Sam O Sullivan: album in 2008

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
U2Man said:


well, that makes your comments even harder to comprehend.

are you saying that people will listen to u2 hits such as streets, wowy and vertigo and feel that they sound more complicated/less simple than eleanor rigby, strawberry fields and a day in the life?

Well make up your mind. First you said it was all a matter of taste. Then you said in order to appreciate music you must first study it's theory and play it on an instrument. Then you said

you weren't talking about whether the music was good or not. you were talking about what was simple and what wasn't.

Which makes me think you're back to talking about taste again and you assumed I was talking about musical theory. Yet here we go again with structurally which is more complex? :crazy: And you say my comments are hard to comprehend?

All I said was this, bascially:

She loves you, yeah yeah yeah

Sounds pretty simple.
 
:crack:

you know, it would have been a lot easier if you had just answered my question.
 
Snowlock said:


Don't troll; pup. I'll get to you if you can show you're worth getting to.

I was talking about U2man's post:

are you saying that people will listen to u2 hits such as streets, wowy and vertigo and feel that they sound more complicated/less simple than eleanor rigby, strawberry fields and a day in the life?
 
Here, I think some people in here need this:

thepoint.jpg
 
snowlock, you're entitled to your opinion. But I'm a big U2 fan also and I still don't think they touch The Beatles musically.

Drugs mean you're an idiot, whether you're pro or con establishment.

They didn't know that then. Try a little context will you. And it was very anti-establishment to do so at the time.

Bigger Than Jesus didn't challenge the establishment, it was only a comment that McCartney (Lennon?) wished desperately he had back as it cost them a lot of money.

In the Western world, to say your band is bigger than Jesus is completely anti-establishment, especially the day and date when they said it.

And your claim The Beatles sound dated and simple is easy for you to say: It's 40+ years on man!

And the comment about "no competition in the '60's" :

LOL!

BTW, A Hard Day's Night is in fact, the first rock film of its kind. Presley's films were Hollywood concotions featuring Elvis playing a character and some of his tunes. AHDN was about The Beatles and their music and the times.

It was the first de-facto rock film.

And what do corporate fundraisers have to do with challenging the establishment?

And anyway, you don't want to know who started those either. :wink:
 
Last edited:
snowlock,

have you heard anything of the beatles later material?

maybe have a little listen to abbey road or the white album. in particular, a song like she's so heavy or dear prudence. its not even the same band that produced she loves you or love me do.

as bono said, U2 have an emotional weight in their music that the beatles cant touch. but as melody and harmony go, they are in a league of their own.
 
jedi Larry said:
snowlock, you're entitled to your opinion. But I'm a big U2 fan also and I still don't think they touch The Beatles musically.

Drugs mean you're an idiot, whether you're pro or con establishment.

They didn't know that then. Try a little context will you. And it was very anti-establishment to do so at the time.

Bigger Than Jesus didn't challenge the establishment, it was only a comment that McCartney (Lennon?) wished desperately he had back as it cost them a lot of money.

In the Western world, to say your band is bigger than Jesus is completely anti-establishment, especially the day and date when they said it.

And your claim The Beatles sound dated and simple is easy for you to say: It's 40+ years on man!

And the comment about "no competition in the '60's" :

LOL!

BTW, A Hard Day's Night is in fact, the first rock film of its kind. Presley's films were Hollywood concotions featuring Elvis playing a character and some of his tunes. AHDN was about The Beatles and their music and the times.

It was the first de-facto rock film.

And what do corporate fundraisers have to do with challenging the establishment?

And anyway, you don't want to know who started those either. :wink:

Don't quote me when I didn't say that; thank you. I never said no competition. I said there's much more now than then. If you disagree with that, there's nothing I can do I guess.

I'm not going to debate drugs with you, it's rediculous. I could care less about context. Drugs certainly weren't new in 1960's.

Bigger than jesus was a joke, not a statement.

So, the Beatles music is 40 years old which makes it okay for it to sound dated and simple? Glad we agree then.

Yeah, those corporate fundraisers are all a big conspiracy.

And yes AHDN was a new take on an existing art form. The oiginal poster though said they created something totally new; which they didn't.
 
Last edited:
Snowlock said:



So, the Beatles music is 40 years old which makes it okay for it to sound dated and simple? Glad we agree then.

Yeah, those corporate fundraisers are all a big conspiracy.

And yes AHDN was a new take on an existing art form. The oiginal poster though said they created something totally new; which they didn't.

You think Beatles music sounds dated and simple? I'm at work but will try to respond later on, because I really, really disagree.

