The "3 crap records and your out" rule

[U2girl]

Yeah, but they can always 'Chris Thomas' him too. Pretty clear they did or do need a new direction, thus a new producer and partner. Not *that* much of a leap in the dark to go with the hottest and most in demand one going, and one who does half the hype (especially to a certain lost demographic) on just having his name attached to the project. It's a bold move, not a safe one, but it surely is/was a very calculated one at the same time.

Also, Rubin =/= Thomas, if you were drawing a direct comparison there. Very, very, very different scenarios.

They can, but the latest word is they're sticking with DM. I don't think things will cause a deep disagreement within the band (like Thomas) or the band thinking "this is not what we want right now" (like Rubin).

I'm hoping either something like UF (a transitional record that expands their sound and pushes them into the 21st century) or a late-game reinvention comparable to AB (a massive shake up after the indifference towards the last album, and increased anti-Bono/U2 sentiment since the "tax" issue) comes out of this.

Perhaps a certain demographic was lost. Another one was regained though...you win some you lose some.

 

[surrenderer]

They can, but the latest word is they're sticking with DM. I don't think things will cause a deep disagreement within the band (like Thomas) or the band thinking "this is not what we want right now" (like Rubin).

I'm hoping either something like UF (a transitional record that expands their sound and pushes them into the 21st century) or a late-game reinvention comparable to AB (a massive shake up after the indifference towards the last album, and increased anti-Bono/U2 sentiment since the "tax" issue) comes out of this.

Perhaps a certain demographic was lost. Another one was regained though...you win some you lose some.

Well said. I too share these hopes. And I think DM is a great choice to execute them.

HOWEVER...all the neat album CONCEPTS in the world don't mean **** without some true melodic song writing magic. That's why, to me, 1987-1997 was such a great era, regardless of the concepts, anti-media sentiment, and studio magic and/or foibles. The melodies were so timeless.

 

[BVS]

That's why, to me, 1987-1997 was such a great era, regardless of the concepts, anti-media sentiment, and studio magic and/or foibles. The melodies were so timeless.

You thought pop had more "timeless" melodies than atyclb?

 

[surrenderer]

You thought pop had more "timeless" melodies than atyclb?

better song writing overall. yes sir. (IMHO)

 

[BVS]

better song writing overall. yes sir. (IMHO)

Well first you mentioned specifically 'melodies' and I was gonna have to disagree, but if you broaden it out to song writing in general than that's too subjective.

 

[surrenderer]

Well first you mentioned specifically 'melodies' and I was gonna have to disagree, but if you broaden it out to song writing in general than that's too subjective.

Fair enough. My point was that people always bash Pop for how it was produced. I can imagine the songs on Pop being produced a dozen different ways, and I'm sure I'd still prefer it to any of the last three albums. But as for melodies alone, you're right, ATYCLB was better. (maybe.)

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

I can imagine the songs on Pop being produced a dozen different ways, and I'm sure I'd still prefer it to any of the last three albums.

what if they were all acoustic ballads?

(though trying to imagine mofo as such amuses me.)

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I'm hoping either something like UF (a transitional record that expands their sound and pushes them into the 21st century) or a late-game reinvention comparable to AB (a massive shake up after the indifference towards the last album, and increased anti-Bono/U2 sentiment since the "tax" issue) comes out of this.

I honestly don't think you'll get either. I think you'll get a new take on a recognisable sound. I don't think they'd (deliberately) transition because they'll have a keen sense of a sharp break, and I think there's zero chance of an AB re-invention, I simply don't believe they have it in them, and even if they did, I highly doubt they're up for the risk. And in both cases, they're not a growing band or a band looking to experimentation or re-invention. They're an old band, near the end of their career, looking at landing one more truly great album. I think they'll hug pretty close to what they know, and the introduction of a very new producer and creative partner will be enough to give it a new spin, but that's about it. Quality of songwriting and a lack of compromise will determine whether it's any good or not, and even with a new producer and a bit of a scare with No Line, with U2, you can't really bank on either anymore.

