Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous1234567891011...LastNext
Current Page: 2 of 29
Re: OT: U2
Date: December 11, 2016 23:01

Quote
noughties
-Saw U2 live from Paris on telly last night. -Just couldn`t take it, maan. This is a vey calculating group. -Taking no risks. -Always sticking to the roots of rock `n roll. That`s why they`ll never be Emerson, Lake & Palmer. What posers! Ok, they have some good songs, but seem to want to be Chuck Berry for the internet age.

what risks do the stones take now?

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: beachbreak ()
Date: December 12, 2016 01:19

Whatever Edge plays is to enhance the song, the song is everything. He does a fine job on that account.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: Socrates1 ()
Date: December 12, 2016 02:13

Quote
LeonidP

Their first albums were great, imo.

Definitely! I was a huge U2 fan back in the day ... U2 and Psychedelic Furs were my 2 favorite non-Stones bands.

Boy & October, I played them to death! And I still liked them for a while after that (Rattle & Hum is one of my all time favorite albums). But then they did that POP album which I could barely listen to. After that, I really never listened to them again much, I think I downloaded their later albums after that, and gave them each a listen or two but that was it.


The POP album ruined U2 for me too. They were good up until Achtung Baby, and even Zooropa is somewhat interesting. ONE is a classic song. Daniel Lanois was involved with Acting baby and the ONE song, right? Joshua Tree = Lanois. I'm seeing a pattern here.

Rattle & Hum is a classic album too. Angel Of Harlem is a fun song and not self-conscious at all. I think Bono's writing became too self-conscious after the Rattle & Hum era. Uh, the POP album is so terrible. I was actually offended by POP because I really liked U2 before that.

Re: OT: U2
Date: December 12, 2016 02:34

funny i thought POP was the last album that sounded like U2 tried to create something and not just retread old ideas

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: Socrates1 ()
Date: December 12, 2016 02:37

It was way too POP sounding for me. That's how I remember it.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: noughties ()
Date: December 12, 2016 03:16

-Guess you`ll have to be quite cunning to call your album POP.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: LeonidP ()
Date: December 12, 2016 04:22

Quote
keefriffhard4life
funny i thought POP was the last album that sounded like U2 tried to create something and not just retread old ideas

Agreed, they just didn't do a good job with it, the songs are terrible.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: LeonidP ()
Date: December 12, 2016 04:26

Quote
Socrates1
It was way too POP sounding for me. That's how I remember it.

Yes, the thing is, I did give the more recent albums a listen or two and they actually aren't that bad from what I recall. They stop the ridiculous experimental crap. But the problem for me is ... that I lost so much interest in them (and find Bono to be too preachy) that I don't really care anymore.

But still, every once in a while, I'll play Boy/October (I had them back to back on a 45 min cassette back then, I wore that tape out), those are still great albums. And Rattle & Hum, that has about 8 or 9 songs that I love ... songs like All I Want, God Pt. 2, Angel, Love Comes To Town, it's simply great!

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: bitusa2012 ()
Date: December 12, 2016 04:27

Quote
RollingFreak
I'm a fan of U2, but definitely they get on my nerves at time. Haven't seen them live in 10 years, was offered tickets to this tour ..

What tour ? Sorry, you mean the recently completed one? Saw it in NYC at MSG. SPECTACULAR visuals, absolutely crappy sound.

Rod

Re: OT: U2
Date: December 12, 2016 04:35

Quote
LeonidP

funny i thought POP was the last album that sounded like U2 tried to create something and not just retread old ideas

Agreed, they just didn't do a good job with it, the songs are terrible.


I heard they were really upset with the mix

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: Socrates1 ()
Date: December 12, 2016 04:59

Quote
LeonidP

It was way too POP sounding for me. That's how I remember it.

Yes, the thing is, I did give the more recent albums a listen or two and they actually aren't that bad from what I recall. They stop the ridiculous experimental crap. But the problem for me is ... that I lost so much interest in them (and find Bono to be too preachy) that I don't really care anymore.

But still, every once in a while, I'll play Boy/October (I had them back to back on a 45 min cassette back then, I wore that tape out), those are still great albums. And Rattle & Hum, that has about 8 or 9 songs that I love ... songs like All I Want, God Pt. 2, Angel, Love Comes To Town, it's simply great!


They were the band from the 80s that everybody cared about. Did early fans want Bono to save the world? I don't know. I think the air of resentment toward U2 is about expectations that so many had for them (perhaps). And probably they've just sucked for a while. Their writing and production has been spotty throughout the 2000s and beyond. People aren't just making that up. You can't blame music fans for having good taste. It's probably digital's fault, somewhere along the line, too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-12 05:00 by Socrates1.

