@U2 Forum

U2 => News and Rumors => Topic started by: Waffles on February 14, 2016, 03:31:44 AM

Title: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Waffles on February 14, 2016, 03:31:44 AM
This is my "theory" based on recent media. Edge has obviously been in LA as we've seen on Instagram and his TMZ interview and he specifically said he was in thes studio earlier. Adam has posted a picture of two of LA art. Bono just posted a photo of in-n-out hat which are only located in California. Larry rarely posts anything or is sighted; so all of this leads me to conclude the band in finally working on SOE in 2016! They're probably at shangri La studio as that's where they last worked on SOI.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Peter Parker on February 14, 2016, 04:49:10 AM
I hope you are right!  ;D
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: riffraff on February 14, 2016, 05:49:03 AM
Please!!! I can't wait forever...well, maybe I can.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Volcanogirl on February 14, 2016, 05:59:12 AM
 8) If that's the case. Hope some creative juice is there too .... but the guys can handle it.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: riffraff on February 14, 2016, 06:08:21 AM
They've had sufficient time to rest and recover...so I say "On with the show"!!!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: RoyalBlue on February 14, 2016, 06:34:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is my "theory" based on recent media. Edge has obviously been in LA as we've seen on Instagram and his TMZ interview and he specifically said he was in thes studio earlier. Adam has posted a picture of two of LA art. Bono just posted a photo of in-n-out hat which are only located in California. Larry rarely posts anything or is sighted; so all of this leads me to conclude the band in finally working on SOE in 2016! They're probably at shangri La studio as that's where they last worked on SOI.
. Yes, that
Yep, that's what I concluded also. In-n-Out burgers means a quick meal for on-the-go peeps.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Hype on February 14, 2016, 09:26:37 AM
I think you are probably right on everyone being in LA.  Why they are all there we can only speculate/hope.   I would like to point out that In n Out are no longer just in CA though.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Volcanogirl on February 14, 2016, 09:38:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They've had sufficient time to rest and recover...so I say "On with the show"!!!

Yay .... and "Of with the horns"  ;)
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: miryclay on February 14, 2016, 09:47:17 AM
It wouldn't be uncommon for U2 to be in LA at any non-touring time. But yeah, after a January break it seems like they are back at it. 
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: codeguy on February 14, 2016, 11:50:40 AM
No they're there for the upcoming Kanye West collaboration (ducks and runs)
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: THRILLHO on February 14, 2016, 12:27:15 PM
In And outs are in Dallas too, btw
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: WookieeWarrior10 on February 14, 2016, 04:31:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In And outs are in Dallas too, btw
Yeah, and Austin.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Waffles on February 14, 2016, 05:05:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In And outs are in Dallas too, btw
Yeah, and Austin.

Hmm looks like edge is in Texas now. Maybe they're using two studios?
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: lorijane on February 14, 2016, 05:17:20 PM
I read a rumor that Bono was going to be at Jummy Iovine's wedding today in LA.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: lorijane on February 14, 2016, 06:38:56 PM
Although now I'm seeing pics of him at an Edun show today in New York City for fashion week. Almost like Where's Waldo.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Starman on February 14, 2016, 08:21:04 PM
I want to go to In 'n Out with Bono (or in general)!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 14, 2016, 09:01:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Although now I'm seeing pics of him at an Edun show today in New York City for fashion week. Almost like Where's Waldo.

Actually he looks like Waldo, all he needs is the striped shirt
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: The Edges Cat on February 14, 2016, 11:02:10 PM
Burgers? With a tour coming up, I hope he ordered the salad. ;)
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Waffles on February 15, 2016, 12:55:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Although now I'm seeing pics of him at an Edun show today in New York City for fashion week. Almost like Where's Waldo.

His hair in the photos looks like he's going back to 2011 360 style.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 15, 2016, 06:43:00 AM
I wouldn't get your hopes up for a release anytime soon.  Even if they are recording now in LA, by the time summer comes around they will start to second guess themselves yet again and whomever they are working with (who is producing SOE anyway?) and decide to change producers.  Bottom line not holding my breath for 2016 release.  Maybe spring 2017.  Really wish I could hear SOI the Dangermouse only version before they decided to call in Tedder and Epworth.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: riffraff on February 15, 2016, 07:58:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They've had sufficient time to rest and recover...so I say "On with the show"!!!

Yay .... and "Of with the horns"  ;)

Thanks, Volcano Girl...I was hoping somebody got that reference!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: sharebear on February 15, 2016, 10:04:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Burgers? With a tour coming up, I hope he ordered the salad. ;)

You clearly haven't savored the In 'n Out burgers...super simple menu (plus fun secret menu), uncluttered by silly attempts for healthy options like Salad! Bono clearly had a animal style double double, which put him to sleep.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: ShankAsu on February 15, 2016, 12:09:24 PM
Is it possible they're attending some awards ceremony?  Since the website says they're in the studio, I believe that's what they're doing.  I still believe the new album is fairly close to being released.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Behind the Barricade on February 15, 2016, 12:21:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Burgers? With a tour coming up, I hope he ordered the salad. ;)

The burger probably had some lettuce and tomato on it.


Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: iehomecoming on February 15, 2016, 04:06:53 PM
he probably ordered a triple-triple.

and I wouldnt blame him.

Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: The Edges Cat on February 15, 2016, 04:24:36 PM
Grammys party. Wedding. Forgot a suitcase of lyrics. Who knows what Bono's doing in LA eating burgers. It's a mystery to me.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Thunder Peel on February 15, 2016, 05:52:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Grammys party. Wedding. Forgot a suitcase of lyrics. Who knows what Bono's doing in LA eating burgers. It's a mystery to me.

The new album will be released exclusively through a food chain and it will be forced into your bag like a Happy Meal toy.;)
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: The Edges Cat on February 15, 2016, 07:44:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Grammys party. Wedding. Forgot a suitcase of lyrics. Who knows what Bono's doing in LA eating burgers. It's a mystery to me.

The new album will be released exclusively through a food chain and it will be forced into your bag like a Happy Meal toy.;)

Or he's writing lyrics on burger wrappers...
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: goldtoad on February 15, 2016, 08:36:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Burgers? With a tour coming up, I hope he ordered the salad. ;)

I agree. Bono needs to get in shape so he can stop wearing the suit coat... That is not a good look for a rock star.  Bono is our world travelling "Where's Waldo" character who seems to be in a different city every few days, but unlike Waldo he shouldn't wear horizontal stripes unless he loses the gut.  :)

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: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: JaraSangASongAWeapon on February 16, 2016, 12:58:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is my "theory" based on recent media. Edge has obviously been in LA as we've seen on Instagram and his TMZ interview and he specifically said he was in thes studio earlier. Adam has posted a picture of two of LA art. Bono just posted a photo of in-n-out hat which are only located in California. Larry rarely posts anything or is sighted; so all of this leads me to conclude the band in finally working on SOE in 2016! They're probably at shangri La studio as that's where they last worked on SOI.

http://www.in-n-out.com/locations

Utah, Arizona, Texas has In N Out too. But point taken...it looks like the band could be recording in LA, or maybe in town for Jimmy Iovine's wedding.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Sarajevo 20 on February 16, 2016, 12:51:56 PM
Jummy is a great producer...
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: emalvick on February 16, 2016, 01:35:17 PM
Maybe they'll include the new album through In-N-Out's secrete menu... a double double with U2.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: an tha on February 16, 2016, 02:00:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Burgers? With a tour coming up, I hope he ordered the salad. ;)

I agree. Bono needs to get in shape so he can stop wearing the suit coat... That is not a good look for a rock star.  Bono is our world travelling "Where's Waldo" character who seems to be in a different city every few days, but unlike Waldo he shouldn't wear horizontal stripes unless he loses the gut.  :)

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


Where's Waldo? We call it Where's Wally....why Waldo?
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 16, 2016, 02:41:04 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
Burgers? With a tour coming up, I hope he ordered the salad. ;)

I agree. Bono needs to get in shape so he can stop wearing the suit coat... That is not a good look for a rock star.  Bono is our world travelling "Where's Waldo" character who seems to be in a different city every few days, but unlike Waldo he shouldn't wear horizontal stripes unless he loses the gut.  :)

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


Where's Waldo? We call it Where's Wally....why Waldo?

I have no idea, but I do love how this forum expands my horizons.... I had no idea it is only called Waldo in North America... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Where%27s_Wally%3F&_%28video_game%29=

Now, what other super productive things can I go do....?
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 16, 2016, 02:42:52 PM
Looks like here is the answer.  Please Lord, bless wikipedia and all its contributors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_Wally%3F#International_editions
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: an tha on February 16, 2016, 02:49:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Looks like here is the answer.  Please Lord, bless wikipedia and all its contributors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_Wally%3F#International_editions

Every day is a school day!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 16, 2016, 04:05:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Looks like here is the answer.  Please Lord, bless wikipedia and all its contributors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_Wally%3F#International_editions

Every day is a school day!

yup!

I constantly astonish myself with my ability to investigate mindless trivia...  8)
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: lorijane on February 16, 2016, 04:27:41 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
Burgers? With a tour coming up, I hope he ordered the salad. ;)

I agree. Bono needs to get in shape so he can stop wearing the suit coat... That is not a good look for a rock star.  Bono is our world travelling "Where's Waldo" character who seems to be in a different city every few days, but unlike Waldo he shouldn't wear horizontal stripes unless he loses the gut.  :)

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


Where's Waldo? We call it Where's Wally....why Waldo?

I have no idea, but I do love how this forum expands my horizons.... I had no idea it is only called Waldo in North America... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Where%27s_Wally%3F&_%28video_game%29=

Now, what other super productive things can I go do....?

Someday soon, that will come up and you will amaze your friends. Or maybe win pub quiz, at least.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Waffles on February 16, 2016, 04:46:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe they'll include the new album through In-N-Out's secrete menu... a double double with U2.

The album will be a double double release with 24 songs
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 16, 2016, 09:56:13 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Burgers? With a tour coming up, I hope he ordered the salad. ;)

I agree. Bono needs to get in shape so he can stop wearing the suit coat... That is not a good look for a rock star.  Bono is our world travelling "Where's Waldo" character who seems to be in a different city every few days, but unlike Waldo he shouldn't wear horizontal stripes unless he loses the gut.  :)

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


Where's Waldo? We call it Where's Wally....why Waldo?

I have no idea, but I do love how this forum expands my horizons.... I had no idea it is only called Waldo in North America... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Where%27s_Wally%3F&_%28video_game%29=

Now, what other super productive things can I go do....?

Someday soon, that will come up and you will amaze your friends. Or maybe win pub quiz, at least.

If I can win even a single pint (even a warm one, in London say), it will have all been worth it.  A very rewarding 5 minute wikipedia adventure...
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Starman on February 16, 2016, 10:13:21 PM
Every time I hear the phrase double double, I think of Tim Hortons.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: mdmomof7 on February 17, 2016, 08:50:54 AM
What's a double double at Tim Horton's Starman?

A friend who seems to know things of this nature posted something of interest yesterday. If he's right, and he's not saying he is, just a strong rumour - U2 is still finishing SOE while Bono continues his rehab. No European shows this summer, but North America again in the autumn. U2 felt more excitement in the US than Europe. They didn't like the European reception except for Torino, UK, Dublin and Paris. The SOE songs will replace the SOI songs and the set up will be the same. The band didn't like the ticket pricing structure and is p.o.ed at Live Nation.

Who knows, but it made me realize that I'm ready to do this again! *I* am, my bank account is NOT! Ha!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Behind the Barricade on February 17, 2016, 08:59:19 AM
They blame their promoter for their ticket prices?  I wonder if they blame their accountant for their tax avoidance.

Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: seashells on February 17, 2016, 10:07:18 AM
Thx MDMom!  Best news/rumors/thoughts/ideas in a while.  Hmmm, will think on those for a while...
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Volcanogirl on February 17, 2016, 10:33:02 AM
Thanx MDMom, what?  Did U2 not like the Amsterdam welkom? I wanna have a word with the band now... ha ha ! I thought the shows in Amsterdam were good, and the audiance were going for it.
No problem here. They organised a cool thing for the band, but a lot of party poopers did not hold up a sheet to make a giant flag. Well ...... it's the thought that counts.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: mdmomof7 on February 17, 2016, 10:55:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanx MDMom, what?  Did U2 not like the Amsterdam welkom? I wanna have a word with the band now... ha ha ! I thought the shows in Amsterdam were good, and the audiance were going for it.
No problem here. They organised a cool thing for the band, but a lot of party poopers did not hold up a sheet to make a giant flag. Well ...... it's the thought that counts.

