U2 Songs of Innocence

eviltimeban

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I agree, but people are very sensitive over their music collections. I personally wouldnt want a Jay-Z album added to my catalogue without asking for it but I agree that the reaction has been completely ridiculous. I wouldnt say there'll be too many groups lining up to follow the trend that this has set!

I get your point. It sets a precedent. What if Apple decided to do this every month, every week? Your iTunes would be full of things you don't want.

PropJoe10

eviltimeban wrote: »

I get your point. It sets a precedent. What if Apple decided to do this every month, every week? Your iTunes would be full of things you don't want.

Exactly. Its just a shame that this marketing strategy has taken away pretty much completely from what is an excellent record on its own merits. I would say it was more Apple's decision than the bands to force it into people's catalogues, but who knows.

weadick

eviltimeban wrote: »

Jaysis Adam looks haggard doesn't he?

Still the coolest bass player around though!

MisterAnarchy

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Agreed, those songs are awful. HTDAAB was a really poor album i thought, some real crap filler on there along with a few good tracks. After Love & Peace Or Else, I thought the album was pure filler. This new one is light years ahead of that.

Sometimes You Cant Make it on your Own is a brilliant song .
Miracle Drug and City of Blinding Lights are quality too and Yahweh is also a superb song live .
All of those 4 songs heavily featured on the Vertigo Tour and went down a storm live.

I actually hated Love & Peace or Else ,worst song on HTDAAB by a long way ,almost as bad as Get on Your Boots .

PropJoe10

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Sometimes You Cant Make it on your Own is a brilliant song .
Miracle Drug and City of Blinding Lights are quality too and Yahweh is also a superb song live .
All of those 4 songs heavily featured on the Vertigo Tour and went down a storm live.

I actually hated Love & Peace or Else ,worst song on HTDAAB by a long way ,almost as bad as Get on Your Boots .

I like Sometimes... but the rest of the songs you mentioned are awful, in my view. Pure U2-by-numbers. I liked Love and Peace or Else because its trying to do something different. Different strokes for different folks dude

OU812

I'm having a tough time with SOI. It's a million times better than the last album, which I listened to about four times, but I can't really get into it much at all.

I think the big problem with it is they're not really relevant anymore. Sure they've stripped it back & reinvented themselves again, & I'll look forward to the tour, but the basic is gone very bland. I overheard someone say it wouldn't be out of place as background music in a supermarket.

I think this will be it for them. Wrap it all up & go home. The energy has gone out of the music & when I go see them live, it'll be like going to see the rolling stones. I just wanna experience the old stuff live, nobody cares about the new stuff anymore.

NIMAN

Yeah, they will become a Greatest Hits band, that's what people will want to hear as they will not be getting any new converts to their music, it'll be the older folk who have been following them all along and who want to hear their good stuff.

The hype around their live shows isn't what it used to be either. I remember the excitement about getting tickets for their earlier shows, but the last time they played Croker I had no interest in going.

PropJoe10

OU812 wrote: »

I'm having a tough time with SOI. It's a million times better than the last album, which I listened to about four times, but I can't really get into it much at all.

I think the big problem with it is they're not really relevant anymore. Sure they've stripped it back & reinvented themselves again, & I'll look forward to the tour, but the basic is gone very bland. I overheard someone say it wouldn't be out of place as background music in a supermarket.

I think this will be it for them. Wrap it all up & go home. The energy has gone out of the music & when I go see them live, it'll be like going to see the rolling stones. I just wanna experience the old stuff live, nobody cares about the new stuff anymore.

You could argue that their releases havent been "relevant" since Pop or even before that, I guess, but there's still some fine new tunes on the new album, I've been enjoying it alot more than I thought I would. If they can continue the quality level on this album then they should go on making new music. No harm in it, they've got a back catalogue thats good enough to justify whatever new stuff they come up with. Looking forward to seeing them again on the tour next year.

johnpatrick81

I was sick when the gig was on so completely missed the last tour, but it did look like it missed the mark on the Rose Bowl release. Too diluted or something, not raw enough.

There's no doubt their relevance and spark is fading. It'd be a miracle if it didn't. Hopefully they can get to a stage soon where they are comfortable in themselves and forget about being the biggest band in the world, winning over everyone, and just pleasing themselves and their fanbase.

But in addition, they are a million miles from "Rolling Stones greatest hits roadshow with musicians in the background actually playing the music" status. I can't wait to hear this new album live. It's one of the first they could easily play every song live.

eviltimeban

I disagree with the irrelevancy claim, for the simple reason that I don't think U2 were ever relevant. Maybe in the 80s, but as soon as the 90s kicked in, pre-AB, they were not cool, not relevant. I felt Zoo TV and AB was them 'ironically' striving for relevance by throwing everything into the pot, TV, CNN, Salman Rushdie, all the rock star trappings. But they weren't grunge and they weren't Britpop or techno or any of the other things going.

