SOE 20 - Sometimes, the end isn't coming...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really like the original, Bomb version of the song. When they played it live we saw they'd already been d1cking around with it and I thought it was a weaker song as a result. I think its good we have that pro-recorded version, but the original is my favourite. Yes, its overblown and U2 at their most U2-y, but I really like it and has a grandness about it which is missing from much of their recent stuff.



Had it got the proper album treatment, it might have become even more diluted down and that's kind of my worry about SOE and any new music from the band these days, that the seemingly never-ending tinkering really doesn't do the music any favours.



It wouldn't be a proper album thread without a mention of Mercy now would it? 2010 version was ok, but with a little tinkering that 2004 version could have been a monster on HTDAAB. Who knows maybe it will be on an album someday, I never thought in a million years we would have gotten that live version. Sometimes this bands gets exhausting with their waffling on tunes that's for sure, just hope SOE does not keep getting that same treatment.
 
This doesn't even seem like the same band. I loved this version of the band.

Then we'd be complaining about how they always "sound the same". :lol:

Truth be told, stuff like Mysterious Ways wasn't exactly an ambient "experimental" piece at the time either. Yet again, I don't give enough interviews where people can go back to what I said 25 years ago and apply it to now like it's a Trump tweet.
 
This doesn't even seem like the same band. I loved this version of the band.



Do you remember the 90's?

Saying you don't need the 'pop kids' wasn't exactly the bold statement that the revisionists make it to be. The 90s were about 'alternative' dissing pop was pretty safe, even grooming products had to be labeled 'alternative'.
 
Do you remember the 90's?

Saying you don't need the 'pop kids' wasn't exactly the bold statement that the revisionists make it to be. The 90s were about 'alternative' dissing pop was pretty safe, even grooming products had to be labeled 'alternative'.

I do remember the 90s, and saying that made me think of the Goat Boy sketch from SNL. It wasn't being bold, ironic, or rejecting of music norms that made me love them back then. Dissing pop has always kind of been cool for a rock star (Hendrix did it, Morrison did it, Morrissey did it, hell, Prince did it, in a way). It was how loose, yet how plugged in, they seemed. They did these things like The Fly, MacPhisto, MirrorBall Man, and Zooropa, things which were mimicry or performance art of their idols or their ideals, all while doing heavy things like Stop Sellafield, the Bosnia stuff, and the phone calls. Loose, but plugged in. They were too serious and commentary-minded during the end of the JT days, and when they first started. They were too loose in the late 90s/mid-2000s. They need to find balance again.

Also, the lyrics. Their lyrics were effing incredible in their 90s albums. They were confident and tried things, including covers and remixes, that showed they were more than what we thought they were.
 
Last edited:
Do you remember the 90's?

Saying you don't need the 'pop kids' wasn't exactly the bold statement that the revisionists make it to be. The 90s were about 'alternative' dissing pop was pretty safe, even grooming products had to be labeled 'alternative'.

You make a good point that it has to examined considering the context of the times...but that doesn't mean that their current desperation to be relevant is doing them any favors IMO.
 
You make a good point that it has to examined considering the context of the times...but that doesn't mean that their current desperation to be relevant is doing them any favors IMO.



No, it's not, but I believe that clip(which is often overused in here) shows that relevancy has always been something they strove for. They just have to realize that relevancy is going to look different for a band their age.
 
No, it's not, but I believe that clip(which is often overused in here) shows that relevancy has always been something they strove for. They just have to realize that relevancy is going to look different for a band their age.

To me, relevance for a band their age is a successful tour, strong vinyl sales and download numbers, a charting single that sticks around for a month or two, and appearances on a number of forums and across demographics. The reviews and critical response are big for them too, but something tells me (NLOTH a prime example) that sales matter more to them now.

The funny part? Not that different from relevance back then, save for the downloads and videos.
 
I had a dream that U2.com had a download of a jpg that was the back cover of the album, with tracklisting, as well as a free download of the last 3 songs on the album.

Sadly, I woke up before I could hear the songs. Sorry, everyone.
 
Do you remember the 90's?

Saying you don't need the 'pop kids' wasn't exactly the bold statement that the revisionists make it to be. The 90s were about 'alternative' dissing pop was pretty safe, even grooming products had to be labeled 'alternative'.
The part that stands to me was the elitist but probably healthy assertion that the "real U2 fans will be into it." That transcends the era to speak to broader concerns about who they want their audience to be. No matter how you want to spin it, there is a refreshing lack of desperation in that video.
 
I had a dream that U2.com had a download of a jpg that was the back cover of the album, with tracklisting, as well as a free download of the last 3 songs on the album.

Sadly, I woke up before I could hear the songs. Sorry, everyone.

I'm still waiting for them to release the song about Kansas City that they played at my high school in a dream I had in 2004.

Fucking irrelevant sellout second-guessers!
 
The part that stands to me was the elitist but probably healthy assertion that the "real U2 fans will be into it." That transcends the era to speak to broader concerns about who they want their audience to be. No matter how you want to spin it, there is a refreshing lack of desperation in that video.



In retrospect there may not be a lot of desperation (why would there be) BUT a lot of real U2 fans did see it that way at the time. They saw it as a desperate grab.
 
I had a dream that U2.com had a download of a jpg that was the back cover of the album, with tracklisting, as well as a free download of the last 3 songs on the album.

Sadly, I woke up before I could hear the songs. Sorry, everyone.