:)

I'd agree about Amsterdam. I'd think it was great based on what I heard on the Mixlr.
And, what about Berlin getting Zoo Station and the first New Year's Day?

Rumours...  ::)
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Starman on February 17, 2016, 11:02:17 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What's a double double at Tim Horton's Starman?

A friend who seems to know things of this nature posted something of interest yesterday. If he's right, and he's not saying he is, just a strong rumour - U2 is still finishing SOE while Bono continues his rehab. No European shows this summer, but North America again in the autumn. U2 felt more excitement in the US than Europe. They didn't like the European reception except for Torino, UK, Dublin and Paris. The SOE songs will replace the SOI songs and the set up will be the same. The band didn't like the ticket pricing structure and is p.o.ed at Live Nation.

Who knows, but it made me realize that I'm ready to do this again! *I* am, my bank account is NOT! Ha!

Hmm, you could be right, though I can't imagine them actually being mad at Live Nation (though they should be).

A double double is a coffee with two sugars and two creams. It's not the healthiest way to drink coffee, but it's very good.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: mdmomof7 on February 17, 2016, 11:15:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What's a double double at Tim Horton's Starman?

A friend who seems to know things of this nature posted something of interest yesterday. If he's right, and he's not saying he is, just a strong rumour - U2 is still finishing SOE while Bono continues his rehab. No European shows this summer, but North America again in the autumn. U2 felt more excitement in the US than Europe. They didn't like the European reception except for Torino, UK, Dublin and Paris. The SOE songs will replace the SOI songs and the set up will be the same. The band didn't like the ticket pricing structure and is p.o.ed at Live Nation.

Who knows, but it made me realize that I'm ready to do this again! *I* am, my bank account is NOT! Ha!

Hmm, you could be right, though I can't imagine them actually being mad at Live Nation (though they should be).

A double double is a coffee with two sugars and two creams. It's not the healthiest way to drink coffee, but it's very good.
I take my coffee like #9 with agave or agave and stevia. I know all about unhealthy! ;)
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: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: bass slap on February 17, 2016, 01:38:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What's a double double at Tim Horton's Starman?

A friend who seems to know things of this nature posted something of interest yesterday. If he's right, and he's not saying he is, just a strong rumour - U2 is still finishing SOE while Bono continues his rehab. No European shows this summer, but North America again in the autumn. U2 felt more excitement in the US than Europe. They didn't like the European reception except for Torino, UK, Dublin and Paris. The SOE songs will replace the SOI songs and the set up will be the same. The band didn't like the ticket pricing structure and is p.o.ed at Live Nation.

Who knows, but it made me realize that I'm ready to do this again! *I* am, my bank account is NOT! Ha!

I can't see any of the comments about Europe being true, nor the removal of soi. I don't think they would openly criticize live nation.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: WookieeWarrior10 on February 17, 2016, 03:32:41 PM
What happened to this thread?
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Waffles on February 17, 2016, 04:16:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What's a double double at Tim Horton's Starman?

A friend who seems to know things of this nature posted something of interest yesterday. If he's right, and he's not saying he is, just a strong rumour - U2 is still finishing SOE while Bono continues his rehab. No European shows this summer, but North America again in the autumn. U2 felt more excitement in the US than Europe. They didn't like the European reception except for Torino, UK, Dublin and Paris. The SOE songs will replace the SOI songs and the set up will be the same. The band didn't like the ticket pricing structure and is p.o.ed at Live Nation.

Who knows, but it made me realize that I'm ready to do this again! *I* am, my bank account is NOT! Ha!

Hmm, you could be right, though I can't imagine them actually being mad at Live Nation (though they should be).

A double double is a coffee with two sugars and two creams. It's not the healthiest way to drink coffee, but it's very good.

Didn't know that. If you say "double double" in California, people will think you're referring to a burger with two patties of meat and two slices of cheese- at the fast food restruant 'in n out'
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: iehomecoming on February 17, 2016, 04:25:27 PM
they will also make a triple triple for you (I get them once in a while) or quadruple-quadruple.

They once made a 100/100 for some guys with the munchies but the company no longer allows that.

Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: The Edges Cat on February 17, 2016, 10:40:57 PM
The Triple Double Troubles Remix?
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: MattD on February 19, 2016, 11:41:59 AM
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

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

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

Their live performances still amaze, but for the rest? They've only got themselves to blame.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: ShankAsu on February 19, 2016, 11:44:54 AM
I don't think Edge's real estate problems or the band's decision to take advantage of legal tax loopholes has a thing to do with if they're able to push the boundaries of music.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Neil Young, man! on February 19, 2016, 04:31:50 PM
Mmm, maybe, but MattD has a point.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 19, 2016, 07:26:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

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

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

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

Most absolutely spot on post I've read in quite some time. These are the reasons the band simply no longer resonates the way it used to for me. Their creative energy and vibe is severely lacking at this point as their music is mediocre at best these days. Personally, I would not even go so far as to say that their "live performances still amaze" comparatively speaking. Choreographed well..yes...creative ..to a certain degree...passionate to the core..not even close.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: The Edges Cat on February 19, 2016, 09:21:52 PM
Does Guy Oseary work? I'd love to have his "job."
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: keaton on February 20, 2016, 01:59:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

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

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

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

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

I second all of this.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 20, 2016, 07:30:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Does Guy Oseary work? I'd love to have his "job."
Agreed.  The whole mess with the SOI release and Apple should be on him as he is the manager.  I don't mind the free release but it is on Guy to communicate with the apple techs that everything would go down smooth on the release and that people who did not want it wouldn't get it.  Just wondered how things would have turned out if the release went smooth.  He should have stepped up to the plate and accepted the responsibility of the backlash of the SOI release that went bad.  But basically he threw the band under the bus and had them do a facebook question and answer in which they ended up apolgizing for those who got SOI and didn't want it.   When Paul was the manager and when the whole POP and POPMART tour debacle happened he accepted full responsibility and said it was on him. 

Now forget about the SOI release that went bad (which is totally Guy's fault) another mistake which is his and livenations fault in my opinion is the following I&E tour.  Now I know that U2 cannot compete with the likes of today's artist (taylor swift, rihanna, Jay Z, Beyonce, etc) in terms of selling albums and getting radio airplay, but what they pride themselves on is being the biggest live attraction in the world.  For them to go on tour and end up having the fourth highest grossing tour in 2015 is totally unacceptable, finishing behind taylor swift, acdc and one direction.  It should have been Guy's and livenation to make sure that U2 finished with the top tour of 2015.  They couldn't even boast that.  At least that would have made up for the poor reception that SOI got upon release.  It is a head scratcher that livenation and Guy only booked U2 in total NA/Europe to only play 22 cities and 76 shows which only grossed 152.2 million and good for 4th place.  They left so many markets not played.  They could have easily got the number 1 tour if they just only added 20 more shows considering that Taylor Swift only played 83 shows and grossed 250.4 million which was good for top tour.  I'm sure U2 is not happy ending up in 4th especially behind the likes of Taylor Swift and One Direction as they take great pride on being the biggest live attraction in the world (at least not in 2015 anyway).  So it would be of no surprise that they are just a little pi**ed of with Livenation right now. 
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: an tha on February 20, 2016, 07:51:35 AM
Why does it matter who has the highest grossing tour?
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 20, 2016, 08:08:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why does it matter who has the highest grossing tour?
Why is it important? Not to me but make no mistake it is very important U2.  I was just only pointing out all of the great work and the bang up job the Guy and livenation have done for U2's career since taking over.  NOw that's a joke!!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Giga Razor on February 20, 2016, 08:30:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Does Guy Oseary work? I'd love to have his "job."
Agreed.  The whole mess with the SOI release and Apple should be on him as he is the manager.  I don't mind the free release but it is on Guy to communicate with the apple techs that everything would go down smooth on the release and that people who did not want it wouldn't get it.  Just wondered how things would have turned out if the release went smooth.  He should have stepped up to the plate and accepted the responsibility of the backlash of the SOI release that went bad.  But basically he threw the band under the bus and had them do a facebook question and answer in which they ended up apolgizing for those who got SOI and didn't want it.   When Paul was the manager and when the whole POP and POPMART tour debacle happened he accepted full responsibility and said it was on him. 

Now forget about the SOI release that went bad (which is totally Guy's fault) another mistake which is his and livenations fault in my opinion is the following I&E tour.  Now I know that U2 cannot compete with the likes of today's artist (taylor swift, rihanna, Jay Z, Beyonce, etc) in terms of selling albums and getting radio airplay, but what they pride themselves on is being the biggest live attraction in the world.  For them to go on tour and end up having the fourth highest grossing tour in 2015 is totally unacceptable, finishing behind taylor swift, acdc and one direction.  It should have been Guy's and livenation to make sure that U2 finished with the top tour of 2015.  They couldn't even boast that.  At least that would have made up for the poor reception that SOI got upon release.  It is a head scratcher that livenation and Guy only booked U2 in total NA/Europe to only play 22 cities and 76 shows which only grossed 152.2 million and good for 4th place.  They left so many markets not played.  They could have easily got the number 1 tour if they just only added 20 more shows considering that Taylor Swift only played 83 shows and grossed 250.4 million which was good for top tour.  I'm sure U2 is not happy ending up in 4th especially behind the likes of Taylor Swift and One Direction as they take great pride on being the biggest live attraction in the world (at least not in 2015 anyway).  So it would be of no surprise that they are just a little pi**ed of with Livenation right now.
What a ridiculous post,U2 decided themselves to play indoors and to play a smaller tour than usual ,Bono had major injuries with the bike accident and his back and he ain't no spring chicken  the fact he toured at all is a feat in itself ,an 80s band in the top 10 tours of the year is a massive achievement,where was Def leppard,Simple minds ,etc ,If people didn't want the album in their itunes tough T#ts they should have deleted it or turned off their auto download feature,I subscribe to Netflix and I don't want certain US thrash programs on it but that's the way it works,its the job of rock bands to be brash and f##k up the industry and who cares if it annoyed a few few geeks and Twitter mob whose opinions mean nothing .
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: an tha on February 20, 2016, 08:41:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why does it matter who has the highest grossing tour?
Why is it important? Not to me but make no mistake it is very important U2.  I was just only pointing out all of the great work and the bang up job the Guy and livenation have done for U2's career since taking over.  NOw that's a joke!!

Surely the band decided how many shows they played....i know u2 are very fond of a pound note but i doubt even they care about if they gross more than other artists - well at least i hope they don't.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Giga Razor on February 20, 2016, 08:53:07 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 does it matter who has the highest grossing tour?
Why is it important? Not to me but make no mistake it is very important U2.  I was just only pointing out all of the great work and the bang up job the Guy and livenation have done for U2's career since taking over.  NOw that's a joke!!

Surely the band decided how many shows they played....i know u2 are very fond of a pound note but i doubt even they care about if they gross more than other artists - well at least i hope they don't.
Here here father that's the first sensible thing you've said all year.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 20, 2016, 08:54:04 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
Does Guy Oseary work? I'd love to have his "job."
Agreed.  The whole mess with the SOI release and Apple should be on him as he is the manager.  I don't mind the free release but it is on Guy to communicate with the apple techs that everything would go down smooth on the release and that people who did not want it wouldn't get it.  Just wondered how things would have turned out if the release went smooth.  He should have stepped up to the plate and accepted the responsibility of the backlash of the SOI release that went bad.  But basically he threw the band under the bus and had them do a facebook question and answer in which they ended up apolgizing for those who got SOI and didn't want it.   When Paul was the manager and when the whole POP and POPMART tour debacle happened he accepted full responsibility and said it was on him. 