Re: OT: U2
Date: December 12, 2016 11:05

I Love the POP album. The songs are actually very strong.
I don't think U2 can be accused of playing it safe. They play all new songs; constantly radically re-inventing their stage show. I mean - Bono rides a bicycle. On a massive stage they strip it down with edge on a old piano, and only Bono on a mike. They bring up people from audience a lot, and one never knows how that will go. So it's not that.
IMO it is just the quality of the songs, and esp. the lyrics that has gone down, down. This medium tempo adult kind of crap; with always that one obvious single that has nothing to do with rest of album. They have sort of painted themselves into a corner; where Bono wants nothing more than to be considered one of the Great thinkers like Dylan, Lennon, and he has carefully built this platform for him and the band - yet he doesn't really have anything to say.
This is the fate of post generations; you have to find ways to become original and derivative. I thought this is also why Edge stumbled in the film "It will get loud".

I didn't get one sentence in OP's post: that part about ELP. Would it be a good thing to be like ELP??



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-12 11:09 by Palace Revolution 2000.

Re: OT: U2
Date: December 12, 2016 11:20

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I Love the POP album. The songs are actually very strong.
I don't think U2 can be accused of playing it safe. They play all new songs; constantly radically re-inventing their stage show. I mean - Bono rides a bicycle. On a massive stage they strip it down with edge on a old piano, and only Bono on a mike. They bring up people from audience a lot, and one never knows how that will go. So it's not that.
IMO it is just the quality of the songs, and esp. the lyrics that has gone down, down. This medium tempo adult kind of crap; with always that one obvious single that has nothing to do with rest of album. They have sort of painted themselves into a corner; where Bono wants nothing more than to be considered one of the Great thinkers like Dylan, Lennon, and he has carefully built this platform for him and the band - yet he doesn't really have anything to say.
This is the fate of post generations; you have to find ways to become original and derivative. I thought this is also why Edge stumbled in the film "It will get loud".

I didn't get one sentence in OP's post: that part about ELP. Would it be a good thing to be like ELP??

A very good post.

Let me add that I find the quality in their melodies gone as well. That was what fascinated me with their first albums. The engine started to halt a bit with Rattle And Hum. After Achtung Baby I didn't get it anymore.

Pop was an experiment, with which I tried to spend time to get it - but I didn't. Kudos to U2 for trying something new, but it didn't click with me.

Also, U2 were very powerful live in the early days, when there was some rebellion left (sounds familiar? winking smiley ).

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: December 12, 2016 11:26

Quote
Socrates1

Rattle & Hum is a classic album too.

Methinks they have NO classic albums, only classic songs ("New Year's Day" "With Or Without You" "One").
That's the main flaw with U2 (which disqualifies them as a great timeless band) they haven't a classic album in their catalogue, nothing of the caliber of "Sticky Fingers" or "Bringing It All Back Home".

But Bono is a master of self-promotion/self-agrandizzing schemes.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: Silver Dagger ()
Date: December 12, 2016 11:38

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Their first albums were great, imo.

The first one Boy is fantastic and sounded like such a breath of fresh air when it was released in 1980. I saw them when they played their residency at the Marquee and also as support on the great 1980 Remain In Light tour by The Talking Heads.
Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby are also really good.

Re: OT: U2
Date: December 12, 2016 12:12

Quote
dcba


Rattle & Hum is a classic album too.

Methinks they have NO classic albums, only classic songs ("New Year's Day" "With Or Without You" "One").
That's the main flaw with U2 (which disqualifies them as a great timeless band) they haven't a classic album in their catalogue, nothing of the caliber of "Sticky Fingers" or "Bringing It All Back Home".

But Bono is a master of self-promotion/self-agrandizzing schemes.

Joshua tree is a classic

Re: OT: U2
Date: December 12, 2016 14:04

Quote
keefriffhard4life



Rattle & Hum is a classic album too.

Methinks they have NO classic albums, only classic songs ("New Year's Day" "With Or Without You" "One").
That's the main flaw with U2 (which disqualifies them as a great timeless band) they haven't a classic album in their catalogue, nothing of the caliber of "Sticky Fingers" or "Bringing It All Back Home".

But Bono is a master of self-promotion/self-agrandizzing schemes.

Joshua tree is a classic

I'm not a big fan, but there is no doubt about Joshua Tree being a classic.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: noughties ()
Date: December 12, 2016 14:48

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I didn't get one sentence in OP's post: that part about ELP. Would it be a good thing to be like ELP??

