I love nloth but...

[WaltDisney]

I know this is early and ridiculous speculation on an album that may never surface....but....Does anyone else feel that the next album maybe the 'experimental' brother to NLOTH. Like they decided NLOTH was day and this next record will be night?

Just a thought, if they rush release it, not give it as much press as this album etc etc. I just have a feeling the next album will be the real departure, this was a warm-up with some safe bets added. I think, judging by reviews & fans that seem to like the more experimental songs on NLOTH - that the next album may be loved by fans & critics alike but be a commercial flop.

They have spoken a lot about the meditative nature of the album etc etc That doesn;t sound like rock n roll to me. It sounds more like Eno ambience, electronic influences, darker lyrics. I doubt there will be any Crazy Tonights or Stand ups. More MOS and WaS and CoL and even FEZ

 

[bram]

There is a lot of crazy stuff being spouted in this thread (I only read the first page). I think a lot of people let their imaginations take over with the beach clips--same thing happened with the HTDAAB clips. People fill in the gaps with whatever they want to hear. A few months ago, I was defending myself against the "you can't hear anything from the clips" comments, but some people have taken things to a ridiculous level here. I just listened to the Magnificent and Unknown Caller beach clips and they are nigh-identical to the album versions.

 

[phommel]

They (Lanois) did overhype the "new" and "innovative" talk.

agree with you.
And Brian Eno overhyped MOS. It's a great song, but the best ever?
Furthermore, I have the feeling everything is always overhyped and expectations are brought to the maximum by the band memebers tehmselves before anyone has even heard the album. Is this to maximize the presale orders? I heard Adam Clayton, Bono, and The Edge all saying that this album might be their best ever...
It's very good indeed, but the best ever?

 

[eas]

I know this is early and ridiculous speculation on an album that may never surface....but....Does anyone else feel that the next album maybe the 'experimental' brother to NLOTH. Like they decided NLOTH was day and this next record will be night?

Just a thought, if they rush release it, not give it as much press as this album etc etc. I just have a feeling the next album will be the real departure, this was a warm-up with some safe bets added. I think, judging by reviews & fans that seem to like the more experimental songs on NLOTH - that the next album may be loved by fans & critics alike but be a commercial flop.

They have spoken a lot about the meditative nature of the album etc etc That doesn;t sound like rock n roll to me. It sounds more like Eno ambience, electronic influences, darker lyrics. I doubt there will be any Crazy Tonights or Stand ups. More MOS and WaS and CoL and even FEZ

We can only hope! It could be that the various comments made about this album over the past year refer to the body of work they recorded and not simply NLOTH.

On a side note-has anyone else noticed that the riff we all were sure was Stand Up Comedy (edgeback u2.com clip) is nowhere on the album?

 

[stray dog]

but the album is a "complete departure" from HTDAAB.

at some point you need to accept that U2 will still sound like U2.

 

[stray dog]

Let's face it the Beatles knew they had wore out their welcome when they released Sgt Pepper's...that was after 6 yrs...U2 has been with us for 30 years...and they still make great music...I dont care WHO they sound like.

 

[Utoo]

They (Lanois) did overhype the "new" and "innovative" talk.

Not really. In the Q Magazine interview, Larry says that they started off very experimental in Fez, but brought it back to center by the time they recorded in Dublin/NY/London.

So, yes, the finished product isn't a radical departure. But who knows what the original stuff sounded like.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I just have a feeling the next album will be the real departure, this was a warm-up with some safe bets added. I think, judging by reviews & fans that seem to like the more experimental songs on NLOTH - that the next album may be loved by fans & critics alike but be a commercial flop.

I think so, and I certainly hope so. One of the reviews suggested that this album sounded like a bit of a line in the sand. That there was something more busting to get out, but something grounded holding it in place, and the reaction to it might determine U2's immediate next step. It does feel like that, whether you’re looking at the overall tracklist, or just certain places/songs/moments in songs.

It has a safe 20%, a fringe 20% and 60% somewhere in between. I hope the fringe 20% is so well accepted that along with an understanding that most if not all of the commercial pressure is off when they release something out of sync (see Zooropa – held over till the next ‘big’ album cycle, it wouldn’t have been anywhere near as well received), they have the balls to release something catchy-single and stadium-anthem free.

Really, they’re at their best when they lose their shit and trust their instincts and they can totally get away with releasing something either just without a commercial hit or actually quite challenging if they are to do it within 12-18 months while the BIG! NEW! U2! RECORD! is creating the necessary cover.

