dude,

I think you could edit grunter's post, replacing "U2" with "Metalica" and still get the same exact post.

Old-schoolers love the 2-3 early Metalica albums, just like U2.

Metalica' Black album did very much the same thing for them, as A,B did for U2, at around the same time, no less. And the new albums by both bands have been met with "meh" responses - Both bands have followed VERY similar trajectories.

Well, except U2 didn't turn on its fans and try to prosecute them for trading MP3's of their songs.

That silly-ass Lars. Such a cut-up.

Plus, did you ever notice that "old-schoolers" never really like anything beyond the first 2 or 3 albums of literally any band? That really starts to get limiting after awhile.

Very well said!

Lots of negativity on here about U2. Most times I write this off as ignorance or laziness. The criticism of the songs and albums usually come with no back-up, such as HTDAAB is bad because on this song... etc. etc.

U2 is the biggest and greatest band in the world, that's why there will always be haters like we have seen emerge here. I have followed U2 from about 1986 till present and can tell you that innovation is their name. They have never made the same album twice and have always grown and matured on every single album they have done. U2 was NEVER part of the mainstream, nor are they now. U2 have been a displaced band in every decade, always veering from the path. In the 80's they were serious and devout when Madonna and Cyndi Lauper and the hair bands reigned. In the 90's they were DEFINATELY not grunge, being more ironic than anything. In the 00's where boy bands and salon tanned american idols reign, they make exquisite music with instruments they actually play! Imagine that...

U2 has always been innovative. No two albums are the same - Boy - punk, October - Christian Rock, War - militant and angry, Unforgettable Fire - ethereal, Joshua Tree - epic, Achtung Baby - ironic, Passengers - artistic, Pop - trip-hop, ATYCLB - feel good, and the latest album which is just plain good music. To say they've all been the same is to admit you've never listened to the albums. It's like saying all of the Beatles albums were the same, it's just not true.

I can tell you that I have been a huge supporter and a harsh critic at times of U2. When I go to the concerts, I criticize them for playing too many of their 'greatest hits' and I marvel at the new songs. Unlike the Rolling Stones, U2 usually can play a lot of current material and still please their fans. Although Streets and Pride always seem to turn up, the majority of the songs are off of the last 3-4 albums. That does say a lot about the band's staying fresh and relevant.

Bono was named the most influential man in music last year and they continue to rake in the grammys when they are critically evaluated against their modern peers. It's not just nostalgia, or Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney would be glittering right now.

U2 is quite simply one of the best bands ever and have been relevant across three decades. Not sure why that stick's in some people's craws. Maybe they should listen to them some more...

Kerb, I don't think anyone is saying that they hate U2. Most people just feel that their best work is far behind them. I like their new albums just fine, by they pale in comparison to, say, Josh.Tree or Un.Fire. And I don't need them to repeat those albums - that would actually be worse. Truly great rock music is mostly born out of youth, which they just don't have anymore.

So, Kerb, what do you say to someone who has listened to U2 since '81 and still thinks their new work shows a band starting to lose it? You say they are still innovative, but do that by comparing their new work to boy bands. Yeah, pretty much anything out there is innovative comparing to the mainstream. U2 isn't really trying much new and when you compare them to say, Radiohead (or a ton of other bands), it's even more apparent. How can you say U2 is not part of the mainstream, nor ever were? That makes no sense.

(Uh, "Pop" is trip-hop? Um-kay)

I'd say that *you* have moved on. To say that their music isn't as good is wrong. Your listening with different ears because you long for the past, but the truth is that they are better now in every way then they ever were.

Again, if they're slipping, let's hear some examples. You can't gripe for them to change directions and then be disappointed when they do.

Pop was self-described as U2's trip-hop album. Go back and research and you'll see that that is exactly what critics defined the album as. U2 meets trip-hop.

That's an entirely subjective matter, and you're trying to pass of your opinion as fact.

It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you call "Pop" a trip-hop album. There might be one or two songs on that album that come close to trip-hop. Stop it. You'd be much better off just saying electronica in approach. You know what is wrong with U2? THEY long for the past, not me. I loved "Pop". I loved that they were continuing releasing albums that were unlike anything else they've done before. I would truly enjoy hearing a new U2 album that was a stylistic break from the last two albums. But it's not that big of a deal to me because there are fantastic younger bands making more interesting music for me to listen to (and when those bands start sucking, there will be others... that's always how it is).

Examples, eh? "Original of the Species". Dreadful. Dreadful chorus. Dreadful lyrics. And for U2 to put that out is depressing to me. More examples? Bono's voice is not what it used to be. I was stunned when I saw them live a few months ago and how amazing he sounded during the Passengers tune, but on recent record there have been some scary moments.
There are enough fantastic songs on the last two records that would have made one killer album. But they are also increasingly taking on filler.

Lastly, you say "they are better now than in every way than they ever were".
Do you really believe that? Honestly? Really? Wow.

The previous poster said that I tried to pass my opinion of as fact, but in reality, that is what the majority of you all (including you) just did. I think Original of the Species is one of the highlights of U2's career - absolute smashing song. So as it was said, it is a subjective matter. What you called 'filler' I call deep cuts.

I would say however that the industry seems to think they're 'relevant' - see their double digit grammys over the last two albums and untold positive reviews from music critics. Also see rtheir album sales to tell you they're not 'washed up'.

Just because Bono's voice has degraded over time, does not mean it's not still better than almost any other voice out there. Even when Bono was in his 20's he was known for having a bad voice after belting out 30 some-odd tunes every other night. It's a bad argument.

As for the trip-hop comment, you know what I meant - of course it's not trip-hop - it was the way they described the influences on that album. My point, which you knew and glossed over, was that no two albums are alike. Even these last two albums are nothing alike. The popcorn music of ATYCLB is only found in vertigo and nowhere else. Instead a much more realized and confident album emerged.

I really, truly, honestly think they are a billion times better now than they ever were. They are a tight, well honed machine. They're playing is stronger than ever and their song writing is much more vibrant than it used to be. I can't wait until they're next album...

We'll just have to agree to disagree because I do believe it's all subjective opinion like you say. And that's fine. I think the music banter can be fun. But I REALLY disagree with your last couple of posts! BTW, Grammy wins mean squat to me.

Grammy means squat to everybody.

Well, except Kanye West.

Dang that's my favorite song on the album.

Agreed. Grammy's mean squat to me too, but in some circles I guess it shows they're still 'in'. I would look to their reviews for their albums across a broad spectrum and lastly, their album sales - which show that people still think their music is good enough to buy.

Can't argue that as far as popularity goes. I mean, yeah, U2 is a very popular band regardless. I went and saw them a couple of months ago and I will probably go see them again in the future. I'm sure with any huge album you'll find varying reviews, but go to Amazon and read the reviews on "Atomic". While there is plenty of praise, you'll also read from many people who think like I do.

As you might with any music release. I would put forth though, as a rabid U2 fan who read them on a daily basis as interference.com collected them, that I was shocked at how positive the majority were.

My favorite song on the album (Fan since 1983)

Bono's voice (as you heard) is better than the last 2 tours (10 years). They are playing songs in there original keys, instead of lower and slower like they have been. (See SBS, Pride, IWF, etc) You heard Miss Sarajevo and you think his voice is "scary"? What scary moments do you feel Bono had on HTDAAB?

Ok, I'll bite.

"All Because of You" - Bono can't even hit the chorus notes in the studio version of the song. In concert, the Edge's guitar is so fuzzed out and the sound so loud, Bono's voice gets lost in the mix. But on the album - eeyikes.

well I just listened to my fab. recording of 4/15/05 from Phoenix (I would post here, but U2 isn't totally clear on being "taper friendly" see this) and I think you are off base as far as the "In concert" part.

Maybe you misread what I said (?). His voice sounded incredible when he sang operatic live. Very impressed. But Grunter brought up one example of where Bono sounds like he's off. I would have to go back and listen more intently to the last two albums, but there are a handful of times things aren't quite clicking vocally. The reason I can't recall the specifics is because some of the recent work is so boring I skip the songs and have put them out of my memory (this, after giving them a few listens).

He did give up smoking or something recently that has given him his voice back. On the Elevation Tour he sounded crappy. I think, right now, his voice is better than it has been in many years. So your point is valid.

See. I thought the exact opposite. I thought Bono's voice was much, much stronger on the Elevation Tour than on the current one. Certainly an improvement over the "Pop" tour.

Don't know what shows you saw. Maybe an off night or something, but as someone that saw 8 shows last tour and 9 this tour, and I have every Elevation show on CD, and most of the Vertigo tour, I will firmly stand by the "His voice is way better this tour" statement.

I saw 7 shows on each of the last 2 tours. Mostly based in Chicago and Boston. Bono's voice sounded infinitely better TO ME during the Chicago "Elevation" shows than it did this last time through.

Did you get the TO ME part? Do you understand the TO ME part? Are we done pissing up a rope?