Quote
steverogan
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.

Very true, and Bono's voice was remarkable at the show I saw (Boston last year).

I don't know if he quit smoking, or if there was a little trickery going on, but he was hitting every note and soaring all night. He's been a bit raspy at times the last few tours, but last year he sounded brilliant.

I think they are one of the great r n r bands left at the upper levels. Like most, I prefer the 80's U2. Under a Blood Red Sky is their Ya-Ya's.

i was into u2 in a big way till about 1988 when the stones took over my interest, in hindsight i feel u2 stopped developing the way the stones did through the 70,s. the early songs of u2 could never be matched by anything post 1987, ok they still made good songs but they lost a lot of energy in the music and concert set lists seemed to neglect the first 4 albums which in my opinion made u2 a classic band but they became so far removed from these early songs which is a real shame.

u2 will always figure in my top 10 though, just not number 1.

It's interesting to read that concert goers are connecting with U2. All I've heard from them lately is the iPod album they forced on the world. I thought it was unlistenable. But I could tell U2 you was in there somewhere. The Joey Ramone song: the guitar riff makes me want to turn it down. What is the effect thing? It's the Digi-ooze guitar effect. Stop it. That's not even a guitar anymore. Of course the Edge can really play. I just wish he would do his regular sound.

I'm another one of those guys that prefers the 80's U2. However, Achtung Baby was their Sgt. Pepper in my opinion. But all the previous albums were great for me. They started losing it on Zooropa then hit the bottom with Pop, again my opinion. Fast forward to now, I liked the tour last year, even the pop-ish songs were okay with me. Hope the future is good to them and us!

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa





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.

Yes, I agree: I thought "All that you cant leave..." was a great album.But after that - Like keefriff says - they now play it safe. The 'main' songs on 'Atomic Bomb' to me are the worst. Completely calculated towards stadium consumption. The "Blinding Lights" song..
Re. Classic status albums - I think "Joshua Tree" is unquestionably a classic. "Achtung Baby" is also way up there; in terms of daring it should be ranked even higher. My only issue with 'Achtung' is that I always felt it should have ended with "trying to throw your arms..".

Quote
keefriff99

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.
Very true, and Bono's voice was remarkable at the show I saw (Boston last year).

I don't know if he quit smoking, or if there was a little trickery going on, but he was hitting every note and soaring all night. He's been a bit raspy at times the last few tours, but last year he sounded brilliant.

I was at two of the Boston shows and at MSG ( final show of the leg) great! They have a special bond with Boston. Played the Paradise when they were just starting out.

I got into U2 thanks to Roy Orbison's "She's A Mystery To Me" which Bono and Edge have written. However, they almost lost me when I had mailordered the UK bonus track CD of "How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" on the strength of the lead single "Vertigo", and everything on there appeared as kind of lifeless except the bonus track "Fast Cars". Of their albums since then, "No Line On the Horizon" has got a few good songs but it's obvious to me that they just didn't have enough new songs for it, and "Songs Of Innocence" is a pretty good album as far as the songwriting and playing are concerned but a lot of the tracks sound like they could be Bono solo material because the anthemic and hymnic qualities of the rest of their work are not really there in most of the musical arrangements.

Bono admits to being coached after the 'Pop' album, which I loved and still do, to write songs in "happier" chord progressions. I think that change, beginning with All That You Can't Leave Behind, lends a somewhat lightweight quality to much of their later music. Still, they have not produced anything that I would call lazy, or weak... Just not as deep and dark sounding as their older material. I miss that, but when you're in the same band for 38 years, you have a right to take a few turns here and there.

There's some good stuff on SONGS OF INNOCENCE. But it's not a high ranking U2 LP like JOSHUA TREE or ACHTUNG BABY or ALL THAT YOU CAN'T LEAVE BEHIND.

POP has some interesting songs on it but it's probably their weakest LP (although RATTLE & HUM is bizarrely bad).

I think U2 is - today - a fascinating topic. There's no denying that they are a great band; one of the Greats. As time marches on, it becomes harder and harder to achieve iconic rock band status. The Net, our overall cynicism, and the way technology and fashion have changed what pop music is - the 4,5 piece band of rebel rockers is not really needed anymore. So when one breaks through it's a great thing.
But they have taken such a phenomenal fall from grace; has there ever been an act that was so revered, and fell so low? On the coolness meter?
It makes me wonder, what really happened here?

