Classic or Dud: U2

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
What are there, like, 500 threads on this page? And not a single one has mentioned U2! What is it with all you children of the 80s? I bet everyone on this list has owned a U2 album at some point, something you probably couldn't say for any other band. So what is it? Classic or Dud?

Mark Richardson, Wednesday, 28 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

To me, this one is a no brainer. Classic, by far. From their punk-based art rock in the early 80s with memorable songs such as "I Will Follow" and "Sunday Bloody Sunday" to their electronica experimentation days with Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop. Everyone criticizes them for their large tours during the 90s and the loss of their earnestness over that time. I admit, it was a change in their style, but I would rather see a band go on an experimentation and try music they have never heard before than make music that feels comfortable and the same. Besides, their latest album proves they still have all the old qualities that made them big. On the musical aspect, they have some real gems of albums with the largely passionate War to the masterpiece of The Joshua Tree. A few concept albums like Pop and Rattle and Hum give more variety to their repetoire. The thing I love about U2 most is the unique flow of Bono's voice with their wonderfully written songs. Very spiritualistic and in some cases Driven. Whew!!! Ok. There. U2? Classic.

Luptune Pitman, Wednesday, 28 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Classic. Of course they have produced a lot of crap. but history doesn't remember the crap that classics produce.

Rebel Yellow Bleach Blondie Boy, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

instead of just saying dud because of luptune i'll give some reasons: 1-those stupid sunglasses. 2-bono's horrid voice 3-that new single "walk on" 4-sunday bloody sunday. 5- "walk on"...and luptune likes them. dud

Kevin Enas, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

U2 have never been a large part of my life anyhow, but, what i have heard I hear like this. The songs sound fine, pleasant even, for maybe two, two and a half minutes tops, and then the whole bloody bombast *thing* bursts in and the songs are just ruined for me(see with or without you *par example*) Not to mention the fumbeld grasp on politics, pop, religion, irony, *soul* fer fucks sake , or the dumb messiah complex. But the music though, really now!Is it just me or in the "anthems" (ahem) does The Edge play that same bloody jangly, ehoey riff (see those first two songs on The Joshua Tree, Beautiful Day et al) So Dud then, quite obviously.

Stephen, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Dud, dud, dud. They're just so...leather trousers, if you see what I mean.

DG, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always seen U2 as being one of the flagship whipping boys for the indie community. Someone please explain. No fair bringing up Bono's ridiculous political posturing or the inherent smugness of all their recent tour gimmicks. For U2 fans, those are as tiresome as the "they don't write their own songs" or the "it's manufactured" cop-outs that pop fans have to listen to. All of their albums from The Unforgettable Fire to Zooropa are spankin' good, and songs like With Or Without You and Bad are undeniably fantastic. The new album and singles are crap, but still...overall, an easy CLASSIC.

Shane Knepshield, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Yeah, but the reason pop fans are bored of that kind of criticism is that we like it that way or at least dont mind it and we defend it or explain why it doesn't matter. Being bored of a criticism just because people repeat it a lot isn't that good a defense against that criticism.

I think they're a dud because of Bono's rather predictable vocal stylings and with a handful of exceptions I've not seen much in the songs to redeem that. But they were onto something production wise with the Eno/Lanois sound on the Joshua Tree, a kind of stadium artrock shimmer which was marred by Bono's OTT bellowing but made for some grand rock singles anyhow. Since they discovered 'irony' they've been utterly unbearable.

Tom, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I think this one is more accurately answered over time.

1984 -- "What's this 'Pride' song on the radio? Hm, sounds nice."

1987 -- "This _Joshua Tree_ album is pretty good."

1988 -- "This _Rattle and Hum_ album is pretty shit, one or two tracks aside."

Through to the present -- occasional good tune to the contrary, *snore*

At this point, seeing U2 would rank up there as a 'pleasure' for me in the same way that seeing the Rolling Stones or Bruce Springsteen would. I leave that kind of joy to the deadened, blinkered likes of Robert Hilburn. Never has the continuing mainstream critical consensus been ever so increasingly frustrating and obnoxious, but I suppose they make a great band for somebody who buys one album a year.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Dud. Not particularly objectionably dud, just sort of fairly harmless *nuisance* - like the tap that always drips, or a creaky floorboard that you really *should* find time to fix. They're just sort of AROUND aren't they these days? Just making a sort of bleating noise about something or other.

