Rush was alive before Neil...why not after?

[Weatherman]

Not this again.

 

It's over, and it's been over a lot longer than Neil was ill, I imagine. 40 years is a heck of a lot longer than most bands stick around, let alone with their classic lineup, and let alone anywhere near the peak of their powers. Rush gave us everything they had. If Ged and Al have more music to offer us, it won't be called Rush.

 

It's amazing to see a band like U2, which is still making great records (Songs of Experience) over 40 years after forming.

In their case, they've started leaning on a huge team of younger producers to bring them new ideas.

Bono and Edge also studied the Lennon/McCartney songbook in the late 00s, seeing it as more craft and less inspiration.

That new emphasis, plus zero shame in bringing in new collaborators, has kept them relevant.

I don't blame them one bit.

 

Other older bands have too much pride to bring in outside help, or relearn songwriting.

Rush, for example. It showed, unfortunately, in their songwriting the final 4 albums. I imagine that nobody here really disagrees.

Pearl Jam refuse to learn how to write songs in a new way, and as a result they've been in a slow nosedive for the last twenty years.

Rolling Stones have effectively given up songwriting. They've made exactly 2 new albums in the last 22 years.

 

If you're gonna stay together as a recording unit for decades, your way of working has to change at some point.

Otherwise, just go be a heritage act and play the outdoor sheds every summer like Jimmy Buffett.

 

I'll take Rush's 00's output every day of the week over U2's. Not even close. I think on CA especially Rush refound whatever songwriting skills had drifted away since their golden age, but VT has a number of great songs as well, and SnA at least has Far Cry.

 

I don't think U2 has had a relevant song since Vertigo. Songs Of Innocence got some fake relevancy out of the whole iTunes mishap. Had that album been released normally it wouldn't have made any more impact than NLOTH or SOE did (which is to say not much compared to the heights of Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree. I also don't think U2 have had a fresh idea since Pop, aside from some interesting experimentation on NLOTH which was so poorly received that they steered back away from it on SOI. If Bono andThe Edge studied Lennon and McCartney's songwriting they must not have gotten past Chapter 2. Not a single song on the last two albums I would take over Please Please Me.

 

I haven't heard much of Pearl Jam's post Vitalogy catalogue, but I haven't disliked what I have heard. I did listen to Lightning Bolt a lot when it came out and I really enjoyed most of it. Sirens is a great song.

 

The Stones are just on another level. By 1990 they already had more albums under their belt than most major rock bands will ever have. I'm not sure new music from them has ever been less necessary to their endurance as a live act and a rock icon.

 

3 things:

 

1) I wasn't comparing the bands to one another. I was comparing earlier versions of each band to later versions of themselves.

 

2) In 2009, U2 mounted the highest-grossing tour in the history of music ($736 million). In 2014, U2 won an Oscar for Best Original Song, "Ordinary Love". In 2017, Songs of Experience was the sixth-best-selling album in the world. You still gonna say they haven't been relevant since Vertigo? C'monnnn.

 

3) I guess you haven't read half the people on this forum remarking that the majority of Rush's music since TFE leaves them feeling flat. Your opinion may be different, but even many of the superfans here feel that Rush weren't living up to their previous heights. It happens to older people. I held up U2 as the one example of a band that has taken big steps, behind the scenes, to keep the nose of the plane from beginning its descent.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Weatherman

[Weatherman]

Crazy thought:

 

They COULD play to recorded live performances of the Professor.

 

Of course that would be WOEFULLY ill advised.

 

They did it with Zappa. I'm sure that was horrible.

 

They did what with Zappa? I don't follow.

[Mosher]

 

3) I guess you haven't read half the people on this forum remarking that the majority of Rush's music since TFE leaves them feeling flat. Your opinion may be different, but even many of the superfans here feel that Rush weren't living up to their previous heights. It happens to older people. I held up U2 as the one example of a band that has taken big steps, behind the scenes, to keep the nose of the plane from beginning its descent.

 

I'm another fan here who disagrees with your basic contention.

 

You are correct that many here see the later output as lesser, although the majority here believe that Clockwork Angels was an excellent album- and that sort of undermines that point. I would also argue that Rush worked very hard to remain relevant and interesting. Perhaps they failed in the eyes of many fans, but frankly I would guess that most here would hold their 21st century output higher than their 90's output.

