berrigan2101

Subscriber (paid)
  • Content count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About berrigan2101

  • Rank
    Numb

Recent Profile Visitors

151 profile views
  1. i got mine last week after ordering in November so not as bad as some people but mine looked like they're from 1987 given the condition they arrived in
  2. Haha I think we have both gotten our signals crossed I have seen as many good reviews as I have bad for the last two albums and like you I make up my own mind after I hear them and I think there are some great songs there but I also have an opinion as to why they sound the way they do. My point was the really about focusing on music and scaling back as they move forward and not playing into the role of being one of the worlds biggest rock bands . Anyone who puts an artistic product into the world will generate responses by the media which is purely subjective and when you operate at the scale of U2 everything is magnified, positive and negative. But I believe it is a two way street and that's what I meant by a lot of talk or talk of music and the music coming second. You can feed the machine by making grand statements, verbally or as an act (i.e. the SOI iTunes release) and those will be the things that get the attention and the music is held to impossible standards or may even by ignored. People have mentioned the Rolling Stones and that's what I fear might potentially happen to U2 where they become a caricature of a big rock band or a celebrities for celebrity sake and not for what they originally made their mark with. People like ourselves will always talk about their great songs, albums, tours etc but the press will play their part too as they are the ones who document it and I think they can do more to protect their legacy for the future than trying to be ’popular’ now by scaling back like I mentioned earlier.
  3. One studio, one producer, no overcooking it, no big social/political statement and no talk until a release date is confirmed. I think there has been too much talk of music and not enough music (I'd still love to hear the Rick Rubin material) which raises albums up to ridiculous expectations and pressure (commercially and artistically) that no band can live up, even the mighty U2. They could release The Joshua Tree tomorrow and it wouldn't sell 20 million copies simply because that musical economy doesn't exist anymore, nothing to do with the quality of the music itself so they could start by removing that burden of a 'big' release. It would probably be panned too because it will have been talked about for three years without us hearing a note and by the time the music arrives the media can be a bit U2-d out. The bands celebrity entity can surpass the music at times and people are almost conditioned to hate them as a result. The NME and the Guardian simply won't write a good word about them, the album reviews were practically written in advance if you ask me. I think if they said, here is our new album, some will like it, some won't and that's ok because we know people are still with us. I trust them to make the music after that.
  4. I think this has been interpreted in two ways, whether the band can physically do it or creatively do it. I think physically they could keep playing live for a few more years without a problem, as musicians I don't think they would slow down. With the exception of Larry the show isn't that physical for them as say Metallica as mentioned earlier. How Bonos voice and presence will hold up over the next few years though remains to be seen and that will just come down to age same as it would for anyone. They famously said the only way out of U2 is in a box so I don't think they intend to stop anytime soon, there are financial gains to be made remaining active but I don't think that would solely motivate them. Creatively I think that is really hard to predict, every U2 album is a leap off the edge (no pun intended) for everyone and I think it really can go either way these days. I don't think I'll ever abandon them but I do find myself wincing a bit more listening to some of newer songs and Bono's soundbites. A friend of mine, another huge fan, were talking about it recently and I said I think U2 have entered their second Rattle & Hum phase, the huge rockstar mega band, collaborating with other 'influential' artists or trying too hard to find a new audience if you will when the old one is perfectly happy and can easily sustain them. U2 look more like rockstars now then ever, leather jackets and trousers, studded belts and playing music like it, almost an old band trying to sound young, whereas if you look at TUF, JT or AB it sounds like a young band sounding wiser than their years. I personally think they have more in them musically but I think they need to almost pair things back and do it for themselves. Just being a band without trying to be the world's band. But it is hard to imagine them not being around though and for all the flack they get, especially here at home, people won't realise how important they were until they aren't around anymore.
  5. berrigan2101

    This SOE is shaping up to be a gem

    i haven't heard the new album yet (waiting on the postman) but i have listened to the new singles and i think you have a point. i have been a long time u2 fan, close to 20 years, and while i don't think i will ever give up on them i think in the last 6-7 years there has been what i would call a sheen to their records, even the band themselves, which i think you're referring to when you use the term boyband. i think the band have made a mistake in thinking that being relevant, which they have mentioned before, means having a big hit and unfortunately with mainstream music getting more perfectly processed and dumbed down the only way to have a big hit is to play the game. given the producers that they have been using recently i think it is evident that they are searching for that modern day radio hit and i don't think it's worked in their favour. i think their intentions are authentic but they start to overcook things and it just becomes too refined. they are still clearly relevant, any tour they do will show that there are tens of thousands of fans around the world but musically i think they need to just start looking inward rather than outward. all their great work has come when they ignored what was trendy at the time; 1980 punk/post punk - pissed off youth, screw authority, i'm angry/depressed - u2 sings about innocence of youth, personal and spiritual growth, unforgettable fire then went one further with a complete upheaval in their sound. the joshua tree couldn't have sounded more different to the synthesiser pop dominating the time, achtung baby flipped everything again and sounded nothing like anything in 1991 and i still think pop is a hugely under appreciated record which i think has been their biggest risk in their career. i still think they have great music in them and it can still happen but i think they are too aware of what people think of them and are now playing it safe in attempt to please them.