Originally posted by Bloodraven: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.
[..]
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.
Again, back to the age issue.
War was hungry 20-somethings, angry and innocent in a world in turmoil.
Acthung was 30-somethings at a cross roads and personal struggle
Bomb was on set of middle age dealing with death and personal loss.
Same passion. Different life stages coping with the pain and rage.
