An Assessment Of NLOTH In The Context Of U2's Career and U2's State of Relevance

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

namkcuR

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
10,770
Location
Kettering, Ohio
U2 is in a unique position; They are 30 years into their career with no lineup changes, no break-ups, no reunions, none of that. How you ultimately rank "No Line On The Horizon" depends on what you expect out of U2 at this point in their career - what kind of record you think they're capable of putting out at this point, what kind of record you think they will put out at this point, and how you view the trajectory of their career. It's all about context.

The word "masterpiece" is thrown around a lot. I often see people post things that essentially amount to "I expected this to be a masterpiece but after listening to it I don't think it is, and I'm really disappointed". Here's the thing: Not every album has to be a masterpiece to be a success or to satisfy the fanbase. It's unrealistic to expect every single album, at this point, to be an all-time great album. I see so many people here who expected "No Line On The Horizon" to be a peer of "Achtung Baby" or "The Joshua Tree", and when it didn't live up to that expectation in their eyes, they expressed as much in the form of disappointed or even angry posts.

This is where the context of what you think U2 should be doing at this point in their career comes into play. I believe that rock and roll artists who have been around as long as U2 have do have certain career arcs, that they do have identifiable peaks, and that by definition, after a band passes their peak, they don't get up to that overall quality again. I believe that U2's peak was a while ago - the mythical period of 1987-1998. I believe that they reached a level of combined commercial success and artistic brilliance in that period that few bands have ever reached. It doesn't mean that what came before and after it isn't great too - indeed, there are quite a few moments of brilliance from the early 80s and and from this decade, but I believe that it is almost unfair for us to expect them to reach their 87-97 peak again. You can't get to a peak twice, and beyond that, there is the issue of emotional and personal attachment.

I first got into U2 when I was 13 in 1998 and I collected the whole back catalog by late 1999. From the 8th grade in 1998-99 to my high school graduation in 2003, I listened to an incredible amount of U2, frankly, probably more than I do now, although i still listen to a lot. My favorite albums and the ones I listened to the most are "Achtung Baby", "The Joshua Tree", "Pop", and "Zooropa". I listened to these records ad nauseam between the ages of 13 and 18, a defining window of time in anyone's life. I have so many memories attached to these records, a sense of teenage wonder that I attribute to these records, these records may have even, to an extent, shaped elements of my personality, because I listened to them so much in my formative years. Because of all of this, it is very unlikely that U2 will ever put anything out again that will surpass those records in my heart and in my mind. And because of that, like I said, it is unfair to expect them to. I mean, I have a memory from my sophmore or junior year of high school - I don't remember which - of a 1-2 hour long bus ride I took with my high school orchestra on the way to the annual state contest. I listen to "Achtung Baby" nearly all the way through on that bus ride, in the dark. Memories like that make it nearly impossible for newer records to match or surpass albums like that.

So what should we expect from U2 at this point? Like I said, they are in a unique position given their longevity and their relevance, so the biggest thing that we should expect from them is that they don't take the road of the Rolling Stones. We should expect that any new record they put out from this point on shows an honest and genuine effort to keep making the best music they can possibly make, whether it sells big or not, to keep trying new things to the extent that they can(the longer you've been around, the harder it is to find new things), to make it sound real, genuine, passionate, artistic, creative, and exciting. I think "No Line On The Horizon" accomplishes this. It's not really close to being the overall artistic and musical accomplishments that "Achtung Baby" and "The Joshua Tree" were, but there are moments of brilliance. The title track. Moment Of Surrender. Fez-Being Born. White As Snow. Cedars Of Lebanon. The Magnificent riff and "justified/till we die/you and I will magnify/magnificent" and the middle 8. The chanting and solo/outro in Unknown Caller. It's certainly much more reassuring that they won't become the Rolling Stones than "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" was...for as much as we enjoy some of the songs on that record(and I do enjoy them), it was a safer record than this one. So, I don't think "No Line On The Horizon" is a masterpiece, and that's ok, because it's still a very good record with some brilliant moments on it that clearly show that the band is still trying to "blow their own minds" and "grow as songwriters and as musicians and as people" as Bono put it on VH1 Legends. And that makes the record a success to me. I do have to say though, in my gut, I think the further along U2 get at this point, the more they're going to have to make music "their age" - i.e. more atmospheric, perhaps slower, less guitar-riff-driven music - to continue progressing and avoid the road of the Rolling Stones.

