Personally I think that all he's saying that he doesn't like U2's new albums as much the ones that came out when he was YOUNG so they should split and then tried to come up with justification for it.

quote:

---

From the article
Alexander Mitscherlich, dubbed the sibling society, where adults regress towards adolescence

---

meaning: Waah, I remember when the Joshua Tree came out and I was young and cool, or at least I thought I was cool.

I think there is an element of truth to the fact that Bongo's political posturing has stripped some of the emotion from their music but them again, I'm sure having a couple of gazillion in the bank would take some of the edge off any of us. I do feel that the last two U2 albums are those of a band on cruise control, breaking no new ground or even upping the ante in areas we never expected them to excel (Pop, for example). That said, it would be churlish to assume that they didn't have another great album in them but it is disappointing to see a band of their undoubted ability and with singular control over their output not really doing anything new or exciting. Perhaps they are playing together exclusively too long. Perhaps a hiatus where they go off and do some solo experimenting is in order

personally, I think the songs I've heard on the Radio recently from HTDAAB are extremely poor...... as was their last album.... Of course Sales of their current record will be huge. ..But chart success does not a good album make.

No way should U2 split up. I think the new album is brillant, grows on the listener. Ok it's not their best album but I certainly think that it is up there in the top five. Maybe people are looking for plotholes in this recording. I want to stay in Ireland in June just to catch them at Croker.

"Should U2 split up?" Yes. How many songs can the edge write using the same echo effect on his songs? And how many other versions are we going to get of that bloody tomb raider song they did?

Yes they should. Its been boring for a while now. Acthung baby was brilliant, but it was also a montage of "underground" sounds at the time, cherry picked and wedged in with the U2 hit machine. Fair play, nothing wrong with that. Its just music! Although I must say they brought alot of attention to Irish bands from the industry and the world. More interesting: what Irish band is poised to take the place of U2?

No Irish band currently doing the rounds has the ability to equal or overtake U2s success. I still think that they are far from over.

no need for them to break up - all they have to do is make a better record! the new songs are bloody catchy ('all because of you' was in my head all day after the first time I heard it) but it all sounds identical to the previous album. john waters makes some good points about bono's celebrity status being to the detriment of U2 as a creative force (the self-referential lyrics can be annoying). a bit late on my part, but deadly review of the album, eoghan. I don't agree with some of it - I think that, instead of each U2 album being radically different to its predecessor, they seem to come in pairs. 'rattle and hum' came out of the same americana as 'the joshua tree', 'zooropa' from the same euro-experimentation as 'achtung baby', and now the new album sounds identical to the last one in terms of consolidating their sound. maybe they could write a bare acoustic album, that might shake things up a bit instead of always relying on widescreen guitar blockbusters.... or what about a frank sinatra tribute album? everyone loves sinatra!!!! ;D

Aidan, You are right about consdering Rattle'n'Hum and De Joshua Tree as a pair. But I made sure to say in the review that no "...two consecutively released studio albums..." were built of the same ingredients. 'Rattle and Hum' for me is a peculiar hybrid between a live album and a studio album and I have always considered it seperately from their, let's call them, 'pure' studio outings, and hence it fell out of my analysis (as did 'Under a Blood Red sky' for obvious reasons). As for 'Zoorpopa' versus 'Achtung Baby' there is stuff on there that is indeed tuned in with with Achtung Baby in terms of the sonics, but there is also plenty of new stuff going on (e.g. Numb, The Wanderer, Stay (far Away so close) being a few examples). It was also an album that the Edge had a larger than normal contribution to - apprently the studio became a place for him to retreat to, often on his own and on all-nighters, as his marriage was on the rocks at the time. Or so yer man Bill O'Flanagan's fly-on-the-wall book led you to believe. I'm beginning to think the next U2 album will be one of two things - their greatest ever, or their last. And if it's both it will be one helluva of bookend. eoghan

ive never understood how or why U2 are regarded as such as supergroup. personally, i'd put horslips or the undertones miles ahead of them. U2 should have packed up years ago.

Interesting thread. I saw that article too, Eoghan, and I thought it one of Water's less lucid pieces. I think we should compare U2's recent output to those bands usually lumped in the "greatest in the world" canon - I'd say R.E.M., Radiohead and that's about it? Radiohead have produced variations on the same theme for 5 or 6 years now. R.E.M. are now as anodyne as Girls Aloud. Both have seemingly rejected the idea of being the biggest - deliberately so. And U2? U2 embrace it. My opinion on the new record is that it is an improvement on ATYLB. It is chunkier, rockier, punchier and it does not sound like a band on cruise control (see R.E.M.'s latest for a pertinent example of a band strugging to carry the weight of what went before). This U2 album to my ears does not have a weak track and I think the Edge is having FUN! I have never heard him play so many solos in an album. And Bono's voice is still in fine nick. Is U2's greatest album still in them as our esteemed editor seems to think? I don't believe so... The best rock albums in history were all born out of emotional turmoil. Or drugs. And good on 'em but U2 seem like contented men who have lived their lives to the full. The ambition is still there, but unless there is some kind of personal tragedy in the band which results in an album like Big Star's Sister Lovers, U2 will not reach the heights of the late 90s. U2 will become this generation's Rolling Stones. A phemonemal live act with ever decreasing circles in the studio. Did anyone see them perform on the Jonathan Ross show on the BBC on Friday night? They played a fantastic I Will Follow - Bono tried to grab a girl out of the audience, she refused so he ripped his shirt open!! Encapsulated in this moment was the reason U2 are still great - the music was pulsating, Bono's posturing was almost embarrassing and were the hairs rising on the back of my neck? Godammit yes they were and this is why U2 should not quit.