 

[U2_Guy]

I honestly don't think you'll get either. I think you'll get a new take on a recognisable sound. I don't think they'd (deliberately) transition because they'll have a keen sense of a sharp break, and I think there's zero chance of an AB re-invention, I simply don't believe they have it in them, and even if they did, I highly doubt they're up for the risk. And in both cases, they're not a growing band or a band looking to experimentation or re-invention. They're an old band, near the end of their career, looking at landing one more truly great album. I think they'll hug pretty close to what they know, and the introduction of a very new producer and creative partner will be enough to give it a new spin, but that's about it. Quality of songwriting and a lack of compromise will determine whether it's any good or not, and even with a new producer and a bit of a scare with No Line, with U2, you can't really bank on either anymore.

Mate, i have to say you are one of the few sensible, rational posters on this forum.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Nah, its just common sense, or keeping at least one foot on the ground. Or in reverse - it takes a remarkable level of faith to look at U2's trajectory and just assume that them pulling another Achtung Baby out their collective arse is in any way even remotely realistic. It's not going to happen.

If there is to be any other, final revolution with U2, it will be in accepting a comfortable, mature position, and will result in a comfortable, mature sound. And that won't be anything dramatic, in terms of some sonic revolution, either. I think we've already had plenty of hints of what that would roughly sound like. And... I don't think U2 will go there anyway. Massive or bust, I think.

 

[U2_Guy]

Nah, its just common sense, or keeping at least one foot on the ground. Or in reverse - it takes a remarkable level of faith to look at U2's trajectory and just assume that them pulling another Achtung Baby out their collective arse is in any way even remotely realistic. It's not going to happen.

If there is to be any other, final revolution with U2, it will be in accepting a comfortable, mature position, and will result in a comfortable, mature sound. And that won't be anything dramatic, in terms of some sonic revolution, either. I think we've already had plenty of hints of what that would roughly sound like. And... I don't think U2 will go there anyway. Massive or bust, I think.

I thought they were going the mature route when i listened to Ground Beneath Her Feet, Stateless etc back in the day. And then came the Vertigo's and Elevation's of the 00's... Though some NLOTH songs recaptured that route... and the Soon song...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I thought they were going the mature route when i listened to Ground Beneath Her Feet, Stateless etc back in the day. And then came the Vertigo's and Elevation's of the 00's... Though some NLOTH songs recaptured that route... and the Soon song...

Exactly. Actually, exactly. It's probably where No Line was naturally headed too, but they fought against it, and I suspect they will continue to do so, to some degree. You can see it in the whole 'Songs of Ascent' hopes as well. Want to do it/don't feel it can be done. It's a shame.

 

[Niceman]

You thought pop had more "timeless" melodies than atyclb?

I do!

 

[BVS]

I do!

Can you give me an example?

 

[LemonMelon]

BVS, just be honest and tell them they shouldn't be allowed their own opinion. Better than skirting the subject.

 

[BVS]

BVS, just be honest and tell them they shouldn't be allowed their own opinion. Better than skirting the subject.

No, I'm honestly curious because I always felt that with a few exemptions that was pop's weakness.

Plus I just wanted clarification because I've found that many in here mean something else when they say "melody" so just making sure. Is that ok?

 

[Salome]

POP's saving grace are the lyrics
and while the production overall doesn't suit the songs, on the songs where it does work the result is great
but the melodies are mediocre
and the reason I didn't put IMO there is because that's not an opinion

 

[U2girl]

I honestly don't think you'll get either. I think you'll get a new take on a recognisable sound. I don't think they'd (deliberately) transition because they'll have a keen sense of a sharp break, and I think there's zero chance of an AB re-invention, I simply don't believe they have it in them, and even if they did, I highly doubt they're up for the risk. And in both cases, they're not a growing band or a band looking to experimentation or re-invention. They're an old band, near the end of their career, looking at landing one more truly great album. I think they'll hug pretty close to what they know, and the introduction of a very new producer and creative partner will be enough to give it a new spin, but that's about it. Quality of songwriting and a lack of compromise will determine whether it's any good or not, and even with a new producer and a bit of a scare with No Line, with U2, you can't really bank on either anymore.

I think they will eventually go for option C) make that last great album, the illusive 3rd masterpice. For which I expect Eno and Lanois again, or Rick Rubin.

