'U2 are past it'

Poncke

I have read comments and reviews that U2 are past it. All I can say is haters gonna hate.

U2 still got it, my word, what a show. Seen them in Berlin and Dublin, and it has to be one of the best shows I have seen of U2 and in my life.

There is no way anyone can honestly say and think that U2 are past it.

Anyway, for me it was dreams come true, singing "40" at The Point. Sobbing like a little girl.

What.A.Show

Well done to the lads, proven to still be the best rock band in the world.

Had to get this of my chest. :cool:

corsav6

Poncke wrote: »

I have read comments and reviews that U2 are past it. All I can say is haters gonna hate.

U2 still got it, my word, what a show. Seen them in Berlin and Dublin, and it has to be one of the best shows I have seen of U2 and in my life.

There is no way anyone can honestly say and think that U2 are past it.

Anyway, for me it was dreams come true, singing "40" at The Point. Sobbing like a little girl.

What.A.Show

Well done to the lads, proven to still be the best rock band in the world.

Had to get this of my chest. :cool:

You too must be past it if that's what you think.
See what I did there

cocaliquid

Poor chap is deluded maybe they could make the top ten.

Poncke

Yeah mate

gammy_knees

cocaliquid wrote: »

Poor chap is deluded maybe they could make the top ten.

Have you got your tickets for Adele?:):)

RolandGoose

There is no point in defending U2. Musically they are fantastic and very capable of writing great songs.

However they are detested for their politics and personal affairs, and it is for this reason that so many people view then as hate figures and make there views v well known.

Musically they are as good as you will see, especially live. A band like U2 shouldn't need to be defended on a musical level.

RasTa

Seen them at Glastonbury, certainly past it with the audience reaction. They had one good album back in the day.

Their fans remind me of older Bieber fans, crying at gigs and going to all 4 shows in Dublin and then another 18 throughout the year.

cocaliquid

Never said i did not like U2 . Their not the best rock band in the world.

RolandGoose

RasTa wrote: »

Seen them at Glastonbury, certainly past it with the audience reaction. They had one good album back in the day.

Their fans remind me of older Bieber fans, crying at gigs and going to all 4 shows in Dublin and then another 18 throughout the year.

Your obviously not a U2 fan,

You probably should have went to see a band you liked instead!

The Glastombury performance was v poor. They can't deliver the goods night after night. The difference between last night and Friday night, was night and day!

For a band in their mid 50's having been doing this for the past 39 years and reached every peak possible, I reckon they should probably be good some slack.

They are in no ways what you would call bad, even on an off night.

It's the endless pontificating that incites such extraverted hatred!

RayCon

RolandGoose wrote: »

Musically they are as good as you will see, especially live. A band like U2 shouldn't need to be defended on a musical level.

You do accept there are people who just don't like U2's music .... nothing to do with politics / personalities etc - yes ?

ghostdancer

RolandGoose wrote: »

There is no point in defending U2. Musically they are fantastic and very capable of writing great songs.

However they are detested for their politics and personal affairs, and it is for this reason that so many people view then as hate figures and make there views v well known.

Musically they are as good as you will see, especially live. A band like U2 shouldn't need to be defended on a musical level.

nonsense.

musically, they've been absolutely atrocious for many, many years.
their last few albums have been utter sh1t.

take away the screens for these gigs and all the pre-Pop songs and see how many people would think they were good gigs.
their old stuff is good, and they put on a good visual show, but their music these days is awful.

lertsnim

Some people won't like the music you like. You should try to get over it.

hatrickpatrick

ghostdancer wrote: »

nonsense.

musically, they've been absolutely atrocious for many, many years.
their last few albums have been utter sh1t.

take away the screens for these gigs and all the pre-Pop songs and see how many people would think they were good gigs.
their old stuff is good, and they put on a good visual show, but their music these days is awful.

Given that practically everyone in the arena last night was singing along to Raised By Wolves, Every Breaking Wave, Beautiful Day, City of Blinding Lights and Vertigo, I'd be fairly confident that they'd still sell out any venue several times over.

Dcully

ghostdancer wrote: »

nonsense.

musically, they've been absolutely atrocious for many, many years.
their last few albums have been utter sh1t.

take away the screens for these gigs and all the pre-Pop songs and see how many people would think they were good gigs.
their old stuff is good, and they put on a good visual show, but their music these days is awful.

"atrocious" "utter sh1t" "awful"

LOL JUST LOL

FYI quite a lot of the current show has little use of the big screen and minimal lighting the [first half of the gig infact] , hence why imo it was close to the best gig ive ever been to from any act.