 

I imagine most U2 fans put Rattle and Hum and the Joshua Tree over anything U2 has done this century. Personally they stopped being important to me after War. The fact that U2 worked to remain relevant and sold well makes them equal to Rush. Sure U2 outsold Rush, but that's a given. That's like comparing the Beatles to The Kinks. U2 were pop stars, Rush were never that.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Mosher

[chemistry1973]

Crazy thought:

 

They COULD play to recorded live performances of the Professor.

 

Of course that would be WOEFULLY ill advised.

 

They did it with Zappa. I'm sure that was horrible.

 

They did what with Zappa? I don't follow.

 

Ahmet Zappa put together a "hologram" show with Frank and former living members of his band.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxQzjORD9Ek

Edited October 2, 2020 by chemistry1973

[Bahamas]

Just want to say without quoting endless squares of text...

 

It is not fair to even include U2 along these lines. They made millions announcing their "this is the end, we are done World Tour" and then came back and kept playing.

 

Rush never pulled any kind of stunt like that.

[Weatherman]

 

3) I guess you haven't read half the people on this forum remarking that the majority of Rush's music since TFE leaves them feeling flat. Your opinion may be different, but even many of the superfans here feel that Rush weren't living up to their previous heights. It happens to older people. I held up U2 as the one example of a band that has taken big steps, behind the scenes, to keep the nose of the plane from beginning its descent.

 

I'm another fan here who disagrees with your basic contention.

 

You are correct that many here see the later output as lesser, although the majority here believe that Clockwork Angels was an excellent album- and that sort of undermines that point. I would also argue that Rush worked very hard to remain relevant and interesting. Perhaps they failed in the eyes of many fans, but frankly I would guess that most here would hold their 21st century output higher than their 90's output.

 

 

IMO Rush did start doing stuff outside the music to stay relevant. South Park, Kevin J. Anderson, the documentary, Hall of Fame, etc. It didn't hurt that all the people who grew up on their music began assuming powerful roles in media, so Rush was invited places they'd never been before. That was cool to see, at the end.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Weatherman

[Weatherman]

It is not fair to even include U2 along these lines. They made millions announcing their "this is the end, we are done World Tour" and then came back and kept playing.

 

 

I'm a U2 fan who's been to every tour for the last 30 years.

This is completely wrong.

They've never, ever done a farewell tour.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Weatherman

[Geddyleegenes]

I love the first album. I think it's a fantastic, actual "first" album for a band. "Fly By Night" was, IMO, a second "first" album. Make sense? Maybe not. To me, Geddy and Alex took off in new directions musically, not necessarily because of any direct influence by Neil joining.

 

As to Geddy and Alex doing something new together, I'm certainly for it. And no, it wouldn't be Rush, and they wouldn't call it Rush. I also wouldn't mind it if they not only worked with a different percussionist, but if they worked with a different lead singer. (Let Geddy rest his pipes.) Maybe they could even bring in a couple of horns or something that will give their sound just a bit more "POP!"

 

So yes, I'd like to hear some new Alex guitar and some new Geddy bass. Geddy did a pretty good job with the lyrics on his "Headache" album, so he could cover that. And it would be damn cool to see them play together live, no matter what size the concert hall.

[Bahamas]

On one of the final shows of the Lovetown Tour, Bono says onstage in Dublin that "this is just the end of something for U2" and that "we have to go away and … and dream it all up again".

 

1990[edit]

• January: U2 begin its longest break to date, which includes a two-year break from public performance.^[78]
  

 

OK, I am mixing memories of this and a die-hard friend at the time saying it was the final world tour. I was not a fan and didn't like that turn of events because it felt sneaky.

 

Thank you Weatherman, I stand corrected.

 

Many bands (our included) took breaks. I was always under the impression U2 made a show of it and I am sorry.

 

Cheers :)

[JohnnyBlaze]

It is not fair to even include U2 along these lines. They made millions announcing their "this is the end, we are done World Tour" and then came back and kept playing.

 

 

I'm a U2 fan who's been to every tour for the last 30 years.

This is completely wrong.

They've never, ever done a farewell tour.

 

I don’t remember any farewell tour announcement by them either.

 

Whatever the case, it’s all fair because bands are free to say and do that if they want. It’s kind of cheap to announce a farewell tour which ends up not being the end...over and over again. But again, it’s all fair game.