Quote
It makes me wonder, what really happened here?

They became too introspective?

To speak for meself, it`s a demanding task to talk of a band that I don`t really know, or I could say, I know them foremost intuitively. On the other hand, you don`t really listen to stuff that don`t appeal to you. -But why don`t they appeal to me? Well, they bring in a lot of contemporary stuff that to me is uncool, such as TV, supermarkets, the digital world. On the other hand, trying out previous musical styles often leaves the listener with an impression that he has heard it all before. They try to occupy a role today equal to what The Stones posessed yesterday. They are the new messengers, the pure and real thing, I guess many think.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I think U2 is - today - a fascinating topic. There's no denying that they are a great band; one of the Greats. As time marches on, it becomes harder and harder to achieve iconic rock band status. The Net, our overall cynicism, and the way technology and fashion have changed what pop music is - the 4,5 piece band of rebel rockers is not really needed anymore. So when one breaks through it's a great thing.
But they have taken such a phenomenal fall from grace; has there ever been an act that was so revered, and fell so low? On the coolness meter?
It makes me wonder, what really happened here?

I'm only 38 so I don't know, but was U2 ever really cool? Obviously they've been commercially successful for almost 40 years, but Weren't they always looked at as overly-earnest and pompous, even during the '80s?

And as far as falling from grace...I don't know about that. Their tour last year was a massive success by all accounts. They're certainly not going anywhere...their new music is met with a lot of indifference, but how is that different from most bands who are together that long? Think about it: U2 is almost in the "40 Licks" stage of their career, and they still put out new music with far more frequency than the Stones were doing in 2002-2003.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's unbelievable that U2 is technically at the exact same point as the Stones were in 2002 when they did 40 Licks (U2 formed in 1976).

Quote
GasLightStreet
...
POP has some interesting songs on it but it's probably their weakest LP (although RATTLE & HUM is bizarrely bad).

Really? Pop is better than Rattle & Hum? Wow!

** edit ... I'd have to rank that up there w/ those that claim Dirty Work as a classic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-15 17:06 by LeonidP.

Quote
steverogan
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.

Didn't get to see U2 live on their last tour but I bought the blu ray of the Paris show and was very impressed with creative stage design. Clearly, a huge amount of thought goes into their shows. Although some of their more recent songs don't do it for me, I respect them for having the integrity to get behind their contemporary material and play it live. I only wish I could say that about another band...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
GasLightStreet

...
POP has some interesting songs on it but it's probably their weakest LP (although RATTLE & HUM is bizarrely bad).

Really? Pop is better than Rattle & Hum? Wow!

** edit ... I'd have to rank that up there w/ those that claim Dirty Work as a classic.

Yes. I understand your point about DIRTY WORK and the lunacy of that but R&H is disturbingly bad. It was probably more of a move from Island Records than U2. It's just a weird album. It's as if they caught the beginning of the headache of a hangover from being drunk on the JOSHUA TREE tour (similar to how the movie was perceived) and didn't deal with it. Besides, it's not like it's a full on studio album (it's too bad it wasn't).

Maybe part of why I don't like it so much is because it's "the soundtrack" to the movie which is just - there's very little about the movie that's good.

POP has some really good tunes on it - Gone, Last Night On Earth, Playboy Mansion, Miami, Staring At The Sun, If You Wear That Velvet Dress, Do You Feel Loved, Please.

Are they great? Gone is the one great track on POP. So no. But that's how much I dislike R&H (this is about the equivalent of me praising TSMR over DW).

POP has some really bad tracks on it too: Discotheque is just painful (the B-side was a thousand times better) but If God Will Send His Angels is possibly the worst song U2 has ever done - or at least recorded and released. It is horrendous. Mofo is... I like it but I don't like it. The just-the-band version had more movement to it. Still wasn't very good though.

Quote
keefriff99
I'm only 38 so I don't know, but was U2 ever really cool? Obviously they've been commercially successful for almost 40 years, but Weren't they always looked at as overly-earnest and pompous, even during the '80s?

I'm even younger so I'm not positive, but I was under the impression that around the time of Live Aid when they really "broke" they were absolutely considered "cool". Still a bit underground I think, but nonetheless the "cool" band. I think that still continued over till Joshua Tree, and only started to get "pompous" with Rattle And Hum. But again, I wasn't there. It seemed though they were definitely cool at the time, and it was only after the Joshua Tree that it became a bit much.

