GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by Bloodraven:
    I think U2 has evolved his music a lot, Bomb, No Line and SOI sound a lot more mature and -experienced- than their 80s and 90s music, but it's still rock and roll, it has less energy and power, but it has more "quality", and I like that.


    I fail to see where there's more "quality" in the Bomb or ATCLB than in TUF or The Joshua Tree, or even in Boy or War...... but hey, to each their own.


    What I'm saying is: nobody can't deny that the band, specially Bono, act like they still are thirtysomethings and have to prove themselves in front of the world (including their own fanbase AND the people who don't know or like them), instead of embracing what they have already achieved in the past (aka selling more albums and winnning more awards than most bands in history, reinventing the rock live act, defining the 80s, defining half of the 90s, reinventing themselves during the 00s, engaging with a whole new generation with the iPod and Vertigo, etc) and just accepting they have grown older and act as such. Not saying they should become another Sting's (which I somehow agree has gone a bit far with his classical experimentation) but surely NOT become another AC/DC or Rolling Stones. God forbid And my fear is (or was) that if they hadn't had the SOI backlash plus Bono's accident, they would have gone that route. Let's hope that's changed.
  2. I'm afraid that if they lose their thirst for "being relevant" they'll stop entirely, so I'm a little torn on this whole matter...
  3. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]


    I fail to see where there's more "quality" in the Bomb or ATCLB than in TUF or The Joshua Tree, or even in Boy or War...... but hey, to each their own.


    What I'm saying is: nobody can't deny that the band, specially Bono, act like they still are thirtysomethings and have to prove themselves in front of the world (including their own fanbase AND the people who don't know or like them), instead of embracing what they have already achieved in the past (aka selling more albums and winnning more awards than most bands in history, reinventing the rock live act, defining the 80s, defining half of the 90s, reinventing themselves during the 00s, engaging with a whole new generation with the iPod and Vertigo, etc) and just accepting they have grown older and act as such. Not saying they should become another Sting's (which I somehow agree has gone a bit far with his classical experimentation) but surely NOT become another AC/DC or Rolling Stones. God forbid And my fear is (or was) that if they hadn't had the SOI backlash plus Bono's accident, they would have gone that route. Let's hope that's changed.
    Which brings us to the point I was trying to make. You're a twenty-something, right? When you hit your mid 40's revisit that statement (accepting they have grown older and act as such) and see how you feel about it then.

    Also, if they do act as such, that would put them on the path that you feared. Which they've never gone on, so I don't think they would have started, backlash or not.
  4. Originally posted by flowerchild:I'm afraid that if they lose their thirst for "being relevant" they'll stop entirely, so I'm a little torn on this whole matter...
    Right.

    U2 has always been about reinventing themselves. Keeping things interesting for themselves as well as their fans. Not an easy balance, obviously, as they still get blasted by fans and foes alike. Part of what has always defined U2 is their desire to push boundaries, keep things fresh, and in this day and age, with this generation, unfortunately I think this makes them focus too much on relevance sometimes... But it is a drive that keeps them excited and keeps them going.

    To lose along the way, the spark that set the flame...

    And I would still rather have this U2 than an alternate U2 that is touring for the Joshua Tree Part VI...
  5. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    Right.

    U2 has always been about reinventing themselves. Keeping things interesting for themselves as well as their fans. Not an easy balance, obviously, as they still get blasted by fans and foes alike. Part of what has always defined U2 is their desire to push boundaries, keep things fresh, and in this day and age, with this generation, unfortunately I think this makes them focus too much on relevance sometimes... But it is a drive that keeps them excited and keeps them going.

    To lose along the way, the spark that set the flame...

    And I would still rather have this U2 than an alternate U2 that is touring for the Joshua Tree Part VI...
    I think I wholeheartedly agree with this.
  7. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    Which brings us to the point I was trying to make. You're a twenty-something, right? When you hit your mid 40's revisit that statement (accepting they have grown older and act as such) and see how you feel about it then. thirtysomething

    Also, if they do act as such, that would put them on the path that you feared. Which they've never gone on, so I don't think they would have started, backlash or not.


    Agree with you completely Greg. Easy to say "act your age" when you're 25. See you in a few years, friends.
  8. Originally posted by flowerchild:I'm afraid that if they lose their thirst for "being relevant" they'll stop entirely, so I'm a little torn on this whole matter...


    P.S.- The thirst for staying relevant isn't just a rock star thing... When you all hit middle age, you'll know what I mean.
  10. And while you revisit the above statement, revisit this one as well...

    "Rock music may eternally belong to the young"
  11. I'm 31 and I teach to a bunch of college kids that think I'm a grandpa. Ageism sucks.
    Rock music is for the young at heart, who cares what's your age.
  12. Everybody will try to stay relevant in middle age, no matter what is your life, you'll get that crisis too.

    But one thing is trying and another is to do it ridiculously or to do it right, and a different thing is if you succeed at it or not.

    And the important thing for me is that I honestly believe U2 has been doing it the right way (ie not ridiculously) except for a couple of things -like I said before, Boots and Miracle comes to mind as them trying too hard on looking younger than they are and failing- but overall I think their music is suited to their age.

    The article says something like "yeah, keep on playing, just do it in that corner and don't make too much noise, please, so I can still like you for what you were". Screw that.

    Also I can't see the difference between their attitude before/after the tour, for him to say something like they learned a lesson from the SOI backslash. I really don't know what the writer means with that.

    Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]I fail to see where there's more "quality" in the Bomb or ATCLB than in TUF or The Joshua Tree, or even in Boy or War...... but hey, to each their own.
    Basically what I mean is that the music in the Bomb album was created by better musicians than the music in the War album.

    Regardless of if the War album is better or not than Bomb, the music itself has more qualities in Bomb than in War. I prefer War since -besides still having great riffs and tunes- the energy and emotion expressed in there (proper to their younger age) is more fulfilling to me than the Bomb songs, even if I think the latter has "better" music.

    Another way to say it is: I don't care about David Gilmour's albums, and I absolutely love Roger Waters'. Yet I reckon that Gilmour is a better musician and his music has more qualities than RW.

Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.