RaisedByWolves
War Child
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckG8KpRCjHE
New direction for U2: Cheesy Vocal Pop Renditions of Spiritual Hymns
New direction for U2: Cheesy Vocal Pop Renditions of Spiritual Hymns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckG8KpRCjHE
New direction for U2: Cheesy Vocal Pop Renditions of Spiritual Hymns
This is always a mistake.So rather than wallow in this "we are so anti-everything" stance, U2 went with the flow.
Anything, only not ATYCLB type of record!!! That was the biggest, most shameful moment in U2 history. It is absolutely OK to have commercial flops like Passengers, Pop or NLOTH, but ATYCLB - submissive, radio friendly oportunistic kind of record intended to please the pop kids NEVR AGAIN PLEASE.
I´m happy and proud of the band with their latest record. I hope they will enjoy the tour and they will find inspiration for recording new material, despite the reactions to the last one is not what they expected. I hope they feel inside that the way they did the last record was the right one, the critics with their instant under the influence of the itunes scandal reviews were wrong and the band will follow their instincts in their music.
But what it they want to make 'hits' or songs that people might actually like? Why should we assume that they would automatically make songs that either don't have vocal hooks or prominent guitars on them if the commercial factor were no longer factored in?
They should simply make the music they want to make without worry as to if it'll get a second of radio play... whatever that may be.
Pick a vision, stick to it
I actually don't have too much problem with their music or artistic direction.
Considering their music in the last 10 years, I consider all of the following to be of great quality and wouldn't mind them if they kept doing it:
*Mercy, Fez
*COBL, Breathe, Winter, EBW
*No Line, Volcano, Reach Me Now
*Cedarwood Road, Wolves
*MOS, SLABT, Troubles
*Crazy Tonight, Crystal Ballroom
I'd only wish that both they and the fans stopped caring so much about the public perception.
Between Bono and the band wishing to be hugely relevant again (which is not going to happen) and the fans wishing that U2 somehow become either some sort of a hipsterish underground respected band (which is not going to happen) or a huge massive popular act (which is not going to happen), the whole U2 community lives in constant frustration instead of enjoying what imho are really good songs that enriches the already great catalog of a great band like U2.
Oh, and I'd wish that as a consequence of that, they'd dare to release albums more often, even if they feel that they're not 100% ready.
All I know is as long as they don't make music exactly the way I want it at exactly that moment of time they are selling out their souls instead of following their creative muse.
As their creative muse, obviously, completely coincides with my subjective take on music.
But what it they want to make 'hits' or songs that people might actually like? Why should we assume that they would automatically make songs that either don't have vocal hooks or prominent guitars on them if the commercial factor were no longer factored in?
This thread was actually prompted by a lot of your posts over the years, referring to Springsteen's approach. And wondering, if they did do this, what would your ideal sound for them be? None of us have any influence on what they do, either way, but I just thought it would be interesting to hear other's opinions.
I'm touched
I don't think a band like U2 HAS one direction. Their problem is that rather than embracing this and going for it, they shrink down in the name of "relevance" and hugeness... which to be fair has worked wonders for them for a long, long time, but now that they're at an age where pop relevance is all bit an impossibility for them, I'd just hope that they'd feel comfortable enough to simply release whatever they're inspired to release and not give two shits about how big it is.
I'm touched
Now we get to U2. They also have an interest in a wide range of music. There was talk of three separate albums being recorded at one point, each with a different theme. But instead of just running with it, they get to a point where they try and mash it all together, and then white wash it to sound good for radio. And even then they're still forever tweaking.
I don't think a band like U2 HAS one direction. Their problem is that rather than embracing this and going for it, they shrink down in the name of "relevance" and hugeness... which to be fair has worked wonders for them for a long, long time, but now that they're at an age where pop relevance is all bit an impossibility for them, I'd just hope that they'd feel comfortable enough to simply release whatever they're inspired to release and not give two shits about how big it is.
There's an "I'm pretty sure we've all been touched by VP at one point or another" joke here somewhere...but I don't want to get punched in the nose in July
Sent from my ass crack
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
I don't think a band like U2 HAS one direction. Their problem is that rather than embracing this and going for it, they shrink down in the name of "relevance" and hugeness... which to be fair has worked wonders for them for a long, long time, but now that they're at an age where pop relevance is all bit an impossibility for them, I'd just hope that they'd feel comfortable enough to simply release whatever they're inspired to release and not give two shits about how big it is.
Age should not be the whole reason this relevance thing works or doesn't work.
