For comparison: Usenet discussion from 1991 about "The Fly"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I was seven at that time :reject: I still remember the first time I listened to U2: I was maybe 10 :hug: and it was precisely Achtung Baby. My brother had a tape... I remember that I loved The Fly ( I was always repeating it) and I remeber too that I was reading the lyrics (Fat Lady singing: we shine like a Burning star/We're falling from the sky/Tonight) and really beLIEving it really was a fat lady singing lol


Oh man... those were the times :hug:
 
I'm loving the fact that GOYB is getting such a mixed reaction right off the bat, even amongst fans. I think that bodes well for some creative new sounds on the album as a whole--much like Achtung.
 
man...I was 15 than..I loved the fly, but I was a little bit confused with the whole AB...something was of. After 10 listens I loved it...and than I continually played it until Zooropa came out :)

Now I'm realy old...than I thought - yeah, great, bring on the change, bring on something different....and today I don't feel comfortable with GOYB. Not because it's different, but because it somehow shallow (to me) musically... I hope that I'll change my view and opinion completely after we hear the album
 
I'm loving the fact that GOYB is getting such a mixed reaction right off the bat, even amongst fans. I think that bodes well for some creative new sounds on the album as a whole--much like Achtung.

:yes: I can't wait to read first reactions to the album :cute:
 
Where is DiamondDave -- I could swear he was a guy that posted quite frequently on Interference.

Great find -- the Fly was much better for in live; hopefully this new single will elevate a bit more in concert as well.
 
But I think there is huge difference between the argument then and the argument now. The "new weird U2 single" has become kind of a cliche, when it was actually new and fresh then.
 
But I think there is huge difference between the argument then and the argument now. The "new weird U2 single" has become kind of a cliche, when it was actually new and fresh then.

The only only alternative is for them to retire, then. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If it's not new and fresh, then it's old and stale.
 
i just listened to the Fly for the heck of it...I still get that "holy crap" feeling every time i listen to it...I was stunned from the first time i heard it (i was 19). It had such a menacing, sexy sound. I like GOYB a lot, but it doesn't give me that jolt the Fly gave me, nor do i expect it to though. after the 90's, nothing U2 can do will ever seem truly weird.
 
I'm loving the fact that GOYB is getting such a mixed reaction right off the bat, even amongst fans. I think that bodes well for some creative new sounds on the album as a whole--much like Achtung.

Indeed. The depth of this new sound won't grow stale in two months like How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.
 
i just listened to the Fly for the heck of it...I still get that "holy crap" feeling every time i listen to it...I was stunned from the first time i heard it (i was 19). It had such a menacing, sexy sound. I like GOYB a lot, but it doesn't give me that jolt the Fly gave me, nor do i expect it to though. after the 90's, nothing U2 can do will ever seem truly weird.

Maybe the album got other tracks that may surprise you like The Fly did. We can't expect get the same feelings off a new song just because it's new. Or just because it's U2. I liked GOYB very much! I wouldn't compare it with any other of their songs so that's a plus at least for me.
 
There is no comparison between The Fly and Get On Your Boots.

I know that people have different opinions, and The Fly drew mixed reactions back then, but The Fly always was a great song. This one, imo, is just ok; it's not new, it's not a sonic advancement, and ultimately, does not make one think of a new era for U2.
 
There is no comparison between The Fly and Get On Your Boots.

I know that people have different opinions, and The Fly drew mixed reactions back then, but The Fly always was a great song. This one, imo, is just ok; it's not new, it's not a sonic advancement, and ultimately, does not make one think of a new era for U2.

Maybe. But maybe U2 has already gone through lots of eras. Now it seems their main interest is about making great music, quality music and awesome albums. Plus, I don't think everything in rock is unlimited. And not everything new stands for "reinvention" or a fantastic twist.
 
Right, I agree. I'm just saying alot of people here are talking about sonic reinvention and the like, which I do not hear.
 
Well, I think the electronic drums are certainly innovative, they have that hand-played feel while at the same time being synth sounding. That's something U2 has never done before, for one.They have had looped drums, drum machines, but never Larry playing electronic drums, never mind for a whole song.

This gives the whole song a funny sound somewhere between rock-punk and hiphop. I'm not sure anybody else's doing this at the moment.

I also think the metallic-with-digital-squeaks-one octave below sound of The edge's guitar is new, although you can see how elevation an vertigo were evolutionary steps towards it. The arab touches are an evolution of the ideas first sketched in Fast cars.

The chords of the chorus of the song are certainly unusual in rock, never mind the vocal harmonies that Bono and The Edge sing.

Finally, the lyrics are a kind of Bono-as-bob-dylan out of control stream of consciousness. Again, the theme of hedonism as a response to terror and "mock the devil and he will flee from thee" have been there before (Miss Sarajevo), but rarely so well articulated. (well, so inarticulate, but so powerful!)

I agree the stylistic shift when The fly came out was great, but I still think this is a daring single from U2 and that the fact that the reactions are similar to those when the Fly came out does show that it is stretching people's minds!

On the other hand, people may like or not like the song, which is fine, but I think the argument of "same old stuff" does not quite fly. (particularly not when so many posts are being posted at the moment saying "it sounds weird" "it's like rap", etc...)
 
I know that people have different opinions, and The Fly drew mixed reactions back then, but The Fly always was a great song.

Really?
Check the link of the original post again. The Fly certainly wasn't considered a great song then.
:)
 
While I kind of agree with the comparison (although its less out-of-leftfield than The Fly), and GOYB has been growing on me since first listen, I don't see it slowly evolving in the public mind from bizarre transitional single to beloved alternative track over time, it'll hit but I think the polarization will stay moreso than with The Fly, but we'll see. To me, if you don't know music that well, and don't listen closely to the production and harmonies, you won't see GOYB as that different other than being a little out there, and the lyrics will polarize both mainstream listeners and diehard U2 fans. I still think, although without having heard the rest of the tracks, its an odd choice for a first promotional single. We'll see...
 
You gotta love this thread, guys.
A thread that brings a discussion from 1991 (!) like the ones we have today, in an ancient version of our internet. And the stuff and comparisons they make... It's miles much better than reading some of the first Interference posts, because... they had Usenet, but didn't have not even 0.5% of the resources we have today and they were having that discussion.

You gotta love the "Mysterious Ways is gonna be like Still Haven't Found and WOWY" thing - that one's great.
And you gotta love too "The Fly is not innovative and they're copying INXS bringing up some dance thing" argument...

Well... "The Fly" is one of the most praised and appreciated tracks from all U2's catalogue. Guess it definitely wasn't then.

And what about Pop? Have you ever wondered why Pop was so awfully bashed until mid 2000's decade and why people are starting to love "Discotheque" everytime they hear it or everytime someone talks about it today?
Almost everyone bashes "Vertigo" (we know why) - will that opinion remain in the next 10 years?
And what about GOYB?
 
You gotta love this thread, guys.
A thread that brings a discussion from 1991 (!) like the ones we have today, in an ancient version of our internet. And the stuff and comparisons they make... It's miles much better than reading some of the first Interference posts, because... they had Usenet, but didn't have not even 0.5% of the resources we have today and they were having that discussion.

You gotta love the "Mysterious Ways is gonna be like Still Haven't Found and WOWY" thing - that one's great.
And you gotta love too "The Fly is not innovative and they're copying INXS bringing up some dance thing" argument...

Well... "The Fly" is one of the most praised and appreciated tracks from all U2's catalogue. Guess it definitely wasn't then.

And what about Pop? Have you ever wondered why Pop was so awfully bashed until mid 2000's decade and why people are starting to love "Discotheque" everytime they hear it or everytime someone talks about it today?
Almost everyone bashes "Vertigo" (we know why) - will that opinion remain in the next 10 years?
And what about GOYB?

This is exactly what i posted this afternoon earlier on ... :)
 
There was internet in 1991?:huh::reject:

As someone already said in this thread, the Internet already exists for a couple of decades (I believe it started somewhere in the Sixties). However, the World Wide Web only exists since the early Nineties.

