I've fallen in love with at 12 (or 7 even).
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: jacob on October 18, 2013, 08:13:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do I get the feeling that most of you seem to feel that U2 is only as good as their last performance?
Meaning, their last studio performance. I get the impression, that U2 is no longer worthy in a bunch of your eyes because of the so called "00's".
Now maybe, some of you aren't quite as big of fans of U2 as I am(based off of the, I don't listen to U2 anymore comments), which is fine, but the negativity is heavy. Which is confusing to me.. I mean, it's U2 we're talking about here. I just feel that maybe, they should deserve a little more credibility? Maybe that's just me.. but it's not like they're some totally different band than they were in the 90's.
Please, share your thoughts below!  :)

Even this question raises a storm of negativity.
I am puzzled by people who loathe u2 for their 00s output, and spent 13 years on this forum explaining us why. What is wrong with them?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 18, 2013, 08:42:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do I get the feeling that most of you seem to feel that U2 is only as good as their last performance?
Meaning, their last studio performance. I get the impression, that U2 is no longer worthy in a bunch of your eyes because of the so called "00's".
Now maybe, some of you aren't quite as big of fans of U2 as I am(based off of the, I don't listen to U2 anymore comments), which is fine, but the negativity is heavy. Which is confusing to me.. I mean, it's U2 we're talking about here. I just feel that maybe, they should deserve a little more credibility? Maybe that's just me.. but it's not like they're some totally different band than they were in the 90's.
Please, share your thoughts below!  :)

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

Interesting observation!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: mdmomof7 on October 18, 2013, 11:07:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do I get the feeling that most of you seem to feel that U2 is only as good as their last performance?
Meaning, their last studio performance. I get the impression, that U2 is no longer worthy in a bunch of your eyes because of the so called "00's".
Now maybe, some of you aren't quite as big of fans of U2 as I am(based off of the, I don't listen to U2 anymore comments), which is fine, but the negativity is heavy. Which is confusing to me.. I mean, it's U2 we're talking about here. I just feel that maybe, they should deserve a little more credibility? Maybe that's just me.. but it's not like they're some totally different band than they were in the 90's.
Please, share your thoughts below!  :)

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

Interesting observation!

Ironic and spot on.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 18, 2013, 02:51:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do I get the feeling that most of you seem to feel that U2 is only as good as their last performance?
Meaning, their last studio performance. I get the impression, that U2 is no longer worthy in a bunch of your eyes because of the so called "00's".
Now maybe, some of you aren't quite as big of fans of U2 as I am(based off of the, I don't listen to U2 anymore comments), which is fine, but the negativity is heavy. Which is confusing to me.. I mean, it's U2 we're talking about here. I just feel that maybe, they should deserve a little more credibility? Maybe that's just me.. but it's not like they're some totally different band than they were in the 90's.
Please, share your thoughts below!  :)

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

Very true. I was hoping for maybe a change of heart. LOL. At least I've found not everyone on here feels that U2 is no longer good! It just seems unusual that these fans would hang 'round the forums so much if they hate on U2 so much? Not to say they can't.. but I find it peculiar... not so much in not liking them now, but the forum dynamic. And Ordinary Love for example, people are saying already "It sounds like the U2 of the 00's, I don't like it. They aren't reinventing themselves." And such. They're seems to be a HEAVY interest in Zoo TV and Achtung Baby, just not much of anything else for these people. In fairness, I'm sorry to those who don't like what U2 is coming out with. To me, it sounds more like early 80's and the beginning of the 00's. After all, U2 started out with music like this, NOT Achtung. 
But I for one, love U2 in the 80's, 90's, and 00's!  :)
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: LToy on October 18, 2013, 03:17:01 PM
Remember when U2's mantra during the War Tour was "we're waging a war against boring, wallpaper music"?  Well the irony is that for the last 13 years U2's music has become exactly that.  It's safe, radio-friendly, commercial; it will get played on all the adult rock stations, etc.  They became the band that NARAS (the governing body that votes on the grammys) said in 2000, "you know what, you're still standing after more than 2+ decades, will give you our votes to give you more grammys, even though your hardcore fans would probably argue that your peak creative, artistic years were from the mid-80's to early 90's."
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 18, 2013, 03:26:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Remember when U2's mantra during the War Tour was "we're waging a war against boring, wallpaper music"?  Well the irony is that for the last 13 years U2's music has become exactly that.  It's safe, radio-friendly, commercial; it will get played on all the adult rock stations, etc.  They became the band that NARAS (the governing body that votes on the grammys) said in 2000, "you know what, you're still standing after more than 2+ decades, will give you our votes to give you more grammys, even though your hardcore fans would probably argue that your peak creative, artistic years were from the mid-80's to early 90's."

           This is a myth.

           U2 received more radio airplay with the POP album than they did with ATYCLB, HTDAAB, or NLOTH. Its to ATYCLB and HTDAAB credit that they both heavily outsold POP despite receiving less radio airplay!

           Oh and the "governing body" that votes on the grammy's includes about 17,000 people, most of them artist, engineers, and producers involved in the creation of music. Everyone from Radiohead, Metallica, Sting, U2, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Taylor Swift, Britney Spears, Eminem, Jay-Z, Josh Groben, Garth Brooks, Willie Nelson, and Norah Jones are members of the academy and vote every year. Most artist like to win grammy's because it is recognition from your peers in the music industry, people involved in writing or recording music.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 18, 2013, 03:35:30 PM
Doesn't matter who votes on it. The only thing that matters is one's personal opinion of the album.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 18, 2013, 04:03:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Remember when U2's mantra during the War Tour was "we're waging a war against boring, wallpaper music"?  Well the irony is that for the last 13 years U2's music has become exactly that.  It's safe, radio-friendly, commercial; it will get played on all the adult rock stations, etc.  They became the band that NARAS (the governing body that votes on the grammys) said in 2000, "you know what, you're still standing after more than 2+ decades, will give you our votes to give you more grammys, even though your hardcore fans would probably argue that your peak creative, artistic years were from the mid-80's to early 90's."

           This is a myth.

           U2 received more radio airplay with the POP album than they did with ATYCLB, HTDAAB, or NLOTH. Its to ATYCLB and HTDAAB credit that they both heavily outsold POP despite receiving less radio airplay!

           Oh and the "governing body" that votes on the grammy's includes about 17,000 people, most of them artist, engineers, and producers involved in the creation of music. Everyone from Radiohead, Metallica, Sting, U2, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Taylor Swift, Britney Spears, Eminem, Jay-Z, Josh Groben, Garth Brooks, Willie Nelson, and Norah Jones are members of the academy and vote every year. Most artist like to win grammy's because it is recognition from your peers in the music industry, people involved in writing or recording music.

ur not going to get too far arguing the quality of the grammys. better stick to proving to everyone how ludicrously successful pop was.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 18, 2013, 04:08:36 PM
I heard beautiful day and vertigo on the radio a lot more often than I heard discotheque So I think that argument is bogus too.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: So Cruel on October 18, 2013, 04:57:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I heard beautiful day and vertigo on the radio a lot more often than I heard discotheque So I think that argument is bogus too.



Yup, Beautiful Day is still on the radio all the time, 13 years after it was released. I think I heard Discotheque for about a month in '97 on the radio, and that was only 'cause it was the new U2 song.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 18, 2013, 04:58:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I heard beautiful day and vertigo on the radio a lot more often than I heard discotheque So I think that argument is bogus too.
Look up the charts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_discography

First of all, Pop was coming after Achtung Baby and Zooropa and Zoo TV. HIGHLY popular stuff. And people didn't like it as much and it still sold a lot.
ATYCLB came after Pop. Pop people didn't like. ATYCLB, still sold more. A testament that it really was a great album in many people's eyes.

Secondly, it's one thing to say you don't like U2's recent stuff, it's another thing to say it's bad or "dad". Obviously, most people don't think it's bad or "dad".
Stop bashing. It ain't cool.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 18, 2013, 05:12:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I heard beautiful day and vertigo on the radio a lot more often than I heard discotheque So I think that argument is bogus too.

Well, in terms of national radio airplay that is electronically monitored by Broadcast Data Systems with the results for each week, this is how each albums singles did in terms of strictly radio airplay in the United States. This is where each song peaked on the HOT 100 AIRPLAY Chart in published weekly in Billboard.

POP
01. Discotheque #22
02. Staring At The Sun #16
03. Last Night On Earth #74
04. Please - failed to chart
05. If God Would Send His Angels - failed to chart

ATYCLB
01. Beautiful Day #19
02. Walk On - failed to chart
03. Elevation - failed to chart
04. Stuck In A Moment #52

HTDAAB
01. Vertigo #30
02. All Because Of You - failed to chart
03. Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own - failed to chart
04. City Of Blinding Lights - failed to chart
05. Original Of The Species - failed to chart

NLOTH
01. Get On Your Boots - failed to chart
02. Magnificent - failed to chart
03. I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight - failed to chart

                   
                                           Now POP's USA national radio airplay was by no means spectacular, but it was better than any U2 album in the 00s. The amazing thing is that despite much lower airplay levels, ATYCLB and HTDAAB each sold three times as many albums as POP did in the United States.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 18, 2013, 05:16:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I heard beautiful day and vertigo on the radio a lot more often than I heard discotheque So I think that argument is bogus too.

Well, in terms of national radio airplay that is electronically monitored by Broadcast Data Systems with the results for each week, this is how each albums singles did in terms of strictly radio airplay in the United States. This is where each song peaked on the HOT 100 AIRPLAY Chart in published weekly in Billboard.