 

[doctorwho]

Let's face it the Beatles knew they had wore out their welcome when they released Sgt Pepper's...that was after 6 yrs...U2 has been with us for 30 years...and they still make great music...I dont care WHO they sound like.

I'm not sure where that Beatles' comment comes from. But the Beatles had to change, just as U2 did. By 1967, ditties like "I Want to Hold Your Hand" would not be dominating the charts. They caught on in the early 60's as the new generation of music fans really started to embrace Elvis and the idea of a young rock 'n' roll band. The slightly longer hair, the moves, the attitude - as mild as all of them are by today's standards, they were rebellious then. But in a VERY short time, the Beatles had to change to stay relevant. They did and that's why their break-up was heard around the world. Had they not disbanded, they easily could have lasted another 10 years before the next generation of music fans started to shift their attention spans. In other words, they could have enjoyed the Stones and Who status throughout the 70's before being seen as an "old" band in the 80's (and even then, a few great songs and they'd still be popular).

Staying relevant is huge. Change is key. Bands that fail to do either (and usually, by not changing, their relevance slips) fade away. Hootie and the Blowfish were once one of the biggest bands on the planet. They faded fast. I love Michael Hutchence and was devastated by his death. But even I had to admit that the minimal changes I heard in INXS's music after the release of "Kick" is one big reason their following declined. Each album was like the last.

U2 has their own unique sound. They can't escape that. This was true of the Beatles as well. But that sound covers a LOT of territory. "She Loves You" to "I Am the Walrus" to "Let It Be" and everything in between was a vast range. Likewise, "Out of Control" to "Where the Streets Have No Name" to "Daddy's Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car" to "Magnificent" and everything in between is a dramatic range. So while U2 will always have that U2 sound, it's what they can do with that sound - the range they cover - that makes them stay relevant. And by remaining relevant, they remain popular.

 

[stray dog]

I'm not sure where that Beatles' comment comes from. But the Beatles had to change, just as U2 did. By 1967, ditties like "I Want to Hold Your Hand" would not be dominating the charts. They caught on in the early 60's as the new generation of music fans really started to embrace Elvis and the idea of a young rock 'n' roll band. The slightly longer hair, the moves, the attitude - as mild as all of them are by today's standards, they were rebellious then. But in a VERY short time, the Beatles had to change to stay relevant. They did and that's why their break-up was heard around the world. Had they not disbanded, they easily could have lasted another 10 years before the next generation of music fans started to shift their attention spans. In other words, they could have enjoyed the Stones and Who status throughout the 70's before being seen as an "old" band in the 80's (and even then, a few great songs and they'd still be popular).

Staying relevant is huge. Change is key. Bands that fail to do either (and usually, by not changing, their relevance slips) fade away. Hootie and the Blowfish were once one of the biggest bands on the planet. They faded fast. I love Michael Hutchence and was devastated by his death. But even I had to admit that the minimal changes I heard in INXS's music after the release of "Kick" is one big reason their following declined. Each album was like the last.

U2 has their own unique sound. They can't escape that. This was true of the Beatles as well. But that sound covers a LOT of territory. "She Loves You" to "I Am the Walrus" to "Let It Be" and everything in between was a vast range. Likewise, "Out of Control" to "Where the Streets Have No Name" to "Daddy's Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car" to "Magnificent" and everything in between is a dramatic range. So while U2 will always have that U2 sound, it's what they can do with that sound - the range they cover - that makes them stay relevant. And by remaining relevant, they remain popular.

my point is trying to stay relevant for a decade as opposed to 3 decades. thats all

 

[Niceman]

I don't understand why people seem to see a contradiction between them being the same musicians they always have been AND their experimenting. Yes, no matter what they do its Bono, Edge, Larry and Adam but that doesn't mean that they don't periodically create a work which is significantly different than the work that they've already done. They do. This is one of those times.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

what i laugh about is based on the beach clips peopel called crazy tongith "very boring".

end of.

 

[eas]

what i laugh about is based on the beach clips peopel called crazy tongith "very boring".

end of.

I didn't.

 

[cdirani]

I've got a question: why U2 must be experimental and off-the-wall all the time?
The guys have been making music together forever. I think I'm happy with GREAT albums such as NLOTH.

 

[cdirani]

Let's face it the Beatles knew they had wore out their welcome when they released Sgt Pepper's...that was after 6 yrs...U2 has been with us for 30 years...and they still make great music...I dont care WHO they sound like.

