Excerpt from the new RS article, "U2: Hymns For the Future" about "Winter" vs Singles

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't buy into this at all.

Experimental is not a genre. To me a musician experiments when they do something outside their comfort zone or norm, nothing more nothing less. If U2 recorded a Polka album it would be experimenting for they've never done so before, it wouldn't be innovative because Polka had been done before, but it would be experimenting for U2.

Radiohead did something pretty innovative with Kid A. They've expanded and perfected that sound with the albums that followed it up, but they haven't experimented all that much since then or done anything innovative. They've found their sound and have been writing great tunes within that sound. In order for Radiohead to experiment again it would have to not sound like the last four albums.

I agree with everything you say here.

Though I still find Radiohead being Radiohead standing still to be more experimental than U2's small experiments on NLOTH. Some bands by nature are more experimental, even if they're just doing one thing all their lives, even if they're not actually experimenting beyond their established sound. This is obviously where we're differing, as I believe some people have "experimental" built into their DNA while others have to try. Even if those others try, they still may not end up all that experimental in the sense that they've created something unique. Of course they're experimenting - I agree with you - but I just don't think it's anything to talk about unless they've really gone out on a limb. U2 in the 90s was always out on that limb, even if Pop wasn't really that much different from Achtung/Zooropa, it was still U2 already out on the limb.

Bottom line for me is that I don't think U2 actually went out of their comfort zone. If U2 made a Polka album, it would be experimental for them. A big risk, a big experiment. NLOTH certainly isn't that, and that's all I'm saying.
 
I agree with everything you say here.

Though I still find Radiohead being Radiohead standing still to be more experimental electronic than U2's small experiments on NLOTH. Some bands by nature are more experimental electronic, even if they're just doing one thing all their lives, even if they're not actually experimenting beyond their established sound. This is obviously where we're differing, as I believe some people have "experimental" built into their DNA while others have to try. Even if those others try, they still may not end up all that experimental in the sense that they've created something unique. Of course they're experimenting - I agree with you - but I just don't think it's anything to talk about unless they've really gone out on a limb.

Bottom line for me is that I don't think U2 actually went out of their comfort zone. If U2 made a Polka album, it would be experimental for them. A big risk, a big experiment. NLOTH certainly isn't that, and that's all I'm saying.


By the definition you're using above, you will agree that In Rainbows is not out of Radiohead's 'comfort zone'?
 
Very true. I didn't say that wasn't the case. I'm sorry if it sounded like that. I was just responding to the debate of whether NLOTH is indeed experimental or not.
 
I just noticed in Dalton's first post centered at me that he crossed out the "experimental" word and inserted "electronic". Very funny.

But seriously, nobody here is equating experimental with electronic. Certainly not I, nor the many others who continue to state exactly that.
 
By the definition you're using above, you will agree that In Rainbows is not out of Radiohead's 'comfort zone'?

Yeah, but if you bring this back to Revolver's post, I would compare In Rainbows to POP. There's no real shock in the sound of the record, but it's still the band "out on the limb" and trying new/different things. It still sounds very modern

No Line isn't even really In Rainbows, as it just sounds more like a collage of previous eras and styles. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's only poking through the comfort zone in fits and starts. The thing still reeks of compromise.

I love it regardless, but I was hoping for the best album of the decade, and didn't get it (I'm still undecided if it's better than In Rainbows). I think it was within reach with the available materials, and the rumored follow-up album will do a lot to confirm or deny that.
 
Oh, yay, it's another SOA-related flamewar thread! :corn:
(I think, anyway. Is it?)

On an unrelated note, I'm calling this album "SOA CAH TOA" just because I can. :wink:
 
But seriously, nobody here is equating experimental with electronic. Certainly not I, nor the many others who continue to state exactly that.

It has become a bit of a running joke on the forum, as that period is the only one that ever receives the "experimental" label. IMO, that does the Unforgettable Fire era a great disservice, which I consider to be even more of a left-field experiment than Achtung Baby in context.
 