POP
01. Discotheque #22
02. Staring At The Sun #16
03. Last Night On Earth #74
04. Please - failed to chart
05. If God Would Send His Angels - failed to chart

ATYCLB
01. Beautiful Day #19
02. Walk On - failed to chart
03. Elevation - failed to chart
04. Stuck In A Moment #52

HTDAAB
01. Vertigo #30
02. All Because Of You - failed to chart
03. Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own - failed to chart
04. City Of Blinding Lights - failed to chart
05. Original Of The Species - failed to chart

NLOTH
01. Get On Your Boots - failed to chart
02. Magnificent - failed to chart
03. I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight - failed to chart

                   
                                           Now POP's USA national radio airplay was by no means spectacular, but it was better than any U2 album in the 00s. The amazing thing is that despite much lower airplay levels, ATYCLB and HTDAAB each sold three times as many albums as POP did in the United States.

There is just no accounting for how bad the general publics taste can be!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 18, 2013, 05:18:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I heard beautiful day and vertigo on the radio a lot more often than I heard discotheque So I think that argument is bogus too.



Yup, Beautiful Day is still on the radio all the time, 13 years after it was released. I think I heard Discotheque for about a month in '97 on the radio, and that was only 'cause it was the new U2 song.

              True, but that is not what is being compared. Its the initial 1 to 2 years when an album receives the lions share of its airplay as well as most of its sales, especially in the 21st century.

           
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 18, 2013, 05:21:23 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
Remember when U2's mantra during the War Tour was "we're waging a war against boring, wallpaper music"?  Well the irony is that for the last 13 years U2's music has become exactly that.  It's safe, radio-friendly, commercial; it will get played on all the adult rock stations, etc.  They became the band that NARAS (the governing body that votes on the grammys) said in 2000, "you know what, you're still standing after more than 2+ decades, will give you our votes to give you more grammys, even though your hardcore fans would probably argue that your peak creative, artistic years were from the mid-80's to early 90's."

           This is a myth.

           U2 received more radio airplay with the POP album than they did with ATYCLB, HTDAAB, or NLOTH. Its to ATYCLB and HTDAAB credit that they both heavily outsold POP despite receiving less radio airplay!

           Oh and the "governing body" that votes on the grammy's includes about 17,000 people, most of them artist, engineers, and producers involved in the creation of music. Everyone from Radiohead, Metallica, Sting, U2, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Taylor Swift, Britney Spears, Eminem, Jay-Z, Josh Groben, Garth Brooks, Willie Nelson, and Norah Jones are members of the academy and vote every year. Most artist like to win grammy's because it is recognition from your peers in the music industry, people involved in writing or recording music.

ur not going to get too far arguing the quality of the grammys. better stick to proving to everyone how ludicrously successful pop was.

I never said POP was a huge success. It received more radio airplay than ATYCLB and HTDAAB, but sold much less than those albums. The fact that the songs from POP were played more but the album sold much less than the next two only further emphasis the relative failure of POP.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 18, 2013, 06:33:46 PM
If you ask me, Pop is one of the best albums ever. I thoroughly like it too. I just wouldn't call U2's other later stuff bad by any means, even if I didn't like it!  ;)
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 22, 2013, 10:34:00 AM
Depends how you define failure.

I know I've heard beautiful day and vertigo a lot more on the radio. Both then and now.

POP was a massive artistic success. Whereas Htdaab was a massive failure.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Kurukira on October 22, 2013, 11:21:21 AM
I'd consider 2000s U2 a cooling off period musically after the insanity of the 90s.  I really don't research chart numbers on these things, I just go by my gut on this one.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 22, 2013, 03:44:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Depends how you define failure.

I know I've heard beautiful day and vertigo a lot more on the radio. Both then and now.

POP was a massive artistic success. Whereas Htdaab was a massive failure.

           Well, there is what you hear on the radio as one person and then what electronic monitoring of radio airplay says about what is being played across an entire country like the United States. Perhaps in Birmingham Alabama, Vertigo received a higher level of airplay when it was released than Staring At The Sun. But nationally, that was not the case. Its a fact that Staring At The Sun made it to #16 in national radio airplay across the United States, while Vertigo peaked at #30!

           POP was a relative failure both in terms of sales and artistically. Even the band has admitted this. They failed to finish the album. They needed another 6 to 8  months in the studio to finish it, but they had already booked the tour so they simply dropped their raw unfinished product on the public in March 1997. The only songs that feel completely finished and polished on the album are the first three songs, Discotheque, Do You Feel Loved and Mofo. The rest of the songs on the album either need to be re-written or re-recorded, and the band tried to do that with Please before it was released as a single.

          HTDAAB was an amazing success for U2. Its U2's third best album and the greatest album released so far in the 21st century. It has sold 10 million copies and won 8 Grammy awards including album of the year. The tour in support of the album grossed almost $400 million dollars and was attended by almost 5 million people. There is always someone out there that is going to call any album terrible or a failure, even the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby would not be immune to some individuals saying that. But the majority of U2 fans and music fans consider HTDAAB to be a success and so does the band!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 22, 2013, 04:06:30 PM
Most fans here, ie U2 fans not the here today gone tomorrow types, agree pop was the greater success. All the polls you started as bethere showed that.

Ultimately the ONLY thing that matters is what one personally thinks of the albums.

And I don't know or care what's played in Birmingham or nationally, but I know I rarely heard a Pop song on the radio and beautiful day and vertigo were played relentlessly

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: DGordon1 on October 22, 2013, 04:21:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Depends how you define failure.

I know I've heard beautiful day and vertigo a lot more on the radio. Both then and now.

POP was a massive artistic success. Whereas Htdaab was a massive failure.


HTDAAB did what it set out to do, so it wasn't an artistic failure. It would only be considered such if it missed its goal. It appeals to simpler tastes - I really don't understand those who can't enjoy a deep, challenging album and a more basic to-the-point piece of work for what it is.

I think Pop was a great album (although the mixes of IGWSHA, LNOE and Please weren't perfect). HTDAAB is a good album, with solid songwriting throughout. I find Pop more exciting, but they're not really comparable as pieces of work in my mind.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Droo on October 22, 2013, 04:34:13 PM
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 22, 2013, 04:48:40 PM
Exactly. Yes its a "basic" album for which there's always a time and a place. But they don't do that type of music very well.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 22, 2013, 05:15:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Depends how you define failure.

I know I've heard beautiful day and vertigo a lot more on the radio. Both then and now.

POP was a massive artistic success. Whereas Htdaab was a massive failure.

           Well, there is what you hear on the radio as one person and then what electronic monitoring of radio airplay says about what is being played across an entire country like the United States. Perhaps in Birmingham Alabama, Vertigo received a higher level of airplay when it was released than Staring At The Sun. But nationally, that was not the case. Its a fact that Staring At The Sun made it to #16 in national radio airplay across the United States, while Vertigo peaked at #30!

           POP was a relative failure both in terms of sales and artistically. Even the band has admitted this. They failed to finish the album. They needed another 6 to 8  months in the studio to finish it, but they had already booked the tour so they simply dropped their raw unfinished product on the public in March 1997. The only songs that feel completely finished and polished on the album are the first three songs, Discotheque, Do You Feel Loved and Mofo. The rest of the songs on the album either need to be re-written or re-recorded, and the band tried to do that with Please before it was released as a single.

          HTDAAB was an amazing success for U2. Its U2's third best album and the greatest album released so far in the 21st century. It has sold 10 million copies and won 8 Grammy awards including album of the year. The tour in support of the album grossed almost $400 million dollars and was attended by almost 5 million people. There is always someone out there that is going to call any album terrible or a failure, even the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby would not be immune to some individuals saying that. But the majority of U2 fans and music fans consider HTDAAB to be a success and so does the band!

A commercial success without doubt - whether it was an artistic success is another story/ argument altogether, and a very subjective one- I'd say it was absolutely not one. IMO it may be U2's worst album..... artistically
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 22, 2013, 07:56:41 PM
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 22, 2013, 09:41:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Most fans here, ie U2 fans not the here today gone tomorrow types, agree pop was the greater success. All the polls you started as bethere showed that.

Ultimately the ONLY thing that matters is what one personally thinks of the albums.

And I don't know or care what's played in Birmingham or nationally, but I know I rarely heard a Pop song on the radio and beautiful day and vertigo were played relentlessly

               Well, I don't know where you live, so I just picked a city. Whether you live in Birmingham or some other city in the United States, what you happen to hear on the radio station there is NOT an accurate measure of what is being played across the entire country. The only way to find that out is to look at the charts which are measured by Broadcast Data systems which electronically monitors radio airplay across the entire country constantly.

                The people on this specific message forum total only about a few dozen people I think. Its not an accurate measure of most U2 fans taste. I personally don't know anyone that prefers POP to 00s material and my friends and I have been U2 fans since the 1980s.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 22, 2013, 09:43:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 22, 2013, 09:45:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)

                 They played there on the ZOO TV tour back in 1992! Outside Broadcast in the fall. Did you live in Alabama back then?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: ZooClothes on October 22, 2013, 09:58:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

This is just as subjective a benchmark as anything else you can judge music by. To the Extreme by Vanilla Ice sold 11 million, etc etc I could name a few others as well. If NLOTH had come out in 2004 with an iPod commercial push, at the tail end of when CDs were still relatively big, would it have sold 10 million copies and won 8 Grammys? Hard to tell. I think I've said it before, but to me, HTDAAB is U2's most frustratingalbum. Moments of blast and beauty surrounded by mediocrity. Remember, U2 also enjoyed a great renaissance in the US when ATYCLB came out, and they were touring after 9/11, and they played the Super Bowl with the tribute to the 9/11 victims. The US fanbase seemed to "welcome back" U2 from the cyberterrain of Zooropa/PopMart. I sincerely believe they rode that wave through HTDAAB (playing under the Brooklyn Bridge as a promo didn't hurt either). Just my observations.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 22, 2013, 10:25:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: big_willy_wonka on October 23, 2013, 01:37:33 AM

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 23, 2013, 03:39:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)

                 They played there on the ZOO TV tour back in 1992! Outside Broadcast in the fall. Did you live in Alabama back then?