I thought they might be onto something with 'Achtung Baby', which I don't mind, but then of course pomp and bluster took hold again, and it's back to business as usual.

Dr. C, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

well, i suppose there's 3 stages to u2 isn't there?

the earnest stage, in, like the 80s, when they really meant it, and they rocked and all that stuff, and i don't even remember, just some ugly people on the tv. turn that over. boring. dud, of course they were dud. the 80s were grey and horrible, and they were grey and horrible for the simple reason that u2 were in them, dud dud dud.

the irony/postmodern thingy in the 90s, they didn't mean it anymore, they're only playing! "oh, we were pompous in the 80s, how silly we were' lets be as over the top as poss and subvert. irony, yeah!! no no no, dud again. is this phase more or less dud than the initial phase? can't decide.

now. they really mean it again. they're going to change the world with their big tuneful rock thats a bit pop too. and the pope likes them. and noel g too! dud, but not as dud as the other 2 phases. no wait, more dud.

aaargh, u2! the biggest dud of them all. but funny i guess.

so, dud then

gareth, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

There may be a "mainstream critical consensus" somewhere, but I doubt U2 is part of it - too many people hate them.

Musically, I think they go from Dud to Classic and back a lot, but mainly I have a big U2 trauma, because they were by 10 miles the favorite band of all obnoxious rich kids at school - "Sunday Bloody Sunday" is their fucking "Stairway To Heaven" and it's ruined that song for me.

I seem to prefer Under A Blood Red Sky, Rattle & Hum and Zooropa over The Joshua Tree (too much bombast, "Where The Streets Have No Name" has no discernible tune) Achtung Baby (half of it is undistinctive atmospheric in-one-ear-out-the-other stuff) and the latest one (hits-plus-filler), but that might be just a personal thing.

I have no opinion about Bono's personality, but I remember once kids from my secondary school making some sort of amateur video, lipsynching to some song or other - this would be in the mid-80's - and halfway through it one of them starts brandishing a big white flag around, not as a statement or anything, but 'cause that's what rock bands do, right ? Bono does it !

They were a very pernicious influence at one point. They were one of the bands that made it almost impossible at one point for mainstream rock fans to enjoy music that isn't stadium-size. Plus almost every goddamn new Canadian rock band around 1987-89 sounded like U2 and Simple Minds.

Patrick, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

No, I have never owned an album of theirs and they are dud dud dud. God, I just keep on wanting to type dud over and over and over and over again. If there's any group that represents what I can't bear in rock music it's U2. Worse than the Cure. I'm sorry I can't bring myself to articulate the reasons. With most bands I don't like (I don't know... Guns n' Roses) I can twist around my thoughts if I feel Iike it and decide that in fact they're great. But not U2. God I hate U2. I really do. Sorry.

Nick, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Classic. They had a shitload of great tunes in the early days and a pretty freakin' original sound. I think Bono can sing pretty well even if he is a bit overzealous at time. JOSHUA TREE is a top notch record. Got pretty sucky in the late 80s with that RATTLE AND HUM dung, but I think they've redeemed themselves pretty well of late. Not nearly as necessary today as they were in the early 80s but the best thing on the freakin' radio and they still occasionally surprise me with some original song ideas. Oh yes, and Thom Yorke, you still sound like "new" Bono.

Tim Baier, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I agree with Nick Dastoor, only more so. Horrible. I've never owned one of their albums either, I'm delighted to say.

Tim, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Another good band ruined by an extremely punchable lead singer (see also Radiohead). 'Rattle and hum' was so embarrasing, it ended up being funnier than 'Spinal tap'. Even when Bono's heart is in the right place (cancelling 3rd world debt) you know he's feeding his already elephantine ego by being seen with the Pope or the President. Hes just a coke-addled middle crisis merchant. Having said that, there has always been some interesting shit going on in U2's music. A lot of it down to Eno's production but The Edge has a fantastic guitar style. Simon Reynolds once called him 'the cinematographer of the guitar' which is spot-on. 'New years day' is the best example of that 80's rock thing you will hear. 'The unforgettable fire' is the best song Scott Walker never wrote. Steve Albini would kill to write a riff as tight as 'Wire'. The new album is complete shite however and I am sick to the sight of them. The Irish rock scene has been polluted by too many lame-o U2 copyists (Cactus World News, JJ72). I think I'll sit on the fence with this one.

