Getting Old: Rattle & Hum was released 20 years ago tomorrow

"Getting"... I've been feeling pretty old for a while now. 

I have a bunch of college and high school interns in my office.  I'm like "middle aged" to them.

But now I have a better understanding of why my parents and their friend rolled their eyes at me when I said I loved listening to "old Beatles tunes when I was 16.  Yeah.

Now I want to tell kids I see skateboarding down the sidewalk wearing Black Flag t-shirts that they should give their dad his shirt back. 

Of course, this stuff makes me smile:

I'm 27 and I own a Rattle and Hum CD.  Does that make you feel better?

bhoover10001 - 2008-11-04 1:06 AM

froglegs - 2008-11-03 9:44 PM

bhoover10001 - 2008-11-03 4:07 PM

madkat - 2008-11-03 3:55 PM

"Getting"... I've been feeling pretty old for a while now. 

 

I have a bunch of college and high school interns in my office.  I'm like "middle aged" to them.

Yeah, I'm not even going to ask my 27 yo programmer whether she remembers Rattle and Hum. It would just be depressing.

I'm 27 and I own a Rattle and Hum CD.  Does that make you feel better?

Well, at least it means that my taste isn't totally out of date I saw the concert. Actually, I was very proud of my daughters when they wore out my Queen and old Bowie CDs from playing them too much.

Queen and David Bowie are awesome. I'm 27 as well - does that help?

As someone who lists U2 as my all time fav band, who I've listened to since I was a teen in the 80s, what I remember about "Rattle and Hum" was:

1. hitting a deer on the way to see the movie.

2. how incredibly disappointed I was in the album. 

One of their weaker efforts in retrospect IMO.  "All I Want Is You" is beautiful and "Van Diemen's Land" was interesting as well, but the rest of the album is made up of live stuff we'd already heard, covers and the other "hits" were mediocre.  I know "Desire," "When Loves comes to Town" and "Angel of Harlem" were popular but I always thought they kinda sucked compared to classic U2 stuff. 

The movie was good.  But "The Joshua Tree" is a much better album.  (For those that dont know The the movie and album were based on the Joshua Tree tour.)  'Under a Blood Red Sky' (25 years ago) is a much better live album - IMHO, one of the best live albums ever.  U2 just couldnt 'remake the magic' w/ R&H.

I remember getting R&H, listening to it a few times and then going back to the Tree and BRS.

 FWIW, I still own the Joshua Tree & BRS CDs, Tapes and Albums.

But yeah, 20 years.   Time does go by fast