 :o I'm gonna go get that bootleg! Right now! ..And sadly, I wasn't living anywhere. I wasn't born yet.  ;) Wish I could've been there.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: satellitedog01 on October 23, 2013, 05:20:16 AM
That Birmingham gig was my first ZooTV bootleg back in '98... The first time I heard Throw Your Arms... live.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 07:16:59 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
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

This is just as subjective a benchmark as anything else you can judge music by. To the Extreme by Vanilla Ice sold 11 million, etc etc I could name a few others as well. If NLOTH had come out in 2004 with an iPod commercial push, at the tail end of when CDs were still relatively big, would it have sold 10 million copies and won 8 Grammys? Hard to tell. I think I've said it before, but to me, HTDAAB is U2's most frustratingalbum. Moments of blast and beauty surrounded by mediocrity. Remember, U2 also enjoyed a great renaissance in the US when ATYCLB came out, and they were touring after 9/11, and they played the Super Bowl with the tribute to the 9/11 victims. The US fanbase seemed to "welcome back" U2 from the cyberterrain of Zooropa/PopMart. I sincerely believe they rode that wave through HTDAAB (playing under the Brooklyn Bridge as a promo didn't hurt either). Just my observations.

HTDAAB came out over 4 years AFTER ATYCLB. Almost as long a gap in studio album releases that were currently in right now. That's definitely not wave riding. HTDAAB sold well on its own.

          The Grammy awards are voted on by the Grammy Academy. The Grammy Academy includes several thousand people involved with the production of music, including artist, producers, and engineers. For the artist, it is an award from their peers, not the public.

        Given that, why would an album that is "dull,  insipid", "poorly produced", has a "terrible mix" and is "dull and boring" win more Grammy awards than any other album in history from the very people that work every day in producing music?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 07:20:43 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
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Bads316 on October 23, 2013, 07:23:48 AM
That's some funny stuff right there.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 07:25:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 07:28:41 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
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)

                 They played there on the ZOO TV tour back in 1992! Outside Broadcast in the fall. Did you live in Alabama back then?

 :o I'm gonna go get that bootleg! Right now! ..And sadly, I wasn't living anywhere. I wasn't born yet.  ;) Wish I could've been there.

Wow, I didn't realize you were only 17. My friends and I had seen U2 multiple times and met the band, and been to Dublin to see all the U2 sights 4 years before you were even born. Are your parents U2 fans?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: ZooClothes on October 23, 2013, 08:59:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

Edge, your passion for HTDAAB is awesome. But album sales and Grammy wins are facts which do not support whether or not an album is good. See Milli Vanilli for one of many reference points.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 23, 2013, 09:12:38 AM
So bethere/edge, you must think eric clapton unplugged is better than achtung baby?

Grammys are meaningless

And now you know a bunch of people who prefer 90s U2 to 00s.




Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: So Cruel on October 23, 2013, 10:02:21 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
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 23, 2013, 10:09:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

Anyone who lists Bomb as "the best album of the 21st century" either doesn't get out much, or has musical tastes so different from mine that interaction with them is pretty much pointless. So while others can do what they want, I won't be feeding the Bethere Attention Machine any longer.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 23, 2013, 10:19:09 AM
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 23, 2013, 10:23:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 23, 2013, 10:41:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

Its individual and highly subjective even within discussion amongst fans of a certain artist - I can see how bomb would be lauded and appeal to individuals and a demographic though to be fair - to the point where it is lauded as not only u2s best but the best of the 21st century to date. . . . . . . . Those with a hearing impairment!  :)
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Wanderer on October 23, 2013, 10:51:23 AM
So would you have prefered the band called it quits on Dec 31st, 1999?  Or is there any appreciation for anything recorded since then. 
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 23, 2013, 11:03:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So would you have prefered the band called it quits on Dec 31st, 1999?  Or is there any appreciation for anything recorded since then.

No I wouldnt have liked them to jack it in because then there wouldnt be any hope that the band who made the records I love the most would be able to do it again!

As for post 99 songs - breathe, kite, fez, mos, are songs I like.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: big_willy_wonka on October 23, 2013, 11:58:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

The last sentence of my post was subjective yes. The rest of it was an objective commentary on the styles of music U2 produced pre and post 2000.

But seeing as you're being purely subjective, my subjective opinion is that ATYCLB and HTDAAB and to a greater extent NLOTH are horrible U2 records. Populist, badly produced and so concerned with marketing and sales they barely know who they are. But seeing as the majority here are so obsessed with chart positions and how many units each record shifted I would have to admit by those standards they were a success. As artistic statements they were a failure.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

Edge, your passion for HTDAAB is awesome. But album sales and Grammy wins are facts which do not support whether or not an album is good. See Milli Vanilli for one of many reference points.

              Correction, they are facts that CAN support or CAN indicate excellent quality in an album. Pointing out certain exceptions like you did does not change that.

             At the end of the day, I have something other than my own personal opinion to support the idea that HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century. What do the haters of HTDAAB have other than their own opinion? NOTHING!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 12:19:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So bethere/edge, you must think eric clapton unplugged is better than achtung baby?

Grammys are meaningless

And now you know a bunch of people who prefer 90s U2 to 00s.

          Just because there are exceptions does not make the Grammy's meaningless. Far from it! Once again, its an indicator of quality.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 12:21:36 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
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

           Ok, so we should say the Grammy's mean nothing because one of your hippie bands did not win one. I think not.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 23, 2013, 12:25:58 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
Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

Edge, your passion for HTDAAB is awesome. But album sales and Grammy wins are facts which do not support whether or not an album is good. See Milli Vanilli for one of many reference points.

              Correction, they are facts that CAN support or CAN indicate excellent quality in an album. Pointing out certain exceptions like you did does not change that.

             At the end of the day, I have something other than my own personal opinion to support the idea that HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century. What do the haters of HTDAAB have other than their own opinion? NOTHING!

No, we have every other album in the 21st century that sold more copies or won more awards than Bomb did. You can't appeal to your selected criteria to prove Bomb's greatness, and then dismiss counter-evidence as an exception to the rule. It's called arguing ad hoc, and first-year philosophy students can see through the fallacy.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 12:34:13 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
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

Its individual and highly subjective even within discussion amongst fans of a certain artist - I can see how bomb would be lauded and appeal to individuals and a demographic though to be fair - to the point where it is lauded as not only u2s best but the best of the 21st century to date. . . . . . . . Those with a hearing impairment!  :)


           Lets see here, we are in a U2 forum and people are making negative comments about other U2 fans simply because they expressed a certain amount of love and admiration for something U2 recorded? Does a U2 fan on a U2 forum really deserved to be told they "don't get out much" or are "hearing impaired" because in their opinion HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century at this point?

            I can only imagine the reaction to a U2 fan who stated that HTDAAB was by far the greatest album of all time.

         This is a U2 forum, seeing such expressions of admiration for U2's work should not be surprising or shocking. Its to be expected. Its their individual opinion, and they have other things to back it up, that people saying the opposite do not.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 12:40:06 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

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

The last sentence of my post was subjective yes. The rest of it was an objective commentary on the styles of music U2 produced pre and post 2000.



           Sorry it was all opinion and not objective, except the statement that it only takes an artist name to sell records is actually false. I can provide dozens of examples, the POP album and popmart tour being one.

Quote
But seeing as you're being purely subjective, my subjective opinion is that ATYCLB and HTDAAB and to a greater extent NLOTH are horrible U2 records. Populist, badly produced and so concerned with marketing and sales they barely know who they are. But seeing as the majority here are so obsessed with chart positions and how many units each record shifted I would have to admit by those standards they were a success. As artistic statements they were a failure. 

           Goood....., let the hate flow through you!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 23, 2013, 12:42:21 PM
Personal opinions by very definition do not need a backup

It doesn't MATTER how many copies were sold or what OTHER people think.

HTDAAB is the worst U2 album of this or any other century.

That's my opinion and not subject to being changed because a bunch of other people may or may not disagree with me. 

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 12:46:33 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
Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

Edge, your passion for HTDAAB is awesome. But album sales and Grammy wins are facts which do not support whether or not an album is good. See Milli Vanilli for one of many reference points.

              Correction, they are facts that CAN support or CAN indicate excellent quality in an album. Pointing out certain exceptions like you did does not change that.

             At the end of the day, I have something other than my own personal opinion to support the idea that HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century. What do the haters of HTDAAB have other than their own opinion? NOTHING!

No, we have every other album in the 21st century that sold more copies or won more awards than Bomb did. You can't appeal to your selected criteria to prove Bomb's greatness, and then dismiss counter-evidence as an exception to the rule. It's called arguing ad hoc, and first-year philosophy students can see through the fallacy.

        Can you name any album in the 21st century that won more Grammy awards than HTDAAB? I never dismissed any better selling albums than HTDAAB in the 21st century. There are not many of them.

        Also, I never said I proved anything. I only said that I had something other than my own personal opinion to support the idea that it was the best album so far this century! The U2 Haters have NOTHING!