Just for you ,no screen here dude and minimal lighting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcfP957eU4w

FixdePitchmark

RayCon wrote: »

You do accept there are people who just don't like U2's music .... nothing to do with politics / personalities etc - yes ?

I'm asking a serious question here - Is that actually possible ?

Fair enough someone may be into some very heavy alternative music.

But -U2 have 13 albums and many side projects.
There is huge diversity across their songs.

Not sure you could find someone who doesn't like a good few U2 songs - If they don't, I'm not sure they like music at all ?????

FixdePitchmark

Jesus that is class above.

You think he is losing voice, then pulls stuff like that off.

Dcully

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Jesus that is class above.

You think he is losing voice, then pulls stuff like that off.

I noticed the last 20 mins on Tuesday night his voice was getting a little rough but wow does he give it everything every single song,no wonder they needed a break of two days before Friday and Saturday gigs.

simdan

Cannot stand and have never liked them. Obviously this is my opinion, they've done incredibly well, have a massive following, especially in the States. Well done to them, but not my cup of tea.

I think they are definitely past it and it upsets me how weird they have become when I accidentally see them on tv.

FixdePitchmark

Dcully wrote: »

I noticed the last 20 mins on Tuesday night his voice was getting a little rough but wow does he give it everything every single song,no wonder they needed a break of two days before Friday and Saturday gigs.

I noticed it too - so was a bit worried last night.

But was class.

U2 may be past it , but near impossible to get tickets

We don't probably have an arena the right size for that show last night (40-50000).
To be honest music is past it. It is all X factor etc.

There was a day you had to put in work to listen to an album ("A Grower") as it was called. Like a radiohead album took weeks to get into.

I think , it is cool to say U2 are **** - but these so called crap albums had great songs - example would be Vertigo - City of blinding lights.

They do unreal slow songs (I know not for everyone) - but the new album is a grower and I would encourage people to listen to it 3/4 times, stunning songs.

I know people have a pain in their hole - with their politics. But, I am Irish and I am interested in Irish stuff (sorry)

I was watching this the other night and thinking. Who else is doing stuff like this An actual story and song about an event with an emotion in it - with visuals like this. It is actually a very hard thing to do - so **** it - we are just typing stuff on the internet. I admire anyone - I mean anyone who puts stuff out there. U2 just have loads of cash now, but they had the balls to put themselves out there - fair ****s. More than I have done

It got me talking to my dad and family about the bombings - I honestly new little about the details.

Bonedigger

Personally speaking, I don't think U2 have made a decent album since Achtung Baby. The odd decent tune on Zooropa and Pop aside, very little they've produced since has impressed me much. They're on the gravy train (and fair play to them!), so can continue to produce rather mediocre albums and know that the diehards will always buy the albums and concert tickets no matter what.

fatherted1969

It's amusing how people write them off, plenty on here it seems too. Everyone entitled to their opinions, I think they're great. If they had put 10 nights up in a row in Dublin guaranteed every one of them would be a sellout. Love their old stuff and like plenty of their new stuff but then again I'm only a die hard not an expert on what's good.

Bonedigger

fatherted1969 wrote: »

It's amusing how people write them off, plenty on here it seems too. Everyone entitled to their opinions, I think they're great. If they had put 10 nights up in a row in Dublin guaranteed every one of them would be a sellout. Love their old stuff and like plenty of their new stuff but then again I'm only a die hard not an expert on what's good.

As you say, you're one of the diehards, and can't argue with you there.

Birneybau

Bonedigger wrote: »

Personally speaking, I don't think U2 have made a decent album since Achtung Baby. The odd decent tune on Zooropa and Pop aside, very little they've produced since has impressed me much. They're on the gravy train (and fair play to them!), so can continue to produce rather mediocre albums and know that the diehards will always buy the albums and concert tickets no matter what.

This would be my exact same sentiment but I like Zooropa as a whole. Bar a couple of tracks on Pop, it was the last time they took a risk. Neil Finn said U2 were more into being big these days then anything else and I'd wholeheartedly agree.

mark13

ghostdancer wrote: »

nonsense.

musically, they've been absolutely atrocious for many, many years.
their last few albums have been utter sh1t.

take away the screens for these gigs and all the pre-Pop songs and see how many people would think they were good gigs.
their old stuff is good, and they put on a good visual show, but their music these days is awful.

This is a really, really dumb argument, of course if you take away half of a bands back catalogue the song selection wouldn't be as good, this same rule applies to every single band and performer in existence. On this tour U2 have played at least 10 songs every night from the post-Pop era and as you can see from the main thread, some people consider them highlights of the gig.