Not the whole reason, but age is a main factor regarding relevance and popularity. The demographics that determines which music is cool is not really interested in a bunch of 50 year old guys. Bono marching with a white flag, or coming into the stage in full Fly costume, are images that atracted a huge following, with young people identifying with them or becoming plebans or both, and those images are long gone.
There won't be any armies of young people trying to "look like Bono" not even in a subconscious level.
Also, after you had your popularity peak, you usually are allowed to get one comeback.
Your first comeback you're welcomed, your second comeback people is wondering what are you still doing around. U2 has already have 3 or 4 of those... they're old not in age (that's arguably) but more important they're an old act, a really old act. They're the music that was there before you were already born (for the young crowd, I mean) and that hasn't been relevant since you were in grade school. They won't become that interesting now.
And I don't have a problem with the music they're making right now, I love that music, I don't think their age affects the quality of their music... but I believe that it surely affects the way it's perceived by the young people.
Young people. They really don't fucking know anything though, do they? The whole world is their oyster and most of them are too naive to realize it. They have enough energy to fuel an entire city but they burn it all up trying to paint the town instead. Damn kids...life is grand though...isn't it?
Young people. They really don't fucking know anything though, do they? The whole world is their oyster and most of them are too naive to realize it. They have enough energy to fuel an entire city but they burn it all up trying to paint the town instead. Damn kids...life is grand though...isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckG8KpRCjHE
New direction for U2: Cheesy Vocal Pop Renditions of Spiritual Hymns
If I give that impression I didn't expressed my point correctly.
I don't mean that they don't know or can't appreciate good music or whatever, I just mean that -specially in "massive" terms- they already have enough bands or artists which they can identify themselves with and admire way more than what U2 could offer to them.
Specially in "massive enough to be really relevant and popular" terms
I sorta touched upon this in another thread...
Does anyone ever really push the '2 to stick with a direction? Are these producers that they bring in just so honored to be working with U2 that they yes them to death. "Sure Bono! That's a wonderful idea! (reaping the benefits)." I know DM was a tad sore over the project, but did he really push them to stick with it, or was he just passive-agressive about it?
I feel like, if they're going to "go for it" again, they need a collaborator who shares a similar vision but knows how to keep them in line, and will stop things from getting too "poppy" and confusing.
Good God, we need to copy this word-for-word and write it on giant poster-boards. Then, express-deliver it to U2 at their studio or chateau in south-France where they're sitting cocktails or whatever, and make them read it over and over (like Alex in A Clockwork Orange, if necessary) until they recognize the sheer truth of it.Now we get to U2. They also have an interest in a wide range of music. There was talk of three separate albums being recorded at one point, each with a different theme. But instead of just running with it, they get to a point where they try and mash it all together, and then white wash it to sound good for radio. And even then they're still forever tweaking.
I don't think a band like U2 HAS one direction. Their problem is that rather than embracing this and going for it, they shrink down in the name of "relevance" and hugeness... which to be fair has worked wonders for them for a long, long time, but now that they're at an age where pop relevance is all bit an impossibility for them, I'd just hope that they'd feel comfortable enough to simply release whatever they're inspired to release and not give two shits about how big it is.
But despite that, it doesn't really matter because whoever the producer is, or whatever the direction is, there would be people complaining anyway.[/I]).
Did this part really need to be said?
Yes.
The way you said your previous point (specially in the other thread -I don't remember which one it was), you make it sound (or that's how I read it myself, sorry if that's not the case) like someone needs to tell them something like "we all agreed that you're doing x and y wrong, so you need to stop doing that and do p and q instead! That's so obvious!", and I find that really far from the truth... maybe you and several other members agree on that, but then there's other several members that believe the exact opposite, that what they need to do is stop doing p and q and do x and y again and in a more extreme way and also think that that's obvious, so in the end nothing is obvious.
For some people Breathe is one of the worst 3 songs in NLOTH, for some others is one of the best 3 songs, both opinions are equally valid and pretending that one or the other is the obvious choice is a bit arrogant.
Any direction you believe is the obvious choice, there will be people who believes that the opposite was the obvious one. Not everyone agrees that what they're doing now is wrong, so why would that people want them to change?
In the end, it doesn't really matter because whoever the producer is, or whatever the direction is, there would be people complaining anyway.
(tl;dr: my point was not complain about people complaining, just saying that whatever they do, someone will like it and someone won't, nobody holds the whole truth).
I'm sorry, where did I proclaim something to be the whole truth?
The way you said your previous point (specially in the other thread -I don't remember which one it was), you make it sound (or that's how I read it myself, sorry if that's not the case)
Also, there's no obvious choice or direction. Just a longing to see them follow something, whatever it may turn out to be, through to the end. Surely, you must have noticed the late album tinkering in regards to NLOTH and SOI.