But...I do think the general anti-Bono sentiment since the tax "issue", critisism re: Edge building several homes etc... echoes the anti-Bono/preachy U2 attitude of the end of the 80's. I think the reception NLOTH got reminded them of the late 90's when Pop got a cold reception as well. (overall U2 audience, not the critics) The latter might be the reason why they're dropping Eno and Lanois and using someone new. They are reacting to the critics, much as they have been with every album after Rattle and Hum.

By itself, in U2's history, a new producer = a new direction. Add to this that NLOTH is not a new beginning, as they said, rather it's the natural end of the 00's era, with some interesting hints and a new decade now. U2 always start a new decade with a new sound. Just past age 50, it might be their last legitimate chance to shake it up, and have the critics and the audience pay attention. There is more to see and do for them than Bomb or NLOTH 2.0 with a twist.

 

[LemonMelon]

No, I'm honestly curious because I always felt that with a few exemptions that was pop's weakness.

Plus I just wanted clarification because I've found that many in here mean something else when they say "melody" so just making sure. Is that ok?

Alright, dear. But finish before the streetlights are on.

 

[BVS]

Thanks, you're the best!

 

[Earnie Shavers]

ATYCLB might have the better (or stronger) melodies, but Pop has better moments.

 

[lemonfly]

I would never describe the melodies on ATYCLB as "timeless". Catchy, certainly. A little obvious, maybe. But timeless? Yikes, no. In fact, the melodies of SATS and IGWSHA have always been more desirable to my ears than, say, Stuck and Walk On. With SATS and IGWSHA, the melodies seem more organic to the song, they serve the song rather than the song being a slave to the melody (which is my main problem with ATYCLB).

 

[BVS]

Do you know that in all my years on here I've heard the term "obvious" melody probably 127 times but not one has been able to explain what it means.

 

[The Panther]

I think (just guessing) that when people write "obvious" to describe a melody, they mean a melody that is instant and catchy (which might seem good so far), but is also simple and perhaps unoriginal, derivative, and repetitious. For example, there is a difference between a melody that is catchy and you can hear it 1000 times and it's still fresh (i.e. "Yesterday", "Every Breath you Take", etc.) and a melody that is catchy but aggravating because it's so simple and musically boring (i.e., most pop hits of the past 20 years).

Having said that, I don't agree that U2 write (m)any "obvious" melodies. U2's melodic approach, like their musical one, is what all groups' should be -- very organic and idiosyncratic. That's why they're a great group: they're extremely talented and don't try to sound like other contemporary artists. However, although I personally love the song, I would concede that "Staring at the Sun" is a somewhat "obvious" melody. For one thing, it rehashes the chords of "One" more-or-less, but in a less interesting, more generic, way. It's almost a Noel Gallagher or R.E.M. kind of "standard" chord progression, with a telegraphed chorus that sounds ready-made for a Britpop band.

I would say the weakest U2 albums in terms of melody are certainly October and No Line on the Horizon. Not coincidentally, these are the two albums that failed to galvanize the mass public the most (relative to the band's popularity at the time of release). Pop would be somewhere in the middle, maybe, but yeah I would say its melodies are less convincing than ATYCLB's.

With established groups that the public already loves (i.e., U2 after the mid-80s), it is generally melodies more than anything else that determine the popularity of a record.

 

[LemonMelon]

On a base level, a melody, to me, is an innately euphonious series of notes and/or chords that sticks in the mind. If a song lacks this, I typically need an awesome beat to compensate, or great lyrics. A timeless melody is one that is always fresh and catchy, regardless of how many times you've heard it in its original form or reproduced elsewhere.

 

[U2girl]

U2 don't have timeless/classic melodies.

ATYCLB has their best melodies, which was sort of the point of that album.. "I'm just trying to find a decent melody, a song that I can sing in my own company"

 

[BVS]

Have you decided to become full time troll?

 

[cobl04]

Yeah ISHFWILF was a real shit in a can, wasn't it?

Christ...

 

[cobl04]

Also I've got to side with Earnie and express bewilderment at the people who genuinely believe U2 have another masterpiece as good as or better than JT or AB in them. That's a ludicrous amount of faith.

Almost as likely as Morrissey playing Satellite of Love because he's been following U2's setlists closely and is predicting what they'll play at the next show. Which, as some people will have you believe, is the truth fully realised.

 

[U2girl]

No, but they can do better than the post AB output.