Forget about AHDN for a sec and consider some of the other firsts. They were the first band to use Backwards tracking(Something STILL used to this day, Bono himself used it on the soundtrack to In the name of the Father), The first Band to Use Feedback on a recording, and The first band to attempt stadium concerts. Add to that everything about SGT peppers that was groundbreaking, from the recording , packaging and marketing(I haven't time to go into that now but will later if you wish)

I love U2 but what exactly have they done thats new? I'm not saying that they don't have their own sound, but so did the Beatles(and if you think the Beatle sound is limited to their early "Moptop" sound then you know nothing about the Beatles-period)

IMO U2 aren't even in the same zip code as the Beatles when it comes to "firsts"
 
Last edited:
Can it be argued Zoo TV helped bring the rock tours into a new era?

U2 and David Bowie's Sound + Vision tours certainly did bring arena and stadium rock into a new era. Unfortunately, many others were either unwilling or unable to pull it off like U2 did.

And some credit must be given to designer Willie Williams, who worked on both of those tours.
 
jedi Larry said:
Can it be argued Zoo TV helped bring the rock tours into a new era?

U2 and David Bowie's Sound + Vision tours certainly did bring arena and stadium rock into a new era. Unfortunately, many others were either unwilling or unable to pull it off like U2 did.

And some credit must be given to designer Willie Williams, who worked on both of those tours.


Yeah I definatley agree U2 built upon the Bowie and Stones tours that proceeded ZooTV and they should be commended for it.
Still it's one thing to add on to something, or take inspiration from something else, and actually START something. The Beatles often took inspiration from other music that was around at the time and took it somewhere else, but other times they were the forebearers of things, especially in the studio.
 
Oh no, I agree with you about The Beatles. It's funny because snowlock mentioned U2 having to compete with all these different artists from all these various genres of music today.

I find that funny because The Beatles had a hand in creating those various genres.

The Beatles were the last truly universal rock band before genres split pop music due to cultural schisms in the U.S. and the rest of the west.
 
Oooh! Beatles vs. U2!

First, compare the proper eras of both bands. Yes, in the same time frame, the Beatles clearly recorded a lot more. However, U2 has toured tons more, so it balances out. Also, the 60's, even for a successful band, vs. the 90's for a successful band are not the same. Once success is established, one doesn't need an album every year or two - quality is definitely expected by fans over quantity.

So if one compares simple tunes like "She Loves You" to any era from U2, it also has to be to early U2 songs like "Boy/Girl". Also, the Beatles were trying to get estabilished in an era of other bubblegum pop, while U2 was coming from a punk-inspired route. So the comparisons aren't exact, but close enough. IMO, both are the same.

As the Beatles advanced, so did U2. The Beates' lyrics turned more introspective early on (with songs like "Nowhere Man") while U2 branched out to explore God and religious themes/imagery. Both bands explored political justice.

The more experimental aspects are too subjective. Some of the more "out there" Beatles material is as questionable as some of the more "out there" U2 material.

So the careers of both bands are too similar to me to truly say that differ (other than length and touring). Near the end of the Beatles, they had similar sounds to their mid-60's era, just as U2 now has similar sounds to their late 80's/early 90's era. Had the Beatles continued, it would have been interesting to see what was next. Based on their various solo careers, I feel it would have been a mesh, with the pop of Ringo Starr, the early great stuff from the Wings, the continued political side of Lennon and the soulful side of Harrison. I have a feeling this is a clue as to what we'll see next from U2 as well - that is, not something so revolutionary any more, as they've done that, but something that expresses all 4 members' tastes, yet retains some of that pop sound, while being relevant. I do not think we'll see another shift as we did from "War" to UF or from R&H to AB.
 
LemonMelon said:


It only took them 4 years to finish an album ONCE. ONCE, DAMMIT. :banghead: And that was only because they changed producers halfway through the sessions and tossed what they had. :| I don't know how this incorrect information is lodged in so many member's heads now.

Zooropa--->PASSENGERS--->Pop 2 years between each
Pop--->ATYCLB 3 1/2 years
ATYCLB--->HTDAAB 4 years

The average length between U2 albums is 2.083 years. Look it up.

And if you take into account the fact that they've done a best of album after the last 3 of their regular albums, that can explain some of the extra delay.
 
bcrt2000 said:


And if you take into account the fact that they've done a best of album after the last 3 of their regular albums, that can explain some of the extra delay.

How? It's not as if they were re-recording every song. And, well, I sincerely hope U2 had next to no involvement in U218 because it's such a trainwreck.
 
Axver said:


How? It's not as if they were re-recording every song. And, well, I sincerely hope U2 had next to no involvement in U218 because it's such a trainwreck.

Well, they went into the studio to record songs for it. So I think they had some considerable involvement. The only reason its a train wreck is because they did not need another greatest hits at this stage. At least the partial Milan DVD was with the special edition. That with a new song made it worth the $20. I can remember paying $50 for a double CD bootlegs of some average audience recordings back in the old days. Its all about perspective.
 
Back
Top Bottom