Totally agree on your fall from grace assessment though. Yeah they are the butt of many jokes, but they are still widely loved and do very well. The reason they get laughed at so much is because they do a lot of things other bands, new or old, don't. Make their own iPod, put their new album on Apple for free. Its all good marketing, but because you need "integrity" people kind of make fun of it. I'm not saying I've agreed with everything they've done, far from it. But they've become the band everyone loves to hate, even though most really have no reason for it. They just put themselves out there a lot and that pisses people off, even though thats how you have to sell music these days.

U2 were YUGGGGGE in 1986-87 and then again in 1992-93 but on a smaller scale.

That's it. Unless you want to count 360 as the biggest of all time considering what they did.

Quote
GasLightStreet

...Maybe part of why I don't like it so much is because it's "the soundtrack" to the movie which is just - there's very little about the movie that's good...

BB King is in the movie!!

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
GasLightStreet
...Maybe part of why I don't like it so much is because it's "the soundtrack" to the movie which is just - there's very little about the movie that's good...

BB King is in the movie!!

So what! He's also full of shit!

Quote
GasLightStreet
...Maybe part of why I don't like it so much is because it's "the soundtrack" to the movie which is just - there's very little about the movie that's good...

BB King is in the movie!!

So what! He's also full of shit!

Well he's dead, but he was 'the man'! I got to see him play near the end, it was fantastic! I've seen U2 too, the BB King show ranks far higher for me than the U2 show.

I don't think the movie is that bad. I just saw it rather recently actually and its got some killer performances in there. I also don't think they come off too braggadocios or anything. Its no Stop Making Sense or anything, but its also not trying to be. Its a document of that tour which, in their own words, blew up to be a full length film which was never really the point. But for what it is I think you get some really good performances and some great new songs on it.

My favorite part of R+H is when BB King says during rehearsal, "I'm not that good with chords..." BB King. Guitar legend. Not that good with chords. :^)

Pop is my favorite U2 album. I'm not saying it's their best, but it is my favorite. I love the statement, I love the dark themes, I don't think there is a weak song there and the great ones are so great they went over many people's heads. "What is U2 DOING?!" I remember people saying, even at the PopMart show in '97. PopMart, and Pop, just went over a lot of folks' heads. It was postmodern commercialism in your face, golden arch and everything.. "And a big mac.. is bigger than you think..." To me, Pop ends an incredible trilogy of postmodern rock and roll albums (Achtung Baby --> Zooropa --> Pop). Everything since has been lighter weight.

Lots of other bands did this.. The Moody Blues to me is the most extreme example, going from brilliant experimental crossover orchestral psychedelic rock in the late 60's/ early 70's to cheese-synth-pop in the 80's and beyond. But Bowie lightened up after Scary Monsters (possibly my favorite of all Bowie albums), Springsteen got way less deep and intense for a period from '83 until '95. I think artists just hit overload, putting so much creative energy into a statement for so long. Eventually, they just want to make their fans dance and sing along.

Quote
RollingFreak
I don't think the movie is that bad. I just saw it rather recently actually and its got some killer performances in there.

Agreed. This is my favorite performance from Rattle and Hum...

video: [youtu.be]

nice thoughts in this thread. to ne POP was the last time U2 tried to be cutting edge. after that they have nice albums but its just milking the U2 sound of old

I too love POP. Like Tate says, even if there is a song I;m not wild about, I lover the statement. And I remember: the whole notion of the "K Mart Tour".

And I also loathe Rattle & Hum. It is summed up in that dreadful, dreadful debacle of "Still Havent Found What Im looking for". In its original this is one of the most beautiful songs written. But Everything about the scenes in film that have to do with this song are... man, in the end it makes me want to laugh. Embarrassing.

Maybe if Bono would back off from mixing politics and charity and focus more on the music they could recapture some of their glory days. Actually I'm in agreement with most everything Bono is involved in but I think it's getting in the way. Perhaps they will make something like Blue and Lonesome? And by the way they were considered cool, relative and cutting edge through Zooropa. It started going side ways with the release of POP. No offense to the people that like it but I only like a few of the songs. I think they've already said the next album is going to be something similar to this. Personally I hope not. I've been a fan of theirs since 1984.

I think the emotional energy of politics has fueled the creative power of U2 since the early days. Artists write songs about what moves them.