on Danger Mouse's production

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The last line has nothing to with the preceding three. It's moronic.

Resurrection description. It fits.

As for 4 great albums in a row, some bands can do it. U2 isn't consistent enough for that, nor are they good enough as songwriters. Rattle and Hum is still their weakest effort with October, even if live/covers stuff isn't included. There is one U2 album pandering (if this is something a populist band like U2 can be accused of anyway)...the one where they desperately wanted on the dance/techno bandwagon.

Speaking of Metallica, U2 would kill for the critical acclaim Death Magnetic got.
 
Speaking of Metallica, U2 would kill for the critical acclaim Death Magnetic got.

Metacritic scores:

All That You Can't Leave Behind 79
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb 79
Death Magnetic 78
No Line On The Horizon 72

Not a huge difference there. I don't think U2 is in a position so low they need to feel as desperate as you're implying.
 
The last line has nothing to with the preceding three. It's moronic.
Totally disagree that the last line has nothing to do with the first three: Bono is saying that his faith is so strong (that Jesus would survive the crucifixion), that he was willing to throw the dice while they pierced to his side, and even hold the scabbard for the soldier's sword. Now, why was his faith this strong? The answer is found in the last line: He's seen love conquer the great divide.
 
Metacritic scores:

All That You Can't Leave Behind 79
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb 79
Death Magnetic 78
No Line On The Horizon 72

Not a huge difference there. I don't think U2 is in a position so low they need to feel as desperate as you're implying.

More importantly, Death Magnetic only received one review over an 86, which implies a reaction of "wow, this is actually a decent album coming from such old men," not "this is legitimately vital and supplants their earlier work." NLOTH, meanwhile, received four. I think U2 would rather receive divisive press that still implies some creativity on their part.
 
In 1988/89/90, Metallica dramatically, vociferously, stood against everything having to do with cock-rock, hair-band bullshit. They made exactly one music video in the 80's. And then they went out and hired Bob Rock and made a neutered radio-friendly pile of shit.

Metallica didn't go mainstream, the mainstream went to them. Sad But True, Of Wolf and Man, The God That Failed, etc. are some of the heaviest songs they've recorded. Plus Bob Rock made that album sound great. The production is
way better than the production on Justice. The Black Album sounds heavy as shit and it is. Shorter songs don't equal less heavy.
 
Totally disagree that the last line has nothing to do with the first three: Bono is saying that his faith is so strong (that Jesus would survive the crucifixion), that he was willing to throw the dice while they pierced to his side, and even hold the scabbard for the soldier's sword. Now, why was his faith this strong? The answer is found in the last line: He's seen love conquer the great divide.

Nice explanation. I still don't like the line - it sounds cheap and cliched - but your interpretation is solid.

Back to Danger Mouse: I really hope the U2 record sounds like TGTBTQ. That dark, wet sound would really suit U2. I've been thinking about something, though: making good art really comes down to having excellent taste. If you have bad taste, you're likely to make poor creative choices, and U2's taste over the last 10 years has been pretty fucking bad. Coldplay, The Killers, crappy dance music (as opposed to the good shit like Shackleton), and Green Day. They have the taste of 12 year old girls who haven't been exposed to anything more than top 40 and lean towards the rock stuff.
 
Nice explanation. I still don't like the line - it sounds cheap and cliched - but your interpretation is solid.

If you have bad taste, you're likely to make poor creative choices, and U2's taste over the last 10 years has been pretty fucking bad.

That's spot on. I'm hopeful something changed over the last few years. We know that at least occasionally, they make excellent creative choices. Hopefully, this is one of those moments.
 
Nice explanation. I still don't like the line - it sounds cheap and cliched - but your interpretation is solid.

Back to Danger Mouse: I really hope the U2 record sounds like TGTBTQ. That dark, wet sound would really suit U2.

I went back and listened to some of this after you posted. I agree to a point. I can hear the Broken Bells effects all over the place, so I hope he has a new bank of sounds to work with. Most of all - I do think DM will challenge/benefit the rhythm section. Lately, it sounds like they're recording Larry drumming in the back yard with wet noodles on a pumpkin. I want more So Cruel and Until the End of the World Larry (and dare I say - Babyface from Zooropa).
 
Metallica didn't go mainstream, the mainstream went to them. Sad But True, Of Wolf and Man, The God That Failed, etc. are some of the heaviest songs they've recorded. Plus Bob Rock made that album sound great. The production is
way better than the production on Justice. The Black Album sounds heavy as shit and it is. Shorter songs don't equal less heavy.

There was plenty of super-catchy hair 'metal' that was heavy. Including the song/album that made Metallica hire Bob Rock. Dr. Feelgood. Warrant and Cinderella had some fairly heavy stuff. That doesn't mean it wasn't also drivel.

I'm not drawing a direct line between the music on the Black Album with that other garbage - the point is - "heavy" or not, it wouldn't matter. The problems were outside of the fact that Metallica still used distorted guitars. You're almost arguing that "James Hetfield still growled on the album!" So what?