Now forget about the SOI release that went bad (which is totally Guy's fault) another mistake which is his and livenations fault in my opinion is the following I&E tour.  Now I know that U2 cannot compete with the likes of today's artist (taylor swift, rihanna, Jay Z, Beyonce, etc) in terms of selling albums and getting radio airplay, but what they pride themselves on is being the biggest live attraction in the world.  For them to go on tour and end up having the fourth highest grossing tour in 2015 is totally unacceptable, finishing behind taylor swift, acdc and one direction.  It should have been Guy's and livenation to make sure that U2 finished with the top tour of 2015.  They couldn't even boast that.  At least that would have made up for the poor reception that SOI got upon release.  It is a head scratcher that livenation and Guy only booked U2 in total NA/Europe to only play 22 cities and 76 shows which only grossed 152.2 million and good for 4th place.  They left so many markets not played.  They could have easily got the number 1 tour if they just only added 20 more shows considering that Taylor Swift only played 83 shows and grossed 250.4 million which was good for top tour.  I'm sure U2 is not happy ending up in 4th especially behind the likes of Taylor Swift and One Direction as they take great pride on being the biggest live attraction in the world (at least not in 2015 anyway).  So it would be of no surprise that they are just a little pi**ed of with Livenation right now.
What a ridiculous post,U2 decided themselves to play indoors and to play a smaller tour than usual ,Bono had major injuries with the bike accident and his back and he ain't no spring chicken  the fact he toured at all is a feat in itself ,an 80s band in the top 10 tours of the year is a massive achievement,where was Def leppard,Simple minds ,etc ,If people didn't want the album in their itunes tough T#ts they should have deleted it or turned off their auto download feature,I subscribe to Netflix and I don't want certain US thrash programs on it but that's the way it works,its the job of rock bands to be brash and f##k up the industry and who cares if it annoyed a few few geeks and Twitter mob whose opinions mean nothing .
I'm just saying from one of the previous post that the band were pi**ed of at livenation.  I'm just saying that I can see why they would be.  Yes it was the bands idea to play indoors but they leave it up to management and livenation to book shows and sure they didn't have 4th place in mind.  To call a post ridiculous seems out of line, but if anything it is a little naive if you think that finishing #1 is not important to U2 by now.  This is a band who thrives on this stuff (finishing #1, grammys) etc.  Whether or not you care about who got annoyed or not with the SOI release is not important.  It was a total mess in which management should have stepped up instead of the band looking like they had egg on their face apologizing for the mistake.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: emuhunter on February 20, 2016, 11:03:31 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
Does Guy Oseary work? I'd love to have his "job."
Agreed.  The whole mess with the SOI release and Apple should be on him as he is the manager.  I don't mind the free release but it is on Guy to communicate with the apple techs that everything would go down smooth on the release and that people who did not want it wouldn't get it.  Just wondered how things would have turned out if the release went smooth.  He should have stepped up to the plate and accepted the responsibility of the backlash of the SOI release that went bad.  But basically he threw the band under the bus and had them do a facebook question and answer in which they ended up apolgizing for those who got SOI and didn't want it.   When Paul was the manager and when the whole POP and POPMART tour debacle happened he accepted full responsibility and said it was on him. 

Now forget about the SOI release that went bad (which is totally Guy's fault) another mistake which is his and livenations fault in my opinion is the following I&E tour.  Now I know that U2 cannot compete with the likes of today's artist (taylor swift, rihanna, Jay Z, Beyonce, etc) in terms of selling albums and getting radio airplay, but what they pride themselves on is being the biggest live attraction in the world.  For them to go on tour and end up having the fourth highest grossing tour in 2015 is totally unacceptable, finishing behind taylor swift, acdc and one direction.  It should have been Guy's and livenation to make sure that U2 finished with the top tour of 2015.  They couldn't even boast that.  At least that would have made up for the poor reception that SOI got upon release.  It is a head scratcher that livenation and Guy only booked U2 in total NA/Europe to only play 22 cities and 76 shows which only grossed 152.2 million and good for 4th place.  They left so many markets not played.  They could have easily got the number 1 tour if they just only added 20 more shows considering that Taylor Swift only played 83 shows and grossed 250.4 million which was good for top tour.  I'm sure U2 is not happy ending up in 4th especially behind the likes of Taylor Swift and One Direction as they take great pride on being the biggest live attraction in the world (at least not in 2015 anyway).  So it would be of no surprise that they are just a little pi**ed of with Livenation right now.
What a ridiculous post,U2 decided themselves to play indoors and to play a smaller tour than usual ,Bono had major injuries with the bike accident and his back and he ain't no spring chicken  the fact he toured at all is a feat in itself ,an 80s band in the top 10 tours of the year is a massive achievement,where was Def leppard,Simple minds ,etc ,If people didn't want the album in their itunes tough T#ts they should have deleted it or turned off their auto download feature,I subscribe to Netflix and I don't want certain US thrash programs on it but that's the way it works,its the job of rock bands to be brash and f##k up the industry and who cares if it annoyed a few few geeks and Twitter mob whose opinions mean nothing .
I'm just saying from one of the previous post that the band were pi**ed of at livenation.  I'm just saying that I can see why they would be.  Yes it was the bands idea to play indoors but they leave it up to management and livenation to book shows and sure they didn't have 4th place in mind.  To call a post ridiculous seems out of line, but if anything it is a little naive if you think that finishing #1 is not important to U2 by now.  This is a band who thrives on this stuff (finishing #1, grammys) etc.  Whether or not you care about who got annoyed or not with the SOI release is not important.  It was a total mess in which management should have stepped up instead of the band looking like they had egg on their face apologizing for the mistake.

Here's a different perspective: by not over-saturating the market with shows they may have created a market of scarcity for their future tours. In other words, by accepting a 4th place finish they're making sure they'll be able to come back in 2016, 2017, etc and have renewed interest which is an issue after a tour like 360 where tons of fair-weather fans were able to see the band and mark them off their bucket list without any plans of coming back for more (something I personally know several friends of mine did).

I propose that by making it smaller they were able to focus on their core demographic (the fans), create an event that fits with what they wanted creatively, and keep themselves in the game so to speak. Not bad things.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 20, 2016, 11:38:16 AM
boom boom, your sentiments are misdirected, you are putting the blame for basically everything that went wrong on Guy O... remember he is the manager and his job is to execute what the band want.  as for the tour, it was generally very well received.  as for getting the top grossing?  they already accomplished the main feat when they put 360 to bed as the biggest of all time.  I agree with you that was an important accomplishment in terms of bragging rights - Bono even joked about that in his 60 minutes interview.

But honestly if you think that Guy is to blame for the other stuff such as the Apple release then you are just off base.  Seems like he did his best with the Facebook thing which the band probably never would have a greed to do without him... so that was a step in the right direction even if ultimately Bono decided to retract his apology

if the band weren't happy with him, he would no longer be their manager
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 20, 2016, 11:45:13 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
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

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

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

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

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

I second all of this.

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

at the end of the day they need to get pi**ed and bring some of the contender/challenger mojo back... these days every show is a victory tour stop and while joy is great, a little simmering anger and rage are great fuel for rock n roll show...
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 20, 2016, 01:32:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
boom boom, your sentiments are misdirected, you are putting the blame for basically everything that went wrong on Guy O... remember he is the manager and his job is to execute what the band want.  as for the tour, it was generally very well received.  as for getting the top grossing?  they already accomplished the main feat when they put 360 to bed as the biggest of all time.  I agree with you that was an important accomplishment in terms of bragging rights - Bono even joked about that in his 60 minutes interview.

But honestly if you think that Guy is to blame for the other stuff such as the Apple release then you are just off base.  Seems like he did his best with the Facebook thing which the band probably never would have a greed to do without him... so that was a step in the right direction even if ultimately Bono decided to retract his apology

if the band weren't happy with him, he would no longer be their manager
Well, I call it as I see it.  Everything seemed to go wrong since he took over.  If he just stood up and came out and said it was on him with the whole apple mess, it may have not gotten out of control.  Yes, like you said he is the manager and his job is to execute what the band want.  they wanted an Apple give away for SOI and it is his job to make sure that the release goes smoothly by talking with the apple techs to see of any possible glitches that might occur with the release.  This is not the bands job.  That is what they pay Guy for and other people in their organization.  Again, Paul McGuiness stood up and took all the blame for the Popmart disaster and said it was on him that the band were not ready for opening night in Vegas.  As for the tour, yes they have the biggest tour of all time with 360, but this is an industry of what have you done for me lately.  And like you said no bragging rights for 2015, which we all know like you also said in his 60 minutes interview it is something they like to accomplish as this is where they live in-being a live band and being the best at it, but in 2015 they were the 4th best.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: an tha on February 20, 2016, 01:48:13 PM
When did rock n roll become all about a league table of who made the most money?

When did making the most money mean you are the best?

Never mind all that sh**e just make great records the rest is just noise....i sometimes wonder if some fans think being a fan of a band is like being a fan of a footy team and it matters how many records they sell/tickets they sell/how much money they make like some kind of trophy.

Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 20, 2016, 02:01:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When did rock n roll become all about a league table of who made the most money?

When did making the most money mean you are the best?

Never mind all that sh**e just make great records the rest is just noise....i sometimes wonder if some fans think being a fan of a band is like being a fan of a footy team and it matters how many records they sell/tickets they sell/how much money they make like some kind of trophy.


It is not important to me.  I don't care if they finish 4th, 5th, 10th or every win another grammy again.   Yes, all I want is some great records.  But like I said, It is important to U2 and they have said it themselves before.  We all know the bands obsession on getting back to the Grammy podium and for touring the live arena is where they live and it is important for them (not me) to finish #1.  I don't think being 2nd best to anybody is in U2's vocabulary let alone being the 4th best.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 20, 2016, 02:55:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When did rock n roll become all about a league table of who made the most money?

When did making the most money mean you are the best?

Never mind all that sh**e just make great records the rest is just noise....i sometimes wonder if some fans think being a fan of a band is like being a fan of a footy team and it matters how many records they sell/tickets they sell/how much money they make like some kind of trophy.


It is not important to me.  I don't care if they finish 4th, 5th, 10th or every win another grammy again.   Yes, all I want is some great records.  But like I said, It is important to U2 and they have said it themselves before.  We all know the bands obsession on getting back to the Grammy podium and for touring the live arena is where they live and it is important for them (not me) to finish #1.  I don't think being 2nd best to anybody is in U2's vocabulary let alone being the 4th best.

Hence, the mediocrity of their music for there past decade and then some.  Priorities are out of whack since 2000.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 20, 2016, 03:12:37 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
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

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

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

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

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

I second all of this.

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

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

Well said! Enjoyed the shows... yes I did for the most part. Solid night out.  Did I leave there feeling "touched" by the experience like I used too..... no way.  The mojo is lost. This is my opinion because I have seen every tour multiple times since War. I can fully understand how some fans loved the shows because they have less mileage to compare it to. I would never want to yuck their yum. In the end, the tours are driven by the power of the songs and the strength and power of most (not all) of the material has been  lost  since POP.   It's that simple. I mean seriously, for Cedar Road to be the "fans" favorite new live song from SOI says it all. It will be a complete afterthought in the future.  On second thought, maybe it won't because it is not challenging sonically and easy for Bono to sing (he can easily talk his way through most of it without singing). So in that case, we may see it again and again.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Behind the Barricade on February 20, 2016, 03:59:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is a head scratcher that livenation and Guy only booked U2 in total NA/Europe to only play 22 cities and 76 shows which only grossed 152.2 million and good for 4th place.  They left so many markets not played.  They could have easily got the number 1 tour if they just only added 20 more shows considering that Taylor Swift only played 83 shows and grossed 250.4 million which was good for top tour.  I'm sure U2 is not happy ending up in 4th especially behind the likes of Taylor Swift and One Direction as they take great pride on being the biggest live attraction in the world (at least not in 2015 anyway).  So it would be of no surprise that they are just a little pi**ed of with Livenation right now.

I don't think the current U2 tour is over yet and they have every intention of resuming the tour and playing those untapped markets in due course, whether with the current stage setup or in stadiums.  The thing is that as U2 get older they haven't got the energy to play a 150 date tour in one go anymore, they need to take a lengthy break.  So you can stop scratching your head now.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Volcanogirl on February 20, 2016, 04:59:53 PM
^ I think that U2 are not that obsessed with being top tour. And the whole thing isn't over. We had the Innocence part. Now get ready for the next leg, the Experience leg of the tour. I hope they find a way to make this special. I know they can. For instance start with POP. Love to hear the crowd go
"Mooofoooh ...!!" when it starts. They can handle a tour like this, but i don't think not a big stadium one......
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Giga Razor on February 20, 2016, 05:00:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

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

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

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

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

I second all of this.