Maybe not, but ELP`s first 3 albums were great. However, people don`t go down that road any more. -Seems like ELP has left a warning for future generations to come, but ELP sure was daring.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: RoughJusticeOnYa ()
Date: December 12, 2016 15:06

Quote
DandelionPowderman




Rattle & Hum is a classic album too.

Methinks they have NO classic albums, only classic songs ("New Year's Day" "With Or Without You" "One").
That's the main flaw with U2 (which disqualifies them as a great timeless band) they haven't a classic album in their catalogue, nothing of the caliber of "Sticky Fingers" or "Bringing It All Back Home".

But Bono is a master of self-promotion/self-agrandizzing schemes.

Joshua tree is a classic

I'm not a big fan, but there is no doubt about Joshua Tree being a classic.


Fan or no fan: "Achtung Baby" is as classic as any classic can get.

And their 'last great one' is "All that you can leave behind", imo.
Yep; it may sound as a bit of a rehash... but the songs on it are timeless.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: December 12, 2016 15:32

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Joshua tree is a classic

It's the U2 album that the closest to the "classic" status but on which ground? The 1st songs are classics but the rest of the album is just "okay material" "nice bunch of songs".

So that's 4 songs out of 11... JT's a semi-classic album then?

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: Socrates1 ()
Date: December 12, 2016 15:46

Joshua Tree is an unquestionable classic. Rattle & Hum, it could be argued... Aching Baby, not really....

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: beachbreak ()
Date: December 12, 2016 16:42

Definitely Joshua Tree.

All That You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (darn, I hate these titles smiling smiley ) are very solid too.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: December 12, 2016 17:21

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I Love the POP album. The songs are actually very strong.
I don't think U2 can be accused of playing it safe. They play all new songs; constantly radically re-inventing their stage show. I mean - Bono rides a bicycle. On a massive stage they strip it down with edge on a old piano, and only Bono on a mike. They bring up people from audience a lot, and one never knows how that will go. So it's not that.
IMO it is just the quality of the songs, and esp. the lyrics that has gone down, down. This medium tempo adult kind of crap; with always that one obvious single that has nothing to do with rest of album. They have sort of painted themselves into a corner; where Bono wants nothing more than to be considered one of the Great thinkers like Dylan, Lennon, and he has carefully built this platform for him and the band - yet he doesn't really have anything to say.
This is the fate of post generations; you have to find ways to become original and derivative. I thought this is also why Edge stumbled in the film "It will get loud".

I didn't get one sentence in OP's post: that part about ELP. Would it be a good thing to be like ELP??
This a great post.

After POP failed to catch on, U2 went back to their pre-Achtung Baby sound with All that You Can't Leave Behind, which I think is a brilliant album.

Ever since, they've played it safe. They haven't messed with their image or personae like they did in the '90s. I think POP really burned them, and they've played it pretty much down the middle ever since.

They've even stuck to fairly stripped-down indoor arenas for the past 16 years, except for the 360 tour, which is still the #1 grossing tour of all time, and will most likely remain that for the foreseeable future.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: tomcasagranda ()
Date: December 12, 2016 17:28

U2 - Yawn

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: drbryant ()
Date: December 12, 2016 18:16

Their new album sounded like it was written with stadium shows in mind, very calculating. But it wasn't bad, and I did see the tour in Denver and had a great time. That massive screen is a technological marvel.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: steverogan ()
Date: December 13, 2016 18:47

Safe to say I disagree.I found the last U2 tour to be very creative in its stage design,visuals. The three stages they used which provided everyone in the arena a chance to get a fantastic look was cool.I thought the band sounded fantastic. I saw 5 sows and they delivered each night. The first desert show for the Stones was an abortion. Keith @#$%& up the STFD solos,the "Come Together" cover sucked. The band looked uninspired and unprepared. Something I have seen too frequently in performances in the ABB and last USA tours. The poor playing, combined with the RIDICULOUS ticket prices, have ended my Stones shows. The value is not there any more. They were a great live band. They are far too inconsistent now.

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: Monsoon Ragoon ()
Date: December 13, 2016 18:52

I think for U2 bashing there are special U2 sites ;-)

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: pt99 ()
Date: December 13, 2016 18:53

They are boring

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: leteyer ()
Date: December 13, 2016 18:58

Quote
potus43
They are boring

Certanly alot less boring than you

Re: OT: U2
Posted by: laf848 ()
Date: December 13, 2016 20:04

I really like the Songs Of Innocence 2cd version, Great stuff IMO.

Goto Page: Previous1234567891011...LastNext
Current Page: 2 of 29


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1359
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home