GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by AidanFormigoni:hahaha

    A friend of mine was in NYC and saw Robin Williams at the subway...his first thought was: Why Bono's taking the subway?

    He took a picture and showed it to me...they really look like brothers or relatives...

    and also why Robin Williams is taking the subway? hehehe
  2. The way I see it is that U2 is now what most would consider the "old guard." One thing people have mentioned is that the U2 of old doesn't exist anymore. This is absolutely right. In fact, if you listen to their albums, I'd say that U2 has gone through 3 distinctive phases. The first consists of all their post Achtung Baby material. The second would be Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop. The final stage of their evolution is obviously ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and NLOTH. Even with U2's increasing age, they have still managed to set the bar when it comes to their live act. That to me is far more impressive than releasing an album full of top 40 hits (because honestly speaking top 40 or anything of that sort consists of overplayed, cliche songs that don't deserve to be listened to).

    The article is correct in that some fans are being terribly unreasonable. They are expecting the same U2 that released Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby when the reality is that that group no longer exists. My personal opinion is that they should release albums less frequently since they obviously won't be producing at the pace they were before. In addition, they should focus on what has always been their bread and butter; their live act. As long as U2 can get on a stage and sell out venues, they are still relevant in the world of music. Once they lose the ability or desire to tour, they should stop and retire.

    And for the record, if U2 retired at this very moment, it wouldn't be long before music enthusiasts would start lamenting their loss. Just from watching the various televised musical performances from other "rising groups," none of them even have remotely the same force of stage presence that U2 has. With profits from album sales decreasing due to various factors, I believe music artists will be forced to tour just to stay relevant. When that happens, U2 is going to be the gold standard all acts are compared to.
  3. The final stage of their evolution is obviously ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and NLOTH

    are we sure it's an evolution? obviously??? ohmy
    i don't think so at all
  5. Originally posted by clover68: The final stage of their evolution is obviously ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and NLOTH

    are we sure it's an evolution? obviously??? ohmy
    i don't think so at all

    If so, they should better stop, or stop with making albums. I wouldn't appreciate another ATYCLB or HTDAAB.
  6. Originally posted by ahn1991:The way I see it is that U2 is now what most would consider the "old guard." One thing people have mentioned is that the U2 of old doesn't exist anymore. This is absolutely right. In fact, if you listen to their albums, I'd say that U2 has gone through 3 distinctive phases. The first consists of all their post Achtung Baby material. The second would be Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop. The final stage of their evolution is obviously ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and NLOTH. Even with U2's increasing age, they have still managed to set the bar when it comes to their live act. That to me is far more impressive than releasing an album full of top 40 hits (because honestly speaking top 40 or anything of that sort consists of overplayed, cliche songs that don't deserve to be listened to).

    The article is correct in that some fans are being terribly unreasonable. They are expecting the same U2 that released Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby when the reality is that that group no longer exists. My personal opinion is that they should release albums less frequently since they obviously won't be producing at the pace they were before. In addition, they should focus on what has always been their bread and butter; their live act. As long as U2 can get on a stage and sell out venues, they are still relevant in the world of music. Once they lose the ability or desire to tour, they should stop and retire.

    And for the record, if U2 retired at this very moment, it wouldn't be long before music enthusiasts would start lamenting their loss. Just from watching the various televised musical performances from other "rising groups," none of them even have remotely the same force of stage presence that U2 has. With profits from album sales decreasing due to various factors, I believe music artists will be forced to tour just to stay relevant. When that happens, U2 is going to be the gold standard all acts are compared to.

    I totally agree with all of this, except for the last paragraph. I think the music industry is such a "bring in the new thing" business that people would forget about U2 as bands like Coldplay and Muse get bigger and better. The same thing happened with Pink Floyd and The Stones. Yes they are still revered for their live performances even now, but it's not really the same thing. They have a legacy more than they have an actual standard. No I think people might say "You should've seen U2 though, amazing", but they'll never say "Coldplay was awesome, but they do NOT compare to U2". People generally don't form their opinions like that, especially fans of different bands. And we all know how much people love bashing U2.

    Of course I could be wrong, and I hope I am, because I think what you say SHOULD be the case. Reading From The Sky Down and seeing the pictures just reminds those who saw the show how amazing it was both performance-wise and spectacle-wise. It was the show of shows, and to me nothing will really be the same. But then again, we're all diehard U2 fans around here aren't we?
  7. Long story short, U2 should stop trying to "be relevant" because it's not something that's really feasible for them to do at this point. But in most of the posts I've seen recently, it seems that people have been doing more talking about their next tour than their next album. It's not that people aren't interested in another U2 album, but it seems that people are more interested in seeing them live again.
  8. I think that's totally true, and they even touch on that in From The Ground Up if you've started reading it (it's great!). They talk about how albums aren't the focus anymore, it's all about the live show, and they discuss how NLOTH didn't really catch fire like they wanted it to and on top of that the 360 show began evolving without those tunes involved, resulting in what became the culmination of the show in 2010-2011.

    I'm still extremely interested in their next album. It's a different kind of interest. I'm excited to see them live again, but interested to see where they go next musically. Maybe it's because I'm a musician, but I'm always more excited for what's on the horizon for an artist than what they're currently doing. The prospect of what may come next is just super awesome, because it's uncharted territory, especially for a band like U2. I really hope they surprise us and progress as a band again, I don't think they've done that to a great degree since the 90's. I'm not talking about the songwriting or their abilities as musicians, because those have sure as hell improved (I really think they were the best they've ever been during the 360 tour) but in terms of challenging themselves and their audience musically, they haven't done that since Pop.
  9. I agree word by word, RattleandHum. At the 360 shows I attended, I saw U2 at the top of their game. Still, Zoo TV was legend: perhaps their best, or second best (JT first), album, and certainly the best, or perhaps second best (360 first, for maturity's sake), tour. I'm afraid we'll never be as (positively) surprised as fans were when AB came out. Though until there's voice, there's hope!
  10. Here here!
  11. Should maybe get a next album topic going.

    As for me, do I think Thu can pull something amazing out of the bag with their next album? No. Simply no. I look at Arcade Fire, Snow Patrol and even Muse and don't see U2 being able to match their recent output. Will they put on a great live show? Obviously. And I'll attend as much shows as I can afford. That's where in at. They are the same flesh and blood as the band that did Achtung Baby, Zooropa and the Joshua Tree but they aren't the same band. A damn shame but thank god we can look back at what we can and know that they'll still put on a good show going forward.
  12. Originally posted by germcevoy:Should maybe get a next album topic going.

    As for me, do I think Thu can pull something amazing out of the bag with their next album? No. Simply no. I look at Arcade Fire, Snow Patrol and even Muse and don't see U2 being able to match their recent output. Will they put on a great live show? Obviously. And I'll attend as much shows as I can afford. That's where in at. They are the same flesh and blood as the band that did Achtung Baby, Zooropa and the Joshua Tree but they aren't the same band. A damn shame but thank god we can look back at what we can and know that they'll still put on a good show going forward.

    Yeah. I mean I wasn't really around as a U2 fan before HTDAAB came out, but I remember before NLOTH came out they kept saying it that the change from Bomb and NLOTH was like JT to Achtung Baby, which didn't turn out to be true. I'm not sure if Bono's talk about "we need really good reasons to put another U2 album out" and all that should be taken seriously, but they're still enough to get me excited that they won't be putting something out unless they're damn sure they're proud of it.
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.