.....Or rather, I think it won't own up to their other classics like War or The Joshua Tree. But I guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow to find out.

Meanwhile, I've have the "Boy" album on my walkman non-stop.

Now that was some classic Post-Punk!

i used to listen to "boy" a lot, but then i grew out of it. now i listen to neneh cherry's "man" album. except for those moments when i'm not quite feeling like myself, at which point i like to listen to "not a girl, not yet a woman" by britney spears.

Anxiety said:

Looks like someone has some soul searching to do.

Prince fans are so wacked !!!

i loved actung baby ... hated joshua tree ...

Hey, I'm not saying that I dislike U2 at all. I think they're one of the all-time great New Wave bands (before they sold out). It's just that I don't think this new album will be as good as their classics. Maybe it'll be as good as Zooropa.

most likely, it ISN'T going to be as good as their classics. name me a pop/rock/soul/r&b/hip-hop/rap band or artist, who, 25 years into a career put out something that equalled their stellar heyday.


however, that doesn't mean it's going to be wack. i sort of like this trend by the older set that instead of flailing about trying to stay on the cutting edge or chase a younger crowd, they're going back to doing what they do best. no, it's generally not as good as their earlier, critically acclaimed and commercially blockbuster works, but it does please the fan, and generally, without necessarily aspiring to it, acheives some level of quality that is reminiscent of the earlier work. Bowie, Prince, U2, Elton, etc. they've all done pretty well with their fanbases by putting out albums in the last few years that appeal to their own strengths. no, it's certainly not grond-breaking work, but so what? they already broke that ground. why not build something on that broken ground? it doesn't diminish their earlier work, nor does it mean they didn't try to break new ground later in their careers. they've just realized what they're good at and are doing it to please themselves and their fans. nothing wack about that, if you ask me.

this is all relative but...

i don't think u2 discovered who they were until achtung baby...after the success of joshua tree when they needed to do some serious soul searching. their 90's period is the result of that and i think its some of their most honest work.

people don't go around making record after record with the intent of breaking new ground with each one. i've never quite understood that thought. i also don't think bands and artists with real talent strive to remain the same thing. this is why i don't understand why u2 would be called a "sell-out" band. have they changed what they do for the industry? have they become a band they are not simply to sell records? did they get all rod stewart and start making adult contemporary music and remake old standards? did they go the route of elton john and commission themselves out to disney for album ideas? i mean, i get that their sound has changed since boy...just as it changed from album to album in the time between 1988 and now. is that what makes them a "sell out" band? or is it because they became worldwide superstars?

it is 2004...bands that were doing the whole new wave, post punk thing back when it was new have, hopefully, moved on to new sounds. hopefully they've expanded and improved upon their craft. the reason u2 is still around and as popular as ever is because they've done just that and not because they've "sold out".