Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

U2 Experience + Innocence Tour **Discussion Only // No Ticket Sales or Requests**

Options
12357…124

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,445 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    johnpatrick81 wrote: »
    Metallica could be possibly comparable, but christ U2 smash them hands down in every way. I love a lot of Metallica, and loved seeing them live, but U2 have had far greater staying power than them, or the remnants of what was once Metallica.

    Metallicas last album was number 1 in 57 countries, album before that was #1 in 34 countries, their last 6 albums all debuted at number 1. They've 100 dates booked on this tour, (so far) stadiums too, which will sell out. They're a far better live band too.


  • Options
    #123
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    The Nal wrote: »
    Metallicas last album was number 1 in 57 countries, album before that was #1 in 34 countries, their last 6 albums all debuted at number 1. They've 100 dates booked on this tour, (so far) stadiums too, which will sell out. They're a far better live band too.

    Oh so you've gone from artistically challenging and good and favourably reviewed, to album sales?

    And dates on tours? All things U2 trample them on. Album sales and live sales.

    Give it up the Nal.


  • Options
    #124
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,140 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Fairly sure Metallicas recent output has gotten much more favourable reviews as well. But at this stage Metallica are basically the U2 of metal. Big dumb music to please the masses.


  • Options
    #125
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,445 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    MadYaker wrote: »
    Fairly sure Metallicas recent output has gotten much more favourable reviews as well. But at this stage Metallica are basically the U2 of metal. Big dumb music to please the masses.

    They've been that since the Black Album but aren't afraid to go off piste - Load, Garage Inc., St Anger, Lulu - and are a lot more fun. Theres nothing really fun about U2. These days they're just a band for people who still wet the bed.
    MisterAnarchy wrote: »
    They need to get this nonsense of being the biggest band in the world out of their head and just release stuff instead of rewriting and scrapping albums like they have been doing for the last decade.

    Dropping/boring Rick Rubin, plugging Blackberry from the stage (I think thats when I tapped out), turning up at Apple corporate events etc. Ripping their legacy apart.

    Simply, the true greats don't allow themselves to be compromised like that and they'll try to do what they want to do. People like Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Stones, Dylan, The Doors, Tom Waits, Neil Young, Bowie et al. U2 were up alongside them at one stage but theres just something there now you don't want to look at. Or listen to as it happens.

    Hopefully the complete irrelevance of this album will shock them into doing something good. Which I believe they're still capable of doing.

    Sub-question: is it in fact unfair to criticise a formerly great artist for his latter day sins... is it better to burn out or fade away?


  • Options
    #126
    MisterAnarchy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,521 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    The Nal wrote: »
    Metallicas last album was number 1 in 57 countries, album before that was #1 in 34 countries, their last 6 albums all debuted at number 1. They've 100 dates booked on this tour, (so far) stadiums too, which will sell out. They're a far better live band too.

    Metallicas US stadium tour sold terribly, alot of places were half empty.
    U2's on the other hand ?

    I saw Metallica in London recently,good show ,in the round definitely alot more energy and effort put into it than U2 who were like geriatrics in Croke Park.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    thegreengoblin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭thegreengoblin


    Tomas White Suspect wrote: »
    Achtung Baby was pretty unique was it not?

    Nirvana, GnR, Stone Roses were the bands of the time were they not?

    Genuinely, wasn't old enough

    It was, and that's my point. The thing about Achtung Baby is that people go on about the Manchester/dance influence but it came out a good three years after all that stuff. To me that album is their most soulful one but you can hear all sorts of influences on it. They just took it all and made it their own. Zoo Station is one of the greatest opening songs ever and it's also a huge statement of intent.


  • Options
    #128
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    thegreengoblin wrote: »
    It was, and that's my point. The thing about Achtung Baby is that people go on about the Manchester/dance influence but it came out a good three years after all that stuff. To me that album is their most soulful one but you can hear all sorts of influences on it. They just took it all and made it their own. Zoo Station is one of the greatest opening songs ever and it's also a huge statement of intent.

    Thing about that song is that the lyrics make reference for what was to come.

    Don't hear much of the Manchester scene on there. Maybe the beat and groove to Mysterious Ways


  • Options
    #129
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    The Nal wrote: »
    They've been that since the Black Album but aren't afraid to go off piste - Load, Garage Inc., St Anger, Lulu - and are a lot more fun. Theres nothing really fun about U2. These days they're just a band for people who still wet the bed.



    Dropping/boring Rick Rubin, plugging Blackberry from the stage (I think thats when I tapped out), turning up at Apple corporate events etc. Ripping their legacy apart.