[Weatherman]

It is not fair to even include U2 along these lines. They made millions announcing their "this is the end, we are done World Tour" and then came back and kept playing.

 

 

I'm a U2 fan who's been to every tour for the last 30 years.

This is completely wrong.

They've never, ever done a farewell tour.

 

I don’t remember any farewell tour announcement by them either.

 

Whatever the case, it’s all fair because bands are free to say and do that if they want. It’s kind of cheap to announce a farewell tour which ends up not being the end...over and over again. But again, it’s all fair game.

 

Did you see what Motley Crue did?

In 2015, they signed a cessation-of-touring contract, in public, stating that they would never, ever tour again.

Then "The Dirt" was a hit - the movie - and interest in them skyrocketed. Their management told the Crue that they were leaving tons of money on the table.

So they broke the contract, reformed, and were set to tour this year with Def Leppard and Poison, before the virus.

[JohnnyBlaze]

It is not fair to even include U2 along these lines. They made millions announcing their "this is the end, we are done World Tour" and then came back and kept playing.

 

 

I'm a U2 fan who's been to every tour for the last 30 years.

This is completely wrong.

They've never, ever done a farewell tour.

 

I don’t remember any farewell tour announcement by them either.

 

Whatever the case, it’s all fair because bands are free to say and do that if they want. It’s kind of cheap to announce a farewell tour which ends up not being the end...over and over again. But again, it’s all fair game.

 

Did you see what Motley Crue did?

In 2015, they signed a cessation-of-touring contract, in public, stating that they would never, ever tour again.

Then "The Dirt" was a hit - the movie - and interest in them skyrocketed. Their management told the Crue that they were leaving tons of money on the table.

So they broke the contract, reformed, and were set to tour this year with Def Leppard and Poison, before the virus.

 

Basically, I don’t care what bands do. They say they quit then they come back. It cheapens the whole farewell scenario but so what? If people want to see them even after an announcement of the band quitting, then what’s the problem?

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

Because Geddy and Alex don’t want the band to be. The end.

 

The band played their last show five years ago. They were still playing well, but they were clearly nearing the end of their run (and what a run it was). Five years is a long time, especially at their age. I wouldn't even look for a one-off show from them at this point.

 

Besides, I'm pretty sure Gemini is trolling us with this topic, so we may as well bow out at this point.

Totally a troll job but still a subject worth talking about.

 

Have this topic not been discussed here? Like, a whole lot?

[treeduck]

They need this guy and then they can get rolling again...

 

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Not this again.

 

It's over, and it's been over a lot longer than Neil was ill, I imagine. 40 years is a heck of a lot longer than most bands stick around, let alone with their classic lineup, and let alone anywhere near the peak of their powers. Rush gave us everything they had. If Ged and Al have more music to offer us, it won't be called Rush.

 

It's amazing to see a band like U2, which is still making great records (Songs of Experience) over 40 years after forming.

In their case, they've started leaning on a huge team of younger producers to bring them new ideas.

Bono and Edge also studied the Lennon/McCartney songbook in the late 00s, seeing it as more craft and less inspiration.

That new emphasis, plus zero shame in bringing in new collaborators, has kept them relevant.

I don't blame them one bit.

 

Other older bands have too much pride to bring in outside help, or relearn songwriting.

Rush, for example. It showed, unfortunately, in their songwriting the final 4 albums. I imagine that nobody here really disagrees.

Pearl Jam refuse to learn how to write songs in a new way, and as a result they've been in a slow nosedive for the last twenty years.

Rolling Stones have effectively given up songwriting. They've made exactly 2 new albums in the last 22 years.

 

If you're gonna stay together as a recording unit for decades, your way of working has to change at some point.

Otherwise, just go be a heritage act and play the outdoor sheds every summer like Jimmy Buffett.

 

I'll take Rush's 00's output every day of the week over U2's. Not even close. I think on CA especially Rush refound whatever songwriting skills had drifted away since their golden age, but VT has a number of great songs as well, and SnA at least has Far Cry.

 

I don't think U2 has had a relevant song since Vertigo. Songs Of Innocence got some fake relevancy out of the whole iTunes mishap. Had that album been released normally it wouldn't have made any more impact than NLOTH or SOE did (which is to say not much compared to the heights of Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree. I also don't think U2 have had a fresh idea since Pop, aside from some interesting experimentation on NLOTH which was so poorly received that they steered back away from it on SOI. If Bono andThe Edge studied Lennon and McCartney's songwriting they must not have gotten past Chapter 2. Not a single song on the last two albums I would take over Please Please Me.

 

I haven't heard much of Pearl Jam's post Vitalogy catalogue, but I haven't disliked what I have heard. I did listen to Lightning Bolt a lot when it came out and I really enjoyed most of it. Sirens is a great song.

 

The Stones are just on another level. By 1990 they already had more albums under their belt than most major rock bands will ever have. I'm not sure new music from them has ever been less necessary to their endurance as a live act and a rock icon.

 

3 things:

 

1) I wasn't comparing the bands to one another. I was comparing earlier versions of each band to later versions of themselves.

 

2) In 2009, U2 mounted the highest-grossing tour in the history of music ($736 million). In 2014, U2 won an Oscar for Best Original Song, "Ordinary Love". In 2017, Songs of Experience was the sixth-best-selling album in the world. You still gonna say they haven't been relevant since Vertigo? C'monnnn.

 

3) I guess you haven't read half the people on this forum remarking that the majority of Rush's music since TFE leaves them feeling flat. Your opinion may be different, but even many of the superfans here feel that Rush weren't living up to their previous heights. It happens to older people. I held up U2 as the one example of a band that has taken big steps, behind the scenes, to keep the nose of the plane from beginning its descent.

 

In response to two. Relevance and being a legacy act on the level of The Stones or U2 are two completely different things, and live relevance is completely different from studio/radio relevance. I would bet in the eyes of most anybody who grew up on grunge or later (i.e. myself and most people in my daily life as a college senior), U2's studio output is old news. Sure they're still killing it live, that's how strong the fanbase is that they built in the 80s and how much people love those earlier albums. The Rolling Stones are still killing it live, but I think you'll agree they haven't done anything noteworthy in the studio in decades. And winning an Oscar for a song attached to a documentary movie that was already going to win a ton of Oscars when you used to be the biggest musical group on the planet isn't exactly a sign that you're still relevant.

 

But the numbers are besides the point. Artistically, U2 haven't done anything new in 20 years, maybe more. They've been selling the same U2-by-numbers sound since Beautiful Day corrected their commercial course from the late 90s. Not only has the musical zeitgeist moved on from them, U2's sound has been watered down and copied by nearly every popular alternative band from the past 20 years. Even Walk The Moon's shameless pop single "Shut Up And Dance" rips The Edge off directly for some cheap nostalgia. By not evolving their sound, U2 have fallen into the sea of their influence, aside form Bono's voice completely indistinct from anybody else with a lot of reverb and a driving beat.

 

That's how I hear it anyway. I can tell you about exactly one, maybe two people I've met in going on my 5th year of college who care about new music from U2 in the 21st century, and I'm not really one of them.

 

And in response to 3, dude. I've been on this forum how much longer than you and you presume to know TRF's general opinions about Rush's later work better than me? I don't think so, lol. As somebody else said, while there is a light distaste for most albums after HYF, most users find at least a couple albums they really enjoy from the 90s and 00's. For me it's Presto and Clockwork Angels, for some it's Counterparts and Vapor Trails. There is nothing close to a consensus that everything Rush did from the 90s on is all a waste of time.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Entre_Perpetuo

[tangy]

Crazy thought:

 

They COULD play to recorded live performances of the Professor.

 

Of course that would be WOEFULLY ill advised.

 

They did it with Zappa. I'm sure that was horrible.

 

They did what with Zappa? I don't follow.

 

Ahmet Zappa put together a "hologram" show with Frank and former living members of his band.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxQzjORD9Ek

 

Actually, the first zpz tour had footage of Frank playing guitar along with the live band on several songs.

[Planet X-1]

^^^ That's sorta creepy...no way would I watch a Rush show with a 'holographic Neil'...however maybe they could deep fake his face to smile more...

[driventotheedge]

Because Geddy and Alex don’t want the band to be. The end.

 

The band played their last show five years ago. They were still playing well, but they were clearly nearing the end of their run (and what a run it was). Five years is a long time, especially at their age. I wouldn't even look for a one-off show from them at this point.

 

Besides, I'm pretty sure Gemini is trolling us with this topic, so we may as well bow out at this point.

Totally a troll job but still a subject worth talking about.

 

Have this topic not been discussed here? Like, a whole lot?