For Pop they were probably at their coolest, but still - they were guys in their 30s trying to be a big stadium rock band playing music that younger people developed - techno, trip hop, sampling etc - so could you say they were relevant? While musically they were / are geniuses, that doesn't mean they were the zeitgeist or the cutting edge. Zooropa and Pop *were* very cutting edge, which proved they could do it, and Passengers was perhaps niche-relevant. But anyway, I don't think any of that takes away from the music.

That's what bugs me a bit - Bono's striving for relevance. Why? Why not just be happy to make good music? Is Paul McCartney relevant? (I don't mean "Beatle Paul", who will always be relevant) Probably not in terms of today but he's going through a purple patch at the moment with his recent music. And U2 could either opt into this ideal and go against expectations (again) or become their own tribute group, a la the Stones.

I'd rather U2 be relevant to themselves, to their fans, instead of what they think "people" want. Because believe me, whatever they do, they'll always be five years behind. Young people consume music now in ways that are unfathomable to people in their 50s, let alone 40s and 30s. Dance music, even rock is all made different, sold different, and performed by people nowadays you'd never expect to see doing it. Where's the rock stars? There aren't any. All the big bands, none of those guys could you say are rock stars. Two Door Cinema Club? Ed Sheeran? The only ones that come close are Kasabian and even they are getting on a bit (their schtick is becoming tiresome at that).

Anyway, I digress. Personally relevancy doesn't affect my opinion of anyone's music. The music will live on but we'll forget what was actually 'relevant' at the time.

SOI is a great little album.

johnpatrick81

it's true, where are all the big bands? If U2 are gonna get slated for not having hit singles, or for "selling out", etc, you could aim more or worse at their nearest competitors.

Radiohead - seemingly retired, King of Limbs was a bit of a damp squib, even their fans weren't overtly impressed and it certainly was nowhere near a hit.

Arcade Fire - Lost the plot on Reflektor, some shockingly bad songs and 1 or two crackers.

Coldplay - Chris Martin disappeared up his own ass with Ghost Stories. Also that Calvin Harris wannabe song Made of Stars or whatever screams sellout. Again one or two good songs does not make a good album.

Kasabian - largely ridiculed despite being a great live act. Already closer to Rolling Stones classics act than U2.

Kings of Leon - Ugh, what a waste. Gone from edgy raw rockers to writing backing music for Teen Mom 2.

The Strokes - missing in action.

I'm struggling here. Is there anyone? Now I love alot of the stuff the above bands have released. But I fail to see how any of them are anymore relevant than U2 at this moment in time. When ya look at it, the big bands are no more. And the smaller ones generally last an album or two at most.

coldcake

Should U2 not just say they are breaking up -give it say 8 or 10 years (not much longer than they usually wait between albums), wait for the nostalgia to build up - come back do a big tour and release an album to critical acclaim. In the meantime Bono can twat around and save the world, Larry can shine his Harley, Edge can get a hair transplant and Adam can get stoned and reply to dubious Nigerian emails and see how much money he can be scammed out of.

Regards

Paul McGuinness

eviltimeban

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

it's true, where are all the big bands? If U2 are gonna get slated for not having hit singles, or for "selling out", etc, you could aim more or worse at their nearest competitors.

Radiohead - seemingly retired, King of Limbs was a bit of a damp squib, even their fans weren't overtly impressed and it certainly was nowhere near a hit.

Arcade Fire - Lost the plot on Reflektor, some shockingly bad songs and 1 or two crackers.

Coldplay - Chris Martin disappeared up his own ass with Ghost Stories. Also that Calvin Harris wannabe song Made of Stars or whatever screams sellout. Again one or two good songs does not make a good album.

Kasabian - largely ridiculed despite being a great live act. Already closer to Rolling Stones classics act than U2.

Kings of Leon - Ugh, what a waste. Gone from edgy raw rockers to writing backing music for Teen Mom 2.

The Strokes - missing in action.

All those bands you mentioned formed at least 10 years ago. 20 in the case of Radiohead.

What's the future of rock now? Royal Blood? Without the gimmick of just one bass and drums would anyone care? I mean, I'm sure their music is great but would they just get lost in the ether without that? Same goes for the White Stripes. Jack White is talented but that doesn't matter - no one would've noticed if he'd fronted a regular four piece rock band (and he did - The Raconteurs - and no one cared)

And don't get me started on that Lee Mavers wannabe, Jake Bugg. Jake Ugh more like.

johnpatrick81

My favourite album of the past year was Wild Beasts. I was really looking forward to seeing them at EP. 4 albums in you would think they would have a solid live performance. They were extremely meh.