Yeah, but if you bring this back to Revolver's post, I would compare In Rainbows to POP. There's no real shock in the sound of the record, but it's still the band "out on the limb" and trying new/different things. It still sounds very modern

No Line isn't even really In Rainbows, as it just sounds more like a collage of previous eras and styles. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's only poking through the comfort zone in fits and starts. The thing still reeks of compromise.

I love it regardless, but I was hoping for the best album of the decade, and didn't get it (I'm still undecided if it's better than In Rainbows). I think it was within reach with the available materials, and the rumored follow-up album will do a lot to confirm or deny that.

I think you truly understand what I'm saying and for that I thank you!
 
Anything by U2 these days that doesn't sound like a "Vertigo"ish "rocker" or a "Walk On"ish power ballad/anthem is "experimental". Fez/BB, MOS, WAS, COL, NLOTH...there are your "experiments".
 
Yeah, but if you bring this back to Revolver's post, I would compare In Rainbows to POP. There's no real shock in the sound of the record, but it's still the band "out on the limb" and trying new/different things. It still sounds very modern

No Line isn't even really In Rainbows, as it just sounds more like a collage of previous eras and styles. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's only poking through the comfort zone in fits and starts. The thing still reeks of compromise.

I love it regardless, but I was hoping for the best album of the decade, and didn't get it (I'm still undecided if it's better than In Rainbows). I think it was within reach with the available materials, and the rumored follow-up album will do a lot to confirm or deny that.

Bullshit. Bono's never tried to sing gibberish for an entire album before.
 
I don't think anyone in the band, Eno or Lanois ever said this was an experimental album
they said it was something drastically different from what the band has done so far

and it is

:shrug:
 
I don't think anyone in the band, Eno or Lanois ever said this was an experimental album
they said it was something drastically different from what the band has done so far

and it is

:shrug:

Someone said that rock and roll has been reinvented! I want that person's head.

PS - I hear nothing drastically different. A bit different, sure.
 
Someone said that rock and roll has been reinvented! I want that person's head.

PS - I hear nothing drastically different. A bit different, sure.
well, they do hear something drastically different
some will agree, some won't
boo hoo
 
It has become a bit of a running joke on the forum, as that period is the only one that ever receives the "experimental" label. IMO, that does the Unforgettable Fire era a great disservice, which I consider to be even more of a left-field experiment than Achtung Baby in context.

Well, this is a fair statement in terms of overlooking the late 80's experimentation, but I don't know if UF is MORE of an experiment than AB, simply because much of that palette/soundscape is something that can be traced all the way back to Boy. The band actually got more sonically direct and "harder" with October and War, so it's probably why it seems like such a shift. But listen to Boy and UF consecutively and the roots are there.

What Lanois and Eno accomplished with UF is letting the band wander a bit and create a dense atmosphere, something they didn't have the luxury to do. And of course that's augmented by the synth work provided by Eno. Unfortunately for the most part they forgot to come up with actual songs, which is why the album is half-baked in comparison to AB, which blends a MAJOR left turn, reversing almost every one of the band's tendencies, as well as accessible tunes, not to mention an emotional throughline.
 
In a recent MTV interview, Sway asks Bono about Kanye West, who he praises as being at the epicenter of culture, or something to that effect. By that, he means that Kanye understands the culture that's going on around him, in all aspects, from music to art to fashion to film, etc., and this keeps him ahead of the curve compared to his contemporaries. At least, that was my interpretation.

I think 90's U2 had this understanding about the culture around them, and they've lost that in the last decade. I remember reading that before Achtung Baby, Edge was listening to a lot of NIN, Sonic Youth, My Bloody Valentine, Jane's Addiction, etc., which at the time, were underground, avant-garde groups. And Bono was huge into Public Enemy, at a time when rap still wasn't mainstream, save for Run DMC and the Beastie Boys. In fact, he saw hip-hop and electronica as the future, at a time when grunge ruled, calling grunge bands something like "60s-inspired" bands because he saw them as a step back instead of a step forward. Talk about being ahead of the curve!