Yeah that's fair. I probably should have said something along the lines of "it's a topic that is likely to reoccur for a long time here"

Edited October 2, 2020 by driventotheedge

[_hi_water._]

^^^ That's sorta creepy...no way would I watch a Rush show with a 'holographic Neil'...however maybe they could deep fake his face to smile more...

maybe

[Weatherman]

On one of the final shows of the Lovetown Tour, Bono says onstage in Dublin that "this is just the end of something for U2" and that "we have to go away and … and dream it all up again".

 

1990[edit]

• January: U2 begin its longest break to date, which includes a two-year break from public performance.^[78]
  

OK, I am mixing memories of this and a die-hard friend at the time saying it was the final world tour. I was not a fan and didn't like that turn of events because it felt sneaky.

 

Thank you Weatherman, I stand corrected.

 

Many bands (our included) took breaks. I was always under the impression U2 made a show of it and I am sorry.

 

Cheers :)

Yeah, saying at your last show of 1989 "we're gonna take a break for a while" is not the same as mounting a massive Official Farewell Tour.

FYI, Bono did the same thing at the last show of SoE tour in 2018. "We're gonna take another break now."

(Side note: I look forward to seeing if they can reinvent themselves again. I dream about a bass-heavy, Adam-centric U2 album, where the bass drives the melody and the guitar is minimal.)

[Weatherman]

 

In response to two. Relevance and being a legacy act on the level of The Stones or U2 are two completely different things, and live relevance is completely different from studio/radio relevance. I would bet in the eyes of most anybody who grew up on grunge or later (i.e. myself and most people in my daily life as a college senior), U2's studio output is old news. Sure they're still killing it live, that's how strong the fanbase is that they built in the 80s and how much people love those earlier albums. The Rolling Stones are still killing it live, but I think you'll agree they haven't done anything noteworthy in the studio in decades. And winning an Oscar for a song attached to a documentary movie that was already going to win a ton of Oscars when you used to be the biggest musical group on the planet isn't exactly a sign that you're still relevant.

 

But the numbers are besides the point. Artistically, U2 haven't done anything new in 20 years, maybe more. They've been selling the same U2-by-numbers sound since Beautiful Day corrected their commercial course from the late 90s. Not only has the musical zeitgeist moved on from them, U2's sound has been watered down and copied by nearly every popular alternative band from the past 20 years. Even Walk The Moon's shameless pop single "Shut Up And Dance" rips The Edge off directly for some cheap nostalgia. By not evolving their sound, U2 have fallen into the sea of their influence, aside form Bono's voice completely indistinct from anybody else with a lot of reverb and a driving beat.

 

That's how I hear it anyway. I can tell you about exactly one, maybe two people I've met in going on my 5th year of college who care about new music from U2 in the 21st century, and I'm not really one of them.

 

 

Here's a quote from Edge two years ago:

But I think we’re also wary of the fact that that [classic U2] sound is associated with 20, 30 years ago. We need to make sure, as we always have done, that we are part of a current conversation that’s going in music culture in terms of production, songwriting, melodic structure, all the things that keep the culture moving forward.

What we don’t want to be is caught in what I describe as a cultural oxbow lake where others are moving forward and you’re still faithfully doing what you’ve always done, but now you’re anachronistic and part of a historical form rather than what’s actually pushing the boundaries forward, the flow of where it’s going. We’ll usually try to have our cake and eat it. We want it both: the hallmarks of the classic band, which is becoming more and more rare, but we also don’t want to be perceived, and we don’t want to be, a veteran act out of touch with the culture.

[chemistry1973]

Despite U2s massive effort, their new material sounds like Coldplay - saccharine, safe and ultimately very, very boring.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

In response to two. Relevance and being a legacy act on the level of The Stones or U2 are two completely different things, and live relevance is completely different from studio/radio relevance. I would bet in the eyes of most anybody who grew up on grunge or later (i.e. myself and most people in my daily life as a college senior), U2's studio output is old news. Sure they're still killing it live, that's how strong the fanbase is that they built in the 80s and how much people love those earlier albums. The Rolling Stones are still killing it live, but I think you'll agree they haven't done anything noteworthy in the studio in decades. And winning an Oscar for a song attached to a documentary movie that was already going to win a ton of Oscars when you used to be the biggest musical group on the planet isn't exactly a sign that you're still relevant.

