LP15 - We're due for a break from the norm

[tommycharles]

My guess is they moved it into the background so that it wouldn't be a concern reproducing it live.

I also think this is why they never gave The Troubles the nod it deserved.

Thidly, I think both of these reasonings, if true, are incredibly stupid.

I’ve always wondered whether the fact that someone else wrote it made them hesitant to give this song its due. I still think it could have been a medium sized hit if they’d made a big deal out of it (promo appearances, mixed Gaga higher, etc.).

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I’ve always wondered whether the fact that someone else wrote it made them hesitant to give this song its due. I still think it could have been a medium sized hit if they’d made a big deal out of it (promo appearances, mixed Gaga higher, etc.).

Also a distinct possibility.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Oh I definitely think U2 are hesitant because someone else wrote it.

I’d so much rather that than the Coldplay shit though.

 

[HansaTonImbiss]

Veering just a bit back to the production discussion, I can’t think of another artist who is either as insecure or tone deaf as to what their strengths and unique qualities are as U2 has been the last 15 years of so.

It’s really kind of odd, how we almost wish they would just bring their ideas and play, and let someone else with a great ear put an album together, or decide when it’s done because we can’t trust them!

Can anyone think of another artist that deals with this to the same degree as U2??

I would agree, though my metal friends in unison would all shout METALLICA!!! at the top of their lungs. Starting with "Load", it was a bunch of swings in the dark and then doubling down on a sound and aesthetic people hated. The band's stance against new music platforms at the time was the ultimate reinforcement of how out of step they were.

 

[lazarus]

I’m not sure if Metallica is even worth comparing. They had a run of less than 10 years of broadening their sound from thrash to the sophisticated metal of Puppets and Justice to the mainstream radio-friendly Black album, and then it was diminishing returns no matter which of those styles you were a fan of. But the arc is a pretty normal progression.

U2 have had more peaks and valleys and sharp left turns, confounding their audience on numerous occasions, rebounding from multiple backlashes post-Rattle & Hum and post-Pop. There should have been a third rebound after No Line, but the release strategy of the accessible SOI damned them, and any potential rebound from that debacle was ruined by the promo choices made for SOE. This is more of a 30 year arc, until the downward slide (and I’m not necessariky talking from an artistic perspective) that began with No Line and hasn’t turned around in more than fits and starts.

In short, they used to learn from their mistakes, until they didn’t anymore.

 

[YBORCITY]

I think the difference between Coldplay and U2 at this point is at least Coldplay kinda knows who they are. They know who their fans are and what they like and they somewhat deliver. I liked there early stuff and really can't stand their later stuff and that's neither here nor there. While U2 seems to be chasing a mythical beast like an unicorn or the lucky charms leprechaun. And what makes me kinda sad is they look so desperate it's laughable. While Bruce kinda does his thing I don't think in the back of his mind he's not chasing this huge radio hit. He knows who he is and his fans kinda love him for just what he is.

I'd still like Eno and Lanois be brought back in. There's something there that creates a spark and it would be awesome to collaborate for one last time, go out with a bang!

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

People say the band haven’t learned from their mistakes since No Line but what if the band feel that the mistake was working with Eno and Lanois and that’s what they feel like they’ve fixed? It’s backwards to some of us but you can’t say at least they’ve tried different producers. To me their choice of singles, videos and marketing strategies have damned them rather than the majority of the music.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Here's a take...

It didn't actually hurt them in the present. Nothing, even the Apple disaster, hurt their present. They still sold a shit ton of tickets. And let's face it, there had to be a point where the Young's weren't going to give a shit anymore. That was on borrowed time as it was. It probably shouldn't have happened in the 2000s. They probably sold as many records on Experience as they would have sold regardless if marketing decisions or single choices.

What was hurt is their legacy.

Rather than moving into elder statesman of rock territory - where sure, you're not selling to the Young's anymore, but you'll gain some new fans and the respect of most simply off your history - they've become a bit of a joke. By trying to force themselves into staying relevant, they've damaged their legacy with the first generation of music fans in their post mass popularity phase.

They can recover. The Stones were the old guys who wouldn't go away, and they're cool again in that respect for their history kinda way. U2 just needs to not be embarrassing for a few years.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Here's a take...

