on Danger Mouse's production

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Let's just hope u2 doesn't decide to record an album with Lou Reed...

 

[gvox]

Electronic music wasn't mainstream when they were recording that album.

Are we talking about Pop, here?

 

[*I*]

The numbers are right there. Three prefect scores, a 9, a clutch of 8s, a whole bunch of 7s and then some negativity. Death Magnetic just has a whole bunch of 8s and 7s. Nobody was willing to go out a limb for that record.

If the argument is "critics are afraid to criticize U2," well, U2 definitely isn't hurting for critical approval.

They could certainly use some approval from people who study music. Their work makes those people laugh. Id like U2 to shut them up before they decide to call it.

TOOLs music is complex and brilliantly constructed though a bit dark. Music heads for the most part praise them for it. Then they listen to U2 and laugh at the simplicity and poppiness.

 

[Registered Dude]

They could certainly use some approval from people who study music. Their work makes those people laugh.

You mean those that understand music theory?

Who cares? Theory cant explain why music moves people.

 

[jeevey]

No doubt. That will never happen, because it's not what U2 does. If you're waiting for U2 to impress serious music students with their complexity, you may just be a fan of the wrong band. That's not the reason to like U2.

 

[cobl04]

They could certainly use some approval from people who study music. Their work makes those people laugh. Id like U2 to shut them up before they decide to call it.

TOOLs music is complex and brilliantly constructed though a bit dark. Music heads for the most part praise them for it. Then they listen to U2 and laugh at the simplicity and poppiness.

So what? I can't stand this argument. My colleague is a big fan of Tool and sent me links to a few of their tunes. Sure, it's techincally proficient and objectively I can say it's skilled... but I didn't really like any of them.

I'll take Sweetest Thing over Lateralus any day. Simplicity does not make music inferior.

 

[*I*]

You mean those that understand music theory?

Who cares? Theory cant explain why music moves people.

Totally agree, fullheartedly. I felt the exact same way when I studied it.

BUT

it would be nice to have a technical album to shut them up with.

 

[*I*]

No doubt. That will never happen, because it's not what U2 does. If you're waiting for U2 to impress serious music students with their complexity, you may just be a fan of the wrong band. That's not the reason to like U2.

Im not waiting for it and I get way more out of U2 than TOOL anyday. Im ust saying that kind of album would be awesome from them.

You want a new direction? There it is.

 

[nielsgov]

Playing a Fibonacci time signature doesn't make the song good. And I do enjoy Tool when I'm in the mood.

U2 isn't capable of making technically complex music either.

 

[LemonMelon]

The kind of people who make fun of artists for their lack of complex time signatures get made fun of every minute of their lives, so U2 still wins.

 

[U2DMfan]

I'll take Sweetest Thing over Lateralus any day. Simplicity does not make music inferior.

It does not necessarily have to make it inferior, but sometimes it does. And taking one of the worst songs U2 has ever committed to recorded memory and comparing it to one of the best progressive hard rock albums ever is not the best example to make this argument.

 

[U2DMfan]

Are we talking about Pop, here?

I think he is. And he would be right.

 

[*I*]

Playing a Fibonacci time signature doesn't make the song good. And I do enjoy Tool when I'm in the mood.

U2 isn't capable of making technically complex music either.

I would imagine the same was said about U2 making whatever achtung baby is.

Im not saying complex equals good. Im simply thinking what if you mixed U2's ability to lift your spirits with complex music, something we've never heard from them. Imagine what we'd get if they made it work...

Its ok to open your minds guys. Theres no harm in thinking about daydreams and possibilities.

 

[*I*]

The kind of people who make fun of artists for their lack of complex time signatures get made fun of every minute of their lives, so U2 still wins.

Youre so sassy, bro.

 

[mama cass]

the intro to Streets is technically complex (and brilliant) - i would struggle to sight-read/write the sheet music for that

(i read music, studied music theory etc. and would not have a clue how to note down those rhythms lol)

 

[Diemen]

Theres no harm in thinking about daydreams

True, and U2 writing complex (at least as that term is being used in this discussion) music is definitely a daydream.

Though, in the grand scheme of things (ie, when you take jazz, classical, fusion, hell, even bluegrass into the equation), even Tool's music is relatively straightforward.

 

[mama cass]

i think you guys are dumbing down U2's music - some of it is actually pretty complex in terms of tempo, tempo changes etc. - they're not all your average 4/4 you know

and the lovely thing is that they did it instinctively - they say they didn't read music, so they weren't bound by musical "rules" or constraints, but just went for it, and did manage to create interesting, unique, distinctive sounds...

 

[iron yuppie]

They have at best a handful of songs not in 4/4. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Acrobat. And 3/4 is hardly a complex time signature.

 

[mama cass]

They have at best a handful of songs not in 4/4. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Acrobat. And 3/4 is hardly a complex time signature.

have no clue what the sheet music is like, but off the top of my head i would describe Acrobat as more of a 6/8 or similar myself - or guess it could be a very fast 3/4... plus the whole intro is something else altogether... and the drumming rhythms on it are very nice...

they do a lot of interesting rhythms etc. even in a 4/4 context...