As for the production, I hear you but I don't really give a shit. If slick produced records translated to better records, then Def Leppard with Mutt Lange would be better than the Beatles. Production is just presentation, and I give much more of a shit about the songs. Every single track on Justice is better than everything on the Black Album. That's just my opinion. Generally, I just like progressive hard rock better than I like poppy hard rock.

But those aren't the problems I am talking about anyway. The problems were the change in the songs and I'm not just talking about length. Do I really need to explain the differences? I don't even think I own the Black Album anymore but I could attempt to explain.

All that said, if you like the Black Album, more power to you. But saying that the mainstream went to Metallica is simply at odds with reality. Name one successful band that pulled a 'Metallica' and I'll name five or ten that tried the same shit and failed because the audience wasn't there. The mainstream went to Pearl Jam and Nirvana and the Smashing Pumpkins, etc. because that's where all the major labels went to go make their bundles of cash by signing the latest post-grunge and alternative rock derivations. They weren't beating on Anthrax's door hoping they could deliver a Black Album of their own. Because Anthrax had already hired a different singer and tried and failed. And they weren't the only ones.

But anyway, where were all the mini-Metallica's in the 90's? After all, the mainstream came to them. The only lifeline that metal had in that whole period was a bunch of nu-metal bands in the late 90's that associated more with the groove metal of Pantera and Sepultura.

Also let's not forget that Metallica tried their best by '96 to seem 'alternative'. Remember that shitty video for Until It Sleeps? I do. They cut off all their hair and tried the best they could. Even somehow getting a slot on Lollapalooza. Another example of the mainstream coming to them? Yeah right. By that time, they had already come 'out of the closet' as commercial opportunists. And if it were another band, fair enough. Whatever. But Metallica were the torch-bearer for anti-bullshit in hard rock. And they were about all there was at that time. And they didn't evolve by hiring Al Jourgensen's producer and trying to mimic closer to Ministry's industrial sound or look into what Trent Reznor was doing or even to Faith No More's 'alternative metal'. They went for the sound that they knew would sell. And yet, according to their own words all throughout the 80's, they hated that sound. So why else would they hire Bob Rock? If you can explain that then you can change my mind.
 
There was plenty of super-catchy hair 'metal' that was heavy. Including the song/album that made Metallica hire Bob Rock. Dr. Feelgood. Warrant and Cinderella had some fairly heavy stuff. That doesn't mean it wasn't also drivel.

I'm not drawing a direct line between the music on the Black Album with that other garbage - the point is - "heavy" or not, it wouldn't matter. The problems were outside of the fact that Metallica still used distorted guitars. You're almost arguing that "James Hetfield still growled on the album!" So what?

As for the production, I hear you but I don't really give a shit. If slick produced records translated to better records, then Def Leppard with Mutt Lange would be better than the Beatles. Production is just presentation, and I give much more of a shit about the songs. Every single track on Justice is better than everything on the Black Album. That's just my opinion. Generally, I just like progressive hard rock better than I like poppy hard rock.

But those aren't the problems I am talking about anyway. The problems were the change in the songs and I'm not just talking about length. Do I really need to explain the differences? I don't even think I own the Black Album anymore but I could attempt to explain.

All that said, if you like the Black Album, more power to you. But saying that the mainstream went to Metallica is simply at odds with reality. Name one successful band that pulled a 'Metallica' and I'll name five or ten that tried the same shit and failed because the audience wasn't there. The mainstream went to Pearl Jam and Nirvana and the Smashing Pumpkins, etc. because that's where all the major labels went to go make their bundles of cash by signing the latest post-grunge and alternative rock derivations. They weren't beating on Anthrax's door hoping they could deliver a Black Album of their own. Because Anthrax had already hired a different singer and tried and failed. And they weren't the only ones.

But anyway, where were all the mini-Metallica's in the 90's? After all, the mainstream came to them. The only lifeline that metal had in that whole period was a bunch of nu-metal bands in the late 90's that associated more with the groove metal of Pantera and Sepultura.

Also let's not forget that Metallica tried their best by '96 to seem 'alternative'. Remember that shitty video for Until It Sleeps? I do. They cut off all their hair and tried the best they could. Even somehow getting a slot on Lollapalooza. Another example of the mainstream coming to them? Yeah right. By that time, they had already come 'out of the closet' as commercial opportunists. And if it were another band, fair enough. Whatever. But Metallica were the torch-bearer for anti-bullshit in hard rock. And they were about all there was at that time. And they didn't evolve by hiring Al Jourgensen's producer and trying to mimic closer to Ministry's industrial sound or look into what Trent Reznor was doing or even to Faith No More's 'alternative metal'. They went for the sound that they knew would sell. And yet, according to their own words all throughout the 80's, they hated that sound. So why else would they hire Bob Rock? If you can explain that then you can change my mind.

Yes to everything.

Also, during the alternative "Load" period you mention they even hired Anton Corbijn to do sepia-toned B&W photos for the album.
 