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

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

Well said! Enjoyed the shows... yes I did for the most part. Solid night out.  Did I leave there feeling "touched" by the experience like I used too..... no way.  The mojo is lost. This is my opinion because I have seen every tour multiple times since War. I can fully understand how some fans loved the shows because they have less mileage to compare it to. I would never want to yuck their yum. In the end, the tours are driven by the power of the songs and the strength and power of most (not all) of the material has been  lost  since POP.   It's that simple. I mean seriously, for Cedar Road to be the "fans" favorite new live song from SOI says it all. It will be a complete afterthought in the future.  On second thought, maybe it won't because it is not challenging sonically and easy for Bono to sing (he can easily talk his way through most of it without singing). So in that case, we may see it again and again.
If u saw the war tour u must be getting on in years like the band,as u well know nothing stays the same and if u expect U2 to be the same as they were in 83 or 87 your off your rocker,name one band that has as much drive and power as they had 30 years ago  ,I can't think of any because there is none ,for U2 to be still doing big tours and big album's this late into their careers is amazing ,How long did the Beatles last less than 10 years,could u imagine the drivel they would have put out in the 70s,80s,going by McCartney and lennons solo output it wouldn't have been very good bar the odd moment,For U2 the last album was a major recovery after noloth it's as good as anything they have done since Achtung Baby ,and still certain fans aren't happy.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 20, 2016, 07:11:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

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

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

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

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

I second all of this.

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

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

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

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

To address your other question. Pearl  Jam (25 years) and Bruce (god knows how long), just two examples, blow U2 out of the water with regards to level of passion, particularly with regards to live shows. No bells and whistle, smoke and mirrors but pure rock and roll passion. Love them or hate them, you cannot argue that. Different level!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Waffles on February 21, 2016, 12:12:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

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

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

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

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

I second all of this.

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

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

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

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

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

SOI is perfect. It's a perfect of mix of new and old territory. To a u2 fan, we want to see radica changes in the music. We want a change as big as achtung to JT. But the band can't do that. Not because it's not what they want, but they know it won't work for the general public. You can go on and on about how they shouldn't give a crap about meeting the genera publics appeal, but it's a necessity in the music world. Without the other producers to make the songs more attractive to radio, u2 would be deterred to play new songs live that just don't click. SLABT may be one of their best in decades, but there's no chorus for the audience to interact with. When you don't have songs for people to truly experience, you get a NLOTH. Without new classics and popular songs, u2 is just a heritage act. And I don't want to see my favorite band stop making beautiful music to become a heritage act for at least 15 more years
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Nico on February 21, 2016, 02:44:27 AM
Agreed.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Kite32 on February 21, 2016, 03:35:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

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

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

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

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

I second all of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Besides NLOTH was an embarrassing mess of an album which didn't go down well live yet they still played the biggest grossing tour in history. By your logic the tour should have flopped too.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: an tha on February 21, 2016, 03:50:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If they're pi**ed off at Live Nation and the cool reception from Europe compared to the US, then perhaps that should be a sign that their business interests, tax affairs and profiteering obsessiveness isn't particularly conducive to artful music making.

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

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

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

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

I second all of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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







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

I don't think the current U2 tour is over yet and they have every intention of resuming the tour and playing those untapped markets in due course, whether with the current stage setup or in stadiums.  The thing is that as U2 get older they haven't got the energy to play a 150 date tour in one go anymore, they need to take a lengthy break.  So you can stop scratching your head now.
Thanks, but it still feels itchy.  It's not like they are playing 3 and a half hour shows (like Springsteen) and they don't play more than 2 shows in a row without a couple of days of in between the next show.  they wouldn't even have had to play 150 dates to beat taylor swift.  90-100 shows would have done it.  Maybe I should switch to head and shoulders.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Behind the Barricade on February 21, 2016, 10:24:00 AM
Age and health takes its toll.  The Stones are down to playing about 15 shows a year now.

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

Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Volcanogirl on February 21, 2016, 11:03:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Age and health takes its toll.  The Stones are down to playing about 15 shows a year now.

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

 ;)
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: an tha on February 21, 2016, 11:16:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Age and health takes its toll.  The Stones are down to playing about 15 shows a year now.

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

In a straight fight for a pound note i would back u2 against a prime Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali, Marvin Hagler and The Incredible Hulk.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: xy on February 21, 2016, 11:16:41 AM

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


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

Bruce I am seeing this year in July. Consider he's currently promoting a remaster of an album that came out in 1980 and his last fully new album was out in 2012 (High hopes is a compilation of studio leftovers). U2 on the other hand will get back on the road with another new record while SOI isn't even two years old.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: an tha on February 21, 2016, 12:12:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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


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

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

I appreciate your sentiment here but lets not start praising u2 for being prolific or comparing how prolific they are with other artists....they aren't exactly prolific.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: xy on February 21, 2016, 02:03:10 PM
Just saying.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 21, 2016, 02:59:45 PM
this has certainly evolved to an interesting thread with lots of different perspectives.

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

2016 will be a very interesting year I think.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 21, 2016, 03:12:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
this has certainly evolved to an interesting thread with lots of different perspectives.

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

2016 will be a very interesting year I think.
Yeah, it is going to be very interesting.  I wonder what is going through their heads right now, knowing their last two albums failed to connect with the general public.  They went the esoteric route with NLOTH (mainly because they second guessed themselves and went back and tried to get radio friendly tracks on it) and didn't work, they went with what they thought were strong melodies for radio with SOI, it didn't work even after delay after delay and producer after producer.  Hopefully they go all out this time, trust their initial instincts for the albums sound and go with it, don't overthink it, and bring in additional producers to get their take, next thing you know they reworked all the songs and it gets overproduced just like SOI.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Kite32 on February 21, 2016, 03:30:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
this has certainly evolved to an interesting thread with lots of different perspectives.

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

2016 will be a very interesting year I think.
Yeah, it is going to be very interesting.  I wonder what is going through their heads right now, knowing their last two albums failed to connect with the general public.  They went the esoteric route with NLOTH (mainly because they second guessed themselves and went back and tried to get radio friendly tracks on it) and didn't work, they went with what they thought were strong melodies for radio with SOI, it didn't work even after delay after delay and producer after producer.  Hopefully they go all out this time, trust their initial instincts for the albums sound and go with it, don't overthink it, and bring in additional producers to get their take, next thing you know they reworked all the songs and it gets overproduced just like SOI.

I hope you're right but I think you're wrong. SOE if indeed it's even called that will be the same old same old for U2. NLOTH could have been a real contender for a great U2 album if they had ditched 80% of it. They have no balls anymore. It's just the way it is. I'm sure we'll continue to see flashes of what they used to be capable of ie SLABT but I anticipate a big single with yet another big riff along the same old boring lines of BD, Elevation, vertigo, and the miracle and a load of filler that while meaning well just ends up sounding boring
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 21, 2016, 03:52:01 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
this has certainly evolved to an interesting thread with lots of different perspectives.

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

2016 will be a very interesting year I think.
Yeah, it is going to be very interesting.  I wonder what is going through their heads right now, knowing their last two albums failed to connect with the general public.  They went the esoteric route with NLOTH (mainly because they second guessed themselves and went back and tried to get radio friendly tracks on it) and didn't work, they went with what they thought were strong melodies for radio with SOI, it didn't work even after delay after delay and producer after producer.  Hopefully they go all out this time, trust their initial instincts for the albums sound and go with it, don't overthink it, and bring in additional producers to get their take, next thing you know they reworked all the songs and it gets overproduced just like SOI.

I hope you're right but I think you're wrong. SOE if indeed it's even called that will be the same old same old for U2. NLOTH could have been a real contender for a great U2 album if they had ditched 80% of it. They have no balls anymore. It's just the way it is. I'm sure we'll continue to see flashes of what they used to be capable of ie SLABT but I anticipate a big single with yet another big riff along the same old boring lines of BD, Elevation, vertigo, and the miracle and a load of filler that while meaning well just ends up sounding boring
Well, we hope they would have learned from their last two albums and their week lead off singles GOYB and while I think the  Miracle is better than boots and is a better live song it should not  have been the lead off single.  I also agree SLABT and also i think TIWYCRMN are two of the best songs on the album (unfortunately they didn't even try to play them live). Hopefully we get a full album like that.  I also think originally SOI (the version we didn't get to hear with only Dangermouse producing) could have really been exciting, unfortunately the band didn't think so and brought in Tedder and Epworth.  Maybe one day in the future they will release the alternate version of SOI.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: trevgreg on February 21, 2016, 06:04:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I hope you're right but I think you're wrong. SOE if indeed it's even called that will be the same old same old for U2. NLOTH could have been a real contender for a great U2 album if they had ditched 80% of it. They have no balls anymore. It's just the way it is. I'm sure we'll continue to see flashes of what they used to be capable of ie SLABT but I anticipate a big single with yet another big riff along the same old boring lines of BD, Elevation, vertigo, and the miracle and a load of filler that while meaning well just ends up sounding boring

I never quite bought into the idea that they have to reinvent the wheel every time to create great songs. Regarding SLABT, I like the sound and song a lot myself, but it's not necessarily a 'be all, end all' for me to have everything sound exactly like that (not saying that's what you're getting at, but yeah).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, we hope they would have learned from their last two albums and their week lead off singles GOYB and while I think the  Miracle is better than boots and is a better live song it should not  have been the lead off single.  I also agree SLABT and also i think TIWYCRMN are two of the best songs on the album (unfortunately they didn't even try to play them live). Hopefully we get a full album like that.  I also think originally SOI (the version we didn't get to hear with only Dangermouse producing) could have really been exciting, unfortunately the band didn't think so and brought in Tedder and Epworth.  Maybe one day in the future they will release the alternate version of SOI.

I mentioned it on Interference the other day, but I don't really know what they could have used as a first single beyond The Miracle. It was a superior song to Boots, had at least something in the vein of hooks to grab Joe Listener's attention, and also made use of the famous I–V–vi–IV chords that the band and many other acts has used numerous times in the past (among four total songs off of SOI, actually)... if that was bound to fail, well, it wasn't for making a bad decision, imo.

In terms of the 'alternate' version of SOI/NLOTH/etc., there's really no way to tell if those would have been superior or not without hearing them, obviously. If the interviews since SOI was released and the alternate versions of The Troubles and SLABT hinted at anything, it might be that some of the band's decisions to keep working on the album ended up being solid ones for the songs. Bono had mentioned in early 2014 that they were experimenting with different keys on certain songs, and if that applied to The Troubles (which I suspect it did), then it was a pretty good decision that made the song better. When Tedder was announced as working with the band, I also was one of those that was a tad skeptical (but open-minded) on what he could bring to the table. But if it's true that he moved the original middle 8 of EBW to the chorus and was responsible for the main melody line over that (with Edge plays, I believe), then again... that was probably a good decision too.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Waffles on February 22, 2016, 12:51:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I hope you're right but I think you're wrong. SOE if indeed it's even called that will be the same old same old for U2. NLOTH could have been a real contender for a great U2 album if they had ditched 80% of it. They have no balls anymore. It's just the way it is. I'm sure we'll continue to see flashes of what they used to be capable of ie SLABT but I anticipate a big single with yet another big riff along the same old boring lines of BD, Elevation, vertigo, and the miracle and a load of filler that while meaning well just ends up sounding boring

I never quite bought into the idea that they have to reinvent the wheel every time to create great songs. Regarding SLABT, I like the sound and song a lot myself, but it's not necessarily a 'be all, end all' for me to have everything sound exactly like that (not saying that's what you're getting at, but yeah).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, we hope they would have learned from their last two albums and their week lead off singles GOYB and while I think the  Miracle is better than boots and is a better live song it should not  have been the lead off single.  I also agree SLABT and also i think TIWYCRMN are two of the best songs on the album (unfortunately they didn't even try to play them live). Hopefully we get a full album like that.  I also think originally SOI (the version we didn't get to hear with only Dangermouse producing) could have really been exciting, unfortunately the band didn't think so and brought in Tedder and Epworth.  Maybe one day in the future they will release the alternate version of SOI.

I mentioned it on Interference the other day, but I don't really know what they could have used as a first single beyond The Miracle. It was a superior song to Boots, had at least something in the vein of hooks to grab Joe Listener's attention, and also made use of the famous I–V–vi–IV chords that the band and many other acts has used numerous times in the past (among four total songs off of SOI, actually)... if that was bound to fail, well, it wasn't for making a bad decision, imo.

