Originally posted by DutchU2Fan:[image]
Just bought this
Originally posted by DutchU2Fan:Interesting to see someone with a hip hop/rap background reviewing SOI
[YouTube Video]
Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
Why does he have a portrait of dylbagz on his wall?
Originally posted by RUMMY:You've definitely hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph. As much as I try to embrace newer albums from bands I've been listening to for decades (!) now (U2, Pearl Jam, Radiohead...), they'll never be able to reach the same level for me as some of the earlier work. Sure, I can still have an opinion if one recent album is better than another - both within a particular band (e.g, Songs of Innocence is a more cohesive album than No Line on the Horizon) or between them (e.g., Songs of Innocence is way better than PJ's Lightning Bolt but might not be on the same level as Radiohead's A Moon Shaped Pool - of course, I reiterate, it's all a matter of opinion) but there's absolutely no way I could objectively (or even subjectively) compare any post-2000 U2 album to JT or AB.
Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
I think that's where the band themselves to continue to miss the boat. They are on this endless quest for relevance and reaching the repetitive generic pop chart ears, when their bread and butter are their die hard fans who just want to hear raw, emotional, passionate U2 (i.e pre-2000) The irony is, until Pop, they were never afraid to fall on their faces in the name art and the unknown territory - which is exactly what Pop was, in a sense, for them... And when that bombed for them, it seems ever since they've gone the safe route... And that's not saying that I dislike the post 2000 material, but it is definitely vanilla when compared to pre 2000. Does that make any sense or is it total psychobabble?
Originally posted by bpt3:[..]
Not psychobabble at all - it makes perfect sense and I completely agree, even as one who didn't become a real fan until 2004 with HTDAAB.
Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
I think that's where the band themselves to continue to miss the boat. They are on this endless quest for relevance and reaching the repetitive generic pop chart ears, when their bread and butter are their die hard fans who just want to hear raw, emotional, passionate U2 (i.e pre-2000) The irony is, until Pop, they were never afraid to fall on their faces in the name art and the unknown territory - which is exactly what Pop was, in a sense, for them... And when that bombed for them, it seems ever since they've gone the safe route... And that's not saying that I dislike the post 2000 material, but it is definitely vanilla when compared to pre 2000. Does that make any sense or is it total psychobabble?