My point is, I think 90s U2 was in tune with what was going on around them, not just in the pop landscape, but in the alternative-indie realm and beyond, and they had an inherent desire to stay ahead of the curve. This informed their music and made it rich and interesting. I think they've lost this awareness now. They're not really as in tune with the cultural landscape as they used to be, and probably don't care to be. I mean, the fact that they cite Kings of Leon, Coldplay and the Killers as their contemporaries shows this. These bands may have ambition, but I don't think they're the bands that are truly breaking new ground.

I'm not saying that all indie music is great, a lot of it is shit, but for the band to have an awareness of it and compete with it important, rather than complain about how it's in the ghetto. For example, if Animal Collective or Deerhunter is what everybody's on about, then U2 should be citing them as contemporaries and taking notice.

Sooooooooo, basically... u2 should get arty again. :wink:
 
U2 did well enough in the 80s and the 00s to not have to directly connect with what they did in the 90s
I wouldn't mind it but there are plenty of options for this band
 
In a recent MTV interview, Sway asks Bono about Kanye West, who he praises as being at the epicenter of culture, or something to that effect. By that, he means that Kanye understands the culture that's going on around him, in all aspects, from music to art to fashion to film, etc., and this keeps him ahead of the curve compared to his contemporaries. At least, that was my interpretation.

I think 90's U2 had this understanding about the culture around them, and they've lost that in the last decade. I remember reading that before Achtung Baby, Edge was listening to a lot of NIN, Sonic Youth, My Bloody Valentine, Jane's Addiction, etc., which at the time, were underground, avant-garde groups. And Bono was huge into Public Enemy, at a time when rap still wasn't mainstream, save for Run DMC and the Beastie Boys. In fact, he saw hip-hop and electronica as the future, at a time when grunge ruled, calling grunge bands something like "60s-inspired" bands because he saw them as a step back instead of a step forward. Talk about being ahead of the curve!

My point is, I think 90s U2 was in tune with what was going on around them, not just in the pop landscape, but in the alternative-indie realm and beyond, and they had an inherent desire to stay ahead of the curve. This informed their music and made it rich and interesting. I think they've lost this awareness now. They're not really as in tune with the cultural landscape as they used to be, and probably don't care to be. I mean, the fact that they cite Kings of Leon, Coldplay and the Killers as their contemporaries shows this. These bands may have ambition, but I don't think they're the bands that are truly breaking new ground.

I'm not saying that all indie music is great, a lot of it is shit, but for the band to have an awareness of it and compete with it important, rather than complain about how it's in the ghetto. For example, if Animal Collective or Deerhunter is what everybody's on about, then U2 should be citing them as contemporaries and taking notice.

Sooooooooo, basically... u2 should get arty again. :wink:


Very good point. In the late 90's the band were listening to artists like Underworld, Leftfield, etc. and weren't looking at the current charts as competition.

U2's idea of alternative influence right now is The Arcade Fire.

To be fair though, Edge is still singing the praises of The Secret Machines, which is at least off the beaten path.
 
I appreciate your efforts in trying to convince us; at least you're naming actual instances, and I can see where you're coming from.

However, as a man who values quite a bit of experimental music, I can't say I find any of these tracks all that innovative, save for maybe Unknown Caller because of the music matching the concept, but even then I think they undercut the risk by, quite honestly and despite the chanted vocals and french horn (or whatever it is) making it sound just as much like classic U2 as Crazy Tonight.

On the title track I hear a band totally refreshed; I guess you can say its a band innovating, but I don't think its enough of a leap for us to be using the words "innovate" or "experiment."

MOS is a gospel song, and its different for U2, but once again I wouldn't say its especially innovative. A classic song perhaps, a beautiful song with a great groove, not quite like anything else U2 has done, crisp and refreshing, but by my definition of the word and lofty standards for the band, not especially innovative. I've acknowledged that the song takes slight risks, and is somewhat unique in the band's canon, but I still can't use the word "innovative." "Inventive," perhaps, is more like it.