That's my point. I agree completely. And please consider that in the internet era the number of music groups are equivalent to the stars in heaven. And there's always someone saying one is quoting the other. As a matter of fact, with the amount of music being produced it's impossible not to sound simliar to "a" band or singer. Times Have Changed.

 

[rymyx]

I agree with the notion that they held back a bit when they could have gone deep end different. This has its roots from 1998 - 2000.

The biggest problem with U2 was ATYCLB. Its the reason NLOTH is not the departure everyone was hoping for.

If the band would have just been happy with POP and not reacted to the masses with ATYCLB ( great album but used a safety net that has resulted in safe albums this decade) we would all be down a different road. Not sure if it would be as good for the bank or the masses but I think U2 would have a different place in music - a band that had it all and didnt give a fuck so they went and did something wild (like AB). They misplayed their comeback card and used it too soon.

but the want to be relevant and all these other catchphrases colored thier decisions after POP. not that the last few albums and NLOTH is awesome, but imagine if they walked their punk attitude even in the face of so called commercial defeat "POP". what would the last 3 albums have been like?

Its unreal that a band like U2 is still lost since POP yet still is cranking out great albums - NLOTH their 3rd best ever and they did it after they abandoned their perspective. imagine what they might have pulled off if they had not.

or maybe i just want all the 90's U2 to never go away.

POP RULES.

 

[Bono's shades]

This is exactly why I didn't pay any attention whatsoever to the pre-album interviews and hype. I was actually expecting the album to be more in the vein of ATYCLB/HTDAAB since that paid off so well from U2 and they sadly seem to be very risk-adverse these days, so I was pleasantly surprised that NLOTH is as interesting and complex musically as it is and has (in some songs anyway) far superior lyrics than the last two albums.

Low expectations FTW!

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Edge is the "weakest" link in the album. U2's sound depends on Edge for the most part. I know each part of the band is a key to the music, but Edge is what puts this band over the top. Larry and Adam are actually really strong on this record and Bono is as solid as he'll ever be in terms of his vocals and lyrics. However Edge is regurgitating sounds from the past or stuck in this self referential/ self homage phase that he just can't seem to get out of. He repeats signature tones, riffs, ideas, etc. in NLOTH and he was doing that in the Bomb as well. Achtung, Zooropa, Pop, etc. were able to have this appearance of him doing interestng things with his sound because HE WAS being innovative with the sound. Edge WAS ALSO re-using guitar ideas/ sounds from the 80s in the 90s albums but he hid it cleverly enough that a listener didn't mind or notice.

Because of the Edge, you do get this "heard it somewhere from U2 before," feeling which I think hurts the album in some ways for the listener caught up in the whole departure thing.

 

[Niceman]

The biggest problem with U2 was ATYCLB. Its the reason NLOTH is not the departure everyone was hoping for.

This is exactly the departure that I was hoping for.

 

[U2girl]

The Greek Chorus appears prominently in 3 songs, and to a lesser extent in others.

I think the opening guitar in UC is an intentional reference to Walk On/Peace on earth. He starts off by playing notes like would have fit on that album, and then after a bar or two the sound changes to something that absolutely WOULD NOT have fit on ATYCLB. It's intentional. It's an FU back at their previous sound.

What's so different about White As Snow? They've never recorded any song in that one's neighborhood before! Wow....

Breathe's tempo makes it a BOMB song? There's so much more going on there. The frenetic Stipe-Dylan verse style is completely new for him, and the meshing of that with the wide and round chorus is breathtaking, yes, and new! Could he have written this song if he hadn't written Gone and Original of the Species already? I don't think so.... but it's a long walk from those parents. Brian Eno refered to the voice, character Bono uses in the song as "Big Jim Burly" and it is a new way for him to sing. Was tempo the reason why The Fly was a departure? Not for a band that had written I Will Follow, and Electric Co.

Crazy Tonight is NOTHING like anything on ATYCLB. yes, it has a light and positive feel. maybe they're using the same instruments? But the cadence, singing style, and frankly the intelligence of the song put it shoulders above that album, which lumbered its way forward based solely on the power of sincerity.

I love Crumbs, but how could any song sound less like it than Stand Up Comedy? That sexy riff, those circular spinning lyrics. Are you just hearing some of the same notes? The song is about twice as fast, far groovier, and really is as unique in the U2 cannon as a song probably could be at this point. Can you dance to Crumbs? maybe waltz.... but I groove down the street listening to Stand Up....