Michael Bourke, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

'coke-addled midlife crisis merchant'...:)....sorry, I had to speed- type that response during my lunchbreak

Michael Bourke, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Following up Tom's response, I should clarify that I wasn't trying to dismiss the validity of criticisms focusing on the band's annoying public persona. As an ardent U2 supporter, even I can't help wanting to slap Bono on occasion (why won't he just shut up?). I was merely trying to steer the inevitable U2 bashing towards being more of an evaluation of their music rather than a celebration of what a tool Bono is. But hey, you all have done a pretty good job of hitting them hard from both angles, so I'm more than satisfied. Now that I've fullfilled my compulsive need to try to explain myself, I'll step aside and let the previously scheduled U2 slaughter continue.

Shane Knepshield, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

DUD, with a few minor exceptions.

Robin Carmody, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I've said it once, but I will say it again....dud dud dud dud dud dud dud dud dud dud. You see? Their existence is only justified by an idiotic aquaintance of mine saying "Yeah, I like Indie music...you know, like U2."

DG, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

"Coke-addled midlife crisis merchant"??? Michael, admit it now: you are Nicky Wire ;)

ANYHOW, I apparently have to wave the flag nearly by myself but U2 are goddamned classics. Sure, Bono apparently has had sunglasses surgically attached to his face, and sure he's annoying, and sure Zooropa and Pop were piss, but no band who could put out something the level of Achtung Baby! should ever, ever, EVER be referred to as a dud. EVER. Their greatest hits album is just beautiful. I mean, yes, Bono is a twathead at times. I WILL GIVE ALL OF YOU THIS FACT. Mainly because it is a fact - I mean, he's like my dad's age and running around in those ridiculous colored sunglasses and sparkly shirts looking all the world like a glam-rock The Fly (thank god that phase is over), but come on - Bad, With or Without You, One - these are all fantastic songs.

You can't convince me you don't sing along with them in the pub. Not a one of you.

Ally, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

never been in a pub

mark s, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

unforgettable fire was truly otherworldly when i first heard it. i can't help but think that there is not any comparable contemporary band(creed ha!) working on a spiritual plain. i am not all that commited to anything but that record reeks of passion and faith and is remarkable. and u2 meant it didn't they? for a teen like me that was powerful stuff. i never thought joshua tree was as good as it was made out to be but UF is undeniably classic. that said they have not reached any place mildly interesting since the mid 80s. oh, but i did like that song 'acrobat'.

keith, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

No, I'm sorry, _Achtung Baby_ deserves death, among other things because *that's the stupidest fucking album title*. There are other candidates, but geez. Lame. Figures that the music was equally pseudo-involving. I'll grant "Until the End of the World," though the fact that my first encounter with said song was a live clip showing Bono loving himself even put me off that.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I REALLY hope you mean something different from "loving himself" than I was just picturing, Ned. *shivers*

Anyhow, how is Achtung Baby the stupidest album title? It's just there and bland, it's not like, say, Enter the Dragon. I still haven't figured out what that means.

Ally, Friday, 30 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

heh heh, i thought it was funniest when Bozo was hanging out with Dylan & co and giving us solemn proclamations every now and then like "Roy Orbison had the best voice of a white man of his generation" - that was his hilarious "Custodian of Rock" phase, circa Rattle & Hum.

The music itself is a bunch of hammy guitar effects pedal tricks, overlaid with a straining, toilet seat voice trying hard to be epic and enigmatic but just ending up thoroughly, soddenly middlebrow.

However their first LP - although still ultimately crap - was a leaner, artier thing, when they were grooving to northern soul and joy division. Worth checking out, if only to confrim to yourself it's a blind alley.

BTW where the fuck is the kudos attached to "meaning it"? Hitler meant it!

I read a funny story about John Lydon sacking his manager circa 1989 because he told him he should "try to be more like Bono". I wish I'd been a fly on the wall when that conversation took place..