As for their relevance at this point...the reviewers who were saying that U2 isn't relevant anymore should resign from their jobs. When you've been around for 30 years and are arguably a decade past your artistic peak, and you still are popular enough to get a week long gig on "Late Night With David Letterman" and to get "Good Morning America" - a show that has an audience of whom a large portion probably doesn't care so much about you - to devote an hour of their show to you - you are not irrelevant. Perhaps U2 isn't as relevant as they were in 1987 or 1993, but then few bands ever have been that relevant. Just because they're not as relevant doesn't mean they're irrelevant. You want to talk about irrelevance? Let's talk about irrelevance. Rick Springfield. The guy has made a career off one song, "Jesse's Girl". He made a guest appearance on that Karaoke show hosted by Wayne Brady, "Don't Forget The Lyrics!" on CBS back in January, where contestants have to see how many lyrics to a given song they can sing off the top of their heads. He played "Jesse's Girl". And then he played a song off his new album, which outside of the lyrics, was not easily differentiable from "Jesse's Girl". I bet you didn't even know Rick Springfield had a new album out, since he didn't get one night on Letterman much less a week, or a gig on GMA. He had to go on a Karaoke game/reality show to promote his record. That is irrelevance.

"No Line On The Horizon" has some brilliant moments and is pretty strong overall, it's commercially good enough and viable enough to get U2 major television airtime, and musically it's a good indication that U2 aren't that comfortable going down the road of the Rolling Stones, and that satisfies me at this point.
 
Actually, I kind of agree with you, except that the description you make of NLOTH (some brilliant moments and a proof that they have not become the Rolling Stones) for me applies more to HTDAAB.

For me NLTOH is at around the quality level of JT and AB. It's too early to say for sure, as I am still listening to it and trying to figure it out. I loved the songwriting on ATYCLB, but this is the first time in a long time that the songs seem to come from "a different world"

But that's just personal tastes. I think your in-depth analysis is really good.
 
I just listened to JT and AB to compare with NLOTH, and i clearly think it is. Lets wait for the tour. But i think it is a masterpiece.
 
What's all this talk about relevance though? How do you measure it? And why should we care? :shrug:
 
my assessment of NLOTH is a bit higher than yours, and i'm about 8 years older than you, so i'd argue that their unassailable peak was 87-93, but other than that, a spot-on post, especially in how nostalgia works on the ears of fans.
 
Now, I haven't heard the new album, but GOYB was pretty insulting to many fans, including myself, except for the "Let Me In The Sound" part. This isn't ground-breaking.

The fact is that Eno and Lanois let on that this was an incredible album and the band has suggested that this could be their best. So, it was reasonable to hope for something along the quality of JT and AB. If fans accept that the band's best days are truly behind it, then we'd be less interested in keeping up to date and even in buying albums. I KNOW the band can put out amazing work to rival those 2 best albums, but has been making many wrong decisions for commercial viability. The band hasn't pursued this with guts and ferocity of creativity as it had those 2 songs, based on GOYB, and that's a shame.
 
Very nice, well thought-out post. I always appreciate quality writing that also has a strong and viable point to it. Good work.
 
Now, I haven't heard the new album, but GOYB was pretty insulting to many fans, including myself, except for the "Let Me In The Sound" part. This isn't ground-breaking.

Yes, but if the lyrics are partially about women in the Arab world, then it's POLITICALLY INSIGHTFUL.
 
great post and i agree with most of what you say-although to say a band has a certain 'peak' that they reach once, then never see again is a little strange. This is music, not physics, and i believe bands can start off at their best, then drop off; slowly get better until they make their best work, then walk away; follow typical "arch" formation; or, i think in u2's case, move in waves.

that being said i find NLOTH to be an exciting album with some new sounds. Is it the second coming? No. But it is better than HTDAAB (IMO) and as an album better than ATYCLB (IMO). In fact, it may be my favorite album since AB.


As for the part about if u2's relevant... its not even an arguement. Everywhere i look i see u2 right now. They ARE relevant, whether you like it or not!:wink:
 
Yes, but if the lyrics are partially about women in the Arab world, then it's POLITICALLY INSIGHTFUL.



i agree. what i like best about "Get On Your Boots" is that it eviscerates much of the Muslim world for their treatment of women. when you keep 50% of your population under lock and key and birka and prevent them from driving cars, it's not surprising that the combined GNP of the world's Muslim nations will amount to less than Spain's.

it's a smart call to Muslim youth, in particular, to throw of the ways of their parents who continually blame their ills on easily caricatured "others" (the US, the Jews, the West, science, Hollywood, the gays, etc.) and instead engage in productive self-criticism that allows them to throw of the shackles of tradition and religiosity that has led the Muslim world into it's dire state, and to instead embrace all that modernity has to offer.

get rid of your angry boots, get on your sexy boots, and reclaim your beauty.

:up:
 
For me NLTOH is at around the quality level of JT and AB. It's too early to say for sure, as I am still listening to it and trying to figure it out. I loved the songwriting on ATYCLB, but this is the first time in a long time that the songs seem to come from "a different world"

Unfortunately, the "different world" that Crazy Tonight and Stand Up Comedy come from is Uranus. There is nothing on those two masterpiece albums that comes off as calculated and unrelated to the rest as those two songs.
 