    Simply, the true greats don't allow themselves to be compromised like that and they'll try to do what they want to do. People like Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Stones, Dylan, The Doors, Tom Waits, Neil Young, Bowie et al. U2 were up alongside them at one stage but theres just something there now you don't want to look at. Or listen to as it happens.

    Hopefully the complete irrelevance of this album will shock them into doing something good. Which I believe they're still capable of doing.

    Sub-question: is it in fact unfair to criticise a formerly great artist for his latter day sins... is it better to burn out or fade away?

    Bit of unfair, **** and childish to insult people for liking it though..


  • Options
    #130
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    The Nal wrote: »
    They've been that since the Black Album but aren't afraid to go off piste - Load, Garage Inc., St Anger, Lulu - and are a lot more fun. Theres nothing really fun about U2. These days they're just a band for people who still wet the bed.



    Dropping/boring Rick Rubin, plugging Blackberry from the stage (I think thats when I tapped out), turning up at Apple corporate events etc. Ripping their legacy apart.

    Simply, the true greats don't allow themselves to be compromised like that and they'll try to do what they want to do. People like Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Stones, Dylan, The Doors, Tom Waits, Neil Young, Bowie et al. U2 were up alongside them at one stage but theres just something there now you don't want to look at. Or listen to as it happens.

    Hopefully the complete irrelevance of this album will shock them into doing something good. Which I believe they're still capable of doing.

    Sub-question: is it in fact unfair to criticise a formerly great artist for his latter day sins... is it better to burn out or fade away?

    tumblr_lx9jb1SPMr1qdrpdr.gif


  • Options
    #131
    but1er
    Registered Users Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭but1er


    new album is unbelivable


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    Have it on the way on Vinyl but, listened to it once before this morning and streamed it this morning on the way to work on Spotify.

    Doesn't sound forced. Not sure The Blackout should be where it is on the album. Should be placed somewhere else on the running order.
    I really like it. There is something about Summer Of Love that I'm liking. It's an unusual kind of track for them to do. Red Flag Day sounds like something that comes from the War era of the band. The Little Things, we all know my thoughts on that. Prefer the live version but, still a great track and one I think is a classic U2 song. Lyrically especially.
    The Edge appears more vocally on this album. Maybe it's what the songs needed, I don't know.

    Really like the last album, really like this album.

    I'm happy anyways. I'm sure others won't share my thoughts but, hey ho


  • Options
    #133
    Greg81
    Registered Users Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭Greg81


    Any chance for new album on Vinyl delivered today if bought/pre-ordered on the official website?


  • Options
    #134
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    Greg81 wrote: »
    Any chance for new album on Vinyl delivered today if bought/pre-ordered on the official website?

    Nah. Mine was only sent yesterday morning.

    Unless it's coming from within the country, which I doubt very much


  • Options
    #135
    Greg81
    Registered Users Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭Greg81


    Tomas White Suspect wrote: »
    Nah. Mine was only sent yesterday morning.

    Unless it's coming from within the country, which I doubt very much

    OK. Looks like Monday according to the website.


  • Options
    #136
    aristotle25
    Registered Users Posts: 687 ✭✭✭aristotle25


    Plenty of great songs on the new album. Its not a Actung Baby or a Joshua tree but its their best in a long time. Just good tunes that you can actually here a melody in. They are songs you can actually sing in your head a few hours after hearing them.

    Drums and bass excellent, bono's voice seems to be back, Edge not doing tonnes new but guitars are sounding good too.


  • Options
    #137
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    I don't think mine has even been posted :D (pre ordered CD from U2.com), no surprise, easily the worst online operation I've ever encountered from a worldwide entity.


  • Options
    #138
    PTH2009
    Registered Users Posts: 37,763 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    its on Spotify now

    I dont get why people still buy cds when they could just pay E10 a month and have unlimited plays on Spotify but that only really works out if u have unlimted data and access to WIFI


  • Options
    #139
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    PTH2009 wrote: »
    its on Spotify now

    I dont get why people still buy cds when they could just pay E10 a month and have unlimited plays on Spotify but that only really works out if u have unlimted data and access to WIFI


    I have it but, prefer owning something physical.

    It's the romantic side of me


  • Options
    #140
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    PTH2009 wrote: »
    its on Spotify now

    I dont get why people still buy cds when they could just pay E10 a month and have unlimited plays on Spotify but that only really works out if u have unlimted data and access to WIFI

    I'll always buy the U2 CDs to have them, but this time especially for the pre-sale access with the pre-order purchase.

    But yes, Spotify. I don't pay a penny for it either, use my sisters' family login in return for them using my Netflix!


  • Options
    #141
    PTH2009
    Registered Users Posts: 37,763 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    Tomas White Suspect wrote: »
    I have it but, prefer owning something physical.