DS, Friday, 30 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

You can always spot the 'custodians of rock' phase a couple of years before it comes. They wear leather waistcoats, hats and do photoshoots in the Arizona desert. Of course just out of shot is the helicopter waiting to whisk them back to air-conditioned comfort. Then before you know it the guitarist is trading 'licks' with Buddy Guy or someone.

Dr. C, Friday, 30 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

i don't sing along in the pub.

i don't care how much joy division they listen to (i mean, so does mogwai from all accounts). the overcooked grandiose "epic" vocals and cornball lyrics ("we eat and drink while tomorrow they die" *slap*) and totally nondescript rhythm section ruin very promising guitar parts and eno's production. i'd at least listen to an instrumental album by the edge.

search: "new year's day"

sundar subramanian, Friday, 30 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

so u2 = hitler? i only wished to convey the thought that they were not contrived.

keith, Friday, 30 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I find Dr. C's analysis spot on. The alternate symptoms in the late eighties were wearing bad paisley clothing and getting produced by Jeff Lynne.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 31 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

u2 = total classic. it's music for anyone who remembers being young and stupid, but who still had dreams and a whole lot of passion -- that is, before cynicism gets the best of you and your idealism is shot to hell.

if one doesn't like bono's voice or even bono himself, then there's not much you can do. though if you can dislike the band just because of bono, you probably don't much like the music in the first place. for example, i hate thom yorke. truly and thoroughly. but when the music's fine, i can put that aside. (stunning revelation: i quite like "pyramid song.")

i'm arguably the most classic rock person on this board, so it should be no surprise that i'm a sucker for their grandiose arena rock. here's a question: how many of you that rate the rolling stones a classic, rate u2 a dud?

fred solinger, Sunday, 1 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I do at least rate "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby ..." as something closer to classic than I do any U2 song.

Robin Carmody, Sunday, 1 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Total shite. Only 'Under a Blood Red Sky' is okayish. The rest is well wank of the highest order. Of course it doesn't help when your singer is such a wanker and proud of it. And they're always at least 5 years behind the cool thing. At least Eno got some easy money producing their shit.

Omar, Tuesday, 3 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

yeh but fred, rolling stones are a classic, and u2 are a dud, because rolling stones have got 'shine a light' and 'have you seen your mother...' and 'under my thumb' and 'lets spend the night together' and all of 'their satanic majesties request' (underrated album or what?), whereas u2 have got... um, er, um...

gareth, Tuesday, 3 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

who are you guys kidding? u2 are classic! this thread is kind of pointless, i don't understand why so many people say dud. i can't stand the rockstar posing, especially after the 'returntoform' of the new record that personally i find boring as shite, but they're still u2, and they've been around for about 20 years and they still have hit singles that hold up over time and i can stand sitting through. classic, naturally. you try being as successful as consistently as they have!

michael dieter, Tuesday, 3 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Classic or Dud is no place for objectivity, Michael. I think cutting my fingernails is more consistently and aesthetically 'successful' than anything Bono's done for 14 years.

Tom, Tuesday, 3 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

" you try being as successful as consistently as they have! "

Michael, I don't understand your argument. Is it of '50 000 000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong!' variety? The majority is always right, huh? Not that it even is a majority.

Nick, Tuesday, 3 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

two months pass...
This is not a question worth discussing, since obviously, whether you like to admit it or not, U2 is considered to be a classic group. In about 5 years or so, they will definitely be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, along with the other classic rock groups. I was surprised to see that so many of you reacted negatively to the group, calling them duds. I've never met someone who had such animosity to the group, usually at the worst people think U2 is ok music, but in no way are they a contraversial or disappointing group.

But I won't use the argument that U2 has millions of followers around the world, because so do NSYNC and Britney Spears, and we all know how talented (gag) they are. Instead, think about their 20+ year career history, and the number of hits they've produced. Whether someone likes U2's music or not should not be criteria in considering a group to be a classic. I'm not a Rolling Stones fan, but I have to admit, they are a classic, whether I like their music or not. U2 is in the same category- despite personal musical preference, they supercede personal taste because, in essence, THEY ARE A CLASSIC! You do not need to be a fan of U2's music to realize that they are a classic. Besides, how many are involved with Greenpeace, Amnesty International, etc etc and donate countless hours and money to causes, such as relieving 3rd world debt? Too many other rock groups are too high on coke and are too self-involved to partake.

Many of the previous arguments I've read are hardly convincing and seem petty, "U2 = dud, their music sucks and it's for old people and like, Bono's a twat and egomaniac...blah blah blah" So what if Bono's a drama queen? It's all part of the Rock act and makes it more interesting to the fans and followers (of which, you all know, they have millions). The group isn't just about Bono, come on, it's the entire package. U2 is without a doubt, a classic, and an undeniably great group.

V. MacManus, Monday, 11 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Classic if only for a)not even trying to hide the fact they have the worst bass player in history, and b)the line "Man melts the sand so he can see the world outside."

tarden, Monday, 11 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Whether someone likes U2's music or not should not be criteria in considering a group to be a classic.

Oh, that's a completely rubbish argument. Why is wrong for people to consider things on their own terms, and not accept pronouncements from Rolling Stone, Q et al at face value? I rather like the idea of people actually thinking for themselves instead of blindly accepting what they are told.

Nicole, Monday, 11 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

U2 involved in Greenpeace & Amnesty International...leaving aside that Greenpeace denies the livelihoods of strip-miners and lumberjacks, and Amnesty meddles in the internal security of tin-pot dictatorships who do perfectly well on their own thanks, I think a band's musical achievements should be separated completely from the amount of grandstanding they indulge in.

tarden, Monday, 11 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Which cuts both ways of course, as I like U2's records a lot. I think Zooropa is better than Amnesiac. But Jubilee 2000? C'mon, it's not HIS money that he lent out 30 years ago and didn't get the interest back, was it?

tarden, Monday, 11 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Finally found a page on this thing where I disagree with EVERYONE!

I can't hardly stand early U2 (whiny, monotonous, overblown), but everything from Joshua Tree on I find to be real groovy. Even Rattle & Hum. Achtung Baby is a great classic. The first side of Joshua Tree is flawless. Am I crazy?

brah gruplee, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

First side of Joshua Tree IS flawless, second side irredeemable, especially the godawful harmonica.

tarden, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

That _Joshua Tree_ analysis is so on the money that it's taken my breath away. And here I was thinking I was the only one who felt that way...

Early U2 is quite clearly the bomb. The first three albums are glorious in their entirety. After that, they tend to be a mixed affair (the sole exception being _Achtung, Baby_ which is pretty much brilliant except for one song which is so dull that I can no longer recall its name or tune).

Dan Perry, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Classic. Some people have been saying things like "boring" "dull" and the rolling stones are better. That is total BS!!! Listening to U2 is like listenening to something that has never been done or never will or should not be done again. This is solid gold. What isn't boring? Some wastoid band like limp bizkit or metallica that are trying so hard to be hardcore that they are just blabbing on and on without a purpose. And the Rolling Stones? One of the biggest sellouts in history. No band on earth bought more into the corperate rock of the seventys. Some of their later stuff sounds like disco CRAP!!! We need U2 not just for the euphoric music but for sincerity.

Luke, Thursday, 21 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

"Listening to U2 is like listenening to something that...should not be done again"

Are you sure you mean this? Though I entirely agree.

Tom, Thursday, 21 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Disco crap, but GOOD Disco Crap, see the misunderstood 'Hot Stuff'.

Omar, Thursday, 21 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

one month passes...
I can't help but agree with V. MacManus.

Look guys, U2 is a powerful band. They inspire extreme hatred in some people, but they inspire extreme love in far more. Regardless of how much Bono offends you (I'm still unclear as to how that can happen... he's quite harmless) the facts still stand: U2 is one of most artistically and commercially successful bands of all time.

Many of you mantain that they were good in the 80's but sold out in the 90's. I suggest looking up the word "irony" in the dictionary. During their ZooTV and PopMart stadium tours they flat out refused corporate sponsorship (unlike the Rolling $tones) and lost money as a result. Just as you wouldn't assume that a battered old book is of poor literary quality based on its cover, you shouldn't attribute shallowness to a band just because they have video screens and flashy lights.

And if U2 were a dud band, why would they go out of their way time after time after time to change their musical style, often against what is currently popular. 'War' was a big success, so why go do 'The Unforgettable'? If 'The Joshua Tree' made them the most popular thing to come out of Ireland since the potato, why do something like 'Rattle and Hum'? And if their earnest, save-the-whales style of the 80's worked so well, why in God's name would you go off with something like 'Achtung Baby' and ZooTV? And why then change into 'Pop'? Why?

