3 Star Wars films will have come and gone before another U2 album is releasd. Think about that.

kendrick lamar? i must be getting old, ffs.

ah, what the hell. can't be any worse then the kanye/macca trainwreck.

Couldn't care less about Kendrick Lamar so I was going to give this track a miss... but matt's post has intrigued me. I'll give it a listen tomorrow.

Kendrick Lamar and U2 together isn't obvious but they go together better than people think. Certainly in terms of lyrical themes there seems a similarity with U2's peak. It's only by working with artists who can push them that U2 can come up with the goods - whether that's Eno/Lanois, Flood or Howie B.

The problem is that their penchant for a big (but ever increasingly hollow) radio anthem overrides the need for a cohesive and holistic piece of work nowadays, resulting in compromised albums with a big mainstream producer that sounds increasingly bland. They're not at a situation like Coldplay where I think they've become embarrassing because there's always at least a few very good tunes on every U2 album. But it's a far far cry from the risk taking and confident U2 of old and reading up on the number of producers that are credited on their last three albums, then it's a case of too many cooks spoil the broth. The last U2 album worthy of recommendation is All That You Can't Leave Behind. It's not a great album, but I think it's very good and I really like it. It may not have the musical invention of their older ones, but aside from the ridiculous Elevation, it isn't overblown or 'needy' and maintains a quiet self confidence and coherence about it.

It's an irony for a band that is known for it's bombast and crash bang wallop approach to everything from promotion to live performances, but U2 have always been at their best when less is more. Even for their most spectacular concepts like Popmart or Zoo TV, the songs they were promoting then weren't singalong baiting anthems but more subversive and subtle than your usual stadium rock acts. Because their collaboration with Kendrick Lamar is much more understated and constrained, and to the point, they come out of it all the better for it, and that's why their performance there reminds me more of their 90s incarnation. But their own obsession at the moment that to be big must equate to big choruses is a fallacy and the relative failure of the past couple of albums is testament to that. That's not changing anytime soon either, so don't expect much change for their next album - in a way, that's why I'm more excited to see them performing the entirety of The Joshua Tree over anything else.

Bump, but having visited NLOTH as of lately and seen/heard some of the omitted tracks and YT videos of their jamming in Fez, the album could've been a lot better had they spent more time in Fez (and made the sound reflect that) and made better some better overall decisions, like choosing to leave Crazy Tonight and Stand Up Comedy off in favor of Winter and Soon, doing a re-write of Get On Your Boots's chorus and outro, and releasing Magnificent as the lead single instead. 

Like DOYS, it wouldn't have been their greatest album, but certainly something daring compared to other works around it in their discographies (although, the experimentation in DOYS paid off a lot more in the end than the experimentation did for U2 on NLOTH.)

I don't think I'll ever love anything as much as Bono loves himself.

Just a hard working all American. Guy loses his job at Michigan and never let that slip out of his mind to keep working. Keep driving. Finish strong. Do. Your. Job.

Doesn't really concern me. To be fair, aside from major icons like Joe Strummer and Bruce Springsteen, all frontmen of bands are major dickheads. Okay, Strummers dead, but I can't think of many who I'd want to talk to.

Well in fairness, he's a lovely guy according to bastardnumber1. Hang on a minute....

It's a nice song, U2 by numbers, nothing more nothing less. Nothing that doesn't sound like stereotypical U2 or anything to dissuade their critics, but at this stage of their career, I've given up on anything similar to their 90s output and it's better than the anthem baiting tunes in that first half of Songs of Innocence (the ones that sound like a band ripping off the first half of All That You Can't Leave Behind!). If it's a sneak preview of the next album though, then being brutally honest, it's not going to make waves and it is really only shaping up to be Songs of Innocence Part II. Nothing conceptually different, just standard pop songs given a glossy MOR makeover. I do wish they'd team up with Eno and Lanois again but the new song suggests as ever they'll shirk out of more interesting music - quite revealing that the material they sent to Kendrick Lamar was just stuff they were working on, but revealing in that it doesn't seem to be a priority for them, instead going for the radio baiting material instead.

On its own, I personally think Songs of Innocence is a decent enough listen and pleasant sounding. It's okay with a couple of golden nuggets - but that's not enough for U2 is it? But generally, forgettable for most folk outside of the U2 fanbase. They haven't gone to shit the same way Coldplay have, but it's about the relative high standards, and it's just not the same band of the 80s and 90s for me. Lung bursting anthems are good, but it's not what made them great for me. They seem to have forgotten a lot of what made them great.

I honestly think a Joshua Tree is about where they're at, and it's nothing to be ashamed of by looking back if they can still evidently put on a show. To hear that album in full sequence is the stuff of dreams, and to hear the obscure ones from that finally being played is one of the best decisions they've made in recent years, amongst many poor decisions. I'd prefer to experience that album played in its entirety in a live setting than get a new album that's going to be so-so.