I respectfully disagree with you.

Intentional FU to the past in UC ? What makes you say that ?

Yes, what is so different about WAS ?

Like I said, tempo (same as Acrobat) aside Breathe's chorus and sound of the guitar could be off Bomb easily. I agree Bono is using new singing techniques, he's the one member pushing forward.

Crazy tonight is EXACTLY like what they were all about on ATYCLB. The pop melody, the optimistic lyrics.

Not the notes. Crumbs was the personal Bono/activism song, SUC is the turnaround in that he pokes fun at himself now (hence the "fun, looser sister song" comment). The riff is new for the Edge though, that is true.

Utoo: we know what they did in London. But the truth is NLOTH is not the "innovation", "reinvention of rock and roll", "pushing the sound boundaries" Lanois kept going on and on this time.

 

[Niceman]

Intentional FU to the past in UC ? What makes you say that ?

Yes, what is so different about WAS ?

Like I said, tempo (same as Acrobat) aside Breathe's chorus and sound of the guitar could be off Bomb easily. I agree Bono is using new singing techniques, he's the one member pushing forward.

Crazy tonight is EXACTLY like what they were all about on ATYCLB. The pop melody, the optimistic lyrics.

Not the notes. Crumbs was the personal Bono/activism song, SUC is the turnaround in that he pokes fun at himself now (hence the "fun, looser sister song" comment). The riff is new for the Edge though, that is true.

Utoo: we know what they did in London. But the truth is NLOTH is not the "innovation", "reinvention of rock and roll", "pushing the sound boundaries" Lanois kept going on and on this time.

This really is debating subjective experience. You say a song is exactly like ATYCLB, I say its nothing like ATYCLB. There isn't some magical comment one of us will make that will change the other's mind. I see massive difference, you see minimal. I think all we can do is report this and maybe check in in a few weeks to see if either of us have changed our minds.....

 

[U2girl]

NLOTH is definitely better asessed in a few months' time.

 

[phommel]

my point is trying to stay relevant for a decade as opposed to 3 decades. thats all

But you have to keep in mind that it is just very difficult to compare. The Beatles made 12 albums in 7 years time! U2 spread out the same amount of albums in 30 years time. The Beatles were way more productive. Then again, it was just another time. A time, for example where it was about singles, and where albums were less relevant than they are now. (this changed with Sgt. Peppers..).

 

[zwervers2]

First things first. I have been a fan for 20+ years, so this is no bash. I sure as hell wish U2 would not have held back on their "new" sound. Let me qualify this. Their are certainly new sounds on the new album like nloth, MOS, F-BB and some elements of GOYB. But I get the sense they decided to dumb down the mixes and create a more palatable album for the masses. When AB came out , that was such a sonic departure for them, you know they were taking real risks. Same goes for Zooropa. This time around I kinda feel like we are getting a tease of what could have been. I find it frustrating cause I know the guys have it in themselves to do it again. Certainly from the talk last summer it seemed like they were heading for a drastic departure. The most intriguing songs on the album for me are nloth and F-BB. Hopefully they release some of the more experimental songs at some point. What do you guys think?

You are not a real u2-fan









but I think you are right

 

[chrissybaby]

I think what holds them back in the studio, amongst other things, is the "live" thing.
Edge on the Culture Show talked of how he imagined the songs in a live setting, as they were being worked on. If they had have come back with a new album after 4 and a half years and it had all been a bit "left-field" I honestly think that the tour gate receipts would have suffered and the desire to do stadiums again in the US wouldn't have become a reality.

However, once the tour is underway and all the tickets sold, maybe a companion album of less "live friendly" material would be a bit more palatable.

I love the album BTW and think that maybe all of U2's work in progresses sound a bit rough and raw. If we'd have had the internet back in 1990 when the Salome tapes leaked, I know we'd have been saying that She's Gonna Turn Your Head Around is better than Acrobat etc etc...

I think the stereotypical notions of what the production team is like has almost created cartoon characters out of them. Brian = Mr. Ambient, Lillywhite = Mr. Rock, Lanois = Mr. World Music. I refuse to believe that the recording sessions and the ambitions of the band/production team are that cynical or that organised even.

 

[Salome]

I agree with the notion that they held back a bit when they could have gone deep end different. This has its roots from 1998 - 2000.

The biggest problem with U2 was ATYCLB. Its the reason NLOTH is not the departure everyone was hoping for.