The crazy boots suc(k) trinity didn't fit in at first, but now I see it as a nice break after the 1-2-3 punch of Magnificent-MOS-UC. Kind of like In god's country and Trip through your wires after that spectacular run of opening songs on JT or MW and especially Tryin' to throw... on AB to provide some breathing space. Even their darkest album had something like Miami on it.
 
Now, I haven't heard the new album, but GOYB was pretty insulting to many fans, including myself, except for the "Let Me In The Sound" part. This isn't ground-breaking.

The fact is that Eno and Lanois let on that this was an incredible album and the band has suggested that this could be their best. So, it was reasonable to hope for something along the quality of JT and AB. If fans accept that the band's best days are truly behind it, then we'd be less interested in keeping up to date and even in buying albums. I KNOW the band can put out amazing work to rival those 2 best albums, but has been making many wrong decisions for commercial viability. The band hasn't pursued this with guts and ferocity of creativity as it had those 2 songs, based on GOYB, and that's a shame.

Okay, I'll bite. But you havent heard the new album. Why not give it a shot? especially considering most fans would put boots near the bottom of favourite tracks off the new album...I dunno, its no skin off my ass if you dont listen to it, but who knows, you might actually appreciate it
 
Yes, but if the lyrics are partially about women in the Arab world, then it's POLITICALLY INSIGHTFUL.

Politically insightful, yeah, but the message gets lost when what many people hear is a wacky, throwaway bubblegum pop song that says "sexy boots, yeah!" a lot. U2 rolled the dice on the '90s irony again, and it didn't really work this time. At least not as a debut single to get people jazzed about the new album, the rest of which sounds nothing like "Get On Your Boots".
 
Now, I haven't heard the new album, but GOYB was pretty insulting to many fans, including myself, except for the "Let Me In The Sound" part. This isn't ground-breaking.

The fact is that Eno and Lanois let on that this was an incredible album and the band has suggested that this could be their best. So, it was reasonable to hope for something along the quality of JT and AB. If fans accept that the band's best days are truly behind it, then we'd be less interested in keeping up to date and even in buying albums. I KNOW the band can put out amazing work to rival those 2 best albums, but has been making many wrong decisions for commercial viability. The band hasn't pursued this with guts and ferocity of creativity as it had those 2 songs, based on GOYB, and that's a shame.

Insulting? Grow up.
 
Insulting? Grow up.



you know what's insulting? you thinking that the fact that you've actually listened to the album gives you some sort of god-given, i'm-so-high-and-mighty right to comment on it. as if an informed opinion is somehow better than an angry, sanctimonious one.

all the smart fans who demand nothing but the best from U2 know better than to actually listen to the album before making sweeping generalizations about it's inherent worth.
 
The crazy boots suc(k) trinity didn't fit in at first, but now I see it as a nice break after the 1-2-3 punch of Magnificent-MOS-UC. Kind of like In god's country and Trip through your wires after that spectacular run of opening songs on JT or MW and especially Tryin' to throw... on AB to provide some breathing space. Even their darkest album had something like Miami on it.

I agree with this in theory, and certainly don't mind the relief in the "eye of the hurricane". My problem is that the examples you're giving seem to blend better with the sonic fabric of the albums they're on. Now I understand No Line has a wider palette than JT or AB, but they still stick out like sore thumbs.

I'd also say that there's nothing in those older songs as cringe-inducing as that "baby baby baby" section of Crazy Tonight, which is perhaps the most generic and godawful moment of their entire discography, not to mention sounding a million miles away from the sophisticated compositions and international flavor of the rest of the album. Perhaps some people take similar issue with "Miami...my mammy!" but to me that doesn't seem out of place on Pop.

Bottom line is that the band wouldn't have made such a wrong-headed move when they were recording their peak works.
 
Politically insightful, yeah, but the message gets lost when what many people hear is a wacky, throwaway bubblegum pop song that says "sexy boots, yeah!" a lot. U2 rolled the dice on the '90s irony again, and it didn't really work this time. At least not as a debut single to get people jazzed about the new album, the rest of which sounds nothing like "Get On Your Boots".

I'd rather have 90s irony than 80s and 00s preaching.
 
I'd also say that there's nothing in those older songs as cringe-inducing as that "baby baby baby" section of Crazy Tonight, which is perhaps the most generic and godawful moment of their entire discography

Can you imaging if Laz was walking down the street, and he spotted Oasis and Steven Spielberg singing "Crazy Tonight" together, as Fiest and Wilco drove by in their Volkswagen eating Chicago pizza?
 
Maybe its just me but as part of the younger generation I see a lot of the late 80's as a preach fest. Not that this makes the works bad - its what I think made the band stand out like a sore thumb. Which was a good thing.

And NLOTH has a lot of Bono having a go at himself, which is a sign of the maturity the band is at and being comfortable with who them are.
 
Back
Top Bottom