GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by LikeASongC'mon, guys, don't fool yourselves. An irrelevant band is a band for whom no one (in the general audience) gives a damn about. U2 is very close to that, although I really and sadly regret saying it.


    After the tour with the biggest attendance in history?

    But, why should they be making groundbreaking music today? What worries me the most is that young bands aren't doing anything revolutional.
  2. Originally posted by Yogi:[..]

    But, why should they be making groundbreaking music today? What worries me the most is that young bands aren't doing anything revolutional.


    This.
    Even a band which is considered to be very big as Coldplay hasnt done anything as big as ''older'' bands like U2 or even Pearl Jam.
  3. ^ "big" and "groundbreaking" don't have much to do with "relevant". I pretty much agree with Sergio here. The general audience really isn't interested in the next U2 album, only real fans still are.
    A relevant band is a band that has something to say, some meaning to their songs. To me, U2 has lost that for ages. That's not to complain nor to criticize, I still immensely like U2 music. But most of the post Pop songs are pretty empty and meaningless, only meant to continue popularity, so, irrelevant. Fine tunes, some hits, recognizable sounds, that's about it. U2 still have some influence, but bands that are influenced by U2 aren't influenced by their spirit, but by their popularity and they all sound equally boring to me, especially Snow Patrol and Coldplay. Although I have to admit a band like Exit Calm is influenced by U2 too, and they are pretty exciting and way above average.
    "The biggest tour ever" also doesn't have anything to do with being relevant, it only has to do with having a rock solid mainstream reputation and that's quite the opposite of being relevant.
    I wouldn't say young bands aren't doing anything revolutional either. There's a shitload of incredibly good, heartbreakingly beautiful, and exciting music all over the place. But the world has changed quite a bit since the early 80s and bands as big as U2 have become, are never going to stand up anymore. Not because young bands are less relevant, but because superstars just don't exist anymore, not in rock music nor in any other department. It doesn't have to do with quality or relevance. only with fragmentation and sped up lifecycles. So most of the incredibly good music most people simply won't hear, but that doesn't mean it don't exist.


  4. I think U2 became irrelevant from 1993 -1998.Zooropa and Pop were disasters for the band.This year,the band played Zooropa live,at all 4 of my shows.I loved it.But I was in the minority.I would say, at least 75% of the audience never heard the song,maybe more than that.Thats amazing to me,since Zooropa is the title song of a release.During that weak period (93-98),I actually stopped listening to them.I went with very relevant bands,Oasis,Radiohead,Pearl Jam,Dave Matthews,Blur.They lost many a hardcore fan at that time.

    From 2000-2005 the band became very relevant again.Selling close to 20 million cd's of ATYCLB and Bomb,that is very impressive,for any band.Gained respect from lost fans (me) and brought the old fans back.The band won numerous Grammys, for both releases,had # 1 singles, from both releases.That is not irrelevant.They actually gained fans during that period.Which is great,for a band that was 20 - 25 years into making music.I cant think of any bands,in their 20th and 25 th years,winning so many awards,with # 1 singles and albums.

    But,of course,in 2006, they had to do that awful single with Green Day,release ANOTHER best of (cash in),and Window in the Skies, is a below average song.Not good.First slip.

    Then,No Lines First single,Boots was released.2nd slip.It was an awful 1st single.It set a terrible tone.The band (Adam) have even addmitted this.No Line is not a great album,and became an irrelevant release.3rd slip.We waited close to 5 years, for an average release.That lost them the average fan.in 2011,most fans in attendance,including me,were there for the 80s and early 90s music.I would much rather hear songs, from ATYCLB and Bomb than Pop and Zooropa, any day.

    You can say, they are irrelevant now.Fine.But, that is because of their last 5 years of weak music releases.Nothing was groundbreaking,nothing did much on the charts.They sell tickets (like the Stones),yes,not a problem.But they really need a great release,and soon.Not 3 years from now.No Line was released 2 1/2 years ago.Another popular release,then the band will be fine.If not,the band should call it a day.
  5. Wow, are we steering slightly away from the topic of this thread or what?


  6. We absolutely are. But it's all related to yesterday's interview - which was related to the Achtung Baby documentary as well. So let it run
  7. So, is there any more news on the rerelease? Do we have any revised track listings? Is it remastered? Has anyone asked them why not if it isn't?
  8. Originally posted by vanquishSo, is there any more news on the rerelease? Do we have any revised track listings? Is it remastered? Has anyone asked them why not if it isn't?


    Lots of twitter users asked if the songs will be remastered (and if they will play Acrobat ever, hahaha). They didn't choose to answer that questions...
  9. What about the material on the fourth DVD? That's the big mystery...
  10. On what disc are the AB covers by other artists? Or is that part of the doco?

    And the fact that they're ignoring the remastering question, probably means it isn't, unfortunately. Really quite disappointing as it was definitely recorded on tape.

    On the relevancy thing, I really think the big problem is all their extra curricular activities, especially Bono where it really shows on his song/lyric writing over the past decade, the rest of the band seem to be going from strength to strength in their musicianship.
  12. Originally posted by LikeASong[..]

    Lots of twitter users asked if the songs will be remastered (and if they will play Acrobat ever, hahaha). They didn't choose to answer that questions...


    Thats becasue it isnt remastered.I also find it surprising,that a full track listing still isnt available.Thats beyond unusual.Why the hell would I order something that is so unclear ?? Talk about being vague.I hope the band will soon realize,and be aware of the fact that they totally dropped the ball with this release.Its unnecessary to buy.

    IMO, I feel it is a necessity,to at least remaster a rerelease.And certainly, one that is 20 years old.Thats a basic requirement.To improve on something that you already have.Like the sound maybe ?? Example,The Beatles.Would I have bought their entire collection on cd,AGAIN,if they werent at least remastered ?.Of course not.

    Im not going to buy this "version" of AB, just becasue its nicely repackaged.Thats of course what this release is.A repackage.The news is,it's nothing new.
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.