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
12467…124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    Wooderson wrote: »
    Yeh, spose. Read a few places stuff like “best album of theirs in years”. It’s not better than Innocence.

    I think Innocence is cruelly underrated tbh.

    What I really like about this album is, it's showing off the rhythm section, Adam in particular.

    I think Blackout, Red Flag Day, Get Out Of Your Own Way, Love Is Bigger Than Anything In It's Way and The Little Things Will Be will be good tunes live


  • Options
    #93
    thegreengoblin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭thegreengoblin


    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 :)

    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.


  • Options
    #94
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    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.


    Maybe I'm coming from a different train of thought but, I don't think you could aim that at quite a few songs off the last record. Sleep Like A Baby Tonight is one in particular I'm thinking of


  • Options
    #95
    veganrun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭veganrun


    When will the European tour be announced?


  • Options
    #96
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    veganrun wrote: »
    When will the European tour be announced?

    I’d guess early January!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    MisterAnarchy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,521 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    veganrun wrote: »
    When will the European tour be announced?

    Not until the new year I'd say,probably end of January.
    They really should be playing Europe first instead of the US.
    We only got 12 gigs in Europe last year as opposed to ~30 in the states and they only finished in the US in Oct.
    Would have made more sense to play Europe next Summer ,then go to the States then down to Australia.

    And the good news lads is that Ticketmaster are planning to bring their Verified Fan horse****e to the UK and Ireland.
    U2 better not be the guinea pigs here ,its been an absolute disaster in the US.:mad:

    http://www.theticketingbusiness.com/2017/09/08/ticketmaster-bring-verified-fan-uk/


  • Options
    #98
    lee_baby_simms
    Registered Users Posts: 3,374 ✭✭✭lee_baby_simms


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #99
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    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-1820789568

    http://ultimateclassicrock.com/u2-songs-of-experience-review/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/arts/music/u2-songs-of-experience-review.html

    http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/music/u2-songs-of-experience-review-tour-philadelphia-20171129.html


  • Options
    #100
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    6.00.gif


  • Options
    #101
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    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-1820789568

    http://ultimateclassicrock.com/u2-songs-of-experience-review/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/arts/music/u2-songs-of-experience-review.html

    http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/music/u2-songs-of-experience-review-tour-philadelphia-20171129.html

    "The result is the best U2 album since “All That You Can’t Leave Behind.”

    "U2 remain defiantly unbowed, as determined as ever to make mass market music that really matters."

    "U2 at their most mature and assured, playing songs of passion and purpose"

    "But even after this return to form, the band will remain as polarising as the polarised world they’re singing about"

    "Songs Of Experience will likely go down as a late-career classic" - Q magazine

    "U2's strongest album this century" MOJO Magazine

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/what-to-listen-to/u2s-songs-experience-full-desperation-meaty-hooks-equal-measure/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/review-u2s-songs-of-experience-is-a-thrilling-listen/2017/11/28/935aa60e-d459-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05_story.html?utm_term=.2f1295bdeb3d

    https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/music-reviews/2017/1128/923514-review-u2-songs-of-experience/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/arts/music/u2-songs-of-experience-review.html

    Carry on...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    Tomas White Suspect wrote: »
    What point did we just prove here?

    That The Nal needs a new hobby!


  • Options
    #103
    yogicolly
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭yogicolly


    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!


  • Options
    #104
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Looking forward to getting my copy delivered.

    Out of the four pre released songs I am impressed. In moat albums from any decent band you look first least 3 or 4 really good songs and then hope the rest of the album is at least average. But there are always 3 or 4 really good songs to make a great album. So far get have released 4 "blackout" "your the best thing about me" "get out of your own way" and "American soul" are all really good songs.

    U2 moaners will always find reasons to be negative. They will never allow themselves to praise u2 or Bono so no point in trying to convince them. Hopefully those moaners won't buy tickets like they usually do, so I can have a better chance of getting tickets


  • Options
    #105
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    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!

    "Ready for the shuffle, ready for the deal, ready to let go of the steering wheel"
    "Riding on a big white butterfly, I turned my back away towards the sky"

    99.9% of songs rhyme tbf

    Also, as a listener, I don't particular want to be challenged. I know when I like a song and when I don't.

    Not just speaking about U2 here


  • Options
    #106
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Another great review

    2/5.

    "Rarely has a band of such stature sounded quite so enervated and bereft of inspiration as U2 do here, ... reduced to hackneyed cheap tricks and tired old truisms barely worth the chords they’re strung on – which are themselves the limpest melodies of their career."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/u2-van-morrison-neil-young-the-rolling-stones-michael-chapman-ehud-banai-alien-stadium-nitin-sawhney-a8083076.html


  • Options
    #107
    Wooderson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,797 ✭✭✭Wooderson


    Most U2 fans don't like being challenged, nothing new there.


  • Options
    #108
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    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.


  • Options
    #109
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    johnpatrick81 wrote: »
    Show me a similar case where a rock band is still delivering after that period.

    58A71EB9-metallica-win-best-international-band-category-at-nme-awards-2017-acceptance-video-streaming-image.jpg

    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!


  • Options
    #110
    yogicolly
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭yogicolly


    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.

    R.E.M. , however they knew when to walkaway even though they were making very decent albums


  • Options
    #111
    Wooderson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,797 ✭✭✭Wooderson


    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.

    Theyre in the top ten, sure. Top five, even.

    I don't really think theyve don't much new since the late 1990s. Everything since then riffing on a theme. Not trying to argue for the sake of it, but theyve floundered recently. Going "all in" on an album only to disown it 12 months down the line.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    The Nal wrote: »
    58A71EB9-metallica-win-best-international-band-category-at-nme-awards-2017-acceptance-video-streaming-image.jpg

    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.

    Metallica?! haha riiiiiiight. And I'm talking exactly that level, stadium rockers, biggest band in world mantle. Most of your list don't come close. REM hell to the no. Radiohead are about 20 years outside of being included. Swans?! Fall?! DYLAN?! The man died legitimately years ago and is being carted around in his carcass. McCartney? Absolute tosh for years. DM haven't had a great album in decades, same for Springsteen.

    You've still yet to give me 1 valid comparative artist. Terrible list only strengthening my point.


  • Options
    #113
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    Wooderson wrote: »
    Most U2 fans don't like being challenged, nothing new there.
    You referring to my earlier remark that I don't feel the need to be intellectually challenged by songs I listen to?


  • Options
    #114
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    The Nal wrote: »
    58A71EB9-metallica-win-best-international-band-category-at-nme-awards-2017-acceptance-video-streaming-image.jpg

    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!

    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..


  • Options
    #115
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    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..

    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.


  • Options
    #116
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    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.

    Can't say I agree tbh.

    I admire and respect all those you listed. Genuinely do. I'd be ****ed without a lot of them.

    However, take for example when I listened to the album. Granted, I've only listened once but, I wasn't looking for some new wave, new idealistic sounds or trends or to see what I could learn about myself (I know myself well enough) I was just listening to see if I liked it or not. I did for the most part, same as I did the last album.

    I absolutely love bass and drum work, along with the guitar technique in The Blackout and love the chorus of it and vibe. Lyrics are a second thought in that instance. Where as The Little Things, it's all about the lyrics and vocal.

    At the end of the day, everyone can like what they like or dislike what they dislike, it's all cool.

    I do think though there are a lot of songs on the last record criminaly underrated


  • Options
    #117
    thegreengoblin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭thegreengoblin


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #118
    q2xv9rjei4awgb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 823 ✭✭✭q2xv9rjei4awgb


    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.

    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


  • Options
    #119
    MisterAnarchy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,521 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    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!

    Its a double edged sword.
    The boys basically gave away their artistic freedom when they sold their soul to the devil ,Livenation .
    They took the soft option and took the money .

    U2 are a corporation ,and have been for the last 20 years .
    After almost going broke on the Popmart tour they learnt valuable lessons and became U2.com.
    They are a money making monster ,and big corporations cannot take risks ,they must keep to safe waters ,keep the money coming in .

    Are they out of ideas ? I dont know,some of the songs on the new album are good .
    U2 dont need to prove themselves to anyone ,they could keep doing Greatest Hits tours for the next ten years and sell out ,if they charge reasonable prices and not the rip off 370 dollars for nosebleeds like they do in the US.
    They havent visited Australia ,Asia and parts of South America in over 7 years .

    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.
    Unfortunately their handf are tied whilst they remain a Livenation artist.


  • Options
    #120
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    There's just nobody comparable to them. Sure if REM had stayed massive and kept going, maybe. But they didn't. So they're not comparable. Not even the same ballpark.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,140 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    U2s live show is the main thing keeping them going now. Their album output has declined and isn't as important anymore.


Advertisement