 

But the numbers are besides the point. Artistically, U2 haven't done anything new in 20 years, maybe more. They've been selling the same U2-by-numbers sound since Beautiful Day corrected their commercial course from the late 90s. Not only has the musical zeitgeist moved on from them, U2's sound has been watered down and copied by nearly every popular alternative band from the past 20 years. Even Walk The Moon's shameless pop single "Shut Up And Dance" rips The Edge off directly for some cheap nostalgia. By not evolving their sound, U2 have fallen into the sea of their influence, aside form Bono's voice completely indistinct from anybody else with a lot of reverb and a driving beat.

 

That's how I hear it anyway. I can tell you about exactly one, maybe two people I've met in going on my 5th year of college who care about new music from U2 in the 21st century, and I'm not really one of them.

 

 

Here's a quote from Edge two years ago:

 

But I think we’re also wary of the fact that that [classic U2] sound is associated with 20, 30 years ago. We need to make sure, as we always have done, that we are part of a current conversation that’s going in music culture in terms of production, songwriting, melodic structure, all the things that keep the culture moving forward.

What we don’t want to be is caught in what I describe as a cultural oxbow lake where others are moving forward and you’re still faithfully doing what you’ve always done, but now you’re anachronistic and part of a historical form rather than what’s actually pushing the boundaries forward, the flow of where it’s going. We’ll usually try to have our cake and eat it. We want it both: the hallmarks of the classic band, which is becoming more and more rare, but we also don’t want to be perceived, and we don’t want to be, a veteran act out of touch with the culture.

 

Just because the Edge knows what U2 aught to be doing doesn't mean they've been doing it.

[Weatherman]

In response to two. Relevance and being a legacy act on the level of The Stones or U2 are two completely different things, and live relevance is completely different from studio/radio relevance. I would bet in the eyes of most anybody who grew up on grunge or later (i.e. myself and most people in my daily life as a college senior), U2's studio output is old news. Sure they're still killing it live, that's how strong the fanbase is that they built in the 80s and how much people love those earlier albums. The Rolling Stones are still killing it live, but I think you'll agree they haven't done anything noteworthy in the studio in decades. And winning an Oscar for a song attached to a documentary movie that was already going to win a ton of Oscars when you used to be the biggest musical group on the planet isn't exactly a sign that you're still relevant.

 

But the numbers are besides the point. Artistically, U2 haven't done anything new in 20 years, maybe more. They've been selling the same U2-by-numbers sound since Beautiful Day corrected their commercial course from the late 90s. Not only has the musical zeitgeist moved on from them, U2's sound has been watered down and copied by nearly every popular alternative band from the past 20 years. Even Walk The Moon's shameless pop single "Shut Up And Dance" rips The Edge off directly for some cheap nostalgia. By not evolving their sound, U2 have fallen into the sea of their influence, aside form Bono's voice completely indistinct from anybody else with a lot of reverb and a driving beat.

 

That's how I hear it anyway. I can tell you about exactly one, maybe two people I've met in going on my 5th year of college who care about new music from U2 in the 21st century, and I'm not really one of them.

 

 

Here's a quote from Edge two years ago:

 

But I think we’re also wary of the fact that that [classic U2] sound is associated with 20, 30 years ago. We need to make sure, as we always have done, that we are part of a current conversation that’s going in music culture in terms of production, songwriting, melodic structure, all the things that keep the culture moving forward.

What we don’t want to be is caught in what I describe as a cultural oxbow lake where others are moving forward and you’re still faithfully doing what you’ve always done, but now you’re anachronistic and part of a historical form rather than what’s actually pushing the boundaries forward, the flow of where it’s going. We’ll usually try to have our cake and eat it. We want it both: the hallmarks of the classic band, which is becoming more and more rare, but we also don’t want to be perceived, and we don’t want to be, a veteran act out of touch with the culture.

 

Just because the Edge knows what U2 aught to be doing doesn't mean they've been doing it.

 

All right. You can stop polling your 22-yr-old roommates now.

Evidently the first band to score FOUR #1 albums in FOUR different decades is not relevant to you, or your barely legal friends.

 

But the thing is, lots of us are older than 22.

In fact, the vast majority of humans in the US and Canada are older than 22.

So maybe we ought to define our terms: What does relevant mean to YOU, as a 22-yr-old person? How do YOU define relevant?