I was surprised to see from your post history that you're a fan of the Stone Roses, who released a decent album in 1989 and did feck all since, they're the very definition of a band coasting on past glory.

ghostdancer

mark13 wrote: »

This is a really, really dumb argument, of course if you take away half of a bands back catalogue the song selection wouldn't be as good, this same rule applies to every single band and performer in existence. On this tour U2 have played at least 10 songs every night from the post-Pop era and as you can see from the main thread, some people consider them highlights of the gig.

I was surprised to see from your post history that you're a fan of the Stone Roses, who released a decent album in 1989 and did feck all since, they're the very definition of a band coasting on past glory.

not really, as loads of bands are produce good stuff later in their career compared with their earlier stuff, and not rubbish like No Line on the Horizon or Songs of Innocence. I'm sure some diehards like those songs but most people didn't even have a clue about those songs and were just waiting for the old classics.

and if the Stone Roses start touring with new material which is crap and start relying on outlandish set designs and props to distract from them, and I start saying that "they've still got it", then you may have a valid point.

mjsmyth

Some might say that the Stone Roses have been relying on one good album for the last 26 years. Some might say that their second album was a crock of sh*te. Some might say that Ian Brown can't sing to save his life. Some might say that the Stone Roses are a long way past it and the only reason they continue to tour is because it's a cash cow and they have no real interest in ever progressing their music by taking a risk and updating their sound. Some might say...

Feck, I think I just wrote an Oasis song!

mark13

ghostdancer wrote: »

not really, as loads of bands are produce good stuff later in their career compared with their earlier stuff, and not rubbish like No Line on the Horizon or Songs of Innocence. I'm sure some diehards like those songs but most people didn't even have a clue about those songs and were just waiting for the old classics.

and if the Stone Roses start touring with new material which is crap and start relying on outlandish set designs and props to distract from them, and I start saying that "they've still got it", then you may have a valid point.

Yes obscure tracks like Beautiful Day, Vertigo, Elevation, The Sweetest Thing etc

I disagree with you here, your assumption is that everyone thinks both of those U2 albums are crap, they don't. They're not perfect but, have some decent songs on them.

The Who, Neil Young, Prince, Billy Joel, Elton John, The Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Paul McCartney, The Eagles, Roger Waters, AC/DC are all still touring regularly and playing massive venues, last time I checked they haven't put out anything significant in decades..so do you have a similar level of vitriol for them or is this just a U2 thing?

Also with the exception of Bruce Springsteen, I can't think of any major bands who are still putting out great stuff in their later years, who exactly are you referring to?

ghostdancer

mark13 wrote: »

Yes obscure tracks like Beautiful Day, Vertigo, Elevation, The Sweetest Thing etc

I disagree with you here, your assumption is that everyone thinks both of those U2 albums are crap, they don't. They're not perfect but, have some decent songs on them.

The Who, Neil Young, Prince, Billy Joel, Elton John, The Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Paul McCartney, The Eagles, Roger Waters, AC/DC are all still touring regularly and playing massive venues, last time I checked they haven't put out anything significant in decades..so do you have a similar level of vitriol for them or is this just a U2 thing?

Also with the exception of Bruce Springsteen, I can't think of any major bands who are still putting out great stuff in their later years, who exactly are you referring to?

Vitriol? LOL
U2 fans really are a sensitive bunch.
Yes, i think most of those acts' recent output has been awful, much like U2's.

Canadel

Nothing major against U2 but they really make me glad indie rock exists. If for example Arcade Fire carried on and cashed in the way U2 are doing now in the future I'd like to think I'd be disappointed. But then again, maybe I wouldn't. Times makes you bolder..

Poncke

I understand not everyone likes U2, I have no problem with that. Thats not what the OP is about. Its the people that say that U2 are past it, and I disagree with that.

Someone said; take away their screens and old songs and U2 are sheite, LOL. The visuals and the full catalogue is what makes U2. Its a silly comment. Take away the chocolate and the caramel and a Snickers bar is just a bunch of nuts.

As for the politics. at least U2 use their fame and money to do some good instead of snore it all up and throw it at the hookers.

and 'tax evasion', Rolling Stones moved their Ltd to the Netherlands long before U2, but that fact always seems to be conveniently ignored when comparing the two bands.

About being the best rock band in the world, I get it that e.g. Royal Blood is considered hot and current, love them, but they dont have a patch on U2. In terms of entertainment and music catalogue there are not many with the pedigree of U2, so yes, I consider them to be best rock band in the world.

Poncke

Canadel wrote: »

Nothing major against U2 but they really make me glad indie rock exists. If for example Arcade Fire carried on and cashed in the way U2 are doing now in the future I'd like to think I'd be disappointed. But then again, maybe I wouldn't. Times makes you bolder..

I love indy rock, liking U2 doesnt mean you cant listen to anything else