It didn't actually hurt them in the present. Nothing, even the Apple disaster, hurt their present. They still sold a shit ton of tickets. And let's face it, there had to be a point where the Young's weren't going to give a shit anymore. That was on borrowed time as it was. It probably shouldn't have happened in the 2000s. They probably sold as many records on Experience as they would have sold regardless if marketing decisions or single choices.

What was hurt is their legacy.

Rather than moving into elder statesman of rock territory - where sure, you're not selling to the Young's anymore, but you'll gain some new fans and the respect of most simply off your history - they've become a bit of a joke. By trying to force themselves into staying relevant, they've damaged their legacy with the first generation of music fans in their post mass popularity phase.

They can recover. The Stones were the old guys who wouldn't go away, and they're cool again in that respect for their history kinda way. U2 just needs to not be embarrassing for a few years.

Totally agree with this post. Time to accept that Father Time is moving forward, whether you want him to or not. And the 'Youngs' just don't care that you were GREAT in the 80's/90's...and beyond. They only care that Migos and Rae Sremmurd (or whoever) are dropping tracks and speaking to and for them.

U2's brand/style of music doesn't resonate right now...and if they just move forward gracefully, and don't try so hard, they'll be just fine...

 

[lazarus]

Here's a take...

It didn't actually hurt them in the present. Nothing, even the Apple disaster, hurt their present. They still sold a shit ton of tickets. And let's face it, there had to be a point where the Young's weren't going to give a shit anymore. That was on borrowed time as it was. It probably shouldn't have happened in the 2000s. They probably sold as many records on Experience as they would have sold regardless if marketing decisions or single choices.

What was hurt is their legacy.

Rather than moving into elder statesman of rock territory - where sure, you're not selling to the Young's anymore, but you'll gain some new fans and the respect of most simply off your history - they've become a bit of a joke. By trying to force themselves into staying relevant, they've damaged their legacy with the first generation of music fans in their post mass popularity phase.

They can recover. The Stones were the old guys who wouldn't go away, and they're cool again in that respect for their history kinda way. U2 just needs to not be embarrassing for a few years.

Not sure I buy that suggestion. No Line failed for a couple reasons: first, it was more abstract and “experimental” than the directness of the previous albums. Secondly, Boots was very divisive, a watered-down Vertigo to many and not really representative of the album. Had they released a song with more substance and publicized the return to a Joshua Tree/TUF kind of open-sound spirituality/transcendent atmosphere, they could have managed expectations better and given the album a chance to resonate with people. Whether you lead with Magnificent or MOS, I think you make a bigger impact instead of turning people off.

But separate from that, if you just look at SOI, this is where they begin “chasing the youngs” in terms of the production team, and you can’t really look at SOE’s performance in a vacuum because they had a different standing due to the SOI release. It’s all tied together, and if you’re going to play the What If? game, cause and effect have to be taken into account. I think there was still an opportunity to turn things around with SOI, and they fucked up royally by making too much noise in the wrong way. But I think the songs were there. I think the songs were there with SOE too. It doesn’t matter if either or both were half-awful albums still because you don’t need 10 great tracks to get attention or keep people’s interest.

Was their position at the time of SOE’s release a bridge too far for them to achieve success in a big way? Maybe. And certainty they weren’t going to do Bomb numbers again. But you can’t tell me that some combination of Blackout/Love is Bigger/Red Flag/Showman/Summer as singles doesn’t put them in a better place than what they went with, just as a normal release for SOI and promoting California/Volcano/EBW/SFS would have. It mostly preserves the legacy, but I think there are short-term gains as well.

The tours are always separate and can’t be used as an accurate gauge of their relevance or success, Popmart notwithstanding.

 

[lazarus]

...

 

[Hewson]

...

…..

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

…..

____

 

[lazarus]

It was a double post!

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Here's a take...

It didn't actually hurt them in the present. Nothing, even the Apple disaster, hurt their present. They still sold a shit ton of tickets. And let's face it, there had to be a point where the Young's weren't going to give a shit anymore. That was on borrowed time as it was. It probably shouldn't have happened in the 2000s. They probably sold as many records on Experience as they would have sold regardless if marketing decisions or single choices.

What was hurt is their legacy.

Rather than moving into elder statesman of rock territory - where sure, you're not selling to the Young's anymore, but you'll gain some new fans and the respect of most simply off your history - they've become a bit of a joke. By trying to force themselves into staying relevant, they've damaged their legacy with the first generation of music fans in their post mass popularity phase.