    It's the romantic side of me

    I'd be that for DVDs/Blu rays but I've cut down since and don't buy as much cause of Netflix and all that.

    love buying concerts films, there just not the same downloading/streaming them etc


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    i won't be buying any more U2 live DVDs unless they are old releases. The new shows from U2-360 seem painfully bad in comparison to the older tours.


  • Options
    #143
    innuendo141
    Registered Users Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭innuendo141


    Tomas White Suspect wrote: »
    I have it but, prefer owning something physical.

    It's the romantic side of me

    x2. I'm currently making up for years and years of downloading entire discographies (illegally) in one click. Back to the physical mediums. Saying that, I am listening away to SOE on Sposhafy since I won't get my LP until Monday.


  • Options
    #144
    Sonny678
    Registered Users Posts: 1,085 ✭✭✭Sonny678


    U2 where do you begin. Well there's the Irish angle, The American Angle and the British angle.

    So the Irish angle so in many ways U2 don't really get the credit they deserve in this country. There was an article in The Guardian a while back saying that if U2 where from say Denmark are another country Irelands size there would be statues and more acclaim of the band. U2 do get praise in Ireland. But their sucess and achievements are pretty much unprecedented for a countries Irelands size. In Ireland and elsewhere Bono does annoy and divide public opinion. And the whole tax in Holland and paradise papers have been a PR disaster for the band. But it still is remarkable how 4 young men in the early 70s in a country that was a economic political social and cultural basket case. From the back streets of Dublin went onto to become of rocks great supergroups.

    Their sucess is phenomenal. They have been the biggest band in the world for nearly 30 years. That is the longest run of sucess that any band had achieved. For example the Beatles were the biggest band in the world from 1963 to 70. The Stones were the biggest band in the World from 1970 to 1973. Pink Flyod and Led Zeppelin where the biggest between 74 and 79. And The Police were the biggest band in the World from 1980 to 83. 1984 85 and 86 Bon Jovi Def Leppard and other appalling heavy metal and dodgy 80s bands eg Duran Duran where all at different times could be labelled the biggest band in the world in the mid 80s. But from 1987 onwards it is a title that had been directed towards U2.

    That's not to say bands at different times where bigger then U2 in that period of 30 years. Eg Guns n Roses 1989, Nirvana 1991 92 , REM 1994 , Oasis 1995 96 97 ( in Britian) Radiohead 97 98 and Coldplay in the last decade have all had periods where they bigger then U2 and could be labelled biggest band in the world. But they all for different reasons where only that big for a period of years. U2 have been the definatly one of the biggest band in the world in the last 30 years and probaly overall probaly have been the biggest. That is quite extraordinary run of sucess.

    As band they are a great singles band and have produced a long run of good and a couple of great albums. They have produced 2 All time classics in The Joshua Tree and Achtung baby. And have always been a great live act. Truthfully one of the few bands that can pull of the stadium thing really well. Every tour they go on does push the boundaries for a live show. And it seems every tour they do goes down as the most sucessful tour in music history. They have a great back catalogue. One of rocks best and most interesting. Their story is remarkable one, how 4 Dublin lads conquered the world. I think in this country for many reasons that is downplayed and ignored.


  • Options
    #145
    Sonny678
    Registered Users Posts: 1,085 ✭✭✭Sonny678


    In terms of the current album anyone expecting U2 to produce another Joshua Tree is not been rationale and doesn't understand music. Nearly all great rock music is created by men in their 20s. If you name 100 greatest rock albums of all time the vast majority would have been created by groups when they were in their 20s. A couple have produced classics in their 30s. But very few if any have produced masterpieces in their 40s. If you named the 100 greatest rock albums ever from Revolver to Pet Sounds to Never mind the Bollocks to London Calling not 1 would be produced by a band in their 40s.

    Rock is a young man's game. Actually most artists produce their best work in their 20s. There's the odd few that continue great work eg Neil Young Nick Cave but overall in ones 20s is when allot of great music is made. And especially for a rock band that's when greatness is achieved. David Bowie and John Lennon, both two All time greats , both considered musical geniuses. You can see a marked decline in their output once they hit 30. And this is very common.

    What marks U2 out is they produced their best album in their 30s Achtung baby . ALso U2 continued to make a high standard of music up to today. Their last excellent album was Pop. Since then they have become a parody of themselves of sorts. But they still have produced great songs eg Vertigo Moment of Surrender, The Troubles etc. For a band their size, that has never been done before. Bands U2 size would be The Rolling Stones The Polic The Who all the big supergroups.

    None of the above produced anything remotely decent after they were 40. The only band was REM and even now they have broke up.

