GEN
Active topics
  2. Then they should cancel each other out seeing they are equivalent terms on opposite sides of an equation. Maybe they will perform another duet and eliminate each other by striking out a factor common to both the denominator and numerator. How will the world cope? Maybe we will see a treasure trove of those U2 archives flood the record shop shelves.
  3. No, they won't reinvent themselves - they don't need to.

    I think what a lot of people tend to forget whenever this question comes up is that U2 didn't only reinvent themselves for artistic purposes after the Lovetown tour. It was that they were starting to see "the end" from a critical standpoint. Rattle and Hum was panned, as was the Lovetown tour (at least in their eyes), and they were not only creatively bankrupt, they were worried they were on the verge of being actually bankrupt as well. They didn't see a future both artistically and commercially, and they needed to change that (keep in mind U2 really only started to make money post-Joshua Tree - I'd wager they were still very conscious of money at that stage in their career - in fact I think Larry still lived at home at this point...but I could be wrong).

    I also don't think it would happen because the music world just isn't the same anymore. There isn't a global shift in taste or anything like that. It's so damn easy to listen to and find new music, there are avenues for EVERY kind of music. Radio and singles barely matter anymore to 99% of musicians. Hell, even those who are ON the radio barely make squat in terms of record sales, etc. In 1990, U2 were worried that their 80s sound would be left in the dust of a new, industrial, electronic music age. They needed to change because they didn't see a future for their music in the new climate. There was a cultural shift happening. The only major shift we're seeing now is Rock dying. I don't see U2 trying out hip-hop.

    These days? I don't think U2 fears any of those realities. They're U2. What I mean by that is that they'll always sell tickets, they'll always have listeners, etc. They aren't fighting for survival anymore, and they're also happy musically with what they're doing.

    It's not as though it was and would be purely an artistic decision, there was a perfect storm of things that brought Achtung Baby and "90s U2" to fruition - it wasn't just "hey we're bored let's try something new".

    Nah, in their time off I think they'll write and write and write, and eventually we'll get an album that doesn't sound too different from their other albums post 2000.

    My biggest hope is that they do try to evolve it a bit - say, use Andy Barlow exclusively as a producer (won't happen) because his songs on SoE had U2 sounding the freshest they have since Pop. But, at this stage, I just want U2 to write and release great songs like Little Things. Little Things doesn't sound like "U2 reinvented", it sounds like U2 as they've been - and it's fucking great (Barlow-produced by the way).
  4. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:No, they won't reinvent themselves - they don't need to.

    I think what a lot of people tend to forget whenever this question comes up is that U2 didn't only reinvent themselves for artistic purposes after the Lovetown tour. It was that they were starting to see "the end" from a critical standpoint. Rattle and Hum was panned, as was the Lovetown tour (at least in their eyes), and they were not only creatively bankrupt, they were worried they were on the verge of being actually bankrupt as well. They didn't see a future both artistically and commercially, and they needed to change that (keep in mind U2 really only started to make money post-Joshua Tree - I'd wager they were still very conscious of money at that stage in their career - in fact I think Larry still lived at home at this point...but I could be wrong).

    I also don't think it would happen because the music world just isn't the same anymore. There isn't a global shift in taste or anything like that. It's so damn easy to listen to and find new music, there are avenues for EVERY kind of music. Radio and singles barely matter anymore to 99% of musicians. Hell, even those who are ON the radio barely make squat in terms of record sales, etc. In 1990, U2 were worried that their 80s sound would be left in the dust of a new, industrial, electronic music age. They needed to change because they didn't see a future for their music in the new climate. There was a cultural shift happening. The only major shift we're seeing now is Rock dying. I don't see U2 trying out hip-hop.

    These days? I don't think U2 fears any of those realities. They're U2. What I mean by that is that they'll always sell tickets, they'll always have listeners, etc. They aren't fighting for survival anymore, and they're also happy musically with what they're doing.

    It's not as though it was and would be purely an artistic decision, there was a perfect storm of things that brought Achtung Baby and "90s U2" to fruition - it wasn't just "hey we're bored let's try something new".

    Nah, in their time off I think they'll write and write and write, and eventually we'll get an album that doesn't sound too different from their other albums post 2000.

    My biggest hope is that they do try to evolve it a bit - say, use Andy Barlow exclusively as a producer (won't happen) because his songs on SoE had U2 sounding the freshest they have since Pop. But, at this stage, I just want U2 to write and release great songs like Little Things. Little Things doesn't sound like "U2 reinvented", it sounds like U2 as they've been - and it's fucking great (Barlow-produced by the way).
    Great post. I concur with all of your very well-said points.

    On a related note, as I was re-reading U2 At the End of the World again the other night, I came across quotes by the band saying similar things to what you mentioned here about how little they really liked Lovetown. They felt it had all become like "work" at that point and not any fun creatively. Clearly the band disagreed quite strongly for a while as they were recording Achtung Baby about which direction to take, exactly, but they all at least sensed that a sea change was in order.

    So, comparing their feelings at that stage of their career to the end of this E & I Tour...the band seems to have viewed this whole run pretty positively, right? I don't sense that they need to "dream it all up again" like post-Rattle and Hum - I think they just need a long break (maybe even after Australia/NZ in late 2019)?

    It does make me wonder, though, when (hopefully not "if") they do come back, what will they do? I want them to stick around as much as anybody else, but with this whole "Songs of Innocence and Experience" deal it almost seems like "what else do they have left to say"?
  5. I hope they just go forward and continue touring and writing music, and stop worrying about critical success and having whole albums. There's nothing wrong with just releasing a song or two here and there or touring on the back of an EP of four really strong songs, rather than an entire album that stretches the whole spectrum from great to ordinary
  6. I was struck by Bono’s dedication of 13 to Mark Fischer. Talking about songs of worship, hymns and stuff (of course, this is not new for them). This tour has been such a thorough working through of their past ‘issues’, coming to terms with mother (Iris/ innocence set) and father (Dirty Day/ AB set), mortality & hope (all the Lights songs) and loss of ego (Real Thing speech). What’s left, thematically? Will they dare to indeed “put up a fucking cross”, and make a gospel album, i.e. Songs of Ascent?
  7. I don't think the band have a lot left to say and that's why I think there will probably only be one more album. I can't see a huge departure in sound at this point but hopefully they can let go of that whole "designing songs to be hits" mind set. They could release their best song ever and it still won't get as much penetration as Vertigo/Beautiful Day so why not just make the music they WANT to make? We will all still be there at the live shows.
  8. Originally posted by EthanD:I don't think the band have a lot left to say and that's why I think there will probably only be one more album. I can't see a huge departure in sound at this point but hopefully they can let go of that whole "designing songs to be hits" mind set. They could release their best song ever and it still won't get as much penetration as Vertigo/Beautiful Day so why not just make the music they WANT to make? We will all still be there at the live shows.
    I would argue U2 WANT their songs to be hits - they really always have. I don’t agree with the notion that they are sacrificing the sounds they “want” in order to make songs more marketable- that IS what they want.

    On the other hand, you are right - it’s very unlikely U2 will ever have a smash hit again in this musical climate. I just don’t think that’s how it’s working anyway. Maybe they’ll recognize that, and that will influence their approach. If there was a time to do that, now would be that time - coming out of their big duology of very personal, all-is-laid-bare albums about growing up and growing older.