They can recover. The Stones were the old guys who wouldn't go away, and they're cool again in that respect for their history kinda way. U2 just needs to not be embarrassing for a few years.

I would say they’re already on the recovery. I think the Kendrick bit did them well too. But I agree.

 

[Hewson]

It was a double post!

Oh, I thought we were talking about Ax behind his back in Morse code.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Would we really need to hide that though?

 

[Axver]

You better hide it if you don't want an even worse hiding at JT32 Melbourne 20 November 2019.

 

[Hewson]

…. _.._

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

.

 

[YBORCITY]

.View attachment 12261

If you guys don't start speaking 'Merican... I'm gonna build a wall somewhere....

 

[Gzusfrk]

The frustrating difference to me between U2 and Coldplay or Metallica or anyone else, is that they are not out of great ideas creatively! They're there, they just list their nerve, or their intuitive x factor, ir whatever it is, to pull it all together into complete vital artistic statements. I'd be less frustrated if u thought the creative well had run dry

 

[Iggy Fizz]

They probably do have some good ideas left, somewhere.

But boy do they also have a lot of bad ideas. Just, a lot.

And that's the problem.

 

[Gzusfrk]

They probably do have some good ideas left, somewhere.

But boy do they also have a lot of bad ideas. Just, a lot.

And that's the problem.

Yeah, I hear you. My feeling is, and evidence may show me completely wrong, but I feel like the U2 magic left after Pop. They worked more intuitively and didn't think as much., which created the magic.

Starting with ATYCLB, they were like, "Ok, we REALLY have to think about how we create this U2 magic, and bottle it". And that very thought process, lost the magic. Then it became a formula, a template, a structure, that they felt they had to reproduce time after time. What was lost was the daring, the intuitive nature of what made their music great. Maybe a little mystical, but it's like if you think too much about your dreams, they disappear.

There have still been magical moments on each album, but it seems fleeting, just out of reach. It's there for them, but since they started thinking too much and trying too hard, they are driving away the inspiration that for 17 years they so easily embraced. Again the facts may show that I'm way off, just my gut feeling as a fan.

 

[PopFly]

Yeah, I hear you. My feeling is, and evidence may show me completely wrong, but I feel like the U2 magic left after Pop. They worked more intuitively and didn't think as much., which created the magic.

Starting with ATYCLB, they were like, "Ok, we REALLY have to think about how we create this U2 magic, and bottle it". And that very thought process, lost the magic. Then it became a formula, a template, a structure, that they felt they had to reproduce time after time. What was lost was the daring, the intuitive nature of what made their music great. Maybe a little mystical, but it's like if you think too much about your dreams, they disappear.

i'm not the first to say this, even in this very thread, but it seems like part of the problem isn't U2 trying to recreate "the U2 magic" but rather trying to move away from it into more traditional singer-songwriter veins.

And yet the frustrating part is that for the most part, this shift has actually still worked. We've heard loads of incredible music since ATYCLB. The problem is, U2 seems unwilling or unable to truly recognize what their most incredible work is. Songs like Red Flag Day or This Is Where You Can Reach Me Now sound both vaguely like U2 yet also totally fresh. I cite these two songs specifically since I have non-U2 fan friends who love these tracks in a "wow, this is U2? They can still bring it" kind of way.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i'm not the first to say this, even in this very thread, but it seems like part of the problem isn't U2 trying to recreate "the U2 magic" but rather trying to move away from it into more traditional singer-songwriter veins.



And yet the frustrating part is that for the most part, this shift has actually still worked. We've heard loads of incredible music since ATYCLB. The problem is, U2 seems unwilling or unable to truly recognize what their most incredible work is. Songs like Red Flag Day or This Is Where You Can Reach Me Now sound both vaguely like U2 yet also totally fresh. I cite these two songs specifically since I have non-U2 fan friends who love these tracks in a "wow, this is U2? They can still bring it" kind of way.

The shift to SONG SONGS SONGS WE NEED SONGS THAT CAN BE PLAYED EASILY ON PIANO AND GUITAR SONGS SONGS SONGS, even though it's attributed to the Rubin sessions that took place between Bomb and No Line, didn't actually begin until they were knee deep into working with Danger Mouse.