In terms of the 'alternate' version of SOI/NLOTH/etc., there's really no way to tell if those would have been superior or not without hearing them, obviously. If the interviews since SOI was released and the alternate versions of The Troubles and SLABT hinted at anything, it might be that some of the band's decisions to keep working on the album ended up being solid ones for the songs. Bono had mentioned in early 2014 that they were experimenting with different keys on certain songs, and if that applied to The Troubles (which I suspect it did), then it was a pretty good decision that made the song better. When Tedder was announced as working with the band, I also was one of those that was a tad skeptical (but open-minded) on what he could bring to the table. But if it's true that he moved the original middle 8 of EBW to the chorus and was responsible for the main melody line over that (with Edge plays, I believe), then again... that was probably a good decision too.

Im finding rock and roll has been at a low point for the last several years with all the new electronic music. I still think EBW album version or California would have been better singles because they appeal to the masses more and are have electronic elements. Miracle limited them to the small percentage who still listen to rock. I was watching the grammys and VMAS and noticed rock and roll isnt even honored like it used to be. Im sure itll come back though
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 22, 2016, 03:40:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I hope you're right but I think you're wrong. SOE if indeed it's even called that will be the same old same old for U2. NLOTH could have been a real contender for a great U2 album if they had ditched 80% of it. They have no balls anymore. It's just the way it is. I'm sure we'll continue to see flashes of what they used to be capable of ie SLABT but I anticipate a big single with yet another big riff along the same old boring lines of BD, Elevation, vertigo, and the miracle and a load of filler that while meaning well just ends up sounding boring

I never quite bought into the idea that they have to reinvent the wheel every time to create great songs. Regarding SLABT, I like the sound and song a lot myself, but it's not necessarily a 'be all, end all' for me to have everything sound exactly like that (not saying that's what you're getting at, but yeah).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, we hope they would have learned from their last two albums and their week lead off singles GOYB and while I think the  Miracle is better than boots and is a better live song it should not  have been the lead off single.  I also agree SLABT and also i think TIWYCRMN are two of the best songs on the album (unfortunately they didn't even try to play them live). Hopefully we get a full album like that.  I also think originally SOI (the version we didn't get to hear with only Dangermouse producing) could have really been exciting, unfortunately the band didn't think so and brought in Tedder and Epworth.  Maybe one day in the future they will release the alternate version of SOI.

I mentioned it on Interference the other day, but I don't really know what they could have used as a first single beyond The Miracle. It was a superior song to Boots, had at least something in the vein of hooks to grab Joe Listener's attention, and also made use of the famous I–V–vi–IV chords that the band and many other acts has used numerous times in the past (among four total songs off of SOI, actually)... if that was bound to fail, well, it wasn't for making a bad decision, imo.

In terms of the 'alternate' version of SOI/NLOTH/etc., there's really no way to tell if those would have been superior or not without hearing them, obviously. If the interviews since SOI was released and the alternate versions of The Troubles and SLABT hinted at anything, it might be that some of the band's decisions to keep working on the album ended up being solid ones for the songs. Bono had mentioned in early 2014 that they were experimenting with different keys on certain songs, and if that applied to The Troubles (which I suspect it did), then it was a pretty good decision that made the song better. When Tedder was announced as working with the band, I also was one of those that was a tad skeptical (but open-minded) on what he could bring to the table. But if it's true that he moved the original middle 8 of EBW to the chorus and was responsible for the main melody line over that (with Edge plays, I believe), then again... that was probably a good decision too.
But I remember back sometime in 2014 (and I could be wrong on this) when the band were in new york recording with Dangermouse that reports were coming out the they were finished at least a rough version of the album and were having a kind of celebratory BBQ on the rooftop.  Reports were the band were very happy and excited for the album with Dangermouse.  Then Dangermouse had to take a break for a bit for other work and when he came back to finish up work with the band reports were that he even didn't even recognize most of the work as we all know the band brought in Tedder and Epworth during the time Dangermouse was off and even some of the songs he did were dropped and new ones added.  I'm just saying, initially the band were excited for the original work they did with Dangermouse, maybe in hindsight they should have left it alone as it could have been better but again without hearing it we will never know.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 22, 2016, 11:51:10 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
I hope you're right but I think you're wrong. SOE if indeed it's even called that will be the same old same old for U2. NLOTH could have been a real contender for a great U2 album if they had ditched 80% of it. They have no balls anymore. It's just the way it is. I'm sure we'll continue to see flashes of what they used to be capable of ie SLABT but I anticipate a big single with yet another big riff along the same old boring lines of BD, Elevation, vertigo, and the miracle and a load of filler that while meaning well just ends up sounding boring

I never quite bought into the idea that they have to reinvent the wheel every time to create great songs. Regarding SLABT, I like the sound and song a lot myself, but it's not necessarily a 'be all, end all' for me to have everything sound exactly like that (not saying that's what you're getting at, but yeah).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, we hope they would have learned from their last two albums and their week lead off singles GOYB and while I think the  Miracle is better than boots and is a better live song it should not  have been the lead off single.  I also agree SLABT and also i think TIWYCRMN are two of the best songs on the album (unfortunately they didn't even try to play them live). Hopefully we get a full album like that.  I also think originally SOI (the version we didn't get to hear with only Dangermouse producing) could have really been exciting, unfortunately the band didn't think so and brought in Tedder and Epworth.  Maybe one day in the future they will release the alternate version of SOI.

I mentioned it on Interference the other day, but I don't really know what they could have used as a first single beyond The Miracle. It was a superior song to Boots, had at least something in the vein of hooks to grab Joe Listener's attention, and also made use of the famous I–V–vi–IV chords that the band and many other acts has used numerous times in the past (among four total songs off of SOI, actually)... if that was bound to fail, well, it wasn't for making a bad decision, imo.

In terms of the 'alternate' version of SOI/NLOTH/etc., there's really no way to tell if those would have been superior or not without hearing them, obviously. If the interviews since SOI was released and the alternate versions of The Troubles and SLABT hinted at anything, it might be that some of the band's decisions to keep working on the album ended up being solid ones for the songs. Bono had mentioned in early 2014 that they were experimenting with different keys on certain songs, and if that applied to The Troubles (which I suspect it did), then it was a pretty good decision that made the song better. When Tedder was announced as working with the band, I also was one of those that was a tad skeptical (but open-minded) on what he could bring to the table. But if it's true that he moved the original middle 8 of EBW to the chorus and was responsible for the main melody line over that (with Edge plays, I believe), then again... that was probably a good decision too.
But I remember back sometime in 2014 (and I could be wrong on this) when the band were in new york recording with Dangermouse that reports were coming out the they were finished at least a rough version of the album and were having a kind of celebratory BBQ on the rooftop.  Reports were the band were very happy and excited for the album with Dangermouse.  Then Dangermouse had to take a break for a bit for other work and when he came back to finish up work with the band reports were that he even didn't even recognize most of the work as we all know the band brought in Tedder and Epworth during the time Dangermouse was off and even some of the songs he did were dropped and new ones added.  I'm just saying, initially the band were excited for the original work they did with Dangermouse, maybe in hindsight they should have left it alone as it could have been better but again without hearing it we will never know.

Yes, from everything that I have read and have come to understand, that's how it went down. I believe it was a case of over thinking things again. And, as has been discussed plenty of times on this forum, they decided to go overboard with appealing to the masses and being "relevant" so they added the pop sugar veneer/sheen. I had also read that Burton was extremely disappointed and upset with this. However, as is his nature, he never commented on it and would never speak disparagingly about the band. He did however answer a question that was posed to him regarding the status of the new U2 record before it came out and he rather curtly responding "I have no idea what U2 is doing with the new record" (I'm paraphrasing here). A very telling statement from a well respected producer who was initially supposed to be the sole producer. I remember immediately recognizing the three tunes he produced on his own on the record without even looking at the liner notes and saying to myself "man, what this record could have been!!" 
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: trevgreg on February 22, 2016, 11:59:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Im finding rock and roll has been at a low point for the last several years with all the new electronic music. I still think EBW album version or California would have been better singles because they appeal to the masses more and are have electronic elements. Miracle limited them to the small percentage who still listen to rock. I was watching the grammys and VMAS and noticed rock and roll isnt even honored like it used to be. Im sure itll come back though

I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘electronic’ influences. If anything, I’d say the era of ‘popular’ genres might be broken up for good, considering what the internet and different sources for songs have done these days. Mainstream rock doesn’t seem to have the stranglehold it once did, but there’s plenty of rock bands which still tend to get some sort of attention these days. Maybe not in the vein of an Adele or Swift, but acts come and go as it does anyway.

Coming back to the single choices and the I–V–vi–IV chords… for what it’s worth, four songs on SOI use them to a decent extent in one order or another: The Miracle, EBW, California, and Volcano. If they wanted to have a hit, it probably did make sense to use any of those four. I’d still say that The Miracle probably had the more accessible hooks compared to the other two upbeat ones, so that would’ve been m first choice anyway (I think California would’ve been a solid single, but maybe not in the first slot).  The only real flaws it had, if any, were a slightly goofy title and maybe a chorus line that doesn’t soar as high as it could (it’s decent… just not a truly memorable one as compared to some of the other band’s big singles) EBW, I’d say, still probably made the most sense as the second one anyway.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But I remember back sometime in 2014 (and I could be wrong on this) when the band were in new york recording with Dangermouse that reports were coming out the they were finished at least a rough version of the album and were having a kind of celebratory BBQ on the rooftop.  Reports were the band were very happy and excited for the album with Dangermouse.  Then Dangermouse had to take a break for a bit for other work and when he came back to finish up work with the band reports were that he even didn't even recognize most of the work as we all know the band brought in Tedder and Epworth during the time Dangermouse was off and even some of the songs he did were dropped and new ones added.  I'm just saying, initially the band were excited for the original work they did with Dangermouse, maybe in hindsight they should have left it alone as it could have been better but again without hearing it we will never know.

Yeah, I think that was late in the summer of 2013 when it looked like they were wrapping things up, only to go to the drawing board. From the interviews, it seemed like they had an album that was basically complete, but didn’t feel like it had all the potential. And yeah, it’ll be hard to know for sure in any sort of consensus without hearing those tracks… but from some of the changes they did talk about since then (which I mentioned in that other post), it seems like some of them did work out.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 22, 2016, 12:11:43 PM
And don't discount the impact that the Apple release (may have) had on the album release.  I have no idea what actually happened, but I would not be surprised if the band decided to delay the album so it would be timed with the iPhone.  And instead of leaving well enough alone, then tinkered with many of the songs right up to the point of release.

Stupid rock band.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: an tha on February 22, 2016, 12:34:14 PM
The good news is Bono has recognised the album was over polished/too nice....so maybe it is a case of lesson learnt.

Question is can they break a behavioural trait that has become deeply ingrained now....
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Behind the Barricade on February 22, 2016, 01:33:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Age and health takes its toll.  The Stones are down to playing about 15 shows a year now.

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

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

Bono would beat the seagulls to the tip if he thought he'd dropped a five pound note in the bin.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 23, 2016, 03:50:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The good news is Bono has recognised the album was over polished/too nice....so maybe it is a case of lesson learnt.

Question is can they break a behavioural trait that has become deeply ingrained now....
I'm leaning towards no.  They said the exact same thing of NLOTH and they still went the polished over produced way on SOI.  Like you said, it is a behavioural  trait that gone soo deep there is no way back.  I think even Brian Eno said during the NLOTH sessions the band wouldn't recognize a great song if it is staring them right in the face.  He said this after they finished recording MOS and then they band said something like let's go work on it some more.  Then Eno said, what it's done it's already perfect. 
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 23, 2016, 06:42:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The good news is Bono has recognised the album was over polished/too nice....so maybe it is a case of lesson learnt.

Question is can they break a behavioural trait that has become deeply ingrained now....
I'm leaning towards no.  They said the exact same thing of NLOTH and they still went the polished over produced way on SOI.  Like you said, it is a behavioural  trait that gone soo deep there is no way back.  I think even Brian Eno said during the NLOTH sessions the band wouldn't recognize a great song if it is staring them right in the face.  He said this after they finished recording MOS and then they band said something like let's go work on it some more.  Then Eno said, what it's done it's already perfect.

And in my opinion, MOS is one of their greatest tunes!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 23, 2016, 08:10:17 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
The good news is Bono has recognised the album was over polished/too nice....so maybe it is a case of lesson learnt.