I agree 100% on the Rattle & Hum comments, it is a great album if you take out the live cuts.
And speaking of albums with bad reputation...A few weeks ago I listened to October from beggining to end for the first time in maybe...a decade...it fkn blew me away, I loved it so much. I think it's a really powerful album, way better than War.
I still don't understand why the band has no love for it.
 
Here's my current R&H compilation. Not following any special rules:

Desire (Single version)
Everlasting love
Hawkmoon 269
A room at the heartbreak hotel
Angel of Harlem
Hallelujah here she comes
When love comes to town
Dancing barefoot
Heartland
Unchained Melody
All I want is you
 
Metacritic scores:

All That You Can't Leave Behind 79
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb 79
Death Magnetic 78
No Line On The Horizon 72

Not a huge difference there. I don't think U2 is in a position so low they need to feel as desperate as you're implying.

Reviews for the album have been mostly positive. Allmusic reviewer Stephen Thomas Erlewine gave the album four out of five stars, stating that the album is like "hearing Metallica sound like Metallica again".[51] Other positive reviews come from publications like The Guardian, who say that the album is "the strongest material the band have written in 20 years", and Uncut, declaring that "like all the best heavy rock albums, it suspends your disbelief, demands your attention and connects directly with your inner adolescent." BBC Music's Chris Jones felt that Hetfield's lyrics had become "the channel of his post-therapy angst". He further qualified Hetfiled & Hammet's performance as "irresistible maelstrom of guitars".[64]

Death Magnetic has been praised by fans as well as critics as a comeback for Metallica after the widely panned St. Anger. Thrash Hits was one of the first websites, along with The Quietus to comment on Death Magnetic, claiming "it is a vast improvement on 2003 album St Anger." Metal Hammer noted Death Magnetic's "sharp riffs" and "uncharacteristic bouncing grooves," and favorably compares the band's sound on the album to bands like Slayer, Led Zeppelin and Rage Against the Machine.[67] Former Dream Theater drummer Mike Portnoy has praised the album, saying "Death Magnetic is hands down the best Metallica album in 20 years. This is the CD I've been waiting for them to make since …And Justice for All. And thumbs up to them for doing the first real Metallica instrumental in 20 years since 'To Live Is to Die'. Welcome back, boys."[68]


How many reviewers called NLOTH a return to form and best U2 album in 20 years ? :shrug: If anything it's been one of their most divisive records.
 
How many reviewers called NLOTH a return to form and best U2 album in 20 years ? :shrug: If anything it's been one of their most divisive records.

They didn't call it a return to form because U2 wasn't coming off the worst record of their career and over a decade of output that had seen their reputation nearly irreversibly destroyed.

People still expect good things from U2. People had pretty much written off Metallica, so the fact they released something that was halfway decent came as a surprise.
 
Last edited:
If St. Anger is their worst, some would say the same about Bomb re: U2 albums, and probably the exact same about their 00's output.

My impression is Death Magnetic is a considerably better received record compared to NLOTH in the two bands' fandom.
 
Comparing the travesty of St. Anger to Bomb is just ludicrous. Bomb may have very mixed reception in the U2 fandom, but it hardly received backlash from every living soul on this planet like St. Anger did.
 
My impression is Death Magnetic is a considerably better received record compared to NLOTH in the two bands' fandom.

Again, the difference in expectations counts for a lot, and no one was claiming Death Magnetic to be one of the all-time great Metallica records, just a very pleasant surprise. Q and Rolling Stone actually believed NLOTH was a classic.

Point is, U2 isn't really hurting for critical approval.
 
Death Magnetic was hardly a pleasant surprise for me. A desperate attempt to capture the magic of their best albums. Repetitive, poorly produced and quite simply boring.
 
How many reviewers called NLOTH a return to form and best U2 album in 20 years ? :shrug: If anything it's been one of their most divisive records.

Q Magazine
Simply, what this amounts to is the best U2 album since "Achtung Baby"


Rolling Stone
U2's first album in nearly five years and their best, in its textural exploration and tenacious melodic grip, since 1991's "Achtung Baby."



Two pretty high-profile raves. More credible than some a guy from Dream Theatre.
 
I'm struggling to see how Metallica and U2 are analogous situations. That said, if you ever want a good laugh, read the reviews of St. Anger on RateYourMusic. A lot of them are uproarious.
 
Irony of not noticing the one record when they truly grabbed onto mainstream still remains.


Electronic music wasn't mainstream when they were recording that album. Or the heavily-electronic one before it. There's a gradual exploration in this direction beginning with Zooropa (plus the slew of dance remixes they'd commissioned and released since the late 80s), so I'm not sure why you're stuck on the idea that they suddenly tried to jump on a trend.

Nice try, though.
 
Q and Rolling Stone actually believed NLOTH was a classic.

Point is, U2 isn't really hurting for critical approval.

Right, but can we really take a U2 review from Rolling Stone seriously? Their sycophancy in this case is well-known. Apart from the two you cited, I don't remember seeing anything better than lukewarm reviews for No Line.
 
Right, but can we really take a U2 review from Rolling Stone seriously? Their sycophancy in this case is well-known. Apart from the two you cited, I don't remember seeing anything better than lukewarm reviews for No Line.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom