U2 - new album

[Your Friendly Neighbourhood Postman]

Why should our expectations be any different?

Because they want us to pay for this one?

I also like Quaco's reply, just above.

[Hightea]

yikes actually thought American Soul was a decent song until I saw that SNL clip.
Get out of your own way seems like an okay song but the rest of the album seems like not much energy was put into this album.
This is now two sub par albums for u2 so maybe they have dried up. At least their last album had some nice melodies, but this new one got nothing.
Starting to think it might have been better for Bono to bring in some session musicians and see if he is capable of reinventing something different or interesting.

See lots of the typical picking on the big band crap once again by many at BCB. In my eyes u2 have had plenty of nice moments thruout their career and after some subpar albums in the mid and lat 90's I though they had a bunch of great songs in the 00's.

How relevant are they, these days? I've really no idea how eagerly awaited their output is nor how much critical acclaim they get.

I don't think I could name their last three albums.

really? what world you live in? u2 are basically the biggest selling live act, pretty sure their 2017 tour will be the biggest grossing tour of the year. You might not like (no problem there) but to call them not relevant is just not correct.

[The Modernist]

They are one of the last classic rock bands. They will always be seen as a huge band, one of a small number who have achieved sustained success on a global scale over a long period of time. That's their reputation and a big reason why people want to see them. I don't think it has all that much to do with the relevance, or otherwise, of their records in 2017. Their position is similar to The Stones in the early 90s, still releasing records, but beyond the point where it matters how good or bad they are. Their attraction as a live act is not in any way dependent on their new releases.

[Bent Fabric]

How relevant are they, these days? I've really no idea how eagerly awaited their output is nor how much critical acclaim they get.

I don't think I could name their last three albums.

really? what world you live in? u2 are basically the biggest selling live act, pretty sure their 2017 tour will be the biggest grossing tour of the year. You might not like (no problem there) but to call them not relevant is just not correct.

No one was more surprised than me when Bon Jovi started packing the biggest of the biggest venues again at some point in the 21st Century. Same venues as U2 on some of these later tours. To wit, Soldier Field in Chicago seems as big as any place I've ever seen.

I don't know who is going to these gigs, I don't know what their hit songs or albums from the past 25 years are called or sound like, but...surely the statistics don't lie.

I think the guy who sells the T shirts would argue that this type of statistical achievement surely qualifies as something, but I hesitate to use words like "relevance".

[bobzilla77]

They were on SNL on Saturday and were hand-over-mouth shite.

And they were too cool to join the cast for the cute sketch about how to properly pronounce the host's name (Saoirse, like inertia.) I just watched one and a half of the clips and you are 100% correct about their tuneage.

[bobzilla77]

This, however, entertained me a great deal yesterday.

[clive gash]

They should just relax into old age, stop trying too hard. They did very well, in a way that shed fresh light on their earlier years, to redefine themselves on Achtung Baby.

The Joshua Tree tour points the way forward for them, hit them with the big stuff - an Achtung Baby tour could be a nod towards relevance if they need to still feel edgy.

[Bent Fabric]

The Joshua Tree tour points the way forward for them, hit them with the big stuff - an Achtung Baby tour could be a nod towards relevance if they need to still feel edgy.

Nah -fuck that shit.

2018: Rattle and Hum 30!!!

[BARON CORNY DOG]

How relevant are they, these days? I've really no idea how eagerly awaited their output is nor how much critical acclaim they get.

I don't think I could name their last three albums.

really? what world you live in? u2 are basically the biggest selling live act, pretty sure their 2017 tour will be the biggest grossing tour of the year. You might not like (no problem there) but to call them not relevant is just not correct.

No one was more surprised than me when Bon Jovi started packing the biggest of the biggest venues again at some point in the 21st Century. Same venues as U2 on some of these later tours. To wit, Soldier Field in Chicago seems as big as any place I've ever seen.

I don't know who is going to these gigs, I don't know what their hit songs or albums from the past 25 years are called or sound like, but...surely the statistics don't lie.

I think the guy who sells the T shirts would argue that this type of statistical achievement surely qualifies as something, but I hesitate to use words like "relevance".

Well, quite.

I couldn’t name a U2 record since Pop. That was one, right? Or was it Slippery When Wet?

[clive gash]

The Joshua Tree tour points the way forward for them, hit them with the big stuff - an Achtung Baby tour could be a nod towards relevance if they need to still feel edgy.

Nah -fuck that shit.

2018: Rattle and Hum 30!!!

I thought they’d want to work up to it but you’re right, what the world needs now is Helter Skelter back in the hands of the righteous. Again.

[Bent Fabric]

"The late Charles Manson stole this song from the Beatles..."

[Bent Fabric]

Look around you.

The gradual abandonment of a red guitar, three chords and the truth has really gotten us nowhere.

[Goat Boy]

Are U2 culturally relevant? Is any band that relevant these days? Is it possible to sell out stadiums and not be relevant? I think so, especially in this day and age where nostalgia is an industry. U2 are one of last big, classic rock bands but of course they come from a very different era. For a band like U2 they are in a very weird position where they are still trying to reflect their times but they have nothing really to say and even if they did it would be largely impotent because rock has very little cultural relevance these days. U2 are just part of the wider entertainment industry. American Soul has about as much impact as a Twitter post.

It doesn't seem all that different to what they've been doing for most of their career. I struggle to see it as some kind of career nadir or terrible decline. Is it so much worse than what was on the last album or the one before that? Why should our expectations be any different?

Yep.

I would say the last two albums have been significantly worse than what's come before, yes. Truthfully U2 have been in decline since the 90s. If you were being very critical they've been in decline since Achtung Baby but Zooropa was a trashy throwaway that reveled in its status and was actually the last satisfying album they've made plus there was still that sense of them riding a crest of a wave. Pop was where it started to go wrong but it looks like a work of genius compared to the new one. Every album since Pop however has had a handful of moments though. Even the much derided No Line On The Horizon actually had good U2 songs, songs that could actually stand up to what came before without shaming themselves. Songs of Innocence had some melodies the milkman could whistle even if the album was probably the worst of their career. The latest one barely has that.

[naughty boy]

I want to talk about ‘Get Out Of Your Own Way’

[Goat Boy]

You're on your own

[naughty boy]

No - I'm not having it.

[bobzilla77]

Coldplay always wanted to be better than U2 and now, they may have achieved that.