Question is can they break a behavioural trait that has become deeply ingrained now....
I'm leaning towards no.  They said the exact same thing of NLOTH and they still went the polished over produced way on SOI.  Like you said, it is a behavioural  trait that gone soo deep there is no way back.  I think even Brian Eno said during the NLOTH sessions the band wouldn't recognize a great song if it is staring them right in the face.  He said this after they finished recording MOS and then they band said something like let's go work on it some more.  Then Eno said, what it's done it's already perfect.

And in my opinion, MOS is one of their greatest tunes!

What's funny is that I recall an interview where Bono said that Eno doesn't care about individual songs, all he cares about are albums.  He used (I think) Viva la Vida as an example... said that if Eno were producing he would have left that track off the album.  Point being it's a great track.  I may be misremembering.

But there's no doubt these guys overthink, overwork, overproduce most of everything now
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: goldtoad on February 23, 2016, 01:44:20 PM
I completely agree with the opinions here that U2 have done way too much tinkering with the last two albums... They need to stop bringing in various producers to re-work songs and dragging out the process to the point where the original inspiration they had for the album is lost.  On the last album, they angered many fans by delaying the original release date for months.  We found out later this was because they made the iPhone 6 release deal with Apple. That move that ended up generating mostly negative press. It may not be fair, but U2 has lost some respect with the general public in the last few years.  U2 has been one of the greatest rock bands in the world for over 30 years, but they are now in their twilight years and their attitude should be “go big or go home”.  By "go big" I mean having a big idea for an album (like they’ve had on many previous albums) and then following thru on that creative vision in the studio working with one or two primary producers.  If they don’t have the time or the inspiration anymore, maybe it is time to think about retirement.  No matter what, it is time to stop turning over the creative process to a string of producers and then being disappointed because the album did turn out as planned and sounds “over-produced”.
 
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 23, 2016, 02:03:46 PM
Does anyone actually know who is producing SOE anyway or have they already gone through 3 or 4 producers?  Or maybe they are just having trouble finding a producer to take the job, as I'm sure most producers out there know U2's history of how they record by now and what no part of it. ;D
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: an tha on February 23, 2016, 02:18:35 PM
I would really like u2 to just set up like they do live and record....they are much, much more powerful live than on record and whilst i appreciate it isn't quite that simple when making a record it would be good if they could stay as close as possible to that live sound and leave the production to a minimum/make it more similar to their live sound.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 23, 2016, 02:24:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would really like u2 to just set up like they do live and record....they are much, much more powerful live than on record and whilst i appreciate it isn't quite that simple when making a record it would be good if they could stay as close as possible to that live sound and leave the production to a minimum/make it more similar to their live sound.
\
Yeah, I really like how Springsteen records his albums.  You get the feeling of everyone playing.  with SOI it just sounded like each member came in at separate time and did their take and then they slapped it all together which I know sometimes that is how it's done nowadays  but still it shouldn't come across like that.  They got to get across like it is 4 guy playing in a room, which SOI failed to do-way to slick and over-produced.  NLOTH at times had that feeling, like MOS, they just got to do it for a full album.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 23, 2016, 03:08:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I completely agree with the opinions here that U2 have done way too much tinkering with the last two albums... They need to stop bringing in various producers to re-work songs and dragging out the process to the point where the original inspiration they had for the album is lost.  On the last album, they angered many fans by delaying the original release date for months.  We found out later this was because they made the iPhone 6 release deal with Apple. That move that ended up generating mostly negative press. It may not be fair, but U2 has lost some respect with the general public in the last few years.  U2 has been one of the greatest rock bands in the world for over 30 years, but they are now in their twilight years and their attitude should be “go big or go home”.  By "go big" I mean having a big idea for an album (like they’ve had on many previous albums) and then following thru on that creative vision in the studio working with one or two primary producers.  If they don’t have the time or the inspiration anymore, maybe it is time to think about retirement.  No matter what, it is time to stop turning over the creative process to a string of producers and then being disappointed because the album did turn out as planned and sounds “over-produced”.

you touch on an interesting point... do these guys even have inspiration any more?  One of the producers (or maybe it was Jimmy Iovine?) told B he needed to go to a different (mental) place for the record...

almost as if, what is left for them to write about.  They clearly have no rage, are well established political groupies (as Sharon Osbourne has said) and you have to wonder if this is a big part of the problem.  When you feel the need to write anthems all the time, it's gotta be difficult
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Giga Razor on February 23, 2016, 05:43:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would really like u2 to just set up like they do live and record....they are much, much more powerful live than on record and whilst i appreciate it isn't quite that simple when making a record it would be good if they could stay as close as possible to that live sound and leave the production to a minimum/make it more similar to their live sound.
\
Yeah, I really like how Springsteen records his albums.  You get the feeling of everyone playing.  with SOI it just sounded like each member came in at separate time and did their take and then they slapped it all together which I know sometimes that is how it's done nowadays  but still it shouldn't come across like that.  They got to get across like it is 4 guy playing in a room, which SOI failed to do-way to slick and over-produced.  NLOTH at times had that feeling, like MOS, they just got to do it for a full album.
I wouldn't use Springsteen as a yard stick of how music should be done 20 guys prancing around on stage like they are  at an adult glee convention,and most of his recent output is bland and uninteresting,and its over cooked way more than U2s.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 23, 2016, 06:54:42 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
I would really like u2 to just set up like they do live and record....they are much, much more powerful live than on record and whilst i appreciate it isn't quite that simple when making a record it would be good if they could stay as close as possible to that live sound and leave the production to a minimum/make it more similar to their live sound.
\
Yeah, I really like how Springsteen records his albums.  You get the feeling of everyone playing.  with SOI it just sounded like each member came in at separate time and did their take and then they slapped it all together which I know sometimes that is how it's done nowadays  but still it shouldn't come across like that.  They got to get across like it is 4 guy playing in a room, which SOI failed to do-way to slick and over-produced.  NLOTH at times had that feeling, like MOS, they just got to do it for a full album.
I wouldn't use Springsteen as a yard stick of how music should be done 20 guys prancing around on stage like they are  at an adult glee convention,and most of his recent output is bland and uninteresting,and its over cooked way more than U2s.

I believe Boom Boom was referring to the desire to have a more organic feel to the recording process which is often present on Bruce's recordings and nowhere to be found on SOI ("slick and overproduced"). I don't know that your other points have much to do with that, respectfully. 
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Neil Young, man! on February 24, 2016, 02:23:45 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 would really like u2 to just set up like they do live and record....they are much, much more powerful live than on record and whilst i appreciate it isn't quite that simple when making a record it would be good if they could stay as close as possible to that live sound and leave the production to a minimum/make it more similar to their live sound.
\
Yeah, I really like how Springsteen records his albums.  You get the feeling of everyone playing.  with SOI it just sounded like each member came in at separate time and did their take and then they slapped it all together which I know sometimes that is how it's done nowadays  but still it shouldn't come across like that.  They got to get across like it is 4 guy playing in a room, which SOI failed to do-way to slick and over-produced.  NLOTH at times had that feeling, like MOS, they just got to do it for a full album.
I wouldn't use Springsteen as a yard stick of how music should be done 20 guys prancing around on stage like they are  at an adult glee convention,and most of his recent output is bland and uninteresting,and its over cooked way more than U2s.

I believe Boom Boom was referring to the desire to have a more organic feel to the recording process which is often present on Bruce's recordings and nowhere to be found on SOI ("slick and overproduced"). I don't know that your other points have much to do with that, respectfully.

Well all the same, "adult Glee convention" made my day. Great thread, agree with many that a faster, more organic recording process would be fresh. U2 needs to sound like U2 to be interesting.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 24, 2016, 03:36:35 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 would really like u2 to just set up like they do live and record....they are much, much more powerful live than on record and whilst i appreciate it isn't quite that simple when making a record it would be good if they could stay as close as possible to that live sound and leave the production to a minimum/make it more similar to their live sound.
\
Yeah, I really like how Springsteen records his albums.  You get the feeling of everyone playing.  with SOI it just sounded like each member came in at separate time and did their take and then they slapped it all together which I know sometimes that is how it's done nowadays  but still it shouldn't come across like that.  They got to get across like it is 4 guy playing in a room, which SOI failed to do-way to slick and over-produced.  NLOTH at times had that feeling, like MOS, they just got to do it for a full album.
I wouldn't use Springsteen as a yard stick of how music should be done 20 guys prancing around on stage like they are  at an adult glee convention,and most of his recent output is bland and uninteresting,and its over cooked way more than U2s.

I believe Boom Boom was referring to the desire to have a more organic feel to the recording process which is often present on Bruce's recordings and nowhere to be found on SOI ("slick and overproduced"). I don't know that your other points have much to do with that, respectfully. 
Thanks, that's what I was trying to get at.  the feel and sound of the recording.  what he is going on about after that I don't get.  Springsteen and E street band are great muscians and do great live shows.  To say that his albums are way more over cooked than U2's is a joke.  I don't know what he is listening to.  To say his most recent output is bland and uninteresting is his opinion but I loved Wrecking Ball and High Hopes and went to the wrecking ball tour and to be honest crowd reaction to when Springsteen plays a new song is way better than when U2 played a new song from SOI.  Just saying, Springsteen audience seems to know the whole material more so than U2 audience who are mainly there to hear the hits and which U2 seem eager to please and deliver the hits to them and yet they go on and on about not wanting to become a hits act.  Well stop playing them then!!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Neil Young, man! on February 24, 2016, 04:43:48 AM
Not sure I agree about the reception Bruce gets for new songs, it is mostly about the hits - and rarities - which Brice is better at bringing out. A few reasons for this is that he plays for an extra hour compared to U2, that many of his songs are easier to play (his 20 musicians, no backing tapes) and that his imagery is, well, that adult Glee crew. I am a Bruce fan but he is very, very different to U2 in every way imho. I do agree that U2 should copy his no nonsense recording process.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on February 24, 2016, 05:41:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not sure I agree about the reception Bruce gets for new songs, it is mostly about the hits - and rarities - which Brice is better at bringing out. A few reasons for this is that he plays for an extra hour compared to U2, that many of his songs are easier to play (his 20 musicians, no backing tapes) and that his imagery is, well, that adult Glee crew. I am a Bruce fan but he is very, very different to U2 in every way imho. I do agree that U2 should copy his no nonsense recording process.
But even if bruce played the same amount of time as U2, A springsteen audience is not going to cry in the beer if he sings a newer song like Wrecking Ball (great crowd reaction when played currently on the River Tour) or say rarity like he did last night playin Growin' Up and a song like Youngstown at say the expense of playing Born in the USA, badlands.  It would not be the end of the world.  God forbid if U2 played a song like Surrender or A sort of Homecoming instead of Pride or WOWY.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Neil Young, man! on February 24, 2016, 06:21:32 AM
Not this U2 fan! Growin' up and Youngstown, love it. Add Pointblank and it is perfect. I think Bruce is worried about pleasing his long time fans and their kids, while U2 (unsuccessfully) is trying to win the pop kids.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 24, 2016, 06:51:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not this U2 fan! Growin' up and Youngstown, love it. Add Pointblank and it is perfect. I think Bruce is worried about pleasing his long time fans and their kids, while U2 (unsuccessfully) is trying to win the pop kids.

I went to three MSG shows this tour.  In my opinion, compared to other tours I have been too, the crowd was pi*s poor overall, especially with the new tunes. I'm aware that many on this forum were happy with the crowd response this tour but for me, it was embarrassing. The entire phone things is whole other topic that obviously affects the entire vibe of the show.  This of course also has to do with the stagnant nature of the setlist. Bruce is very good at pleasing long time fans and their kids. U2 is good at pleasing the casual fans with the same old tired warhorses tour after tour. Problem is, those casual fans are more interested in posting instagram pictures and telling people that they were at a U2 show as opposed to actually participating in the show. They were energy vampires that sucked the life out of the room. Pathetic. Not what I look for in a live show. We can joke about Bruce's band looking like an adult glee convention but the passion and energy kicks ass and the crowd responds to that. Not to bring it up again but the same holds true for Pearl Jam shows just as another example. The U2 shows I was at almost felt like I was at an acoustic set in a sit down theatre for the aforementioned reasons. They really have to rethink their approach IMO. Like Adam said, start making music for themselves and music that speaks to them and I (we) will follow. 
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Behind the Barricade on February 24, 2016, 07:50:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not this U2 fan! Growin' up and Youngstown, love it. Add Pointblank and it is perfect. I think Bruce is worried about pleasing his long time fans and their kids, while U2 (unsuccessfully) is trying to win the pop kids.