Have we all lost the run of ourselves or what? In fairness, no one has the right to say that any group should split up especially not John Waters. U2 still remain a creative force. Regardless of that they still remain one of the biggest bands in the world and the album went to no.1 in 32 countries including the US and UK. I don't know, something tells me they might not split up in light of the above. Also, lets make it clear that, like the Thrills, seem to suffer a back lash on this message board. Maybe because they are not 'independent'.

i don't like u2 for reasons: 1. they are the most shamelessly arrogant new money do-gooding people i've ever heard of. 2. they have so much opportunity to make so much interesting, experimental, crazy, groundbreaking musical projects. and they don't. they release s**tty bland commercial pop. 3. bono. what a pain in the ass. holy god that guy pushes my buttons. 4. personal reason this, but when i say i don't like U2 i get smart comments, like "oh, are they not indie enough for you?" and "but they're amazing!" and "ah you're just a begrudger!". Gah! its like the emporer's new clothes sometimes. so should they split up? no. because then we'd get the retrospectives. the tributes. the cover albums. the reformations, the reisssues, and finally, the Mojo Special edition. they should keep going until they wear away into sand.

classy post Kierry! top marks.(...although i doubt you care!);)

Love it Kierry! Your post made me actually laugh. And for all the right reasons. "The Mojo Special edition"? I broke me s**te. eoghan

Will reply to other comments later but the reference to 'new money' was quite something. How far Ireland has come...

To get back to the main question of should U2 split or not. I don't actually think they will but I do think they are about to experience a hiatus similar to that undergone by the Rolling Stones during the 1980s. That doesn't mean that Adam is going to split and start writing books about U2 or that Larry will set up his own jazz combo side project or even that Edge will land a part in a HBO series based on the Mafia. Nope, I just think they will tread water for a while until they start to reach their sixties then its The Queens Honours List (don't even think that Bono would refuse it), then the 40 greatest hits cd/DVD and a really energetic multi venue tour (club/arena/stadium).

Should U2 break up? Simple answer: no. They may not be particularly "experimental" or different, their lead may be an utter twat-head, and so they pander to the masses on occassion. They're still a solid band who have created some solid music over the years, and probably have more in them. No band should split up just because they've been around a while, or the timing is write. Keep making music as long as you are physically able, and for as long as you can tolerate each other. That's what it's all about really, isn't it?

Bono is getting a fair old bashing isn't he? Yes, talks rubbish all the time, but he still is one of the most charismatic frontmen ever. So the question is, should they split up? At first I thought yeah, definitely, its horrible to watch a great band slowly descend into mediocrity. Its not a question of being around a while, its case of creativity running a bit dry. I think they need an extended break. Bono, needs to get the whole politiking and saving the world gubbins out of his system, Edge can do a few more soundtracks and interesting weird stuff, maybe open up another club. Adam can continue being the coolest dude in the known universe and Larry can ride harleys and write soccer anthems, maybe hook up with Adam to do some more remixes and stuff. It worked for New Order, they went they're seperate ways in 93 and came back in 2001 with their best album since "Low-Life". Not suggesting U2 should take THAT long a break, definitely not a My Bloody Valentine type career break anyway!

Reagrding hte Bono bashing, not matter how much of a Twat he comes accross as for his politicing surely the good that he does is worth it?

I have to say, Kierry hit the nail on the head with his post. But MOST important of all is his criticism of their lack of experimentation. I know the old addage goes, "if it aint broke dont fix it" but jesus h. christ, they've not changed their sound in what, a decade? Just under? AND THAT BLOODY ECHO EFFECT FROM THE EDGE...WHATS HE ON THE EDGE OF? A COMA... Anyway, Kierry, good post.

I thought Kierry's post was almost spot on, but missed the point that u2 seem to be hanging on specifically for those special exclusives - they've released 2 Best Ofs, which in typical u2 fashion, they d**ked around with, missing out some singles and adding millions of remixes, but more importantly, they've just released that complete digital collection, which, true to form, only has about 25 new songs. They've been around for 25 years for chrissakes, they patently have more songs in the vault than that. Oh that's right, they prolly have a contractal obligation to their record company to release more compilation albums. Back to the current album, and then the question of whether they should split up. I was looking forward to this album, having bought all the hype about it being a rock album, a guitar album, and I loved Vertigo - but instead we get more shimmery echo guitar from Edge, lightweight pseudo philosophical lyrics and soulful vocals from Bono, and bugger all new in sounds from Larry and Adam. And this is an album with no fewer than 5 producers! It sounds like a bunch of middle aged men who want to be top of the pile but don't want to step outside the customary, and are beginning to make middleaged music - Man and a Woman follows on from the lightweight wallowing in jazzwannabe land of the Million Dollar Hotel. And Larry in particular in interviews sounds like he is just along for the ride and doesnt give a s**te any more, he used to be funny but now he is just that cranky old f**ker in the corner of your local. Its not new nor exciting and therefore, for a group who have such strong beliefs in allowing the excluded a chance - well why don't they apply that to themselves and step aside to let younger groups have a crack at world domination? I'd still love to hear a real solo album from the Edge though, along the lines of the electronica of Captive.

25 New songs? Is that alternate versions of existing material or completely unheard before material? In fairness that is pretty good for what is basically a career restrospective box set that makes no claims of being a rarerities compilation. The iTunes "box" set is a pricey compilation at 150 US dollars (aboout 112 euro) but then again it does contain 449 songs. I wonder who is going to buy it though? Its hard to justify if you are a longtime fan and have all the albums on CD. I can only see two groups of people buying this, new fans who want to get the entire back catalogue in one go and really old fans who probably have vinyl copies and can't be arsed to hook their turnatable to their PC through a pre-amp and the recording and converting the audio to MP3.