                       
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 12:47:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Personal opinions by very definition do not need a backup

It doesn't MATTER how many copies were sold or what OTHER people think.

HTDAAB is the worst U2 album of this or any other century.

That's my opinion and not subject to being changed because a bunch of other people may or may not disagree with me.

Gooood...., Let the hate flow through you!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: THRILLHO on October 23, 2013, 12:54:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Personal opinions by very definition do not need a backup

It doesn't MATTER how many copies were sold or what OTHER people think.

HTDAAB is the worst U2 album of this or any other century.

That's my opinion and not subject to being changed because a bunch of other people may or may not disagree with me.


i can get behind this. there are moments i like but im fairly certain its my least fav. or at least 2nd fav.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 23, 2013, 01:24:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)

                 They played there on the ZOO TV tour back in 1992! Outside Broadcast in the fall. Did you live in Alabama back then?

 :o I'm gonna go get that bootleg! Right now! ..And sadly, I wasn't living anywhere. I wasn't born yet.  ;) Wish I could've been there.

Wow, I didn't realize you were only 17. My friends and I had seen U2 multiple times and met the band, and been to Dublin to see all the U2 sights 4 years before you were even born. Are your parents U2 fans?
Wow. You're lucky! I plan on going to see them in Dublin on their next tour  ;D
And yes, they are "fans". Not like me, but they appreciate the talent and they definitely think they're the best band there is. I'm constantly watching U2 concerts and listening to their music, so I think they've grown to appreciate and like them a lot more!
The reason I first heard U2, was because my dad had The Joshua Tree on CD, and ever since I was like 4, I couldn't get over that opening guitar. So I attribute some of the reason I started to like U2 to them. :)
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 23, 2013, 01:26:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

That's rough...^^^
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 23, 2013, 01:35:27 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
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

That's rough...^^^

I know, right? But I'm just taking one for the team up in here. I mean, someone's gotta explain that a Whopper is inferior to a Ribeye.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 01:40:58 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
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

           Ok, so we should say the Grammy's mean nothing because one of your hippie bands did not win won. I think not.

let the grasping at straws begin. seriously the very fact ur saying the grammys have any relation to quality or even keep track of them at all shows ur coming from a very different place to say .... anyone who's opinion on music should be taken seriously ...... imo.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 01:43:55 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
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)

                 They played there on the ZOO TV tour back in 1992! Outside Broadcast in the fall. Did you live in Alabama back then?

 :o I'm gonna go get that bootleg! Right now! ..And sadly, I wasn't living anywhere. I wasn't born yet.  ;) Wish I could've been there.

Wow, I didn't realize you were only 17. My friends and I had seen U2 multiple times and met the band, and been to Dublin to see all the U2 sights 4 years before you were even born. Are your parents U2 fans?
Wow. You're lucky! I plan on going to see them in Dublin on their next tour  ;D
And yes, they are "fans". Not like me, but they appreciate the talent and they definitely think they're the best band there is. I'm constantly watching U2 concerts and listening to their music, so I think they've grown to appreciate and like them a lot more!
The reason I first heard U2, was because my dad had The Joshua Tree on CD, and ever since I was like 4, I couldn't get over that opening guitar. So I attribute some of the reason I started to like U2 to them. :)

Awesome! Dublin is a great city! Lots of history and culture and very young and hip as well. Make sure to plan ahead. You might be able to get some great deals on lodging since Ireland's economy is doing poorly. Check out the the Temple Bar House/Barnacles in Temple Bar, best youth hostel with the most central location. Or if you are rich, you can book a room in Temple Bar at the Clarence Hotel which I think is still owned by Bono and The Edge.

               An interesting question though about where U2 will play in Dublin next year? They have always played stadiums in Dublin, except in 1989 when they played the point depot theater and back on the early tours for the first two albums 1978-1982.

              Guess it will either be the O2 Arena or Croke Park. If you don't have a U2.com membership, make sure you get one as it will be very difficult to get a ticket for the Dublin shows without one.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 01:46:37 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
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

That's rough...^^^

I know, right? But I'm just taking one for the team up in here. I mean, someone's gotta explain that a Whopper is inferior to a Ribeye.

          Yep, trashing the bands work is definitely what a fan forum is for.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 01:50:17 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
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

That's rough...^^^

I know, right? But I'm just taking one for the team up in here. I mean, someone's gotta explain that a Whopper is inferior to a Ribeye.

          Yep, trashing the bands work is definitely what a fan forum is for.

perhaps you should stop telling others what the forum is for
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 01:52:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

           Ok, so we should say the Grammy's mean nothing because one of your hippie bands did not win won. I think not.

let the grasping at straws begin. seriously the very fact ur saying the grammys have any relation to quality or even keep track of them at all shows ur coming from a very different place to say .... anyone who's opinion on music should be taken seriously ...... imo.

           U2 are grammy voters and keep some track of what is going on just like most artist in the music business do. Are you saying that U2's opinion on music should not be taken seriously?

           Besides you're own opinion, what do you look at as a useful indicator of quality?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 01:56:27 PM
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 02:00:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

I see, well in my opinion, HTDAAB is the best album of the 21st century to this point. Amazing that one could be attacked on a U2 fan forum for stating that. I can only imagine what would happen to a fan who stated that HTDAAB was the greatest album of all time!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 02:05:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 02:07:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

I see, well in my opinion, HTDAAB is the best album of the 21st century to this point. Amazing that one could be attacked on a U2 fan forum for stating that. I can only imagine what would happen to a fan who stated that HTDAAB was the greatest album of all time!

i disagree with ur opinion and i personally respect your opinions less because of their quality....imo. be prepared for many others to do the same,

try not to cry about being "attacked" when it happens. its beginning to sound like you have as big a persecution complex as that bethere dude.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 23, 2013, 02:09:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
its beginning to sound like you have as big a persecution complex as that bethere dude.

Imagine that. But it's impossible, this guy's name is different.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 02:09:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: So Cruel on October 23, 2013, 02:10:02 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
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

           Ok, so we should say the Grammy's mean nothing because one of your hippie bands did not win won. I think not.

Are you serious? My hippie bands? Zep, The Who, Floyd, and the Beach Boys are all some of the biggest selling and most influential bands ever. Not one won a Grammy. Other major bands with no grammys are the Doors, the Kinks, Queen, Jimi Hendrix, & Bob Marley

The Stones didn't win a Grammy till friggin 1994.

Bowie only won in '84 for some music film.

The New Vaudeville Band's song The Winchester Cathedral beat The Beatles Eleanor Rigby and The Beach Boys Good Vibrations for best song. (Yes, you read that right)

The soundtrack for Mary Poppins beat the Beatles A Hard Days Night

The Fresh Prince of Bell Air beat Public Enemys It Takes a Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back for best rap album.

Clapton's unplugged Layla beat Smells Like Teen Spirit and One for rock song of the year. Unplugged beat Achtung Baby.

A Taste of Honey was best new artist the same year Elvis Costello and the Cars were nominated

Christopher Cross's Theme from Arthur beat Pink Floyds The Wall for album of the year

Jethro Tull won best metal award and the guy plays a f'n flute!

Bethere, you really think the Grammy's mean anything? I like Bomb. In my opinion U2's best album of the '00s and much better then the mediocre No Line, but it winning Grammy's means absolutely nothing.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 02:14:48 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
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 02:15:42 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
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

I see, well in my opinion, HTDAAB is the best album of the 21st century to this point. Amazing that one could be attacked on a U2 fan forum for stating that. I can only imagine what would happen to a fan who stated that HTDAAB was the greatest album of all time!

i disagree with ur opinion and i personally respect your opinions less because of their quality....imo. be prepared for many others to do the same,

try not to cry about being "attacked" when it happens. its beginning to sound like you have as big a persecution complex as that bethere dude.

          Don't worry, I'm not crying, I'm laughing! LOL
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 02:20:56 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
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.

i never said you did - though i doubt you would post several pages of grammy info here if you thought it didnt demonstrate quality in this case.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 02:21:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

           Ok, so we should say the Grammy's mean nothing because one of your hippie bands did not win won. I think not.

Are you serious? My hippie bands? Zep, The Who, Floyd, and the Beach Boys are all some of the biggest selling and most influential bands ever. Not one won a Grammy. Other major bands with no grammys are the Doors, the Kinks, Queen, Jimi Hendrix, & Bob Marley

The Stones didn't win a Grammy till friggin 1994.

Bowie only won in '84 for some music film.

The New Vaudeville Band's song The Winchester Cathedral beat The Beatles Eleanor Rigby and The Beach Boys Good Vibrations for best song. (Yes, you read that right)

The soundtrack for Mary Poppins beat the Beatles A Hard Days Night

The Fresh Prince of Bell Air beat Public Enemys It Takes a Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back for best rap album.

Clapton's unplugged Layla beat Smells Like Teen Spirit and One for rock song of the year. Unplugged beat Achtung Baby.

A Taste of Honey was best new artist the same year Elvis Costello and the Cars were nominated

Christopher Cross's Theme from Arthur beat Pink Floyds The Wall for album of the year

Jethro Tull won best metal award and the guy plays a f'n flute!

Bethere, you really think the Grammy's mean anything? I like Bomb. In my opinion U2's best album of the '00s and much better then the mediocre No Line, but it winning Grammy's means absolutely nothing.

            Well, that's just you're opinion. Millions of other people feel differently including U2. Just because the dinosaur hippie bands failed in the grammy category does not mean the Grammy's are meaningless. After all, its the opinion of the artist peers in the industry. Jimmy Page is a Grammy voter. So is Thom Yorke!

                HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century and indicators that back that opinion up are the fact that it won more grammy awards than any other album in the 21st century. In fact, its 8 wins may be the record for all time, not just the 21st century. Its a great accomplishment and shows much appreciation and admiration for U2's peers in the music industry!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 02:22:22 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
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.

i never said you did - though i doubt you would post several pages of grammy info here if you thought it didnt demonstrate quality in this case.

           In some peoples black and white world, that may be true.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 02:27:31 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
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.

i never said you did - though i doubt you would post several pages of grammy info here if you thought it didnt demonstrate quality in this case.

           In some peoples black and white world, that may be true.

and in the full colour real world its certainly true. feel free to offer an laternative reason why you are posting grammy info other than you thinking it backs up your positive opinion of htdab
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 02:31:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

I see, well in my opinion, HTDAAB is the best album of the 21st century to this point. Amazing that one could be attacked on a U2 fan forum for stating that. I can only imagine what would happen to a fan who stated that HTDAAB was the greatest album of all time!

i disagree with ur opinion and i personally respect your opinions less because of their quality....imo. be prepared for many others to do the same,

try not to cry about being "attacked" when it happens. its beginning to sound like you have as big a persecution complex as that bethere dude.

          Don't worry, I'm not crying, I'm laughing! LOL

you misunderstood. crying means a kind of self pitying whining in that context. best avoided.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 02:36:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.

i never said you did - though i doubt you would post several pages of grammy info here if you thought it didnt demonstrate quality in this case.

           In some peoples black and white world, that may be true.

and in the full colour real world its certainly true. feel free to offer an laternative reason why you are posting grammy info other than you thinking it backs up your positive opinion of htdab

         In the black and white world, one is not allowed to include things like sales or grammy award wins as possible indicators of quality. I and many other U2 fans think its a great thing that U2 won all those grammy awards. The Grammy awards are not perfect and don't prove quality, but they are an indicator. Its also ok for U2 fans to express this on a U2 fan forum.

         Yes, the 00s in my opinion have been an amazing time for U2. I'd take an album made of U2's non-album 00s tracks over any Radiohead album easily!

           
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Droo on October 23, 2013, 02:46:21 PM
Chris Brown has a Grammy.

The Grammys are meaningless.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 02:48:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.

i never said you did - though i doubt you would post several pages of grammy info here if you thought it didnt demonstrate quality in this case.

           In some peoples black and white world, that may be true.

and in the full colour real world its certainly true. feel free to offer an laternative reason why you are posting grammy info other than you thinking it backs up your positive opinion of htdab

         In the black and white world, one is not allowed to include things like sales or grammy award wins as possible indicators of quality. I and many other U2 fans think its a great thing that U2 won all those grammy awards. The Grammy awards are not perfect and don't prove quality, but they are an indicator. Its also ok for U2 fans to express this on a U2 fan forum.

         Yes, the 00s in my opinion have been an amazing time for U2. I'd take an album made of U2's non-album 00s tracks over any Radiohead album easily!

           
there you go again, persecution complex.

you're allowed to do it. just be prepared for you giving weight to those things to affect how people rate your opinions from then on (extremely adversely for me, and it seems a quite a few others).

i note you have offered no alternative reason for posting the grammy info so we can confirm you do in fact think it backs up your opinion that htdab was quality work (in full colour).
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 02:54:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nothing. i find my own brain sufficient

u2 have a financial interest in doing so and is therefore understandable. if they are doing it to tell them whether their music is any good then yes, i would have serious doubts on their ability to judge quality.

                What is U2's financial interest in being a Grammy voter? Grammy voters don't get paid for voting. Voting is a privilege. There are thousands of Grammy voters! They are U2's peers in the industry, people involved in writing and recording music.

can you seriously not join the dots on this? your own opinion of quality is affected by who wins the grammy, there are probably lots of people like you. therefore winning the grammy is financially beneficial. not sure how many they'd win if they refused to vote.

           I said the Grammy's CAN be an indicator of quality, I never said that it proves quality.

i never said you did - though i doubt you would post several pages of grammy info here if you thought it didnt demonstrate quality in this case.

           In some peoples black and white world, that may be true.

and in the full colour real world its certainly true. feel free to offer an laternative reason why you are posting grammy info other than you thinking it backs up your positive opinion of htdab

         In the black and white world, one is not allowed to include things like sales or grammy award wins as possible indicators of quality. I and many other U2 fans think its a great thing that U2 won all those grammy awards. The Grammy awards are not perfect and don't prove quality, but they are an indicator. Its also ok for U2 fans to express this on a U2 fan forum.

         Yes, the 00s in my opinion have been an amazing time for U2. I'd take an album made of U2's non-album 00s tracks over any Radiohead album easily!

           
there you go again, persecution complex.

you're allowed to do it. just be prepared for you giving weight to those things to affect how people rate your opinions from then on (extremely adversely for me, and it seems a quite a few others).

                         Why do you need to adversely rate the opinions of other U2 fans on a U2 fan forum, simply because they love 00s U2, are happy they won the grammy's and do give the grammy's some weight in terms of measuring quality, just like U2, Radiohead, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant do?

                          Sure, I don't agree with every decision the grammy awards makes in terms of nominations or winners. But that does not mean the awards are meaningless.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 03:01:48 PM
i dont need to but am sometimes forced to such as in this case. it does help to know when to tune out the noise. saves me time. i guess they're kinda the same reason.

not simply because they express love for 00's u2 or are happy they won an award but because they post several pages of completely irrelevant info (imo) to demonstrate why their opinion is correct.

all done independently of what any of those famous people you listed may do in my situation.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 03:17:37 PM
Who would have thought that showing unrestrained love for 00s U2, as well as making a nod to the awards U2 won, on a U2 fan forum, would get some people panties all wadded up?  8)
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: striker on October 23, 2013, 03:42:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Chris Brown has a Grammy.

The Grammys are meaningless.
+1

The grammys is just a glorified ego-stroke for pretentious, rich jerks -- just like every other awards show out there. 
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 23, 2013, 03:48:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who would have thought that showing unrestrained love for 00s U2, as well as making a nod to the awards U2 won, on a U2 fan forum, would get some people panties all wadded up?  8)

If it makes you feel better to believe thatís whatís happening then Iím not going to try and correct you.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: THRILLHO on October 23, 2013, 03:53:26 PM
i dont know if i've ever once taken a look at the awards/sales/box office of anything artist/movies i've loved in the past 13 years. i did however used to love watching the Academy Awards, again, when i was in hs <96-00>
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 23, 2013, 05:21:15 PM
So to recap bethere has re-iterated that bomb is the greatest album of the 21st century - and despite the fact that he is entitled to believe this and state it as his own opinion - which is absolutely fine, he has backed it up with 'proof' because it won a host of grammy awards. . . Ok so . . . Im saying its rubbish and despite my opinion being all I need I am going to throw in the fact it won zero brit awards and lost in the international album class to the scissor sisters in 05 and Green Day in  06 - oh and u2 lost to those 2 bands in the international group category in both those years as well.

So to avoid any doubt the scissor sisters or green days american idiot is now the greatest album of the 21st century and thats the end of it - unless anyone else has an opinion that they want to become fact - award success in any chosen avenue of awards essential to validate your opinion -ta!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 05:34:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who would have thought that showing unrestrained love for 00s U2, as well as making a nod to the awards U2 won, on a U2 fan forum, would get some people panties all wadded up?  8)

If it makes you feel better to believe thatís whatís happening then Iím not going to try and correct you.

              The anti-U2 00s hate mob are the only ones in need of a "feel better moment".  8)
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 23, 2013, 05:36:14 PM
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over. 


Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: big_willy_wonka on October 23, 2013, 05:41:48 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

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

The last sentence of my post was subjective yes. The rest of it was an objective commentary on the styles of music U2 produced pre and post 2000.



           Sorry it was all opinion and not objective, except the statement that it only takes an artist name to sell records is actually false. I can provide dozens of examples, the POP album and popmart tour being one.

Quote
But seeing as you're being purely subjective, my subjective opinion is that ATYCLB and HTDAAB and to a greater extent NLOTH are horrible U2 records. Populist, badly produced and so concerned with marketing and sales they barely know who they are. But seeing as the majority here are so obsessed with chart positions and how many units each record shifted I would have to admit by those standards they were a success. As artistic statements they were a failure. 

           Goood....., let the hate flow through you!

I think we can all agree there's no such thing as objective opinion - once we get over that intellectual hurdle we can all agree that your subjective opinion about HTDAAB means your opinion and my opinion are subjective and also totally irrelevant. Except it all suddenly becomes objective when it suits your argument. Who cares - you think it's great, I think it's crap. U2 are coining it in so don't care either way.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 23, 2013, 05:43:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over.

The bar has been raised. . . .

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 05:47:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over.

            I never said that such things proved an album was better, I simply said they were indicators of quality, and something other than ones own opinion that could indicate quality. Predictably, the U2 00 haters mob then try's to mock such things by trotting out trivial examples.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: neilkap on October 23, 2013, 05:52:22 PM
If I backpedalled that fast I would probably pull a hammy.

But like most others I don't need anything but my own judgment.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 23, 2013, 05:55:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over.

            I never said that such things proved an album was better, I simply said they were indicators of quality, and something other than ones own opinion that could indicate quality. Predictably, the U2 00 haters mob then try's to mock such things by trotting out trivial examples.

