Rumor: 55 unfinished songs?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I generally don't mind syrupy stuff like that (for instance, I actually like Crazy Tonight). But that's too much for me. It seems pointlessly syrupy to my ears... like it doesn't help the song communicate the emotions it's trying to get across. But that's just how I feel about it... to those who like it, I'm glad you do. :)
 
I generally don't mind syrupy stuff like that (for instance, I actually like Crazy Tonight). But that's too much for me. It seems pointlessly syrupy to my ears... like it doesn't help the song communicate the emotions it's trying to get across. But that's just how I feel about it... to those who like it, I'm glad you do. :)

this. you said it perfectly.

why the need for the gloss?

Are they after pop appeal? The song is already poppy. It's got a huge melody!

I'm a pretty positive guy, but man, this stuff gets my goat.
 
nothing they've ever done is more syrupy than Sweetest Thing... which they wrote in 1987 :shrug:

right, but at least it makes sense for that song. It's called the Sweetest Thing, after all..

I just wish that the song played up the "space cowboy" theme.. seems ripe for a Danger Mouse style production!
 
So can we talk about the IEM Anaheim rehearsals? Who's that basically conducting the band "band 2-3-4", "Bono 2-3-4", "Bass" etc. Is that just for the rehearsals? Does someone do that for the actual show? If so -- does that kind of mess with the live aspect of the show? Obviously they've had Terry in underworld doing strings forever, but it sounds like the band relies more on pre-set cues than they've done in the past. ?
 
it's a computerized voice. it's not an actual person.

yes, they hear it during the shows.

no, it's not something that is new development for them. they've been hearing that count-in for plenty of tours.
 
using a click track or featuring a live count in one's IEM is pretty common practice for live shows these days
 
nothing they've ever done is more syrupy than Sweetest Thing... which they wrote in 1987 :shrug:

True, but at the time syrupy was unheard from them and the polar opposite to the rest of the wealth of songs from The Joshua Tree era, so the sweetness didn't leave a bad taste in that instance, at least for me.
 
Plus, the vocals were harsh as fuck. Not exactly singing like a bird on the 1987 version; the contrast reminds me of In A Little While.
 
North Star is terrible song; I think the production is actually the most appealing part. Bono's mailing in those lyrics, Edge is playing yet another three-note slide solo...bah.

I really like those soundcheck tracks though, very interesting direction they're heading in there.
 
Registered Dude said:
right, but at least it makes sense for that song. It's called the Sweetest Thing, after all..

I just wish that the song played up the "space cowboy" theme.. seems ripe for a Danger Mouse style production!

Danger Mouse wanted the song to be about the space cowboy theme.

Bono would prefer it to be more about the gangster of love.

Yet The Edge wants it to be about Maurice.
 
North Star is terrible song; I think the production is actually the most appealing part. Bono's mailing in those lyrics, Edge is playing yet another three-note slide solo...bah.
.

I agree, for me it doesn't seem like they're trying very hard to make something new... or creative.
Some of Bono's lyrics are ok, and the chord progressions are nice, but the rest of it is unimpressive. Edge in particular seems to be on autopilot - his playing on NLOTH imo was the most boring part, and i'm concerned that he's not really trying nowadays... i want to hear more standout riffs like until the end of the world, mysterious ways, beautiful day... hell, even vertigo. He's sounding like a session musician here!
 
Yeah but getting your individual verses counted in for ya is taking it a bit further :lol:

it's common practice in a show this size.

picture this. you're playing to 100,000 screaming people. You're singing 100ft away from your bandmates. do you think it's easy to hear everything going on?
 
Did you read what I said? I'm not arguing the use of IEMs or their application, and given that I'm experienced in using them in live rock shows in front of 10000s of people, I don't need to picture it. FYI: if you're using IEMs and you *can't* hear everything that's going on with the band (or at least the elements you and the monitor engineer have decided upon during sound check), that's the monitor engineers fault, and a million count ins aren't going to solve that.
 
Did you read what I said? I'm not arguing the use of IEMs or their application, and given that I'm experienced in using them in live rock shows in front of 10000s of people, I don't need to picture it. FYI: if you're using IEMs and you *can't* hear everything that's going on with the band (or at least the elements you and the monitor engineer have decided upon during sound check), that's the monitor engineers fault, and a million count ins aren't going to solve that.

obviously I commented blindly on your post without reading it. you got me. yessir.
 
Pretty clearly a failure on your part to make a distinction between needing IEMs period and how far to take their usage! :up:

:madspit:

ehh, I was going to type up some snarky retort to this.. but I'll spare everyone
 
What a completely random fight we've got going on in here.

I've got my money on Gabe. Registered Dude has had his face in his palm for so long his eyes will need a minute to adjust.
 
Back
Top Bottom