BTW, this is a great page on the history of the Usenet: 20 Year Archive on Google Groups
Here, Google has indexed some memorable posts. From the first post in their archive, to the first "Me too!" post (February 1983, apparently). And this one always gives me a small chuckle: The first post mentioning Star Wars III (or rather, Episode 6, Return Of The Jedi) from June 1982.
The release date for us humans that want to see it is
still the summer of 1983. I guess it takes that long to score
all the music, do all the film-editing, prepare all the promo
material, and all that junk.

I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster.
I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts
of the Star Wars series.

Oh boy! Was/Is he in for a long wait...
 
Really?
Check the link of the original post again. The Fly certainly wasn't considered a great song then.
:)

Achtung baby was said as the end of U2 ... also the same reactie at the fly ...
why is a change of music (or in general) always so difficult? People want to hear something they know and when it's not standard anymore they think it sucks. That's normal in life. I'm not talking about people who hate U2 ...
Technically there is so much happend the last 22 years so it wil never sound again like JT or UF. I also think that u2 fans don't want ANOTHER JT / UF or AB.
They want to hear great U2 songs in a special atmosphere ... and if the atmosphere is not there ... then it becomes difficult i think ... anyone?
 
Reposting my thoughts on GOYB as they seem pertinent to this discussion:

Let me start by saying that I love Get On Your Boots, and I am a fan of U2's work this decade. I think Get On Your Boots rocks harder and has more depth than Vertigo; so far I think it's a better lead-off single.

That being said, I just don't see this as a "new sound" for U2. The track is derivative of Vertigo, Big Girls Are Best, Fast Cars, Discotheque, Bono's rock/rap improv on Rockin' In The Free World, and other previous works. Electronic drums and some squeaks in the background do not a "new sound" make.

Yes, there are some sonic differences between Vertigo and Get On Your Boots, but are they as big as the yawning chasm between Desire and The Fly, two previous consecutive lead off singles. Certainly not. I just think that with their post-punk beginnings, the atmospheric UF-JT era, the experimentation of the 90's, and the back to basics sound of the last two albums, they've covered too much sonic ground in their career for me to be shocked and amazed by any "new sound" that they've created.
 
As someone already said in this thread, the Internet already exists for a couple of decades (I believe it started somewhere in the Sixties). However, the World Wide Web only exists since the early Nineties.

BTW, this is a great page on the history of the Usenet: 20 Year Archive on Google Groups
Here, Google has indexed some memorable posts. From the first post in their archive, to the first "Me too!" post (February 1983, apparently). And this one always gives me a small chuckle: The first post mentioning Star Wars III (or rather, Episode 6, Return Of The Jedi) from June 1982.


Oh boy! Was/Is he in for a long wait...

And still waiting part 7 to 9 will never be made .. i guess :)
Those old posting are really magnificent (hey another u2 song here)
 
I started this thread mainly because I think it's interesting to see how people react to a change of direction for U2, subtle or heavy. And to prove that mixed reviews have always been there.

I'm 32 and was almost 16 when The Fly came out, and while I did like the "techno" sound of The Fly, I very much missed the full blown vocals I knew as a U2 trademark, something I also had with Achtung Baby back then. I can also remember the reaction of people I knew that liked the "old" U2, known for earnest, honest Rock songs like SBS, BTBS etc.. They really didn't like ZooTV, and were actually blaming U2 for selling out. Instead of going along these people went for critically acclaimed alternative bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam etc..

Funnily enough these bands and their hit records back then are now regarded as pop classics, Nirvana being seen as beatlesque with a rock sound.

By the way, I like GOYB, I think...
 
As someone already said in this thread, the Internet already exists for a couple of decades (I believe it started somewhere in the Sixties). However, the World Wide Web only exists since the early Nineties.

BTW, this is a great page on the history of the Usenet: 20 Year Archive on Google Groups
Here, Google has indexed some memorable posts. From the first post in their archive, to the first "Me too!" post (February 1983, apparently). And this one always gives me a small chuckle: The first post mentioning Star Wars III (or rather, Episode 6, Return Of The Jedi) from June 1982.


Oh boy! Was/Is he in for a long wait...

Yes the internet as we now know it ... started as an American netwerk somewhere in the 60s. The internet as we use it now is too small. There are not enough ip adresses free to use for ISPs. Now we're going to use IPv6 ....
 
Back
Top Bottom