 

[U2DMfan]

Breathe is in 3/4 (or 6/8, depending how you're counting).
And IMO, the song suffers for it.
The intro to Streets is also in 3/4.

Im not saying complex equals good. Im simply thinking what if you mixed U2's ability to lift your spirits with complex music, something we've never heard from them. Imagine what we'd get if they made it work...

Most of the best music in the history of rock was more complex than basic pop music. It's just these days, whether it's Katy Perry or most Pitchfork recommendations, it's basic pop dressed in different uniforms. And that's fine unto itself, but let's not pretend there is a difference outside of commerce. And on this particular forum, the majority of fans were pulled into the gravity of U2 by their most poppy work ever. So that's the general sentiment we get around here towards progressive rock. Even by fans that like to think they have a decent musical IQ by mostly digesting 'higher brands' of pop music.

Complex can certainly equal good or bad. It's like anything else. People just use the extreme examples, often held by teenagers just beginning to play instruments, that if it's not complicated it can't be credible. Most reasonable musicians grow out of that. And the best progressive music, even considered by most prog rock fans, is the most accessible. That's the irony.

I would make the argument that LIVE music, real, not sampled, not looped, real musicianship - is where that argument should take place. A real artist, whether it's Gaga on the piano or Trent Reznor using samplers to come up with fucked up sounds, as a classically trained musician. That's the divide. And this is a subject unto itself...so I should skip it or this will be a RANT.

But anyway, again, this is like anything else. It just depends on what you're looking for. I don't know how someone could feign enjoying Radiohead (at least since 2000) without saying they enjoy somewhat complex music. But you'll find criticism from the very same poppy-heads bitching about prog rock (through the most extreme examples) that will also claim to be Radiohead fans. Radiohead = endorsed by that particular sad niche. Meanwhile 90% of everything else in that niche is nothing short of pure pop music. What's the difference? A whole bunch of shit that has nothing to do with the music.

And Tool used the Fibonacci in one song.
Let's not act like it was more than that.

 

[U2DMfan]

The intro to Streets is only complex with the organ chords. Eno.
The rest is standard 3/4. Nothing to it.

But I would say the segue between the 3/4 and 4/4 in that song is probably the most difficult thing U2 had to figure out on their own.

 

[mama cass]

The intro to Streets is only complex with the organ chords. Eno.
The rest is standard 3/4. Nothing to it.

nooooooooooo i mean Edge's guitar notes at the beginning - what kind of timing is that? it feels like the musical equivalent of shifting sands lol

 

[Aygo]

I have Heartbreak Hotel and Hallelujah Here She Comes on my own personal R&H playlist.

Me too. This is how my R&H is like on my iPod:

1. Hawkmoon 269
2. Van Diemen's Land
3. Desire
4. When Love Comes To Town
5. Heartland
6. God Part II
7. Hallelujah Here She Comes
8. Angel Of Harlem
9. Love Rescue Me
10. A Room At The Heartbreak Hotel
11. All I Want Is You

live tracks on another R&H album

 

[jeevey]

I would make the argument that LIVE music, real, not sampled, not looped, real musicianship - is where that argument should take place. A real artist, whether it's Gaga on the piano or Trent Reznor using samplers to come up with fucked up sounds, as a classically trained musician. That's the divide. And this is a subject unto itself...so I should skip it or this will be a RANT.

I'm not requesting a rant or anything, but I don't quite get where you were going with this paragraph. Live is where the complexity arguement should take place, or the "is it good" argument? And you're not counting loops and samples as part of either good and/or complex?

 

[U2DMfan]

It's just 3/4. With some complex delay work.

The hardest shit (to play) in the U2 catalog is relative to Edge's use of delay. Like Wire. Edge is the fucking master of delay.

But this is not the conversation to have w/r/t U2. U2's best and most adventurous work is not about complexity in song structure. It's simply about layers of sound.

 

[mama cass]

aren't layers of sound complex?

 

[U2DMfan]

I'm not requesting a rant or anything, but I don't quite get where you were going with this paragraph. Live is where the complexity arguement should take place, or the "is it good" argument? And you're not counting loops and samples as part of either good and/or complex?

The ability to produce something live. Humans in a room, playing. That's the qualitative difference between good musicianship (or some might argue musicianship at all) and not. Not chord complexity and time signature changes versus pop songwriting. Samples and loops are otherwise fine. Which is why I used Renzor as an example. His knowledge and ability to play anything on a piano is what makes him a brilliant musician. Not his knowledge of software. Because without that fundamental musical basis, he's not going to be making the brilliant complex music he makes. And wouldn't have the ability to make it seem so often effortless and sometimes quite tuneful.

But there is a rant to this, with much more explanation but this is the super quick-abridged version.

ETA-
I read it again. It wasn't particularly greatly worded, and might have implied I was saying there was a divide between Gaga/Reznor. I am saying there are on the same side, and the divide is between them and those who need the crutch of ProTools-like software.

 

[U2DMfan]

aren't layers of sound complex?

Did I say they weren't?

 

[mama cass]

Did I say they weren't?

i dunno? did you?

 

[gvox]

I think he is. And he would be right.

Nope. Dance was very much in the mainstream, if not the mainstream, in 1997. Much as I like the album as a whole and love many of the tracks individually, Pop was in fact a bit late to the party.