One band I forgot was the Arctic Moneys. They have a chance of growing. They've been largely consistent without setting the World alight and are really tight live. But they need something special to step up to the next level.

eviltimeban

Arctic Monkeys are nearly an old band now (first album was 2006 right?). Plus the singer has become a sort of ironic frontman himself.

There's no straight up, balls out, "I'm a fookin rock star" people around anymore. The only ones who seem to be living the hedonistic lifestyle are the EDM peddlers, and that music is pure chart fodder; absolutely no artistic value at all.

meglome

eviltimeban wrote: »

I disagree with the irrelevancy claim, for the simple reason that I don't think U2 were ever relevant. Maybe in the 80s, but as soon as the 90s kicked in, pre-AB, they were not cool, not relevant. I felt Zoo TV and AB was them 'ironically' striving for relevance by throwing everything into the pot, TV, CNN, Salman Rushdie, all the rock star trappings. But they weren't grunge and they weren't Britpop or techno or any of the other things going.

I think people forget that U2 have generally been out of step with 'fashion'. That was the norm but occasionally they would do something like Pop and that would change at least temporarily. Albums like War, the Unforgettable Fire and the Joshua Tree are products of their time but do not sound like their contemporaries. They don't do current very well and never have.


I like this new album, I think it's pretty good. More so that anything they have done in a long time. Probably the most personal record they have made.

PropJoe10

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

it's true, where are all the big bands? If U2 are gonna get slated for not having hit singles, or for "selling out", etc, you could aim more or worse at their nearest competitors.

Radiohead - seemingly retired, King of Limbs was a bit of a damp squib, even their fans weren't overtly impressed and it certainly was nowhere near a hit.

Arcade Fire - Lost the plot on Reflektor, some shockingly bad songs and 1 or two crackers.

Coldplay - Chris Martin disappeared up his own ass with Ghost Stories. Also that Calvin Harris wannabe song Made of Stars or whatever screams sellout. Again one or two good songs does not make a good album.

Kasabian - largely ridiculed despite being a great live act. Already closer to Rolling Stones classics act than U2.

Kings of Leon - Ugh, what a waste. Gone from edgy raw rockers to writing backing music for Teen Mom 2.

The Strokes - missing in action.

I'm struggling here. Is there anyone? Now I love alot of the stuff the above bands have released. But I fail to see how any of them are anymore relevant than U2 at this moment in time. When ya look at it, the big bands are no more. And the smaller ones generally last an album or two at most.

Its a fact that the music world is completely over-reliant on veteran acts. There's really no band that I've seen that has any chance of taking over from the likes of Springsteen, U2, Rolling Stones etc on the big concert touring list. One that you maybe missed there was Muse, but Matt Bellamy certainly disappeared up his own behind on their last record. Some of the worst, most pretentious bull**** that I've heard in quite a while.

johnpatrick81

I like Muse in small doses. And they do have the stadium rock appeal. But I sat down all excited to watch a recent gig of theirs on Sky Arts last week, and wow, it was tough going. U2 are in a different World to them. In a much better way.

Springsteen, now there is a man I like an admire but gets away with murder because he plays such long shows and is a likeable chap. He churns out the exact same music time and again and never receives anything like the backlash U2 get.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

I like Muse in small doses. And they do have the stadium rock appeal. But I sat down all excited to watch a recent gig of theirs on Sky Arts last week, and wow, it was tough going. U2 are in a different World to them. In a much better way.

Springsteen, now there is a man I like an admire but gets away with murder because he plays such long shows and is a likeable chap. He churns out the exact same music time and again and never receives anything like the backlash U2 get.

I think Springteen gets away with it because he's the Godfather of A very American brand of 'Heartland Rock' He was never associated with alternative/left of centre rock..(though much of his work is left of centre- Darkness,Nebraska ect.
U2 are despised because they achieved global superstardom in the 80s(and milked it!) yet still had 'alternative'credibility.Their critics wanted to lump them in with the Bon Jovis and Def Leppards but others associated them with R.E.M,New Order and Echo and the Bunnymen.

For example,Pitchfork Media( the hipster Bible) lavished praise on the band when reviewing the reissues of their back catalogue.This drives the detractors insane because it contradicts their perception of U2 as a 'big,jangly stadium band for the Everyman'.
Up until 1997 U2 were an alternative rock who were delighted to also be the biggest band in the world.A certain type of rock critic/fan can't forgive them for that.

johnpatrick81

One final point that seems to escape Springsteen fans and U2 critics is ticket prices. Springsteen plays the same show, no real big production, and milks his fans to the tune of minimum €90. U2 have never started the ticket prices above €60 yet would have more cause to. All these other "legends" charge 90 upwards.