Well, we need new dreams tonight. So go back to sleep and dream it all up again and while you're at it dream out loud. Or something.
 
Do you remember the 90's?

Saying you don't need the 'pop kids' wasn't exactly the bold statement that the revisionists make it to be. The 90s were about 'alternative' dissing pop was pretty safe, even grooming products had to be labeled 'alternative'.

Not exactly. That would be true of Bono's Grammy speech for Zooropa, but not the clip at the beginning of ZooTV in early 1992.

Nirvana-Nevermind started the whole alternative revolution and they really didn't blow up until right around the time Bono made that statement. Sure it became cool to be alternative, but it certainly wasn't full blown in early '92.

I was in high school at the time, and knew lots of people who were U2 fans that hated the new U2 and totally didn't get ironic U2. They thought it was all very serious and U2 had lost it. ZooTV was light years ahead of its time, and lots of people didn't get what they were doing early on. U2 was certainly calculated, certainly trying a different direction, still wanting to be the biggest band in the world after people tired of their earnestness with R&H, but it wasn't the safe play in early '92. They took some gambles, but they also had the greatest rock tour ever and a masterpiece of an album.
 
Last edited:
Not exactly. That would be true of Bono's Grammy speech for Zooropa, but not the clip at the beginning of ZooTV in early 1992.

Nirvana-Nevermind started the whole alternative revolution and they really didn't blow up until right around the time Bono made that statement. Sure it became cool to be alternative, but it certainly wasn't full blown in early '92.

I was in high school at the time, and knew lots of people who were U2 fans that hated the new U2 and totally didn't get ironic U2. They thought it was all very serious and U2 had lost it. ZooTV was light years ahead of its time, and lots of people didn't get what they were doing early on. U2 was certainly calculated, certainly trying a different direction, still wanting to be the biggest band in the world after people tired of their earnestness with R&H, but it wasn't the safe play in early '92. They took some gambles, but they also had the greatest rock tour ever and a masterpiece of an album.



Nirvana may have been the ones that brought it to high schools and mainstream suburbia in the US, but 120 minutes had already been on air for four years, college radio had already been heading this direction, the Manchester scene was already going on, and as always(back then) the industry knew what was happening; U2 were just reading the tea leaves.
 
Ooooo I had a U2 dream last night too.

It was the Super Bowl and U2 was the halftime gig. It was annonounced that they were going to play only songs from the Joshua Tree, which people were pretty tired of already.

They went into Streets, but there was equipment malfunction. Nothing was working. Finally, Bono got frustrated, and handed the microphone to Louis CK (who I guess was MCing, idk). Louis starting commenting on how awkward it was, and tried making jokes. After a bit he said "You know what, you guys try putting on a fucking show!"

And then the Joshua Tree stage was breaking out into individual TV screens. The Edge came out, playing the beginning of Numb with "you guys try putting on a fucking show!" being sampled throughout.

It was fucking dope.
 
Ooooo I had a U2 dream last night too.

It was the Super Bowl and U2 was the halftime gig. It was annonounced that they were going to play only songs from the Joshua Tree, which people were pretty tired of already.

They went into Streets, but there was equipment malfunction. Nothing was working. Finally, Bono got frustrated, and handed the microphone to Louis CK (who I guess was MCing, idk). Louis starting commenting on how awkward it was, and tried making jokes. After a bit he said "You know what, you guys try putting on a fucking show!"

And then the Joshua Tree stage was breaking out into individual TV screens. The Edge came out, playing the beginning of Numb with "you guys try putting on a fucking show!" being sampled throughout.

It was fucking dope.



was that a dream or some kind of nice imagination you conjured when you were on acid?
 
Bono Q&A with Rolling Stone: Bono on 'Joshua Tree' Tour, Trump, U2's Next Album - Rolling Stone

You're thinking early 2018 if you had to guess?

I'd like it before then, but don't listen to me.

Then the plan is to do the Songs of Experience tour with the same staging?

Yeah, the Experience and Innocence tour. It'll invert a lot of things, but it's got the same basics. We've got some incredible staging ideas, but it's basically the same language as the last tour.
 
2020 confirmed then?



ZOO.com Tour confirmed for 2021!!!

Booking hotels rooms now!!!

Seriously sucks about SOE. Bono would much rather be touring the new album right now, rather than doing this JT Tour. I think he's fine with it, but his passion has always been moving U2 forward.

BONO IS NOT ON BOARD.
 
What an endless story is this SOE pffff.....
If they don'' give us the album, why not give us just a single release (=NEW SONG) ???
 
What an endless story is this SOE pffff.....
If they don'' give us the album, why not give us just a single release (=NEW SONG) ???

well they do have an expensive box set coming out in a week that they'd like people to buy
 
He's the leader of the band, put a foot down Bono. How much additional echo delay can Edge really add to a song?

I know Bono lies and all that etc., but I think this interview is pretty encouraging, especially since he brought up Experience and Innocence tour. Here's hoping for a fall release.
 
I feel like they've been stuck on 15 songs for over a year, and they can't dwindle it down to 12? Only cause they don't want a 70 minute album? This is where Steve needs to say "Guys, these are the songs. This is the album, quit fucking about".

Bono also references that the album has a few proper "fuck off" songs, with The Little Things being one of them.

Not sure what that even means? Fuck off as in it won't be on the album, or Fuck Off as in the tone or message in the song?
 
Not sure exactly, but fwiw they also described Breathe as a "fuck-off rocker" or something like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom