Do you want U2 to get "adventurous" again
 

I guess winning all those Grammy's made me think how much the band has settled into a more "mainstream" sound on their last two albums. I would like to see them shake it up again like they did from Actung Baby to Pop. I wasn't a fan of Pop but it took a lot more chances musically than the last two albums.

Has U2 outgrown their experimental side or will they ever shock us again like they did on Achtung Baby?

They're nothing but a nostalgia act now, like The Rolling Stones or Aerosmith. It's OK; they had a decent two album run with <i>Boy</i> and <i>October</i>.

I tend to agree with wendersfan about the nostalgia act thing - no one goes to a U2 show to hear "Vertigo," and shouldn't. For one, I really dug Achtung, Baby!, Zooropa, and Pop. All three still sound fresh and unlike any music made before or since. I'd like to see them get a little more adventurous again - I'm really tired of the All that You Can't Leave Behind and How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb-era U2. Those albums are very stagnant, musically. I believe How... is their worst album, front to back, and from a band that's made a few bad albums (albeit with a good song or two, each) that's saying a lot.

cheers,

-the Jesus

You are not very familiar with U2 fans. The hardcore fans love hearing the new stuff. It's fans such as yourself, who only like a certain period of their catalog, that do not want to hear the new stuff. And most of the fans who pay $100+ to go the shows lean towards the hardcore label.

You're right. The hardcore fans overlook the fact that U2 has become a mediocre band. They exhalt every new release as being a masterpiece despite the fact that they have become derivative in every sense of the word. To the point where they are derivative of themselves most of all.

That being said, the last two albums have each had at least 4 worthy U2 songs on each. The rest was filler.

Was U2 ever really "adventurous"? Ever? I always saw them as part of the boring mainstream. Even as far back as '83.

They started out as a MOR Public Image Ltd. and went from there. The Edge owes every note he's ever played to Keith Levene, and I've met Jah Wobble, and Adam Clayton is no Jah Wobble. :)

<---loves Vertigo

I'm not really a big U2 fan but I'd have to say that you don't see many nostalgia acts picking up so many Grammys. If that were true Paul McCartney and Neil Young would have carried theirs away the other night.

No kidding :thumbsup:

Although I did like them a long time ago, but that was before Achtung - they have been crap for a long time. And wtf is this adventurous statement? They were definitely (as nodeer said) pure pop.

You guys really don't think that U2 has had plenty of adventurous moments during their career? Guess I don't think Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" or P.I.L.'s "Metal Box" are the only ways to be adventurous.

While I've bitched plenty of times on this board about the last two U2 albums for being retreads and tame, there were some decent tunes there. If they had combined the best songs from the last two albums then it would have been a great recording. Actually, I think part of the reason I was saddened by the recent output is because the albums before that WERE adventurous and different.

Wendersfan, you can play that influence game all day probably. I don't think Edge owes everything he's done to Levine. If so, then Levine owes everything he's ever done to Faust. But I don't believe that ;)

I loved U2 up through and including Unforgettable Fire. I've LIKED a lot of their stuff since, but it doesn't grab me as much. I don't think it's quite fair to say that Edge ripped off Keith Levine. There was a lot of guitarists working in some variant of that post-punk aesthetic---Will Sergeant, Geordie, Charlie Burchill, Bruce Watson/Stuart Adamson, and you could even throw in the guitar sounds from the Cure, Slits, Siouxsie, Stranglers, Clash, Pretenders. And I think the Edge has always talked about Television and Tom Verlaine. I think like all artists, all those guys were influenced by and influencing each other. Particularly as you read up on these guys and find out that half of them were in various failed bands with each other! (or at least saw each other play live a lot).

I think what I liked more about the earlier U2 stuff is more technical---their earlier stuff was mostly minor-key stuff, and it seems like almost all their recent hits have been written in a major key. It just seems a bit lighter and less nuanced than their early stuff, at least to my ears.

Been a fan since 83. Seen them every tour since then. (36 times) I've run U2 websites. I feel that even my favorite records (JT and AB) have some weaker stuff on them. I went this tour to see them do the new songs. They still play too many "hits" in there show for me. Adventurous to me would be playing some of the deeper cuts off their older albums and songs that they haven't played. (Like earlier in this tour with The Electric Co., An Cat Dubh and Into the Heart.)

To me, their "Adventurous" albums are Zooropa, Passengers and Pop. Which most people wouldn't call their best albums. (I love Pop!) Those are the ones that they truely took a chance on, and did something different.

Edited to add: I just want to see them contiune to release records that they like. I will follow.

Nothing is more tedious than the U2 naysayers.

Nothing.

Not even the people who blindly pledge allegiance to a declining band?

Fixed.

I'm not sure why I should feel like a musically-challenged person because I like/love all of the U2 albums in some form or another. Some are just a little easier to access than others.

If I don't want to concentrate too much, there's HTDAAB and Boy. If I want to be challenged a little bit, there's Zooropa and Pop. You guys take this stuff a little too seriously... music should be about listening to what you enjoy, not trying to prove why your opinion is right (or someone else's is wrong).

make it a poll, eh?

POP is the best U2 album, hands down.

I'd like to see them branch out some. I like both All That You Can't Leave Behind and How to Dismantle and Atomic Bomb.

My only nit pick is that they are too similar to each other. They lack the evolution and exploration they had from album to album in the past, i.e. Joshua Tree to Achtung Baby to Zooropa to Pop etc.

I was probably drunk when I posted that. :D

But I really don't think U2 were ever innovative or adventurous.

Hmm, as a big U2 fan, I have to 100% disagree with you....as would MANY U2 fans.

How can you overlook The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, War, The Unforgettable Fire, ATYCLB, etc....??

I think "Electrical Storm" was their only decent song post-"Achtung Baby".

All bands decline. All of them - especially those that outlive the decade where they gained their initial fame. It's inevitable. They grow older, their original audience changes. That doesn't detract from what they accomplished or the music that they created.

The reason U2 is the easy target right now - and I honestly believe this - is because they are the absolute last of the "classic rock" bands. They have no successors. Of the bands still making new, artistically relevant music (thus, eliminating the Stones or McCartney or Elton John, etc.) whose catalog stretches back more than 2 decades, U2 is the last of the line. There's a huge gap in quality, age and style of fandom betweem them and what I would term the very first "iPod" generation supergroup: Radiohead. Radiohead will most likely outlive the era that spawned them, but the fanbase operates a helluva lot differently than the fanbase that birthed U2. No Radiohead fan ever slept on the sidewalk for 3 days (as I did in '87 to get "Joshua Tree" tour tickets) for concert tickets. When the technology changed and Napster made file-sharing so simple and easy, the very first of the universally lauded bands to reap the benefit of that new technology was Radiohead. You can't tell me every geek with that first generation iPod didn't have "The Bends" encoded on it somewhere.

The bands that came in between have seen their popularity wax and wane within the space of a decade - give or take a few years. They may still be eking out passable albums to an ever-smaller and more rabidly allegiant fan base (read: Pearl Jam, R.E.M.), but their greatest success has already passed them by and will, most likely, never be seen again. The entire Lollapalooza-nation era is over and done with. It's of its own time and place - as quaint and irrelevant today as is early 1980's New Wave or late 1970's British punk.

U2 is the last band out there with ties to the "classic" era that are still making new music that the mainstream cares to hear. Yes, all the music snobs pooh-pooh the new output, because its hip to hate on Bono or to decry for the 10 millionth time how low on the mythical scale of influence The Edge ranks.

But, y'know, so what? They've endured. That, by itself, merits some respect.

I know this is a bit of topic but i just want to see them live. They haven't here in Wpg since the Pop tour, which i missed out on..don't ask. But my lucky a$$ sister won tix with a limo ride and a meal and everything. It was an outdoor show and complained about the scent of a drug!?!!

But i always been and always will be a U2 fan 'til i die, no matter what.

I LOVE U2 and still don't care much for the new music. Paid to see them in concert and I'll see them again in the future. Still doesn't mean I can't slam the hell out some of their very mediocre new tunes. I mean, when I listen to something like the last two Interpol albums it becomes even more apparent that wonderful, older bands certainly can lose it in the studio (U2 is not doing anything wrong live, though).

BTW, interesting comments about U2 being one of the last of the classic rock bands. Haven't put much thought into that and you make some good points.

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.