I think american idiot is the greatest album of the 21st century and the BRIT awards in 06 indicate its quality and provide back up to my theory as it beat bomb and green day beat u2 that year too in the band category. . . . You see what happened there - stick to your opinion and avoid using 'evidence' that means bugger all and you'll be a lot more credible
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Thunder Peel on October 23, 2013, 05:56:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over. 


Man, I forgot about that boring and over-hyped album. I forced myself to listen to the whole thing on a plane ride to France and wanted to throw myself out the cabin door by the time it was over.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 05:58:06 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

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

The last sentence of my post was subjective yes. The rest of it was an objective commentary on the styles of music U2 produced pre and post 2000.



           Sorry it was all opinion and not objective, except the statement that it only takes an artist name to sell records is actually false. I can provide dozens of examples, the POP album and popmart tour being one.

Quote
But seeing as you're being purely subjective, my subjective opinion is that ATYCLB and HTDAAB and to a greater extent NLOTH are horrible U2 records. Populist, badly produced and so concerned with marketing and sales they barely know who they are. But seeing as the majority here are so obsessed with chart positions and how many units each record shifted I would have to admit by those standards they were a success. As artistic statements they were a failure. 

           Goood....., let the hate flow through you!

I think we can all agree there's no such thing as objective opinion - once we get over that intellectual hurdle we can all agree that your subjective opinion about HTDAAB means your opinion and my opinion are subjective and also totally irrelevant.

              An opinion can be supported by objective facts though.

Quote
Except it all suddenly becomes objective when it suits your argument. 

Where did I say that?

                   Can't a U2 fan name his favorite album without people telling the person that they "must not get out much" or that they are a joke?

          I'm sorry there is a group of people here that have difficulty accepting the fact that there are U2 fans out there that love 00s U2 and may even think it is the best music that has ever been made in history! I mean, that's not something that is so shocking to see on a U2 fan forum, let alone a thread about the U2 of the 2000's is it?

          I also should add that I love U2's non-album 00s material and think that an album made up of those songs would beat any Radiohead album.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 06:03:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I backpedalled that fast I would probably pull a hammy.

But like most others I don't need anything but my own judgment.

      Please show me where I said that a Grammy award proves a certain level of quality!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 06:07:38 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
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over.

            I never said that such things proved an album was better, I simply said they were indicators of quality, and something other than ones own opinion that could indicate quality. Predictably, the U2 00 haters mob then try's to mock such things by trotting out trivial examples.

I think american idiot is the greatest album of the 21st century and the BRIT awards in 06 indicate its quality and provide back up to my theory as it beat bomb and green day beat u2 that year too in the band category. . . . You see what happened there - stick to your opinion and avoid using 'evidence' that means bugger all and you'll be a lot more credible

     Do you really think American Idiot is the greatest album of the century so far? I've never heard of the BRIT awards. Is this a UK awards based organization? What is their criteria for nominating artist and selecting winners? Who votes?

              I don't know anything about the BRIT awards. But, I must say that HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century. The fact that it sold over 10 million copies worldwide and won 8 Grammy awards are solid indicators of the albums quality!
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: edge245 on October 23, 2013, 06:20:36 PM
Actually, I was wrong about HTDAAB winning 8 Grammy awards. It actually won 9, because Steve Lillywhite was name producer for the year for his work on the album. So, its tied with Supernatural for the most grammy award wins for a single album.

All That You Can't Leave Behind is tied for the 6th most Grammy awarded album of all time with 7 Grammy awards.

Pretty amazing, ATYCLB and HTDAAB combine for 16 Grammy award wins!


Here is a beautiful performance of one of the greatest U2 songs of all time at the Grammy awards in 2002:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl8cyef6-2c

In this video, Bono states that is NO FILLER on HTDAAB. Edge states there are "no weak songs on the album" and that song for song it, may be their best album ever! Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB88nQJrV-k
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: ZooClothes on October 23, 2013, 09:42:02 PM
I tried to pick up this thread a while back but slammed on the brakes when I read

THE FRESH PRINCE BEAT PUBLIC ENEMY'S IT TAKES A NATION OF MILLIONS FOR BEST RAP ALBUM GRAMMY???????

That's infinitely more egregious than Metallica losing out to Jethro Tull for best metal album.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 23, 2013, 10:07:00 PM
My favorite Bono quote about Bomb is, "The whole is not bigger than the sum of its parts, and it effing annoys me."
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 23, 2013, 10:08:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I tried to pick up this thread a while back but slammed on the brakes when I read

THE FRESH PRINCE BEAT PUBLIC ENEMY'S IT TAKES A NATION OF MILLIONS FOR BEST RAP ALBUM GRAMMY???????

That's infinitely more egregious than Metallica losing out to Jethro Tull for best metal album.

Everyone knows that at a certain point Grammys become Lifetime Achievement awards. That why Achtung lost and Bomb won.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 24, 2013, 03:16:24 PM
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: So Cruel on October 24, 2013, 03:21:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\


I don't think anyone (Bethere) was disrespected because he likes Bomb (lots of us like Bomb, myself included). It's just every thread Bethere hijacks seems to get a bit testy.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Tumbling Dice on October 24, 2013, 03:24:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I tried to pick up this thread a while back but slammed on the brakes when I read

THE FRESH PRINCE BEAT PUBLIC ENEMY'S IT TAKES A NATION OF MILLIONS FOR BEST RAP ALBUM GRAMMY???????

That's infinitely more egregious than Metallica losing out to Jethro Tull for best metal album.

Everyone knows that at a certain point Grammys become Lifetime Achievement awards. That why Achtung lost and Bomb won.

Yep they're just like the Oscars.  That's why Al Pacino had to wait until Scent of a Woman to win an Academy Award.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 24, 2013, 03:28:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\

You have missed the points being made so spectacularly its hard to know where to begin.

Never mind - enough time has been wasted (and I mean literally wasted as posts have vanished) already.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 24, 2013, 03:33:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\

You have missed the points being made so spectacularly its hard to know where to begin.

Never mind - enough time has been wasted (and I mean literally wasted as posts have vanished) already.

Posts have vanished? Did anyone get booted out of here?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 24, 2013, 03:36:49 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
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\

You have missed the points being made so spectacularly its hard to know where to begin.

Never mind - enough time has been wasted (and I mean literally wasted as posts have vanished) already.

Posts have vanished? Did anyone get booted out of here?

I have no idea but I do know posts have gone

I found the exchanges amusing personally
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: parkman on October 24, 2013, 04:26:39 PM
How does someone get booted?? The moderators??
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 24, 2013, 05:40:04 PM
you have to ask someone who has been booted before. if only bethere were still around.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: big_willy_wonka on October 25, 2013, 12:57:11 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
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\

You have missed the points being made so spectacularly its hard to know where to begin.

Never mind - enough time has been wasted (and I mean literally wasted as posts have vanished) already.

Posts have vanished? Did anyone get booted out of here?

I have no idea but I do know posts have gone

I found the exchanges amusing personally

I think the moderators have removed some posts - it doesn't do to have too much fun on this forum...
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: big_willy_wonka on October 25, 2013, 01:09:37 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

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

The last sentence of my post was subjective yes. The rest of it was an objective commentary on the styles of music U2 produced pre and post 2000.



           Sorry it was all opinion and not objective, except the statement that it only takes an artist name to sell records is actually false. I can provide dozens of examples, the POP album and popmart tour being one.

Quote
But seeing as you're being purely subjective, my subjective opinion is that ATYCLB and HTDAAB and to a greater extent NLOTH are horrible U2 records. Populist, badly produced and so concerned with marketing and sales they barely know who they are. But seeing as the majority here are so obsessed with chart positions and how many units each record shifted I would have to admit by those standards they were a success. As artistic statements they were a failure. 

           Goood....., let the hate flow through you!

I think we can all agree there's no such thing as objective opinion - once we get over that intellectual hurdle we can all agree that your subjective opinion about HTDAAB means your opinion and my opinion are subjective and also totally irrelevant.

              An opinion can be supported by objective facts though.

Quote
Except it all suddenly becomes objective when it suits your argument. 

Where did I say that?

                   Can't a U2 fan name his favorite album without people telling the person that they "must not get out much" or that they are a joke?

          I'm sorry there is a group of people here that have difficulty accepting the fact that there are U2 fans out there that love 00s U2 and may even think it is the best music that has ever been made in history! I mean, that's not something that is so shocking to see on a U2 fan forum, let alone a thread about the U2 of the 2000's is it?

          I also should add that I love U2's non-album 00s material and think that an album made up of those songs would beat any Radiohead album.

There is very little in this world that could be considered objective fact. People here argue about sales figures and tour statistics which you would think would be 'fact' rather than opinion.

POP sold millions of copies - I'm not saying it sold as well as other U2 albums but the name alone guarantees U2 big sales even if the material is less popular.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 25, 2013, 04:14:33 AM
do you guys think theres any way of summoning bethere?
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: bonofaninaustin on October 25, 2013, 06:25:49 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
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\

You have missed the points being made so spectacularly its hard to know where to begin.

Never mind - enough time has been wasted (and I mean literally wasted as posts have vanished) already.

Posts have vanished? Did anyone get booted out of here?

I have no idea but I do know posts have gone

I found the exchanges amusing personally

I think the moderators have removed some posts - it doesn't do to have too much fun on this forum...
Everyone, just to clarify, posts were not removed necessarily for their content but because of the person making them. Understand that there are decisions made for a reason. Continue on.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Edgematic on October 25, 2013, 02:14:01 PM
I'm new here.  This thread inspired me to join.

To me (as in, my opinion, though I gather I am not alone here) the 2000s started off promisingly enough.   