PropJoe10

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

One final point that seems to escape Springsteen fans and U2 critics is ticket prices. Springsteen plays the same show, no real big production, and milks his fans to the tune of minimum €90. U2 have never started the ticket prices above €60 yet would have more cause to. All these other "legends" charge 90 upwards.

True words. I paid €32 for a ticket for the upper Canal End stand to see U2 on the 360 tour. Fantastic value and excellent seats for the money paid.

CarlowPerth

Introducing myself lads! Massive fan. My poor fiancé is drove mad with U2. Could be in a random moment of the day and Two hearts beat as one is plugged into the car and belted our like It was just released.

I LOVE this new album. It has me from the very start I think it's fantastic. I wish people would listen to the songs and then say the truth that it's brilliant and stop the bashing.

Point I made to a friend the other day is when AB came out you read the newspapers to see the review from someone employed to write it. Now every single gob****e in the world has a forum to slate it. "Music Websites" dreamed up by one direction era people have an opinion on the greatest band of all time. Boils my blood! I've let my ears be the critic and I love it.

Also, U2 can only be compared and measured against U2. How is that fair!! They are in their 4th decade of releasing music and have just put out an album that anyone in the world would be proud of!

Ireland's greatest export!!!

thegreengoblin

Do many of you go back to 'rediscover' albums when listening to new music by an established artist? I find at the moment I'm listening to Pop quite a lot. I've always loved that album but there are a few different things jumping out at me now that I didn't notice as much before. I think it's a sign of a truly great artist that you can get new things from old stuff in this way.

PropJoe10

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Do many of you go back to 'rediscover' albums when listening to new music by an established artist? I find at the moment I'm listening to Pop quite a lot. I've always loved that album but there are a few different things jumping out at me now that I didn't notice as much before. I think it's a sign of a truly great artist that you can get new things from old stuff in this way.

Yep, been listening to Pop and Zooropa quite a bit over the last week. Love those albums.

TCDStudent1

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Do many of you go back to 'rediscover' albums when listening to new music by an established artist? I find at the moment I'm listening to Pop quite a lot. I've always loved that album but there are a few different things jumping out at me now that I didn't notice as much before. I think it's a sign of a truly great artist that you can get new things from old stuff in this way.

I find this not just with music. I notice with really great comedies that I havent watched for a while that I end up laughing at something that I didnt really get the first time around.

OU812

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Do many of you go back to 'rediscover' albums when listening to new music by an established artist? I find at the moment I'm listening to Pop quite a lot. I've always loved that album but there are a few different things jumping out at me now that I didn't notice as much before. I think it's a sign of a truly great artist that you can get new things from old stuff in this way.

Read that book that was out a couple of years ago about the albums. Listened to each one as I read the chapter & got a whole lot more out of both the book & the albums as a result.

weadick

Well at least the 'Burmese Nelson Mandela' is no longer under house arrest so we won't have to listen to him harping on about her anymore..
That's something to celebrate at least.

Has anybody here ever gone abroad to see U2? The prospect of another Croke Park gig doesn't really excite me that much tbh.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

TIME sticking up for U2 http://time.com/3393297/u2-apple-new-digital-format/

2 vids on that page too. In the second Bono mentions Larry's son Elvis is gonna be on the front of the new album!

Have you seen the alleged album cover?If it's genuine(and I suspect it is) it's going to provoke one hell of a reaction......

You'll find it on the Interference fan site- I'd provide a link if my computer skills weren't so 20th century..

MisterAnarchy

weadick wrote: »

Has anybody here ever gone abroad to see U2? The prospect of another Croke Park gig doesn't really excite me that much tbh.

I've seen them abroad a few times .
Saw them indoors in Manchester for the Elevation tour ,best gigs I have ever been at .
Nice to see them up close in an indoor venue and with proper lighting effects .

Yep, been listening to Pop and Zooropa quite a bit over the last week. Love those albums.

Some quality stuff on there.
Reminds me of years ago a buddy of mine used to go into a phonebooth after every night on the tear and start winding up taxi companies looking for a taxi in his best Mr McPhisto impersonation.
Absolute legend .

johnpatrick81

Skyla Spoiled Macrame wrote: »

Have you seen the alleged album cover?If it's genuine(and I suspect it is) it's going to provoke one hell of a reaction......

You'll find it on the Interference fan site- I'd provide a link if my computer skills weren't so 20th century..

Thanks for the tip, and wow!(yes people, it's his son, but, haha yeah, this will indeed get a reaction. The American fans are already losing the plot:D