GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by kris_smith87:[..]

    I think it is very cool that they want to try and remain fresh and current and relevant. If Madonna can attempt it and be successful then why can't. U2 give it a try?

    In the end I don't care which direction they go as I am sure I will enjoy it. They just need to make sure they have their hearts in it and that it is good.

    Does anyone here truly care about relevancy and current trends though? Madonna's just been chasing the same crap and failing miserably since 1998 with Ray Of Light, then it's been downhill from there (save for the mid-2000s album).

    If they can make dance music that sounds good but not current, I'll be all for it.
  2. It's somewhat of a vicious cycle, Drew.

    Labels and producers care about current trends, because they're "above" the art- they want the cash.

    This translates down to the artists because pressure is applied to formulate their albums to whatever will make the most money. Creative control still absolutely exists, but for artists without a concrete, definite sense of self and direction, this pressure can change the feel of an entire project.

    The current trend is given off by the public, so even if the public is ready for a change, it can be awhile before "big music" changes and the public are saturated with another style simply because the labels have picked up on something that they really like (or at least did for a long enough time to establish a trend), and they continually think that's the best way to make money.
  3. A vicious cycle indeed. We want them to try something different and maybe grow a set, branch out and see what worked. I'd even be down for U2 doing a trip-hop style album but instead get in Massive Attack.

    I guess they do what they do and if it works for them, great. It's not always going to be received well (2000 - 2004 I thought U2 had gone corp-shite as possible, then they came out with No Line and my view changed massively).

    I guess this is why dub-step has suddenly become so popular and so spectacularly rubbish, because those who run the business have seen it works and keep pushing it out there hard, even though it's tired. Precisely the reason mainstream music sucks constantly, but sometimes a gem comes through.
  4. "Sometimes a gem comes through"- precisely.

    I read somewhere recently that this EDM (Electronic Dance Music) phase will be on its way out in the next 6 or 7 years, and everyone that loved it as young adults will claim that it sucked- exactly like what happened to disco.

    But don't be surprised when one or two albums from this era are still massively considered classics in 20 years- much like the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack is, out of the disco era. Classic Bee Gees cuts that will (hopefully) never be forgotten, among an entire decade of pretty terrible music.
  5. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]


    Auto-tune? I know what auto-tune sounds like and it most definitely does not sound like that...


    But this version of Original Of The Species sounds like how I would think it would sound like if Bono and Edge had performed it for the Clinton Benefit concert.


    Maybe not auto-tune, but just like every 20xx album, Bono's voice is overprocessed. Maybe its not that bad, but prefer his 'live' voice (if its his 360 first leg voice that is).
  6. The Saturday Night Fever soundtrack, a classic regardless. Always, forever.

    Electronic dance music needs to go out of style to re-gain the greatness of what it really is. I really don't know the next style I'd be interested to see go big - I'd love a return to basic roots rock and roll but that isn't going to happen. Anyway we always have the classics - such as the aforementioned Bee Gees, relevant to any and all eras.
  7. Originally posted by kris_smith87:[..]
    ...
    In the end I don't care which direction they go as I am sure I will enjoy it. They just need to make sure they have their hearts in it and that it is good.


    what if they'd do a hardcore punk - death metal album? with hearts in it well intended

  8. I'd actually respect them massively for having the balls to do that.
  9. Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:

    U2 didn't go out and make themselves the biggest band in the world- the world decided that they were the biggest and the best in the late 80's and early 90's.


    true


    quite untrue
    "here what we are and do - fuck if you don't like it"

  10. me too .. they would be back in doing what they want to do and not what "people" want them to
    as it should be
  12. Originally posted by kris_smith87 In the end I don't care which direction they go as I am sure I will enjoy it.
    They just need to make sure they have their hearts in it and that it is
    good.


    Agree, agree, agree.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.