I went to three MSG shows this tour.  In my opinion, compared to other tours I have been too, the crowd was pi*s poor overall, especially with the new tunes. I'm aware that many on this forum were happy with the crowd response this tour but for me, it was embarrassing.

Maybe that's just New Yorkers for you.  I thought the crowd enthusiasm at my London show was great.

Quote
The entire phone things is whole other topic that obviously affects the entire vibe of the show.  This of course also has to do with the stagnant nature of the setlist. Bruce is very good at pleasing long time fans and their kids. U2 is good at pleasing the casual fans with the same old tired warhorses tour after tour. Problem is, those casual fans are more interested in posting instagram pictures and telling people that they were at a U2 show as opposed to actually participating in the show. They were energy vampires that sucked the life out of the room. Pathetic. Not what I look for in a live show.

How do you know this applies only to, or mainly to, casual fans?  I wouldn't mind betting that longstanding U2 fans are also serial phone offenders too.

Quote
We can joke about Bruce's band looking like an adult glee convention but the passion and energy kicks ass and the crowd responds to that. Not to bring it up again but the same holds true for Pearl Jam shows just as another example. The U2 shows I was at almost felt like I was at an acoustic set in a sit down theatre for the aforementioned reasons.

So this is basically another "U2 are sh**e and other artists are ace" Post?

Quote
They really have to rethink their approach IMO. Like Adam said, start making music for themselves and music that speaks to them and I (we) will follow.

I actually think this U2 cycle (album and tour) is their best since 2000/2001 or even 1997/1998.  Songs of Innocence is largely made up of personal songs written about their youth, and on this tour they played arenas in both America and Europe.  Even many of the warhorses sounded more energised than they have for a number of tours and you think they need to rethink their approach?  Did it take you THREE shows to come to that conclusion?
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 24, 2016, 09:10:20 AM
Barricade:Maybe that's just New Yorkers for you.  I thought the crowd enthusiasm at my London show was great.

great relative to what? Again, if you read my post, I referenced comparing it to other tours. For me, it used to be like a spiritual experience going to a U2 show. Not anymore.

Barricade: How do you know this applies only to, or mainly to, casual fans?  I wouldn't mind betting that longstanding U2 fans are also serial phone offenders too.

Agree with you 100%. The phone obsession is just a vibe killer!!

Barricade: So this is basically another "U2 are sh**e and other artists are ace" Post?

Not quite buddy. I enjoy the band. I have for 30+ years. Just pointing out some things that I personally wish were different from the band I grew up with. Why don't you shoot for an intellectual exchange which might make your posts a little more intriguing and interesting, Sort of what a forum is for? Step out from behind the barricade and the rose colored glasses you appear to wear regarding your boys who can seem to do no wrong. I really believe you have it in you!! 



Barricade: I actually think this U2 cycle (album and tour) is their best since 2000/2001 or even 1997/1998.  Songs of Innocence is largely made up of personal songs written about their youth, and on this tour they played arenas in both America and Europe.  Even many of the warhorses sounded more energised than they have for a number of tours and you think they need to rethink their approach?  Did it take you THREE shows to come to that conclusion?

Actually no. It was 6 shows, two of which were abroad. 65 shows over the years, but that's not the point.  And thanks for the reminder that they played arenas. Whilst, I almost forgot. I totally agree that it's their best record since 2000. The tour however did not do it for me, didn't resonate or touch me as much. Other than Bullet, the "more energized" warhorses were bland and mostly mailed in. I will make the small assumption that you enjoyed One as a crowd sing a long. All said, it sounds to me like you are one of those fans who loves U2 so unconditionally that anyone who may have an opinion that does not express complete and total adoration for the band,  you get all hot and bothered. That's the beauty of music, some tunes touch us some don't. But to worship every thing a band does seems silly to me. You can do better. Feel free to keep the dialogue going, but without the immature digs would be great though!

Computer Wacked out, couldn't reference quotes properly.   
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Philaboy1971 on February 24, 2016, 10:57:28 AM
In and Out Burger, the best burgers by far.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Behind the Barricade on February 24, 2016, 11:04:13 AM
On "The phone obsession is just a vibe killer", I'd get used to it on any tour you go and see, including, dare I say it, Springsteen tours, because that's the technology of the world we're living in and concert-goers, regardless of being casual fans or longstanding U2 fans, are going to want to take pictures or film the show.

You also complain about "the stagnant nature of the setlist" as having a negative affect on the mood of the audience and yet previous tours such as Zoo TV and PopMart had stagnant setlists too.  Did it have a similar affect on the audience at those shows?

I definitely didn't think the band mailed in Electric Co., Vertigo, I Will Follow, SBS, UTEOTW, BTBS, Pride or WOWY at my show.  And as for the One, I thought it was a cool way to close the evening.

It's also interesting that you went to see as many as SIX shows on this tour when you were so obviously underwhelmed by the band's performances.  Did you buy that many tickets in gleeful anticipation of the tour having been blown away by the incredibly awesome 360 shows?


Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 24, 2016, 12:28:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
On "The phone obsession is just a vibe killer", I'd get used to it on any tour you go and see, including, dare I say it, Springsteen tours, because that's the technology of the world we're living in and concert-goers, regardless of being casual fans or longstanding U2 fans, are going to want to take pictures or film the show.

You also complain about "the stagnant nature of the setlist" as having a negative affect on the mood of the audience and yet previous tours such as Zoo TV and PopMart had stagnant setlists too.  Did it have a similar affect on the audience at those shows?

I definitely didn't think the band mailed in Electric Co., Vertigo, I Will Follow, SBS, UTEOTW, BTBS, Pride or WOWY at my show.  And as for the One, I thought it was a cool way to close the evening.

It's also interesting that you went to see as many as SIX shows on this tour when you were so obviously underwhelmed by the band's performances.  Did you buy that many tickets in gleeful anticipation of the tour having been blown away by the incredibly awesome 360 shows?

Good point on the technology thing. I wasn't sure if most people had smart phones these days. But seriously, I understand the desire to take a photo or record a song or two. Its all about balance I suppose. I beg to differ regarding the overgeneralization of "any tour you go and see" though. Not comparing music of course but I've seen some acts recently where the phones were a non-factor whatsoever (Phish, Alabama Shakes, Pearl Jam) and the crowds killed it.

Less phones = better crowd response.  So, the stagnant nature of popmart and zoo tv setlists was much less of a factor obviously due to the year they were performed.  Additionally, the band delivered those songs with more passion, energy and enthusiasm that really carried the shows. Hence the crowd responded much more to that passion and energy. We won't even go into the quality of the new tunes during those tours compared to now  because that would be too obvious. 

I'm glad you enjoyed those tunes at your show. One MSG show that I went too they played Gloria and October which was massive. Good passion, great delivery.

"Gleeful anticipation"....dripping with sarcasm!! Very Witty. Actually, when the band initially said the back to back nights being different shows I was pumped and locked in. But of course, we know what happened with that. Overthinking and afraid to disappoint casual fans who paid top dollar for tickets so out came the parade of warhorses to make the button ups happy. The abroad shows I attended (Ireland) were a gift. Good times. 360 was exceptionally un-fulfilling for me, especially being in stadiums. My hope with the arena shows and back to back nights being different would rekindle the spirit for me. I was wrong. Hopefully, if SOE delivers, I can look more forward to seeing the band I grew up with.

Good dialogue here. But again  is there anything the band does that you wish might be a little different. Things that don't resonate with you? Are you a new fan? 
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Behind the Barricade on February 24, 2016, 01:24:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good point on the technology thing. I wasn't sure if most people had smart phones these days. But seriously, I understand the desire to take a photo or record a song or two. Its all about balance I suppose. I beg to differ regarding the overgeneralization of "any tour you go and see" though. Not comparing music of course but I've seen some acts recently where the phones were a non-factor whatsoever (Phish, Alabama Shakes, Pearl Jam) and the crowds killed it.

Cool. Not only are Pearl Jam all round awesomeness personified but the awesomeness extends to their fans too.  Bravo Pearl Jam.

Quote
Less phones = better crowd response.  So, the stagnant nature of popmart and zoo tv setlists was much less of a factor obviously due to the year they were performed.  Additionally, the band delivered those songs with more passion, energy and enthusiasm that really carried the shows. Hence the crowd responded much more to that passion and energy. We won't even go into the quality of the new tunes during those tours compared to now  because that would be too obvious.

So you don't have a problem with the relatively stagnant set-lists per se?  The passion, energy and enthusiasm bit is pretty subjective, but I'm sorry you didn't feel it.

Quote
I'm glad you enjoyed those tunes at your show. One MSG show that I went too they played Gloria and October which was massive. Good passion, great delivery.

So your time wasn't entirely wasted then.

Quote
Actually, when the band initially said the back to back nights being different shows I was pumped and locked in. But of course, we know what happened with that.

You must have felt incredibly disappointed when you found out the back to back different shows - based on tenuous evidence (Bono's talk) - weren't going to happen, but I admire your fortitude in soldiering on and sitting through all six of your shows despite your lack of enthusiasm - the mark of a true fan.  At least you got plenty of time to watch the crowds' lack of 'participation' and enthusiasm.

Quote
Overthinking and afraid to disappoint casual fans who paid top dollar for tickets so out came the parade of warhorses to make the button ups happy.

They were never not going to play the warhorses, all your previous experience of seeing U2's shows would surely have forewarned you so.  Far from 'overthinking' I wouldn't be surprised if U2 didn't give it any thought whatsoever. 

Quote
Hopefully, if SOE delivers, I can look more forward to seeing the band I grew up with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY8APrYU2Gs  :)

Quote
But again is there anything the band does that you wish might be a little different. Things that don't resonate with you?

Well maybe if Adam would give me a smirk and Bono blow me a kiss then that would be the icing on the cake for me.

Quote
Are you a new fan?

Relatively speaking.

Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on February 24, 2016, 02:08:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
On "The phone obsession is just a vibe killer", I'd get used to it on any tour you go and see, including, dare I say it, Springsteen tours, because that's the technology of the world we're living in and concert-goers, regardless of being casual fans or longstanding U2 fans, are going to want to take pictures or film the show.

You also complain about "the stagnant nature of the setlist" as having a negative affect on the mood of the audience and yet previous tours such as Zoo TV and PopMart had stagnant setlists too.  Did it have a similar affect on the audience at those shows?

I definitely didn't think the band mailed in Electric Co., Vertigo, I Will Follow, SBS, UTEOTW, BTBS, Pride or WOWY at my show.  And as for the One, I thought it was a cool way to close the evening.

It's also interesting that you went to see as many as SIX shows on this tour when you were so obviously underwhelmed by the band's performances.  Did you buy that many tickets in gleeful anticipation of the tour having been blown away by the incredibly awesome 360 shows?

Good point on the technology thing. I wasn't sure if most people had smart phones these days. But seriously, I understand the desire to take a photo or record a song or two. Its all about balance I suppose. I beg to differ regarding the overgeneralization of "any tour you go and see" though. Not comparing music of course but I've seen some acts recently where the phones were a non-factor whatsoever (Phish, Alabama Shakes, Pearl Jam) and the crowds killed it.

Less phones = better crowd response.  So, the stagnant nature of popmart and zoo tv setlists was much less of a factor obviously due to the year they were performed.  Additionally, the band delivered those songs with more passion, energy and enthusiasm that really carried the shows. Hence the crowd responded much more to that passion and energy. We won't even go into the quality of the new tunes during those tours compared to now  because that would be too obvious. 

I'm glad you enjoyed those tunes at your show. One MSG show that I went too they played Gloria and October which was massive. Good passion, great delivery.

"Gleeful anticipation"....dripping with sarcasm!! Very Witty. Actually, when the band initially said the back to back nights being different shows I was pumped and locked in. But of course, we know what happened with that. Overthinking and afraid to disappoint casual fans who paid top dollar for tickets so out came the parade of warhorses to make the button ups happy. The abroad shows I attended (Ireland) were a gift. Good times. 360 was exceptionally un-fulfilling for me, especially being in stadiums. My hope with the arena shows and back to back nights being different would rekindle the spirit for me. I was wrong. Hopefully, if SOE delivers, I can look more forward to seeing the band I grew up with.

Good dialogue here. But again  is there anything the band does that you wish might be a little different. Things that don't resonate with you? Are you a new fan?