Leave Behind and Bomb were more attempts at trying to return to basics - but they were still recorded the way U2 always recorded. They tried experimenting a bit more on No Line, but reeled it in once they started to realize that they were about to go on the biggest stadium tour in history with an experimental, Moroccan sounding album. So they attempted (and failed) to make it more appealing to a mass audience. It didn't matter on 360 because the glow from the return to form on their first two albums of the 2000s was still strong.

It was on Innocence, where ironically they should have gone with a more out there, experimental sound, that they fucked the pooch - combining the need for mass appeal with the Rubin inspired SONGS YOU CAN PLAY ON GUITAR AND PIANO IN A BAR bullshit (which was also clearly a shot - and an unfair one - at Danger Mouse. It's not a coincidence that Burton never appeared with the band and rarely spoke about his work with U2. The relationship clearly deteriorated around this).

Even with that, they still would have been in an ok position if they didn't spam half the world with their album.

In no way so I think that U2 could have had or can have a fourth spin at the top of the music world. Three was a miracle in and of itself.

But man I would have liked to see what the reactions would have been if they would have seen a Danger Mouse produced album through to the end and released it in a traditional way.

 

[lazarus]

The shift to SONG SONGS SONGS WE NEED SONGS THAT CAN BE PLAYED EASILY ON PIANO AND GUITAR SONGS SONGS SONGS, even though it's attributed to the Rubin sessions that took place between Bomb and No Line, didn't actually begin until they were knee deep into working with Danger Mouse.

Leave Behind and Bomb were more attempts at trying to return to basics - but they were still recorded the way U2 always recorded.

Well this isn't entirely true; the approach for Behind, and this may have actually been Eno's suggestion, was to spend more time writing and less time recording. I think that's borne out by the tracks not necessarily having much going on compared to previous albums, and how much most of them seemed to improve in the live setting.

Even with that, they still would have been in an ok position if they didn't spam half the world with their album.

In no way so I think that U2 could have had or can have a fourth spin at the top of the music world. Three was a miracle in and of itself.

But man I would have liked to see what the reactions would have been if they would have seen a Danger Mouse produced album through to the end and released it in a traditional way.

Well it depends on what you mean by "top of the music world". No, SOI would never have been the best-selling album of the year. But would it have debuted at #1? I think that's a safe bet. Gone platinum? No Line managed to do so, I think SOI was a possibility even with the industry-wide decrease in record sales. Nominated for Grammys in top categories? I think Every Breaking Wave could have been a SOTY nominee, and if the album wasn't so compromised, possibly Best Rock Album or even AOTY.

The tour was already successful and well-reviewed, regarded as innovative. And that's with the PR disaster. If the album itself had a better standing, the tour would have received more attention for the new material.

Anyway, I think with a traditional release this puts them up pretty high, if not officially "on top" and it would still be an extremely impressive third comeback.

 

[trevgreg]

But man I would have liked to see what the reactions would have been if they would have seen a Danger Mouse produced album through to the end and released it in a traditional way.

I recall some posters on here in the year or two leading up to SOI grumbling about how they'd just do the "usual" standard release, with the typical press build up, and then asking why couldn't they just put it out there or do some other means for once, etc.

I'm sure the monday morning quarterbacking would have still been there. It just would have been different discussion points on however the album came out or what exactly they released.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I recall some posters on here in the year or two leading up to SOI grumbling about how they'd just do the "usual" standard release, with the typical press build up, and then asking why couldn't they just put it out there or do some other means for once, etc.



I'm sure the monday morning quarterbacking would have still been there. It just would have been different discussion points on however the album came out or what exactly they released.

Not at all.

How they did it was an unmitigated disaster. It absolutely had a negative impact not only on the album but on Songs of Experience and their all around legacy as well.

They could have...

a) released it normally
b) dropped it without notice but people had to buy it
c) give it away for free but make people have to go download it instead of automatically putting it in people's accounts

We could discuss which among a b or c would have been better - but whatever choice they picked wouldn't have resulted in them being mocked to this day.

The choice they made, did.

 

[trevgreg]

I get what you're saying, but my point was that there would have been fans complaining about the "usual" way anyway. I wasn't really talking about the public aspect of things, although that obviously didn't help a whole lot with the way things ended up. But again, that's something we know after the fact, not back in 2012-2013.

Could the usual release method have been the "safer" way to go about it, knowing what we know now? Yeah, of course. But the point was they would have received criticism from the fan base whatever way they went about it. It happened in the lead up and would have been analyzed to death afterward as well.