[Entre_Perpetuo]

In response to two. Relevance and being a legacy act on the level of The Stones or U2 are two completely different things, and live relevance is completely different from studio/radio relevance. I would bet in the eyes of most anybody who grew up on grunge or later (i.e. myself and most people in my daily life as a college senior), U2's studio output is old news. Sure they're still killing it live, that's how strong the fanbase is that they built in the 80s and how much people love those earlier albums. The Rolling Stones are still killing it live, but I think you'll agree they haven't done anything noteworthy in the studio in decades. And winning an Oscar for a song attached to a documentary movie that was already going to win a ton of Oscars when you used to be the biggest musical group on the planet isn't exactly a sign that you're still relevant.

 

But the numbers are besides the point. Artistically, U2 haven't done anything new in 20 years, maybe more. They've been selling the same U2-by-numbers sound since Beautiful Day corrected their commercial course from the late 90s. Not only has the musical zeitgeist moved on from them, U2's sound has been watered down and copied by nearly every popular alternative band from the past 20 years. Even Walk The Moon's shameless pop single "Shut Up And Dance" rips The Edge off directly for some cheap nostalgia. By not evolving their sound, U2 have fallen into the sea of their influence, aside form Bono's voice completely indistinct from anybody else with a lot of reverb and a driving beat.

 

That's how I hear it anyway. I can tell you about exactly one, maybe two people I've met in going on my 5th year of college who care about new music from U2 in the 21st century, and I'm not really one of them.

 

 

Here's a quote from Edge two years ago:

 

But I think we’re also wary of the fact that that [classic U2] sound is associated with 20, 30 years ago. We need to make sure, as we always have done, that we are part of a current conversation that’s going in music culture in terms of production, songwriting, melodic structure, all the things that keep the culture moving forward.

What we don’t want to be is caught in what I describe as a cultural oxbow lake where others are moving forward and you’re still faithfully doing what you’ve always done, but now you’re anachronistic and part of a historical form rather than what’s actually pushing the boundaries forward, the flow of where it’s going. We’ll usually try to have our cake and eat it. We want it both: the hallmarks of the classic band, which is becoming more and more rare, but we also don’t want to be perceived, and we don’t want to be, a veteran act out of touch with the culture.

 

Just because the Edge knows what U2 aught to be doing doesn't mean they've been doing it.

 

All right. You can stop polling your 22-yr-old roommates now.

Evidently the first band to score FOUR #1 albums in FOUR different decades is not relevant to you, or your barely legal friends.

 

But the thing is, lots of us are older than 22.

In fact, the vast majority of humans in the US and Canada are older than 22.

So maybe we ought to define our terms: What does relevant mean to YOU, as a 22-yr-old person? How do YOU define relevant?

 

I watch and read a lot of different music discussion and criticism outlets online, that's where my concept of relevance outside of my person sphere comes from. When SoE came out it got the cursory review from some of (not even all of) the music critics I watch and it got no more attention than a new album from any other classic rock band on the front pages of any of the rock magazines I get e-mails from. A month after it came out I could've sworn the majority of my online outlets had already left it behind. Perhaps I don't follow/watch the same sources as you. I'm not on any U2 forums for instance, perhaps that's where all the attention was? And when I say people in my daily life as a college senior, sure I mean a lot of people my own age, but I also mean my professors, the staff at my campus job, my band directors, etc. Perhaps I just didn't bother to ask but I can't recall anybody loudly proclaiming the greatness of the new U2 album. I dare say the most discussion I read about that album was right here on TRF, and I don't recall it being a very big deal here at the time. Comparing that to Songs Of Innocence, SOI had a whole mountain of discussion surrounding it from all sorts of sources, from radio talk show hosts to random kids at my high school. But that was for one reason only, the whole iTunes scandal (which I didn't mind but of course many people did).

 

At any rate, this is a pretty pointless discussion. My main point really isn't about U2's commercial relevancy (I don't deny their die hard fans still allow them to do numbers when new music does get released), it's about their artistic relevancy. In my opinion they have about none anymore. Like I said before, I don't think they've taken a risk since No Line On The Horizon, and if you discount that as a fluke then they haven't had a new idea in over 20 years. I don't dislike their 21st century output, I just can't find it in me to care about most of it, and I even own most of it. When I go to play U2 I almost never put on anything released after Achtung Baby, and even less so after Pop.