U2..what happened to the passion?

[3db]

U2's earlier albums were full of passion, exciting to listen too. But since Rattle & Hum, I feel like they've lost their edge (no pun intended) . There last two albums are a lifeless collections of tunes. Anyone else feel that way about them?

 

[GO-NAD!]

U2's earlier albums were full of passion, exciting to listen too. But since Rattle & Hum, I feel like they've lost their edge (no pun intended) . There last two albums are a lifeless collections of tunes. Anyone else feel that way about them?

I have to agree with you on that call. I have 5 U2 CDs, IIRC. Nothing past Achtung Baby - and I haven't listened to that one since.......I have no idea when.....

That says it all.

 

[j_garcia]

Same here. They have sucked for a long time. I've seen them like 4 times and I wouldn't go see them now if they paid me. I am happy to say that I saw them when they were still good. I also stopped buying albums after Achtung Baby, but I think the last good stuff was Rattle and Hum. I think the last time I saw them was on the Rattle and Hum tour and that was a great show. I still listen to Boy, October, War, Under a Blood Red Sky, and Unforgettable Fire a lot.

You might want to rent It Might Get Loud also if you haven't seen it. Some cool background on the band and Edge (as well as Jack White and Jimmy Page).

 

[zhimbo]

U2's earlier albums were full of passion, exciting to listen too. But since Rattle & Hum, I feel like they've lost their edge (no pun intended) . There last two albums are a lifeless collections of tunes. Anyone else feel that way about them?

I like, but don't love, Achtung Baby and Zooropa - I think they're interesting variations and experiments on the U2 sound.

They keep selling out big concerts, and their last couple of albums have sold well and gotten decent reviews, but I just couldn't care less. Tepid stuff. The kind of stuff aging rock stars well past their prime often win Grammys for (to me, "Grammy-worthy" is one of the worst insults I can give to an album).

All of their earlier stuff holds up and still sounds amazing. I still can't believe that "Boy" was made by a bunch of teenagers!

 

[gmichael]

When U2 first came out, their fans would call the bands I liked, dinosaurs. It is now my pleasure to ask, are these dinosaurs still around?

 

[Seth=L]

U2 became to involved in politics and politics will eat your soul.

 

[j_garcia]

They've always been political, but they are now part of the media machine that they were pointing the finger at so many years ago. They are the opposite of what I liked about them originally.

 

[krzywica]

Being a youngster I have only witnessed the last 10 years or so of U2 and IMO the suck...and suck bad.

 

[jamie2112]

100% correct sir..you have won a pudding cup of your choice. Brian Eno has gotten everything out of that band he can and already bled the last 3 albums dry.Lifeless sound really lame production(have you listened to the drums?) and dull songs have been the norm for some time now.That being said,their live show is really done well and sounds amazing and looks awesome.I would love to see them work with Joe Chicarelli or Mark Batson myself......Good Call 3db........

 

[3db]

U2 became to involved in politics and politics will eat your soul.

Most of their earlier music was highly political..I had friends who wouldn't listen to them because of their slant. But now it just seems they're writing to fulfill contract obligations. The Rolling Stones were froced to write an album to fulfil obligations as well. However, unlike U2, they wrote songs that could not be played i.e. c?cksucker blues

 

[bruceh]

U2 Quality Issues

With all the unlistenable dreck out there you guys are criticizing U2? No Line was an excellent album by anyone's standards and the two before it were pretty good too.

 

[highfigh]

U2's earlier albums were full of passion, exciting to listen too. But since Rattle & Hum, I feel like they've lost their edge (no pun intended) . There last two albums are a lifeless collections of tunes. Anyone else feel that way about them?

I stopped liking them not long after Sunday, Bloody Sunday.

Most former artists lose their edge after becoming big stars and having so many people idolize them. The rest lose it because the music industry doesn't allow creativity beyond whatever it was that got everyone's attention. Once they have a hit, the record companies want everything to be a hit, i.e., all songs will end up sounding basically the same.

The ones who don't want stardom or care about being at the top will continue to be creative. Jeff Beck is a good example. I read a comment by him from an interview when someone mentioned his skill on the guitar. He said, "I'm just a gearhead who plays guitar well enough to finance my car habit".

 

[j_garcia]

With all the unlistenable dreck out there you guys are criticizing U2? No Line was an excellent album by anyone's standards and the two before it were pretty good too.

The "new" U2 IS that dreck.

 

[3db]

With all the unlistenable dreck out there you guys are criticizing U2? No Line was an excellent album by anyone's standards and the two before it were pretty good too.

U2 is far from the group they started out from. They're last two albums is following most "pop" music formata, a couple of good songs and the rest is just filler material, unmotiviatring unexciting, just generic bland stuff.

 

[krzywica]

Once they have a hit, the record companies want everything to be a hit, i.e., all songs will end up sounding basically the same.

You mean like Nickel Back? Oh yeah I forgot they always sucked.

I would say that Pink Floyd has remained timeless as much as that is possible anyway.

 

[droht]

With all the unlistenable dreck out there you guys are criticizing U2? No Line was an excellent album by anyone's standards and the two before it were pretty good too.

Part of U2s problem is that their newer stuff is compared to their older stuff. They suffer in that comparison like any band that has been around for 25+ years. There new stuff is better than average I think, but it just ain't Sunday Bloody Sunday or New Year's Day. Another part of their problem is that they are old, rich, and have other priorities in their lives.

 

[sgtpepper9]

U2 has been, and always will be, boooooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnngggggggg

 

[GO-NAD!]

You mean like Nickel Back? Oh yeah I forgot they always sucked.

I would say that Pink Floyd has remained timeless as much as that is possible anyway.

Now Nickelback is most certainly dreck. And, as unappealing as the "new" U2 may be to me, they are still hugely talented. Maybe they've changed with the times, while I've stood still. They just sound too polished, overproduced and dare I say, corporate.

 

[GO-NAD!]

U2 has been, and always will be, boooooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnngggggggg

I cannot agree with that at all! Their first 10 years were magnificent. After that? Not so much....

 

[j_garcia]

They were practically punk when they came out. Those first two albums are very energetic and have emotion on them. Even in their teens, these guys had music that already had a lot of feeling and said something. I haven't gotten that from them in years.