Mr. Red - you're trying to have a respectful dialogue with an individual who either does not share that desire, or does not understand how to do it.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Mr. Red on February 24, 2016, 02:21:37 PM
Ok behind the barricade. I tried brother but you have too much unresolved anger and a lack of maturity and respect for yourself to have a healthy dialogue. It's a shame because you do seem to have a certain level of passion that's so sadly misguided. I wish you well that you may one day step out of the darkness, out from behind the barricade, away from your fears and into the light. May I recommend some Mindfulness. I've engaged enough. Over and out. 
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: The Exile on February 24, 2016, 02:34:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok behind the barricade. I tried brother but you have too much unresolved anger and a lack of maturity and respect for yourself to have a healthy dialogue. It's a shame because you do seem to have a certain level of passion that's so sadly misguided. I wish you well that you may one day step out of the darkness, out from behind the barricade, away from your fears and into the light. May I recommend some Mindfulness. I've engaged enough. Over and out.

Well played. You're a gentleman and a scholar.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Behind the Barricade on February 24, 2016, 05:41:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok behind the barricade. I tried brother but you have too much unresolved anger and a lack of maturity and respect for yourself to have a healthy dialogue. It's a shame because you do seem to have a certain level of passion that's so sadly misguided. I wish you well that you may one day step out of the darkness, out from behind the barricade, away from your fears and into the light. May I recommend some Mindfulness. I've engaged enough. Over and out.

You spent more time telling me what you think I am and what you think I need to do than actually debating.  Disrespectful I'd say.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Waffles on February 24, 2016, 06:36:20 PM
Jesus loves everyone
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: The Edges Cat on February 25, 2016, 01:56:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jesus loves everyone

Except the money changers. He hates those guys.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: fresno dave on February 25, 2016, 02:21:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is my "theory" based on recent media. Edge has obviously been in LA as we've seen on Instagram and his TMZ interview and he specifically said he was in thes studio earlier. Adam has posted a picture of two of LA art. Bono just posted a photo of in-n-out hat which are only located in California. Larry rarely posts anything or is sighted; so all of this leads me to conclude the band in finally working on SOE in 2016! They're probably at shangri La studio as that's where they last worked on SOI.
There are In N Outs in Texas, Utah, Arizona, about 12 in  Las Vegas Nevada etc.  But that's just a technicality.  The band are not likely to be recording in any of those other states (:
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: riffraff on February 25, 2016, 06:41:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jesus loves everyone

yup, even the disrespectful!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: sulphur76 on February 29, 2016, 03:39:07 PM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Pocket Merlin on February 29, 2016, 05:45:33 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

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: iehomecoming on March 01, 2016, 08:40:55 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

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on March 01, 2016, 03:54:18 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

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

Yes but all those bands are comprised of full time musicians not part time musicians/activists/celebs like U2 are.  So you are really being unfair to our lads.   Can Geddy Lee call up popes and presidents?  I dont think so.  So there.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: iehomecoming on March 01, 2016, 05:46:55 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

Yes but all those bands are comprised of full time musicians not part time musicians/activists/celebs like U2 are.  So you are really being unfair to our lads.   Can Geddy Lee call up popes and presidents?  I dont think so.  So there.

Oh I thought we were talking about music. My bad.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: dirtdrybonesandstone on March 01, 2016, 06:20:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Achtung_Dublin on March 01, 2016, 06:25:39 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

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Here we go again with their balls.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Daniel94 on March 01, 2016, 06:41:03 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

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Why don't you consider AB a great album? How would EBTTRT have benefited from being longer than 4 minutes?
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: dirtdrybonesandstone on March 01, 2016, 07:07:36 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

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Why don't you consider AB a great album? How would EBTTRT have benefited from being longer than 4 minutes?

The only ones that think U2 had more than one GREAT album are us townies from this fan site.  There was a lot going with that song; non-typical subject matter, Edge was actually on fire, etc.   The Perfecto Mix is an example of its potential in expanded length.    There is much to be said of the individual cuts from AB but it's the only one from that era that I still listen to.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: iehomecoming on March 01, 2016, 08:46:19 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

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Here we go again with their balls.

It's not about their balls. It's about their LACK of them at times.

ATYCLB, HTDAAB, the evil 3 of NLOTH, SFS, etc.

Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on March 01, 2016, 09:08:51 PM
SFS... I was told that I would feel nothing the first time, and the second time, and the 500th time...
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: The Edges Cat on March 01, 2016, 11:24:36 PM
Balls? I'm pretty sure Bono and Edge have had the snip. I know the signs, after what Edge made the vet do to me...
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Pocket Merlin on March 01, 2016, 11:56:16 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

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

Yeah, I guess Rush is a good example of a prolific rock band (although I don't really care for most of their music).

I also didn't realize what workhorses Led Zeppelin were until I just went back and looked at their discography.

I guess I am biased because U2 are the only older band I see today trying to still exist in the forum of the general public, popular music audience, and still trying to create vital music that steps outside of things they've done before and seeks new fans rather than just resting on their laurels. In other words, striving for relevance (that word that seems to be a curse word around here). As Bono says, it's easier to be successful than it is to be relevant. Don't see Springsteen doing what they're doing, don't see Rush doing it or anyone at their age and level except maybe RHCP.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: iehomecoming on March 02, 2016, 08:48:34 AM
Well, "relevance" is a curse word because it can't be defined in the context of comparing musical artists.

By bringing in relevance to the discussion you effectively move the goalposts so that only U2 can then be the band that fit the revised criteria (longevity, acceptance, output, and now "relevance").

Who is more relevant, Chvrches or Iron Maiden ? Well by the measure of how many people actually buy the records or go to the concerts, it's Iron Maiden, but I'd venture that most people here would say Chvrches. Why ? No idea.

I like SOI, more so than any U2 album since Pop, but mostly it's hardly new territory with the exception of The Troubles and maybe SLABT. Especially side 1 which is a lot weaker than Side 2. The release method also is something I have no issue with, but it was almost a "we give up" message, "we know you won't buy it so we're going to give it to you". U2 is more like Springsteen or Rush than people want to admit, they have their fans, they have a canon of greatness, and people will go to concerts no matter what or how bad or good their latest efforts may be. No one is going because they heard The Miracle or SFS and thought "who's that ? , gotta go check them out".

I used Rush and Springsteen and Maiden as comparisons because they are all old timers still putting out new music that they as artists believe in and that fans want to hear. All absolutely "relevant" in my mind because they are still pushing themselves as artists. It's not like say ZZ Top who have also been around as long but rarely play any new material live, but just go out, mail in the classics and collect a paycheck. Rush's final album was a universally acclaimed concept album, one of the strongest of their career and they toured behind it with a String section on tour with them (much of the new material had strings) but they also incorporated them into their older material too, not afraid to try something new even as they approach 60. I'm sure Springsteen is playing his mew stuff and he still mixes it up every night. Iron Maiden just released a double album for the first time in their career, with some of their longest songs and  is giving the fans heavy doses of the new stuff and the fans are loving it and actually clamoring for more new material (Empire of the Clouds being on everyone's "please play it live" list, an 18-minute epic)

So as far as not resting on laurels, others are doing it too, and being artistically relevant, I'd personally love to see U2 STOP trying to be all things to all people and just make music they believe in rather than music they think might get on the radio (talk about anachronisms) and gain mass acceptance. They HAVE mass acceptance already, they can tour WITHOUT a new album if they want, just give us more Troubles and SLABT and less SFS !

Sorry for my long winded rant. Back to regularly scheduled programming.



Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: SlyDanner on March 02, 2016, 09:53:53 AM
I saw Foreigner on TV over the weekend, a show broadcast from a small theater near New York City.

It was very, very sad.  And I loved Foreigner when I was a kid.  It was the very definition of Heritage Act.  That is what U2 do not want to become.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Daniel94 on March 02, 2016, 11:24:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Why don't you consider AB a great album? How would EBTTRT have benefited from being longer than 4 minutes?

The only ones that think U2 had more than one GREAT album are us townies from this fan site.  There was a lot going with that song; non-typical subject matter, Edge was actually on fire, etc.   The Perfecto Mix is an example of its potential in expanded length.    There is much to be said of the individual cuts from AB but it's the only one from that era that I still listen to.

Hold on. That is simply untrue. I think it's safe to say that most older music fans think AB is a great album, and music review sites clearly do so as well.

The perfecto mix is so cringeworthy, especially the women singing "take me higher." The beat is generic and weak, and larry and adam aren't even on it. Edge's guitar is also pretty much absent. The original song is far more interesting. One of the greatest things about U2 is they're genuine. This remix just sucks the life out of the song. 
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: bass slap on March 02, 2016, 02:58:28 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

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


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

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

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

It's funny, because it's true!!

In terms of output vs. time passed, no, they're not prolific anymore. In terms of the number of quality albums and songs they've released over a 35-year career? Show me a single rock band who's anywhere close.

That's very subjective.

I would personally point to Rush and Iron Maiden over a similar or longer period, or could point to someone like Led Zeppelin putting out more quality material in one third of the time. Other who like that kind of stuff could probably point to Springsteen, Bowie, etc. U2 hasn't put out a GREAT album in the last 20 of those 35 years.

U2 only had one GREAT album (TJT).    I believe they had the talent to pull off another great one, but it never materialized.     They robbed us all by ending EBTTRT at under 4 minutes.   A sign of things to come.   I wanted to hear a ten to fifteen minute long masterpiece from them.    If only they had the b---- to do that.

Why don't you consider AB a great album? How would EBTTRT have benefited from being longer than 4 minutes?

The only ones that think U2 had more than one GREAT album are us townies from this fan site.  There was a lot going with that song; non-typical subject matter, Edge was actually on fire, etc.   The Perfecto Mix is an example of its potential in expanded length.    There is much to be said of the individual cuts from AB but it's the only one from that era that I still listen to.

Hold on. That is simply untrue. I think it's safe to say that most older music fans think AB is a great album, and music review sites clearly do so as well.

The perfecto mix is so cringeworthy, especially the women singing "take me higher." The beat is generic and weak, and larry and adam aren't even on it. Edge's guitar is also pretty much absent. The original song is far more interesting. One of the greatest things about U2 is they're genuine. This remix just sucks the life out of the song.

Pretty widely recognised in and out side of u2 camps that they have 2 classic albums. Perfecto mix being the only salvageable item from AB? not such a common belief....
Although perfecto was great back in the day, aged quickly like most club sounds.
They got their 3rd one out with zooropa and pop, then had it surgically removed before proceeding with the next 4 albums. Speaking of which, news is slow on soe.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: The Edges Cat on March 04, 2016, 03:40:06 AM
It's March already. U2 have been quiet this year.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: boom boom on March 04, 2016, 05:39:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's March already. U2 have been quiet this year.
My guess, they are on a vast search of producers who's careers they can ruin.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Peter Parker on March 04, 2016, 06:40:56 AM
Very short with Adam. After 29:00. The reporter is rushing it. Feels like Adam wanted to tell more about SOE :(.
http://www.todayfm.com/player/listen_back/9/27362/03rd_March_2016_-_The_Paul_McLoone_Show_Part_2
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: Volcanogirl on March 04, 2016, 07:21:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Very short with Adam. After 29:00. The reporter is rushing it. Feels like Adam wanted to tell more about SOE :(.
http://www.todayfm.com/player/listen_back/9/27362/03rd_March_2016_-_The_Paul_McLoone_Show_Part_2

Thanx for posting. Yeah !! She could have asked a bit about the work they are doing.  ::)
But .... lovely to hear him! His voice sounds relaxed ...  :)

Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: riffraff on March 04, 2016, 09:19:40 AM
I still can't believe that I got to meet that calm, serene, very very very cool guy. Am I the luckiest girl in the world, or what?
He does sound relaxed in the interview...hopefully that means that the studio work is really going well.
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: ian ryan on March 04, 2016, 11:09:01 AM
Well, they're definitely in the studio.

https://www.facebook.com/u2/photos/a.55092266685.69297.5678046685/10154512386016686/?type=3&theater
Title: Re: Rumor by waffles: U2 in Los Angeles for SOE
Post by: PookaMacP on March 05, 2016, 11:51:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, they're definitely in the studio.

https://www.facebook.com/u2/photos/a.55092266685.69297.5678046685/10154512386016686/?type=3&theater

Cue questions about who's wearing the Metallica hoodie...