Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jreed

U2 has one album left in them after Experience

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, berrigan2101 said:

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.

I think I took what you said out of context.  I like the new album.  I live in America.  I'm not aware of reviews and hype, save what I read on U2.com.  I also don't pay attention to whomever produces whatever until after I'm over the initial high of the new release, and I've formed my own opinion.  I'm not saying you have done this.  I got sick of artistic works being taken hostage by others who live on the peripheral boundaries.  For me, this happened in the nineties when, 'grunge',  hit the runways of fashion designers.  I decided I need to keep the music for myself and F#@k what the periodicals and TV say about it.  

I forget that it's very different in other countries.

I think they'll be making music until they are no more. The periodicals and TV people will be saying how wonderful U2 was where said leeches once clung to every single vulnerable spot possible and criticized U2 because it meant better ratings.

I love this band.  I don't like talking about the end.  It will happen, hopefully, as the powers that be see fit.

Edited by Manohlive
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Manohlive said:

I think I took what you said out of context.  I like the new album.  I live in America.  I'm not aware of reviews and hype, save what I read on U2.com.  I also don't pay attention to whomever produces whatever until after I'm over the initial high of the new release, and I've formed my own opinion.  I'm not saying you have done this.  I got sick of artistic works being taken hostage by others who live on the peripheral boundaries.  For me, this happened in the nineties when, 'grunge',  hit the runways of fashion designers.  I decided I need to keep the music for myself and F#@k what the periodicals and TV say about it.  

I forget that it's very different in other countries.

I think they'll be making music until they are no more. The periodicals and TV people will be saying how wonderful U2 was where said leeches once clung to every single vulnerable spot possible and criticized U2 because it meant better ratings.

I love this band.  I don't like talking about the end.  It will happen, hopefully, as the powers that be see fit.

Haha I think we have both gotten our signals crossed:D 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.

 

Edited by berrigan2101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, berrigan2101 said:

Haha I think we have both gotten our signals crossed:D 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.

 

That is what I thought you meant.  I agree.  They are a very large scale rock band.  I think the thing that differentiates them from the Stones is that they are still putting out great music.  I realize this is subjective.  Many people love the music.  I can't remember anything anyone liked by the Stones in a very long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes a lot for me to say this guys, but I agree with the earlier poster. On a purely selfish level I actually think this would be the perfect time to call it a day. Everyone of the band have major interests outside of music (or the band) which they can pursue if so wished. Don't get me wrong....I absolutely love SOE and think that songwriting wise, Bono is on top form......just wonder how much longer the old body will hold up? I LOVE U2....(I don't say that lightly). They have been a constant in my life for about 30 years. I would just like them to go out on a huge high!!!!! Peace.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe this will be the last tour proper , and who can blame them . I reckon the albums will carry on a good while , maybe a change of format but they won't just stop composing , how can you , they apparently all get on so no issues there , Adams the only one with young children , again sure he would want to carry on , seems to have taken on more promotion this time anyway . 

Still think live shows will carry on but maybe not tours possibly 2/3 shows and a month off another 2/3 and so on . I agree the stadium tour was supposed to be I@E not Joshua but circumstance , not just Trump took over , Adams baby , Bono's health and so on .....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2017 at 5:49 PM, judas1 said:

Also, we've never seen a rock band. that have been on top for long, 40 years, been best friends for the entire time, made so much money, made so many relevant albums, (with some hiccups, according to them and critics ( not most of us U2 fans), sold out so many tours, been a media darling with no fallouts or distractions, make sure that their causes work and are relevant, seem to really enjoy what they are doing, and don't just go through the motions of being in a rock band, and had the best manager in the business

That is a very good point.  I can't think of another band where all of this is true.  It's got a be addictive to play and have all of us going nuts and singing and jumping and dancing.  Perhaps the question should be how long can we do that?  haha

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why anyone would sit there and wonder if this is the last album.  They have been saying that about U2 since the 90's.  In the old day's,  lot's of bands broke up, and most of them got back together, if they weren't dead, or a drug addict.  U2 circumvented that, by not being drug addicts, or breaking up.  They took some real time off between albums, and it helps that they actually made some real money and could have afforded not to tour all the time.  If you were them, why would you retire, it's easy to say, I've made my millions and I want to retire, but put yourself in their position.  They have made the money, the glory etc, they all have their side projects, so they can't say, all I've done is the music and I need something more.  They take time to smell to flowers.  Why wouldn't you continue doing this, at your pace, as they have done, until you aren't able to do it.  Everyone is living into their 80's and 90's, and these guys have the best in medical care.  Sit back and enjoy the ride, and if they come out one day and say this is it, mourn or do whatever you have to at the time. There is so much more to to enjoy than mourning the death of your favorite band, when they haven't even given you a reason to think they want to retire.  If you really look at it in another light, there gust bust the asses when they want to make an album and when they are off, they are enjoying their lives in the south of France.

Enjoy life my friends, there is more out there in life, if you look.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These kind of predictions about the final tour/final album of a big band are pretty common.   U2 are now in a very very small and special group of still-active multi-generational bands who continue to make original music and can sell out a tour in minutes.  Their only rival in this respect is the Rolling Stones (massive Stones fan btw, hopefully seeing them live this year too!).  The Stones will stop, just like AC/DC did, when one of them passes.  While they can still sing and play, they'll continue doing what they love  What else could they do?  Same goes for U2. From what I saw at Twickenham last year, they still sound great live. What possible reason would there be to stop now?  The Stones btw haven't released an original album since A Bigger Bang in 2005.  But they have toured relentlessly, albeit in smaller and slower-paced way, since their 50th anniversary celebration in 2012.  I can easily visualise U2 continuing like this for another ten to fifteen years.   The comparator bands in the OP don't stand up to scrutiny (Beatles: stopped touring in 1966, split in 1970/Led Zep: split after Bonham's death in 1980, 11 year career.  Nirvana: seriously?!  Saw them live, terrible.  Cobain was a physical and emotional wreck and wanted out, had he not killed himself, I think In Utero would've been it anyway).

 

Edited by bf2152
More rants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone studied the Ticketmaster maps for the shows?

Thousands of seats unsold.  $680 for a "platinum" seat?  $330 to sit up top?  $106 for behind the stage?

It's sad.  This is not "selling out in minutes."

They are wonderful, yes.  God willing, I will see my 50th show in May.

But let's be honest.  They appear to be over-rating themselves.

As far as the Stones go, I don't get the criticism.  They have been very strong in the live shows I've caught in the past 3-4 years.  Always fun and exciting.  Charlie Watts is astonishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...