when did U2 start to suck?

[Shaka]

Is the U2 price point that far off the other big tours of the last few years: The Police, Rolling Stones, etc? Does the price matter? Does the USC ticket price mean anything relative to another team's? If USC's ticket price was double UCLA's, it seems like you would use this as a selling point in pimping USC. Seriously where are you going with this DDD? You seem to be at a dead end.

While I do not doubt that U2 wants to make as much money as possible their ticket prices are a reflection of the insane production. Word has it they will not break even on production costs for the current tour until the end of the current leg. They will only start making a profit when they resume the tour in the spring of next year.

For those who think U2 has sucked since Achtung or even Joshua Tree I would submit that you haven't spent enough time listening to All That You Can't Leave Behind which is a very good album. Kite is one of my all time favorite songs.

[Portland Ute]

Is it more accurate to say that U2 is the Cafe Rio of bands, or that Cafe Rio is the U2 of restaurants?

Neither. Cafe Rio has always sucked and has never been the best restaurant around.

U2 did not suck and was one of the top bands in terms of influence during the 80's.

The suck now, though.

[TripletDaddy]

Is the U2 price point that far off the other big tours of the last few years: The Police, Rolling Stones, etc? Does the price matter? Does the USC ticket price mean anything relative to another team's? If USC's ticket price was double UCLA's, it seems like you would use this as a selling point in pimping USC. Seriously where are you going with this DDD? You seem to be at a dead end.

I actually think U2 could probably ask for more per ticket. As I already said, it is a powerful brand. They should grab as much cash as possible. That is what good capitalists do, after all.

[jay santos]

you also seem to love the $150 concerts!

Is the U2 price point that far off the other big tours of the last few years: The Police, Rolling Stones, etc? Does the price matter? Does the USC ticket price mean anything relative to another team's? If USC's ticket price was double UCLA's, it seems like you would use this as a selling point in pimping USC. Seriously where are you going with this DDD? You seem to be at a dead end.

[TripletDaddy]

I'll add Discotecqkue to the mix of sucky first singles. I don't understand U2's choice of singles. They have inevitably been some of the worst songs on the albums. But like you, I've gone beyond those and have loved the albums.

you also seem to love the $150 concerts!

[Levin]

They've tried to make pop hits on each album and marketed each of them with the teeny bopper pop hits: Elevation, Vertigo, Get on your Boots. Those songs sucked. But if you look underneath you find a lot of great songs that totally match their 80's sound.

I'll add Discotecqkue to the mix of sucky first singles. I don't understand U2's choice of singles. They have inevitably been some of the worst songs on the albums. But like you, I've gone beyond those and have loved the albums.

[RobinFinderson]

I would just like to note that grown men (and women?) discussing the relative suckage of U2 is just as inane as my drip stopage technique poll. You all suck just as much as I do. TIA.

[jay santos]

I was on a mission when Unforgettable Fire was released. I caught a bit of Bad when we were at an investigator's home and went out and bought the tape the next day. It was awesome.

Joshua Tree has some really good songs on it, but my problem with it was that it seemed to me that U2 had made that album in order to sell albums, rather than to just make good music. There was too much of a commercial sound to it for my liking. (For the record, I'm that way with pretty much any band - when they start making albums to make money, I lose interest in them.)

As for Achtung Baby, there is not one song on there that I like. The critics may have liked it, but if it doesn't sound good to me, there's no reason to like it.

My son bought their most recent CD. Perhaps I'll give it a try if it sounds more like their 80s stuff.

If you didn't like AB, then I wouldn't expect you to like the newest three albums. But if you're a U2 fan through AB and lost interest in the 90's, I'd invite you to check out the newest three albums with a fresh start, and especially listen to the live versions of the recent stuff.

[il Padrino Ute]

1984 Unforgettable Fire
1987 Joshua Tree (I'm guess something happened to you between '84...mission or marriage?) Almost no one that loves UF doesn't also like Joshua Tree
1991 Achtung Baby, might be their most critically acclaimed album

Then you have Zooropa and Pop through the 90's that sucked.