See, I adored POP and Popmart, and one of the things that made me proud to be U2 fan was the fact that, even as one of the top 3 or so acts in the world, they were still willing to take risks and possibly fall on their faces.   They seemed to embody Goethe's belief that "fortune favors the bold".  The music was not only inspiring, the band members themselves were people I admired.

But, at the same time, I understood completely when they said "enough" and went back to more stable ground in 2000 with ATYCLB.  I liked the album, though I didn't love it.  To me, at the time, it seemed natural that they would shift gears a little bit in a new decade when, as the critic Robert Christgau puts it, "Art wasn't mega anymore."   Irony no longer ruled the day.  But rather then head off into a bold new direction, they took a step that wasn't exactly backwards, but certainly back and to the side.   

From all of the reports and interviews ("Reclaiming the title of world's best rock band") and promos (playing at Irving Plaza), the ATYCLB vibe began entirely as one of a temporary breather to remind everyone: fans, critics, younger people, that U2 could, if they so desired, pump out a handful of catchy, radio-friendly, uplifting songs.   The implication being:  "Sure, we could do this stuff 'til the cows come home if we wanted to, but we've got more interesting musical ideas to explore."  Most importantly, though, there was never any doubt in my mind that it was meant to be a one-off; that ATYCLB was a re-calibration and that they would be off somewhere new and different and exciting in 2-3 years. 

What I think happened, though, is that the album and tour became even more successful than the band themselves had anticipated.  And, compared to the messiness of POP and Popmart, they discovered that, more than being bold innovators, they really liked...being liked.   And, well, there's nothing wrong with that, of course.   We all feel that way.

But, to me, when I heard Vertigo and HTDAAB, I was disappointed.  It sounded for all the world like ATYCLB II.  Sure, there was some stuff about how they were "revisiting" their punk roots or whatnot, but those comments didn't jibe with what I heard on the album. And the album itself seemed disjointed and overly earnest without being interesting.

Then there was the tour. 

Objectively, the Vertigo shows were good.  I had a great time.  However, the tour mirrored the album (at least in the states), in that it was the first time the band failed to progress.  They stayed put.  Worse, they began consciously looking backwards.  The stage arrangement was almost identical to Elevation; they toyed with the completely inane (IMO) practice of playing the same song twice because that's what they did when they only knew 5 songs; and they began the "mini sets" of previous albums.  In short, they began resting on their own laurels.   

And, again, that's fine.  They earned that, and they were very successful, commercially, for "giving the people what they want".  But, to me it was artistically dull, and  moreover it was antithetical to one of the key reasons I personally admired them as a band. 

NLOTH was too little, too late, IMO.  And, as others state herein and elsewhere, the choice of Boots as a leadoff single perplexed me to no end.  I found it almost unlistenable.  I enjoy a few of the songs on that album, but on the whole it seems to be a work of half measures that their hearts weren't really into.  The 2000's fascination with garage rock had waned, and all of a sudden U2 didn't really know what to do anymore, and got pulled into two directions: trying to stay radio friendly but also trying to remain "credible" and "relevant" by being experimental.  To my ears, aside from a few songs (MOS, NLOTH), it sounds half baked and perfunctory.

I can see why people like 2000's U2.  2000's U2 is a pretty good band, and the can still put on a heck of a show.  There is no shame in that.  I still hold a place in my heart for them, and I always will.

But wow do I miss 90's U2, because that was something to behold.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Tumbling Dice on October 25, 2013, 02:22:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

But wow do I miss 90's U2, because that was something to behold.


I think the way U2 look at it, a less than half empty stadium under Floridian skies was something to behold.

And welcome to the forum.  Anyone who quotes Goethe is a welcome addition to the forum.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Edgematic on October 25, 2013, 02:55:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

But wow do I miss 90's U2, because that was something to behold.


I think the way U2 look at it, a less than half empty stadium under Floridian skies was something to behold.

And welcome to the forum.  Anyone who quotes Goethe is a welcome addition to the forum.



Thanks.

I think you are right.  But I think they over-reacted and went too far in the other direction, for too long, with HTDAAB.  And, frankly, I think the attempt to go back-to-the-spirit-of-the-90s (albeit in a half-hearted way) with NLOTH, and the re-introduction of songs like Zooropa into setlists, is a tacit admission by the band that they think so, too.  We will never know, of course. 

 I think they mis-read the commercial "failure" of POP and Popmart as being the first major blemish on their artistic legacy, when that really wasn't the case at all; the failure was only relative and in terms of revenue.   Add to that the myriad of factors that precipitated the POP/Popmart "mess" (the decision to market the album as "techno"; the K-Mart press conference where they played a "Holy Joe", a song that not only does not appear on the album they were there to promote but also has an bluntly ridiculous name; the decision to use Discotheque as the lead single and accompany it with the YMCA stuff (a song which I like a lot, but only seemed to confirm a lot of the doubts people had about the forthcoming album);  the lack of rehearsals; the press releases for Popmart which played up the huge lemon and olive...) and really, I just think they threw the baby out with the bathwater.   The album and actual tour (minus the first 5-10 shows) weren't the problem - it's everything else that was. 


Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 25, 2013, 03:08:07 PM
The thing for me is that u2's music always had something different about it - an atmosphere, a feel - a sound that made it unique even on their less than inspired moments - except in the majority of the 00s that is, where they just sounded in the main bland and just like any radio friendly pop rock band
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Tumbling Dice on October 25, 2013, 03:18:09 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

But wow do I miss 90's U2, because that was something to behold.


I think the way U2 look at it, a less than half empty stadium under Floridian skies was something to behold.

And welcome to the forum.  Anyone who quotes Goethe is a welcome addition to the forum.



Thanks.

I think you are right.  But I think they over-reacted and went too far in the other direction, for too long, with HTDAAB.  And, frankly, I think the attempt to go back-to-the-spirit-of-the-90s (albeit in a half-hearted way) with NLOTH, and the re-introduction of songs like Zooropa into setlists, is a tacit admission by the band that they think so, too.  We will never know, of course. 

I think the way U2 look at it is that, as the 00s progressed, they felt increasingly reassured that they were going in the right direction with increasing album sales and/or tour grosses.  I also think that NLOTH has more in common with their other 00s work than with the 90s stuff.  I think the introduction of songs like Zooropa into the 360 set was just part of their pattern of varying their set-lists with rarities.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 25, 2013, 03:29:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the attempt to go back-to-the-spirit-of-the-90s (albeit in a half-hearted way) with NLOTH, and the re-introduction of songs like Zooropa into setlists, is a tacit admission by the band that they think so, too.

What makes me skeptical about that (and what tarnished NLOTH for me) was the fact that, in the first several 360* shows, the band only played two songs from the entire decade of the '90s. How anyone could  be that self-unaware was just baffling to me.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Edgematic on October 25, 2013, 03:33:59 PM
We'll have to disagree re: the impetus behind NLOTH. 
Upon its release, there were lots of comparisons to their 90's work, and I think the band welcomed them.  I feel pretty strongly that it was originally meant to be a return to the "experimental" U2, but they got cold feet and veered back toward the radio-friendly stuff right before release. 
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 25, 2013, 03:40:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We'll have to disagree re: the impetus behind NLOTH. 
Upon its release, there were lots of comparisons to their 90's work, and I think the band welcomed them.  I feel pretty strongly that it was originally meant to be a return to the "experimental" U2, but they got cold feet and veered back toward the radio-friendly stuff right before release.

Oh, I agree that that's how things were interpreted post-NLOTH pre-360. I was arguing at the time that the more a fan of '90s U2 you were, the more likely you were to like NLOTH. My point now is that the early setlists proved how wrongly I had read the band's intentions, which is partly what tarnished the album for me.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Tumbling Dice on October 25, 2013, 03:40:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We'll have to disagree re: the impetus behind NLOTH. 
Upon its release, there were lots of comparisons to their 90's work, and I think the band welcomed them.  I feel pretty strongly that it was originally meant to be a return to the "experimental" U2, but they got cold feet and veered back toward the radio-friendly stuff right before release. 


In the event, not much from NLOTH turned out to be particularly 'radio-friendly.'

For me, the only really 'experimental' songs on NLOTH are MoS and CoL.  They also happen to be the best songs on the album, IMHO.

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Tumbling Dice on October 25, 2013, 03:45:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We'll have to disagree re: the impetus behind NLOTH. 
Upon its release, there were lots of comparisons to their 90's work, and I think the band welcomed them.  I feel pretty strongly that it was originally meant to be a return to the "experimental" U2, but they got cold feet and veered back toward the radio-friendly stuff right before release.

Oh, I agree that that's how things were interpreted post-NLOTH pre-360. I was arguing at the time that the more a fan of '90s U2 you were, the more likely you were to like NLOTH. My point now is that the early setlists proved how wrongly I had read the band's intentions, which is partly what tarnished the album for me.

I would have thought that the early set-lists showed U2 had a commitment to the songs from NLOTH, which, if you liked NLOTH to begin with, would have made you appreciate the album all the more unless you thought they translated poorly to the live stage. 
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 25, 2013, 03:52:13 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
We'll have to disagree re: the impetus behind NLOTH. 
Upon its release, there were lots of comparisons to their 90's work, and I think the band welcomed them.  I feel pretty strongly that it was originally meant to be a return to the "experimental" U2, but they got cold feet and veered back toward the radio-friendly stuff right before release.

Oh, I agree that that's how things were interpreted post-NLOTH pre-360. I was arguing at the time that the more a fan of '90s U2 you were, the more likely you were to like NLOTH. My point now is that the early setlists proved how wrongly I had read the band's intentions, which is partly what tarnished the album for me.