If the band would have just been happy with POP and not reacted to the masses with ATYCLB ( great album but used a safety net that has resulted in safe albums this decade) we would all be down a different road.

thing is
during the making of POP they already changed their minds on whether to go all experimental or not
surely adding songs like Gone, Staring at the Sun, Last night on Earth, If god ... can only be seen as a retreat from the original plan (Discotheque, MOFO, Do you feel loved, Wake up dead man) in trying to appease the masses
that they failed in doing this did cause them to really consider where to go next
but I can't see how anyone could call POP all out experimental
Zooropa maybe (even though Stay and Numb were definitely added to have at least 2 singles), POP definitely not

I think what holds them back in the studio, amongst other things, is the "live" thing.
Edge on the Culture Show talked of how he imagined the songs in a live setting, as they were being worked on. If they had have come back with a new album after 4 and a half years and it had all been a bit "left-field" I honestly think that the tour gate receipts would have suffered and the desire to do stadiums again in the US wouldn't have become a reality.

However, once the tour is underway and all the tickets sold, maybe a companion album of less "live friendly" material would be a bit more palatable.

I love the album BTW and think that maybe all of U2's work in progresses sound a bit rough and raw. If we'd have had the internet back in 1990 when the Salome tapes leaked, I know we'd have been saying that She's Gonna Turn Your Head Around is better than Acrobat etc etc...

I think the stereotypical notions of what the production team is like has almost created cartoon characters out of them. Brian = Mr. Ambient, Lillywhite = Mr. Rock, Lanois = Mr. World Music. I refuse to believe that the recording sessions and the ambitions of the band/production team are that cynical or that organised even.

on all 3 accounts

 

[bram]

Even if Lanois' pre-album comments get a 'C-' for accuracy, it doesn't have any impact on the album's actual quality. Anyone who puts too much stock in the quotes coming out of the songwriting/producing team is asking to get burned.

 

[IndyShade]

That is too true. They have never done a song like WAS with those Sergio Leone (spaghetti western director) landscapes, UC (chants), or SUC which is very Peppers. They've done nothing like GOYB, Breathe or NLOTH even. Its a huge departure from what everyone else is doing as well.

'Wake Up Dead Man' is totally in Sergio Leone spaghetti western guitar landscape territory. Edge even used that very description in an interview at the time.

The chanting has been done since 'Lemon'/Passengers. It's nothing new.

'Stand Up Comedy' is in the vein of 'Big Girls Are Best' and rehashes the guitar solo from 'Holy Joe'.

'Get On Your Boots' is like 'Vertigo' meets 'Fast Cars'.

'Breathe' and 'No Line On The Horizon' are not as wantonly derivative as some of the others you mentioned - but neither are they so 'out there' that U2 couldn't have come up with them at any point in the last ten years.

 

[bram]

'Wake Up Dead Man' is totally in Sergio Leone spaghetti western guitar landscape territory. Edge even used that very description in an interview at the time.

The chanting has been done since 'Lemon'/Passengers. It's nothing new.

'Stand Up Comedy' is in the vein of 'Big Girls Are Best' and rehashes the guitar solo from 'Holy Joe'.

'Get On Your Boots' is like 'Vertigo' meets 'Fast Cars'.

'Breathe' and 'No Line On The Horizon' are not as wantonly derivative as some of the others you mentioned - but neither are they so 'out there' that U2 couldn't have come up with them at any point in the last ten years.

If you pass off these comparisons as "been there done that", then the album will look derivative. I think this type of analysis is misleading and lazy.

 

[DaHowler]

Wow....this thread is out of control. For me it boils to some really simple things. Nloth is a very good album. I like it. Definitely a nice and needed departure from the last 2 albums. But where I have point of contention is the "innovation" that they promised. I had no expectations with with HTDAAB or ATYCLB. Personally they are not my favorite u2 albums, but I still enjoyed them enough to buy both albums and see them 4 times between both tours. My problem is that this album, no matter how good I think it is, it is not the innovative as a whole album to me with the exception of NLOTH, MOS, F-BB, and WAS. They are the ones who sold us on the innovative aspect. Perhaps the guys had innovative recording techniques, studio technology...I don't know. Or maybe my idea of innovation does not reconcile with theirs. To me all that matters is the end product. Is it a good album, absolutely....is it innovative? Sadly not. My 2 cents. I just have learn to deal with the fact that the bold and risk taking days of U2 are behind us.