Because they've got balls. U2 just keeps changing and growing, usually with success (UF, JT, Achtung) but sometimes getting burned (Rattle and Hum, Pop). Instead of choosing the quick and easy path by just repeating a familiar sound over and over, U2 never let the critics, the media, or any of you punks drag them down.

Because like the Beatles and the other established classic bands, U2's twenty-year career has been a continuous growth process. U2 just keeps evolving, so they ALWAYS HAVE SOMETHING NEW AND INTERESTING TO SAY.

And THAT is the critical component in seperating the wheat from the chaff. THAT is what makes U2 a classic, and THAT is what makes the Rolling $tones a dud.

Amen.

Sam Cunningham, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

both

classic in the sense that they came out with a few good pop songs and records

dud in the fact that they are absolute crap now, are absoulute hypocrites and sellouts (the abc documentry sponsored by McDonalds, ticket prices only the rich can afford, bono dissing the "violence" by anti-capitolist protestors in Genoa whilst he was on a luxury yacht with tony blair without one mention of that protestor who was shot twice in the head, etc), were influenced by punk and yet at the same time sneered at the genre, along with the fact that bono's ego is larger than the size of the american continent and believes that the world revolves around him

i also think they ripped off depeche mode-badly-when they came out with achtung baby, only a few good songs on that record, and pop was much, much worse

i no longer buy u2 albums anymore, not even used

the walrus, Friday, 3 August 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

dunno if I'd say U2 are the dummies in that scenario

Number None, Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:15 (one year ago) Permalink

Not remembering U2 songs feels like a p good survival strategy for being in U2 for 30 odd years

sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:15 (one year ago) Permalink

This is Bono's in-ear monitor from a 2010 show:
https://youtu.be/1KWgayvG52c

I don't really understand it. He wrote the song, he sings the song frequently; is it really necessary to have someone saying "verse...1,2,3,4" to come in at the right time?

Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:21 (one year ago) Permalink

Zoo TV live broadcast showed a bunch of guitarists and a keyboardist or two under the stage.

let no-one live rent free in your butt (sic), Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:22 (one year ago) Permalink

Here's one from Edge's iem:
https://youtu.be/vYt0LKuL2Po

I'd think it would be insanely distracting to hear "EDGE 2, 3, 4" and "SOLO 2, 3, 4." Maybe everything is so tightly cued to the visuals that even the slightest deviation (or a spontaneous "Hey guys, let's drag this intro out another 4 bars so Bono can prattle on about something") could throw everything off?

Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:24 (one year ago) Permalink

The drummer plays to a tight click, what else is required? (is kinda my point, I guess)

MaresNest, Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:30 (one year ago) Permalink

Can't find an IEM feed of Adam's, perhaps it's just the cash register loop from Money

MaresNest, Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:33 (one year ago) Permalink

Ha.

I imagine all the guitar delay alone makes in-ear count-offs and the like pretty important. Factor in visual cues and running around and it could be a disaster without guidance. Playing arenas is probably the least ideal set-up for any band, let alone one defined by the sound of guitars echoing around.

Anyway, those in-ear monitors intercepts are cool. Here's one I just found with the Red Hot Shitty Peppers, from John's in-ear, which is funny, because it basically sounds like the band minus Kiedis and plus extra guitar and John vox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCKtaKmg6fs

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:48 (one year ago) Permalink

If they are playing to a click the delays on the guitar will be simply tempo synched to the pulse, with Dallas Schoo or whoever under the stage punching between presets for each song and section of a song.

MaresNest, Tuesday, 7 July 2015 15:23 (one year ago) Permalink

one year passes...

U2 touring "The Joshua Tree" in its entirety this summer. I like the album, but snooze of an idea, and also, they've picked what could be the lamest slate of opening acts (like they need one) imaginable: Mumford & Sons, Lumineers and OneRepublic.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 9 January 2017 15:30 (five months ago) Permalink

I would be excited for this if it was "U2 tours the first side of The Joshua Tree"

¶ (DJP), Monday, 9 January 2017 15:45 (five months ago) Permalink

Silly idea, shows a complete lack of faith in their new material, please call it a day.

Working night & day, I tried to stay awake... (Turrican), Monday, 9 January 2017 15:47 (five months ago) Permalink

in fairness, have you heard their new material?

¶ (DJP), Monday, 9 January 2017 15:49 (five months ago) Permalink

Yes. I'd have a complete lack of faith in it, too!

Working night & day, I tried to stay awake... (Turrican), Monday, 9 January 2017 15:50 (five months ago) Permalink

Each set will be twenty versions of "Trip Through Your Wires" and then they leave without acknowledging the crowd.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 9 January 2017 15:56 (five months ago) Permalink

haha that would be awesome

¶ (DJP), Monday, 9 January 2017 15:59 (five months ago) Permalink

Tbf, their last tour leaned very heavy on the new album nobody wanted. Like, 7 or 8 songs, I think. So they have faith in their new material, I think they just currently lack new material. Bono's got to eat, and Edge has to keep up those Malibu estate payments.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:02 (five months ago) Permalink

have they done the same thing with "Achtung Baby" or is it the first time they do that kind of things ?
If so, I predict numerous tours in the coming years !

when did this trend of playing only one album during a tour start ?
The first example I have in mind is Brian Wilson/Pet sounds but maybe it was done before...

AlXTC from Paris, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:04 (five months ago) Permalink

I mean, not in the case of bands or artist who only have one album or just play the latest released album, of course !
I mean play an older album with all the tracks in the same order, etc.

AlXTC from Paris, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:06 (five months ago) Permalink

they've picked what could be the lamest slate of opening acts (like they need one) imaginable: Mumford & Sons, Lumineers and OneRepublic.

Here's who they had (at various stops) on the original Joshua Tree tour: Lone Justice, The Pretenders, Big Audio Dynamite, UB40, Little Steven, The BoDeans, Mason Ruffner, World Party, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Spear of Destiny, The Waterboys, Hurrah!, Los Lobos, Buckwheat Zydeco, The Pogues, The Alarm, The Silencers, and Lou Reed.

how's life, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:10 (five months ago) Permalink

I was just thinking the other day about how they had Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy and Primus open for them on the Achtung Baby tour.

how's life, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:11 (five months ago) Permalink

public enemy and the sugarcubes opened the dodger stadium achtung baby show i saw

tylerw, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:12 (five months ago) Permalink

xps: the one time i saw them, which was on the tour before that, we got the gloriously dirgesome Belfegore

NickB, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:14 (five months ago) Permalink

Heh, there's an air of "let's not pick a support act that's going to show us up" about those selections. U2 clearly don't want to end up on ILM's "blew off the stage" thread.

Working night & day, I tried to stay awake... (Turrican), Monday, 9 January 2017 16:15 (five months ago) Permalink

The first big concert I ever saw was The Joshua Tree tour in Philly, at the Spectrum, in 1987, I think. Opening was some dude named Mason Ruffner.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:18 (five months ago) Permalink

xpost there he is, in your list! My man, Mason Ruffner.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:19 (five months ago) Permalink

Primus and Disposable Heroes opened the Achtung Baby stop I saw, iirc. I've subsequently seen PJ Harvey and Garbage open up for U2. The latter's amps blew up and they had the crowd sing along with Beatles songs while they replaced them, I think.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:22 (five months ago) Permalink

i saw the trompe-le-monde-era pixies; they did not blow U2 off the stage

mookieproof, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:24 (five months ago) Permalink

on the popmart tour in Chicago they had Fun Lovin Criminals open, which for a show in a football stadium was just a bit underwhelming.

nomar, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:28 (five months ago) Permalink

not sure how this is much different than any other anniversary tour in recent years, cf underworld and springsteen or whoever. also i think the last album that everyone owns in virus format is actually vv good.

nomar, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:32 (five months ago) Permalink

Wish I had seen them in Rotterdam with Einstürzende Neubauten opening

MaresNest, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:34 (five months ago) Permalink

I saw them on the Joshua Tree tour. That was at their peak of popularity in the US. The problem with the show, as I recall, was that everybody in the arena sang along with every word at the top of their lungs, and it was hard to hear the actual band.

They sang 40 all the way to the parking lot, it was a little creepy.

kornrulez6969, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:42 (five months ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxLhKfZ1x4

MaresNest, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:47 (five months ago) Permalink

^ Talking about their one support date with U2

MaresNest, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:48 (five months ago) Permalink

excited for bono updating the spoken-word bit in 'bullet the blue sky' for 2k17

mookieproof, Monday, 9 January 2017 16:51 (five months ago) Permalink

Here's who they had (at various stops) on the original Joshua Tree tour: Lone Justice, The Pretenders, Big Audio Dynamite, UB40, Little Steven, The BoDeans, Mason Ruffner, World Party, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Spear of Destiny, The Waterboys, Hurrah!, Los Lobos, Buckwheat Zydeco, The Pogues, The Alarm, The Silencers, and Lou Reed.

Now there is a roster of Greenpeace compilation CD artists.

erry red flag (f. hazel), Monday, 9 January 2017 16:51 (five months ago) Permalink

I saw them on the Joshua Tree tour. That was at their peak of popularity in the US. The problem with the show, as I recall, was that everybody in the arena sang along with every word at the top of their lungs, and it was hard to hear the actual band.

They sang 40 all the way to the parking lot, it was a little creepy.

― kornrulez6969, Monday, January 9, 2017 11:42 AM (twenty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I saw them on that tour too, the same week they were on the cover of Time. The crowd wouldn't shut up. Bono gave a lengthy introduction to Peggy Seeger's "Springhill Mining Disaster," and talked about the 1984-85 British miners strike. After the first verse, Bono said to the crowd, "Shut up for a second, willya? It's not the Beatles up here, it's just U2."

Ah, here it is, at 1:04:43
https://youtu.be/zviYtGNNWgs

Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Monday, 9 January 2017 17:03 (five months ago) Permalink

Saw them once in 1993, Rotterdam, with Utah Saints as support act.

Le Bateau Ivre, Monday, 9 January 2017 17:09 (five months ago) Permalink

When I saw them in Paris for the "Achtung Baby" tour, the opening act was... the velvet underground !

AlXTC from Paris, Monday, 9 January 2017 17:10 (five months ago) Permalink

Waht

Le Bateau Ivre, Monday, 9 January 2017 17:11 (five months ago) Permalink

Did they blow U2 off the stage?

Working night & day, I tried to stay awake... (Turrican), Monday, 9 January 2017 17:12 (five months ago) Permalink

well, it was in the racecourse and obviously, the sound was lousy.
you could hear the songs but the crowd didn't really get into it.
I'm still glad I can say I saw the VU live !

AlXTC from Paris, Monday, 9 January 2017 17:19 (five months ago) Permalink

is it wrong that i am already looking forward to the 30th anniversary tour of bono's classic jam session with tinariwen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqh6x29bc64

NickB, Monday, 9 January 2017 17:22 (five months ago) Permalink

please god let us all live that long

NickB, Monday, 9 January 2017 17:23 (five months ago) Permalink

haha i love the constant monocle adjusting that goes on whenever a popular old band decides to play shows featuring songs that a lot of people love and will enjoy....it's so sad really, they should have a little moral fibre and play b-sides from the how to dismantle an atomic bomb era

who gives a shit? they seem like they are probably still good live, there's a lot of ppl who would like to hear the joshua tree live what's the harm?

blonde redheads have more fun (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 9 January 2017 17:28 (five months ago) Permalink

when I saw them at the Elevation tour's opening date in Ft Lauderdale, PJ Harvey was supposed to open; it was why I bought tickets. But strep throat forced U2 to replace them with...the Corrs.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 January 2017 17:30 (five months ago) Permalink

Cor!

Working night & day, I tried to stay awake... (Turrican), Monday, 9 January 2017 17:32 (five months ago) Permalink

four months pass...

I sympathize, but Jon Pareles' review of the Joshua Tree tour redux reads like a robot wrote it. On the other hand, it concludes with this:

The band couldn’t let that energy go; Bono impulsively called for an oldie, “I Will Follow,” U2’s first single. Bono urged the crowd to take the roof off, but this was U2’s longtime habitat, a stadium. There was no roof.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 15 May 2017 20:50 (one month ago) Permalink

Which maybe is meant to be sort of portentous? But I think it's hilarious.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 15 May 2017 20:50 (one month ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.