I would have thought that the early set-lists showed U2 had a commitment to the songs from NLOTH, which, if you liked NLOTH to begin with, would have made you appreciate the album all the more unless you thought they translated poorly to the live stage.

I did think songs like No Line, UC, and MOS translated poorly most of the time.

For me, I usually like a U2 album when I first hear it, but it takes a while to figure out what I really think. NLOTH sort of struck me (and still does in places) as a kind of TUF/Zooropa hybrid. It wasn't until the tour that I realized that it's not the first of something new, but the most recent of something old.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 25, 2013, 03:52:56 PM
No line may have been interesting had they done a few things:

Not got cold feet about the sound of the album

Left off crazy tonight, and SUC

Gone with the up tempo version of the title track

Not got lillywhite and the wash in
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Tumbling Dice on October 25, 2013, 03:57:50 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
We'll have to disagree re: the impetus behind NLOTH. 
Upon its release, there were lots of comparisons to their 90's work, and I think the band welcomed them.  I feel pretty strongly that it was originally meant to be a return to the "experimental" U2, but they got cold feet and veered back toward the radio-friendly stuff right before release.

Oh, I agree that that's how things were interpreted post-NLOTH pre-360. I was arguing at the time that the more a fan of '90s U2 you were, the more likely you were to like NLOTH. My point now is that the early setlists proved how wrongly I had read the band's intentions, which is partly what tarnished the album for me.

I would have thought that the early set-lists showed U2 had a commitment to the songs from NLOTH, which, if you liked NLOTH to begin with, would have made you appreciate the album all the more unless you thought they translated poorly to the live stage.

I did think songs like No Line, UC, and MOS translated poorly most of the time.

I'm surprised that you mentioned those particular songs because I think they're the songs - along with Boots - that did translate well.  I felt Magnificent didn't.

Quote
For me, I usually like a U2 album when I first hear it, but it takes a while to figure out what I really think. NLOTH sort of struck me (and still does in places) as a kind of TUF/Zooropa hybrid. It wasn't until the tour that I realized that it's not the first of something new, but the most recent of something old.

More or less that's what I think, and, to be honest, did from first release.  Still, it's a more musically interesting album than the two earlier ones from the 00s.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: soapit on October 25, 2013, 04:03:51 PM
meh, its just an album. it was good enough and better than some others of theirs so happy enough.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 25, 2013, 04:07:07 PM
Funny you mention magnificent there not translating well. . .i went to the first croke park show on that tour and magnificent (a song I think is very 'meh') was blasting out in a pub and at that volume and with a boisterous pub bellowing the 'oh, ohs' it sounded good - it actually got me looking forward to it at the gig.

Sadly it was flat - people around us didnt really know it and bono didnt sing it at all well
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Droo on October 25, 2013, 04:18:54 PM
NLOTH shared more in common with the 80s than the 90s, if you ask me. Everyone points to Fez - Being Born as some sort of 90s-era Achtung Baby or Zooropa experiment, but I think the song shares more in common with The Unforgettable Fire than anything on those two albums. It would have fit comfortably alongside the title track, Promenade and Indian Summer Sky.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 25, 2013, 04:42:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
NLOTH shared more in common with the 80s than the 90s, if you ask me. Everyone points to Fez - Being Born as some sort of 90s-era Achtung Baby or Zooropa experiment, but I think the song shares more in common with The Unforgettable Fire than anything on those two albums. It would have fit comfortably alongside the title track, Promenade and Indian Summer Sky.

I agree about BB, it reminded me immediately of Boomerang II.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Droo on October 25, 2013, 04:47:43 PM
Generally the vibe I get from NLOTH the album is a mix of The Unforgettable Fire and October albums. The album has a bit of a spiritual vibe to it in places that makes me wonder if a line or two from the recovered October 1.0 lyrics made their way into the songs. Fez is one in particular that really sounds a bit like October-era Bono to me.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: mrsamrocks2 on October 25, 2013, 09:32:01 PM
Everytime someone criticizes the 00's, they always talk about songs like Stand Up Comedy, All Because of You or Peace on Earth, but I could make the same point about the 80's. Love Rescue Me, The Refugee and Is that All are not really great songs...
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: The Exile on October 26, 2013, 01:02:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Everytime someone criticizes the 00's, they always talk about songs like Stand Up Comedy, All Because of You or Peace on Earth, but I could make the same point about the 80's. Love Rescue Me, The Refugee and Is that All are not really great songs...

Granted. But spread a few bad apples over six albums and it becomes much more forgivable....
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Rock_Man on October 26, 2013, 01:48:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Everytime someone criticizes the 00's, they always talk about songs like Stand Up Comedy, All Because of You or Peace on Earth, but I could make the same point about the 80's. Love Rescue Me, The Refugee and Is that All are not really great songs...

I like All Because Of You. Both the album version and the alternative version.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Edgematic on October 26, 2013, 06:33:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Everytime someone criticizes the 00's, they always talk about songs like Stand Up Comedy, All Because of You or Peace on Earth, but I could make the same point about the 80's. Love Rescue Me, The Refugee and Is that All are not really great songs...

Well, sure.  And I'm not wild about If God Will Send His Angels. 

But the criticism isn't "I don't like the 2000s because of X songs", it's "I don't like the 2000s, in particular X songs."

Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: an tha on October 26, 2013, 07:34:35 AM
A good way to look at u2's output in the 00's is to think how many of the songs in that period will go down as classics when the time comes to look back on their output when they are done - the answer in my view is very few - simply put it was u2s weakest decade to date for me.

Their high points not as high as previously and the low points lower - it was the lack of substance, power and feeling that I found most disappointing - too many bland songs.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: DGordon1 on October 26, 2013, 09:41:16 AM
NLOTH was largely not radio-friendly. I think that notion is a bit of a myth that has built up on fan forums (like ATYCLB being a rehash of their 80's sound). The only songs on that album that could be seen as made for radio are the middle 3, which make up a small portion of the running time. To me the only mis-fires on NLOTH are GOYB and SUC - Crazy Tonight is a good enough song to overcome its cheesy lyrics.

Any album that has Fex/Being Born, WAS, Cedars, MoS, UC, NLOTH is not a radio-friendly album. In fact, it showed U2 at their boldest and most adventurous for a while. It turned out to be too disjointed and lacking in cohesion to be considered a classic along with JT and Achtung, but it's filled with great music and I find it as enjoyable as Pop, TUF and Zooropa. I hope U2 go further down this road with the upcoming release but we shall see.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: big_willy_wonka on October 27, 2013, 05:20:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
NLOTH shared more in common with the 80s than the 90s, if you ask me. Everyone points to Fez - Being Born as some sort of 90s-era Achtung Baby or Zooropa experiment, but I think the song shares more in common with The Unforgettable Fire than anything on those two albums. It would have fit comfortably alongside the title track, Promenade and Indian Summer Sky.

I'd agree - the best moments on NLOTH are when U2 are more impressionistic rather than ramming the music down peoples throats. I'd say that pretty much goes for all of U2's output. The big dumb singles are when they lose it - the subtler moments are much more satisfying.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: Cam501 on September 28, 2014, 09:03:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Most fans here, ie U2 fans not the here today gone tomorrow types, agree pop was the greater success. All the polls you started as bethere showed that.

Ultimately the ONLY thing that matters is what one personally thinks of the albums.

And I don't know or care what's played in Birmingham or nationally, but I know I rarely heard a Pop song on the radio and beautiful day and vertigo were played relentlessly

               Well, I don't know where you live, so I just picked a city. Whether you live in Birmingham or some other city in the United States, what you happen to hear on the radio station there is NOT an accurate measure of what is being played across the entire country. The only way to find that out is to look at the charts which are measured by Broadcast Data systems which electronically monitors radio airplay across the entire country constantly.

                The people on this specific message forum total only about a few dozen people I think. Its not an accurate measure of most U2 fans taste. I personally don't know anyone that prefers POP to 00s material and my friends and I have been U2 fans since the 1980s.

I think people over state the degree to which POP was unfinished and not polished.  While I understand that it was rushed, I believe it gets way too harsh of criticism and would pick it over HTDAAB (though I like both albums  The reworks for the best of were all worse than the originals for that matter as well.  Here's my album list from top to bottom (not including ep's or 100% live releases)

Achtung Baby
The Joshua Tree
POP
Zooropa
All That You Can't Leave Behind
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
Songs of Innocence
War
Unforgettable Fire
Rattle and Hum
Boy
No Line on the Horizon
October

This was tough because I put October way below all other U2 albums.  So even though I have NLOTH ranked second last I don't view it as a garbage album.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: miketighe on September 30, 2014, 06:54:57 AM
I'll just offer Bono's response. If you don't like it, delete it. Here's the link.
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: SlyDanner on September 30, 2014, 11:59:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lol!

Yeah everything SD said.

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

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

'Dad rock' is a term most often used by people who have not matured - emotionally and intellectually -at the same rate as the band we are discussing.  They are, in other words, 'stuck in a moment they can't get out of'. 
Title: Re: The U2 of the 2000's
Post by: satellitedog on October 01, 2014, 04:05:41 AM
You can believe that, but that alone won't make any song better.

I wouldn't call Leonard Cohen, Lou Reed, Tom Waits or Nick Cave dad rock... I would call some of U2's '00s output dadrock though. Musical nostalgia is where it begins I think. There are high points strewn across that period though, and true emotional charge lets even less adventurous music off the hook of DR accusations, like Kite for a shiny example.