Then in the 00's you have the last three albums. They've tried to make pop hits on each album and marketed each of them with the teeny bopper pop hits: Elevation, Vertigo, Get on your Boots. Those songs sucked. But if you look underneath you find a lot of great songs that totally match their 80's sound.

I'm with you. I like their 80's sound. And I love most of their last three albums.

I was on a mission when Unforgettable Fire was released. I caught a bit of Bad when we were at an investigator's home and went out and bought the tape the next day. It was awesome.

Joshua Tree has some really good songs on it, but my problem with it was that it seemed to me that U2 had made that album in order to sell albums, rather than to just make good music. There was too much of a commercial sound to it for my liking. (For the record, I'm that way with pretty much any band - when they start making albums to make money, I lose interest in them.)

As for Achtung Baby, there is not one song on there that I like. The critics may have liked it, but if it doesn't sound good to me, there's no reason to like it.

My son bought their most recent CD. Perhaps I'll give it a try if it sounds more like their 80s stuff.

[jay santos]

I'm not sure that too many 18 year olds are thinking that U2's new stuff is fresh and awesome. That would honestly surprise me if that were the case.

U2 had an awesome final relevant album in Achtung Baby. The arc from War to Achtung Baby in the span of eight years is quite impressive and only a handful of bands have had such a streak. But U2's music post-Achtung Baby has been total shit- I'm talking Rolling Stones Voodoo Lounge shit.

I was in high school when Voodoo Lounge came out. I didn't know a single person in school that cared, let alone actually bought the thing. That's the stage U2 is in right now.

That's not what I was trying to say, and I agree with your take.

IPU makes the cut off after Unforgettable Fire. You make it after Achtung Baby, which is the more common take. What I'm saying is that if any of these last three albums come out in 1990, the same kids that liked the other albums and anticipated Achtung Baby would have liked this music.

[jay santos]

This is a fair statement, as far as U2 is concerned. They changed their sound and I didn't like it.

1984 Unforgettable Fire
1987 Joshua Tree (I'm guess something happened to you between '84...mission or marriage?) Almost no one that loves UF doesn't also like Joshua Tree
1991 Achtung Baby, might be their most critically acclaimed album

Then you have Zooropa and Pop through the 90's that sucked.

Then in the 00's you have the last three albums. They've tried to make pop hits on each album and marketed each of them with the teeny bopper pop hits: Elevation, Vertigo, Get on your Boots. Those songs sucked. But if you look underneath you find a lot of great songs that totally match their 80's sound.

I'm with you. I like their 80's sound. And I love most of their last three albums.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I think the main difference between U2 before and after Unforgettable Fire is that you stopped liking new music at that point.

If you took U2's best songs after UF and exposed them to 18 yo IPU, you'd say they sounded fresh and awesome.

I'm not sure that too many 18 year olds are thinking that U2's new stuff is fresh and awesome. That would honestly surprise me if that were the case.

U2 had an awesome final relevant album in Achtung Baby. The arc from War to Achtung Baby in the span of eight years is quite impressive and only a handful of bands have had such a streak. But U2's music post-Achtung Baby has been total shit- I'm talking Rolling Stones Voodoo Lounge shit.

I was in high school when Voodoo Lounge came out. I didn't know a single person in school that cared, let alone actually bought the thing. That's the stage U2 is in right now.

[il Padrino Ute]

I think the main difference between U2 before and after Unforgettable Fire is that you stopped liking new music at that point.

If you took U2's best songs after UF and exposed them to 18 yo IPU, you'd say they sounded fresh and awesome.

This is a fair statement, as far as U2 is concerned. They changed their sound and I didn't like it.

[Fiyero]

My album rankings:

1) The Unforgettable Fire
2) Joshua Tree
3) Achtung Baby
4) Rattle and Hum
----------------
5) Zooropa
6) All That You Can't Leave Behind
7) October
----------------
8) Pop
9) War
----------------
10) How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
11) Boy

Haven't heard the new one yet.

[jay santos]

I would be able to agree with you if you had said that after Unforgettable Fire, U2 sucks as much as Radiohead always has.

I think the main difference between U2 before and after Unforgettable Fire is that you stopped liking new music at that point.

If you took U2's best songs after UF and exposed them to 18 yo IPU, you'd say they sounded fresh and awesome.