    Even smaller bands I cannot think of very few rock bands any size that continue to produce quality work heading towards their sixties. Look at the crap that The Stone Roses and Blur produced as singles when they got back together. If U2 produced The Stones Roses single All for One. With a chorus about building a wall they would have crucified. Bands go into decline as they get older. U2 are no different . What marks U2 different is that they are still producing quality music in their 50s. A current song like Blackout is very good rock song with a brillant bass line.

    PS I know some people will say Radiohead. But me personally after OK Computer Radiohead went up their own backside. Produced pretentious boring prog rock. The Bends and OK Computer were both great albums and thats when they where a quality rock outfit.


  • Options
    #146
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,445 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Sonny678 wrote: »
    In terms of the current album anyone expecting U2 to produce another Joshua Tree is not been rationale and doesn't understand music. Nearly all great rock music is created by men in their 20s.

    Why do they have to keep doing rock music?


  • Options
    #147
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    The Nal wrote: »
    Why do they have to keep doing rock music?

    Why do you have to keep listening to a band you've not liked an album from since 1997?

    2001
    2005
    2014
    2017

    Take a hint will you. You've actually disliked them for more years than you liked them.

    You'd swear they were the only band you're allowed to listen to.


  • Options
    #148
    Sonny678
    Registered Users Posts: 1,085 ✭✭✭Sonny678


    The Nal wrote:
    Why do they have to keep doing rock music?

    Because they are a rock band. Why did BB King only write blues music ? because he was a blues musician. Why did Ella Fitzgerald create Jazz music? because she was a jazz artist. Why did Chemical brother make dance music? because they are a dance group.

    Actually U2 are one of the few rock bands to successfully incorporate dance music into their music. Their the only band their size from 80s to incorporate dance music in their music sucessful. The Smiths were great. But could they have took the madchester sound and incorporated in their music. That's what U2 did.


  • Options
    #149
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    The Nal wrote: »
    Why do they have to keep doing rock music?

    giphy.gif


  • Options
    #150
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    Nah lads, U2 should re-model themselves as some blues/grunge/reggae/electro combo, just for that 1 strange little man in Ireland who needs them to change cos he doesn't understand the concept of "other bands"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Sonny678
    Registered Users Posts: 1,085 ✭✭✭Sonny678


    So let's look at the US angle.

    Noel Gallagher said recently that in the US U2 are seen as one of the greatest rock bands of all time. Up their with US greats The Beach Boys and The Doors and British bands lke Pink Flyod and The Who. He went on to say in Britian they are not as acclaimed and are actually heavily criticised.

    In the USA in the last 30 years the two massive supergroups similar to The Who or any other 60s and 70s supergroups are U2 and Nirvana. Of course that's no to say other groups have been sucessful. Both the two groups that have made the biggest impact were U2 and Nirvana. If you named the greatst rock bands of all time in the US the only two modern bands included from last 30 years would be U2 and Nirvana. Bands like Foo Fighers Pearl Jam and even REM would have their fans and followers. But they wouldnt be seen up their with Zepplin and The Who.

    When you name the greatest bands ever in US, The Beatles are nearly always number 1. Only Led Zeppelin would be considered better by some. The Rolling Stones are always in the top 2 or 3. Then you have Pink Floyd the Who and then somewhere in the top 10 come U2. Look at any list of the greatest bands ever in the US and you will see this trend. Watch Jimmy Fallon on the tonight show US biggest chats how. Introducing U2 in the summer on his show as one of the greatest rock bands of all time. You would not hear the same description of U2 in the UK.

    When you think of it the two bands that made the biggest impact in the last 30 years in the USA , they r Nirvana and U2. Most would not be surprised to hear Nirvana. But U2 might surprise some. But Bands like the Smiths The Stone Roses and Blur had little impact in the states. Yet in the UK they would be considered better then U2. Oasis were massive in Britian and here in 95 to 98 but there impact in the states was also limited. Coldplay are the only band to make serious inroads in the US from Britian recently. But no serious rock fan in the US would have Coldplay in the same league as great British rock outfits like The Beatles The Stones and The Who.

    U2 did a tour of US this year celebrating a 30 year old album. Name 1 band from 1987 band that could have done that. Name any band from the last thirty from Europe that could have done that. A sold out stadium tour of 30 year old album. Bands like Echo and the Bunny men Pulp all were massive in the UK. Yet made feck all impact in the US. U2 sucess in the states was and still is extraordinary. They are the last great supergroup in the mould of the Stones Pink Flyod The Who. Bands where everyone knows every member of the group. Bamds who sold by the tens of millions and produced all time great rock albums which conquered the US. That does not happen anymore . U2 are the last great proper supergroup. The first was the Beatles . The last is U2.


Advertisement