Take that other Brian Eno produced album from last year - no, not Coldplay's Viva la Vida, but David Byrne/Eno's follow-up to My Life in the Bush of Ghosts. I wouldn't call that album innovative, even though I think its a better album than NLOTH as well as a far riskier one with far more invention and even, in "Strange Overtones", a better single, which is similar to "Moment of Surrender" in the grooves and lulling, chantlike nature of the chorus. But I'm not calling that innovative even though I think its better and fresher, so I can't possibly call MOS innovative, even if its more of a stetch for U2. I judge the band on what they could be doing, and this is based on them still having a shot at being the world's greatest rock and roll band, so I must judge them against what all others are doing. Just because U2 hasn't done it, doesn't make it innovative; if they made an all out hip-hop album that sounded just like 50 Cent's last one to the last drop, that wouldn't make it innovative in the grand scheme of things, it would just make it different for the band. Of course, we all know if they made a hip-hop album it would probably not sound anything like that and would actually be innovative. Point is, with NLOTH they haven't moved far enough from their comfort zone for me to call it innovative.

For NLOTH-the album the best I can say and have said is "at least they're trying." But I don't think it added up to anything worth talking about like its experimental or innovative. Perhaps its because the album doesn't truly gel for me - too many styles without a unifying link. Cedars, to me, remains the freshest track on the album, and one that I'd definitely label "inventive," though still not "innovative."


Nicely put.

I very strongly agree on many of the points you make. Regarding MOS, I think you are being rather lenient in giving it an "inventive" tag. U2 has already done this before, while not directly in a song like this. The elements I hear people brandish as a novelty, like a lulling groove which doesn't climax, have already been used before under different forms (Love Is Blindness, All I Want Is You, etc.).

In fact the host of contemporary U2 wannabes (Coldplay, Snow Patrol, et al.) have been indulging for a few years now in ballads with this sort of groove, lulling rhythm, non climaxes and in even in some cases this chantlike nature of the chorus and we all know where they picked up their ideas from. MOS is a beautiful song, but as from the first time I listened to it, it sounded quintessential U2 to me. It constantly reminds me of something I have already heard, but can't consciously identify because U2 has not actually done a song like this before, but in many ways it has implicitly done it. In my view MOS is the result of the band deconstructing and reconstructing its own material - an interpretation of U2 by U2.

I'd also include NLOTH-the track in this line of the band interpreting itself, however in this case I would go as far as giving it the "inventive" tag, though certainly not the "innovative" one. There is a definite freshness here in looking at a gospel song á la ISHFWILF through a U2's 90s - or maybe Passengers - lens.
 
In a recent MTV interview, Sway asks Bono about Kanye West, who he praises as being at the epicenter of culture, or something to that effect. By that, he means that Kanye understands the culture that's going on around him, in all aspects, from music to art to fashion to film, etc., and this keeps him ahead of the curve compared to his contemporaries. At least, that was my interpretation.

I think 90's U2 had this understanding about the culture around them, and they've lost that in the last decade. I remember reading that before Achtung Baby, Edge was listening to a lot of NIN, Sonic Youth, My Bloody Valentine, Jane's Addiction, etc., which at the time, were underground, avant-garde groups. And Bono was huge into Public Enemy, at a time when rap still wasn't mainstream, save for Run DMC and the Beastie Boys. In fact, he saw hip-hop and electronica as the future, at a time when grunge ruled, calling grunge bands something like "60s-inspired" bands because he saw them as a step back instead of a step forward. Talk about being ahead of the curve!

My point is, I think 90s U2 was in tune with what was going on around them, not just in the pop landscape, but in the alternative-indie realm and beyond, and they had an inherent desire to stay ahead of the curve. This informed their music and made it rich and interesting. I think they've lost this awareness now. They're not really as in tune with the cultural landscape as they used to be, and probably don't care to be. I mean, the fact that they cite Kings of Leon, Coldplay and the Killers as their contemporaries shows this. These bands may have ambition, but I don't think they're the bands that are truly breaking new ground.

I'm not saying that all indie music is great, a lot of it is shit, but for the band to have an awareness of it and compete with it important, rather than complain about how it's in the ghetto. For example, if Animal Collective or Deerhunter is what everybody's on about, then U2 should be citing them as contemporaries and taking notice.

Sooooooooo, basically... u2 should get arty again. :wink:

Excellent point.
To be fair though, Edge is still singing the praises of The Secret Machines, which is at least off the beaten path.

It looks as if Edge isn't being given enough say at this time...:wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom