EXP
Active topics
  1. Why can't U2 be more like Bruce Springsteen. New Springsteen single being released on November 25th. Since the release of HTDAAB U2 has released one more album and done one more tour. Springsteen has released 5 albums and been on the road more than anyone else in the business. Talk about being relevant. His shows are not just "Greatest Hit" packages but incorporate the majority of the new albums.
  2. It's not totally new, would be the same if U2 released Mercy or something.

    But you're right. I think you have Bruce on the one side and The Stones on the other side, when it comes to making music, touring etc. (I like them both so its no quality issue)
    U2 always were more at the side of The Stones. More interested in the money and full houses every night, while Bruce looks (he also could be a great actor) like he just goes out and have a great time with his friends and the crowd.

    There is something to be said for both sides, for example U2 have a pretty boring setlist. But it sounds great, everything fits Miss Sarajevo into Zooropa or COBL; it sounds amazing, same goes for One into Streets. Everything ''flows'' great into the next song.
  3. What makes you say it's boring? Because for the most part they play the same songs night after night?

    I dunno, I'd take a well put together show over a random show that might not work at all. Bands like Pearl Jam who switch it up totally are great, but you also have a lot of fans complaining sometimes but how the sets don't always work. With U2 their sets are phenomenal, they're just not one of the bands that you need to go see a billion times.
  4. Yeah, boring setlist all over the tour. The setlist itself isn't boring ofcourse, but they don't change it enough.
    But its like what you say; their sets are phenomenal because of the little changes they make in it.

    I don't know which one I prefer, I went to both Bruce and Pearl Jam in the last 2 years and it didn't felt like they just put a random show together. But U2 have something extra with their stage/lights etc. Most bands don't do that kind of things.

    I can't really say I prefer one kind of show above the other, but for a band like U2 its too bad that they don't play some songs which are great (Acrobat, Pop) . But keep playing Pride, One, Vertigo etc every night instead. Some more rotation will make it even better imo.
  5. Yeah I won't disagree there. It'd be nice if they had parts in the set where they rotated more.
  6. I like the "put together" shows but it does put a damper on things if you are catching two (2) shows in the same city. Seen Springsteen 3 times on the last tour and there was at least a dozen different songs between each of the three (3) shows. Seen both 360 shows in Toronto (first leg) and we got a total of 4 different songs.
  7. If this superbowl ad plus sponsor seeking is true, it's really sad. Many of us recall U2 announcing PopMart from K-Mart, with pure tongue and cheek irony. Relevant in the sense of an artistic endeavor.

    The fact that this is done with zero irony speaks to what "relevant" means to them now.
  8. U2 is done with irony, or at least in the way they played irony in the Pop era. Look at the last few albums and this comes as no surprise. U2 is looking to move to a place where their music is genuine.

    On another note, when did U2 fans become so pessimistic towards the band they love? Holy crap is it bad here. With all the doubt going around, I could barely tell that this was a U2 fan site. We should be excited for what U2 can do.

  9. I can tell you: between all the false rumours about the new album. Eagerly waiting for news and getting nothing but Bono trips around the world during months (years?) has fed up a huge part of the fanbase.
  10. Only 2 years ago the 360 tour came to an end.
    The best tour ever.
    Next year new albun, new tour.
    So what's the problem.
  11. 4 year gap between albums, total unreliability of the utterances from each band member about possible release dates.
    360 was inferior to Zoo TV and PopMart,
    NLOTH was crap, diminishing returns, etc.
    really? what's the problem?
    It's hard to be optimistic.

    But hey, it's all good fun and a nice distraction from reality. They've had a good run at it and no one is shedding any tears. Unless of course, they destroy their legacy with another crap album.
  12. Originally posted by ahn1991:U2 is done with irony, or at least in the way they played irony in the Pop era. Look at the last few albums and this comes as no surprise. U2 is looking to move to a place where their music is genuine.

    On another note, when did U2 fans become so pessimistic towards the band they love? Holy crap is it bad here. With all the doubt going around, I could barely tell that this was a U2 fan site. We should be excited for what U2 can do.


    I haven't had anything to be excited about since they started playing unreleased songs on 360. What's changed? One subpar new song?