Wooderson wrote: » Yeh, spose. Read a few places stuff like “best album of theirs in years”. It’s not better than Innocence.
Tomas White Suspect wrote: » The Little Things stirs the emotions in me. I say they are capable tbh. At the end of the day, it comes down to the individual listener. I think they are anyways for what it's worth. If they twist my emotions, I'm happy out. Not really sure either about "beyond the limit." How do you mean? I mean, if you enjoy it, that's all the matters isn't it? I don't listen to Johnny B.Goode and think Chuck played it safe only putting in three chords. If that's your thing, cool. That's your taste at the end of the day. I've no right to say otherwise. Great thing about music
thegreengoblin wrote: » Absolutely, you're 100 per cent correct there. That's the bottom line and good luck to those who enjoy it. That's the great thing about music. My take on it is that I just think they're capable of so much better but are content to put this bog-standard stuff out in some weird attempt to stay in sync with 'current trends' whatever they may be. It's not them, it's not the way they used to approach making records.
veganrun wrote: » When will the European tour be announced?
thegreengoblin wrote: » I just think they're capable of so much better but are content to put this bog-standard stuff out in some weird attempt to stay in sync with 'current trends' whatever they may be.
The Nal wrote: » More reviews in. At best average all round. At best, embarrassing. "That doesn't mean Songs of Experience is a terrible or even a bad record. It just isn't very memorable." "The album is also a return to the standard commercial market" "Edge rocks out and the band bangs away at familiar themes with the ham-handed chorus" "It just would be more effective if we didn’t have the sense that we’re experienced it all before." "U2 gives too many fúcks on the insufferable Songs Of Experience"https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/music-reviews/2017/1128/923514-review-u2-songs-of-experience/https://www.avclub.com/u2-gives-too-many-****s-on-the-insufferable-songs-of-ex-1820789568http://ultimateclassicrock.com/u2-songs-of-experience-review/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/arts/music/u2-songs-of-experience-review.htmlhttp://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/music/u2-songs-of-experience-review-tour-philadelphia-20171129.html
Tomas White Suspect wrote: » What point did we just prove here?
yogicolly wrote: » More of the same from U2, hints of some good songs but let down once again by some poor songs. New album is not terrible as the early songs may have suggested, it has hints of Zooropa & Pop, but too many other tracks once again suffer from over production, cheesy/rhymey lyrics and a need to be radio friendly/concert bouncing, something that all their albums since Pop suffer from. There is always some good tracks on these albums that hint that the spark and capability to experiment is still there, in particular on the tracks let off the official album track listing such as The Ground Beneath Her Feet, Lucifer’s Hand and even on this new album the track Book of your Heart Really wish they'd have the balls to be uncompromising like they were in the 90's, stop trying too hard for a radio hit, stop rhyming everything or using analogy’s to compare everything to a ****ing breeze, challenge the listener and don’t spell out a songs theme through obvious lyrics or onscreen visuals!
johnpatrick81 wrote: » Show me a similar case where a rock band is still delivering after that period.
johnpatrick81 wrote: » I think it just adds to them being the biggest and best band of all time all things considered(timeframe of relevance, artistic acclaim, and the amount of people they've played live to and affected their lives in a positive way). Damn fine solid album with some gems in there, and better than I expected of a band approaching their 60s on the go for 40 years. Show me a similar case where a rock band is still delivering after that period.
The Nal wrote: » Top of my head - Nine Inch Nails, Tom Waits, Bowie, Roger Waters, Radiohead, McCartney, Morrissey, Depeche Mode, Springsteen, Swans, The Fall, Dylan, as above REM, Metallica.... I'm sure theres loads more.
Wooderson wrote: » Most U2 fans don't like being challenged, nothing new there.
The Nal wrote: » Top of my head - Nine Inch Nails, Tom Waits, Bowie, Roger Waters, Radiohead, McCartney, Morrissey, Depeche Mode, Springsteen, Swans, The Fall, Dylan, as above REM, Metallica.... I'm sure theres loads more. Most of them have tried something different - to mixed results - but even a radical departure that doesn't work can rejuvenate a band. U2 are stuck in the same rut unfortunately. What happened to the experimental album they were on about? Take a fúcking risk lads!
Tomas White Suspect wrote: » So basically, you're in a thread about a band you don't like, while listing bands you like and listen to, saying they're better... OK..
The Nal wrote: » Nope. I was replying to a question someone asked. U2 are a band I love. I'm comparing their recent safe and pedestrian output to acts who have been (and were) around for a similar amount of time who have mixed it up a bit and are therefore a lot more interesting. Lets face it, U2 are flushing their legacy down the toilet. I don't particularly listen to some I listed above but respect what they do.
lee_baby_simms wrote: » But they've always been like that. They've always hijacked current trends to some degree in an attempt to stay fresh. With Pop they went into dance music, zooropa - experimental electronic, Joshua tree - Americana roots...theres always been an insecurity within U2 where they feel the need to dress up their music in whatever the fashionable clothes of the day are. It isn't necessarily a bad thing but I think this often leads them to an identity crisis hence the constant shuffling of an endless list of producers.
thegreengoblin wrote: » I get what you're saying and I should have mentioned this because it is a valid point. However, whenever they have done this in the past they were able to put their own unique stamp on it and therefore it usually worked. Take Pop for example. You can't call it a dance album although it is clearly influenced by dance, but in the end it's still an identifiable U2 album. They could put their own spin on it. And generally the music that was recorded was so good that you didn't even think about the influences. With any of the songs that I've heard so far there's nothing unique or particularly memorable about them. They're just standard issue songs that could have been recorded by anyone.
The Nal wrote: » U2 are stuck in the same rut unfortunately. What happened to the experimental album they were on about? Take a fúcking risk lads!
