SOE FAN + industry reviews only

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
U2: Songs Of Experience - album review - Louder Than War | Louder Than War

U2: Songs Of Experience – album review

Written by
Sam Lambeth
28 November, 2017

U2 - Songs of Experience
(Interscope)

CD / deluxe CD / download / vinyl

Released 1 December 2017

6.5/10

No longer young men and no longer chasing purpose, U2 finally stop yearning for relevance and produce their most consistent album for nearly a decade. Sam Lambeth investigates.

“I shouldn’t be here ‘cos I should be dead,” sighs Bono near the beginning of U2’s fourteenth studio album. While it could be linked to the much-publicised health scare the singer suffered last year, it serves as a neat summarisation of the Irish band’s relevance. While their contemporaries, like R.E.M., have retired to the veranda, U2 have continued to face the gallery, determined not to become superannuated, determined to still have something to say, determined to still push the boundaries.

In truth, that creative thirst was sated – or sullied – twenty years ago, when U2 released the florid yet flawed Pop. A noble failure, its rushed recording process and confusion seemingly scared the four-piece into submission – they rebooted themselves at the turn of the millennium and have since churned out dependable, but occasionally dire, swaths of arena-sized emptiness. And lest we forget their last strive for relevance – giving away 2014’s Songs of Innocence for free, whether fans wanted it or not, saw, as Bono put it, “people who no longer cared about U2 being angry at U2.”

So Songs of Experience arrives as a standard release, with no fanfare, no gimmick or no clear sign of musical exploration. It’s a move that pays off – if …Innocence’s mildly pleasant wistfulness was overshadowed by its bombastic marketing campaign, Experience’s songs are able to stand for themselves. Musically, the band only gently push for something new, but aside from the occasional contemporary reference they remain locked in tradition.

It is meatier and more menacing than its predecessor, and when the band crank it up they show they can still be blistering. The Blackout has the nervous cyberpunk energy of high water mark Achtung Baby, a splintered guitar stab reminiscent of Even Better than the Real Thing bulldozed by Adam Clayton’s nimble basswork and Bono’s frenetic vocals. Equally, American Soul taps into the jet-black riffery of Bullet the Blue Sky before being aided by a Kendrick Lemar guest spot.

Lights of Home has the grandiose but great guitars of The Unforgettable Fire, while The Showman (Little More Better) is a playful acoustic shuffle, the sound of a garage band who can’t afford amps (and all the better for it). It’s only when the quartet take their foot off the gas do things suffer. Limp lead single You’re The Best Thing About Me lacks any killer hook, while the plodding Landlady really wouldn’t bring in enough credibility to pay the rent. Only the soaring Love Is Bigger Than Anything In Its Way taps into the wide-eyed wistfulness of All That You Can’t Leave Behind, an album that made anthems that were gloriously over-the-top, but was well aware of it.

When they experiment, things are commendable but queasy – opener Love Is All We Have Left channels into the arbitrary bleeps and bloops of Bon Iver, but sounds out of place on a record that’s mostly self-referential. This is a record that shows U2’s talents as craftsmen rather than creators, where The Edge can show off his Beatles-esque guitar chops rather than his pedalboard and Bono can still weave words with his gentle tenor.

Songs of Experience is the first U2 album to be unveiled without any excitement or globe-gobbling expectations, but its low-key arrival demonstrates an album that sees the band still fighting, still purposeful and still, just about, relevant.
Click to expand...
 
More positive review than the score would have you believe; it doesn't really matter though, I'm just glad I'm really enjoying the album and that I'm far from alone in thinking it's good.
 
Interesting. That review is also in the Washington Post, having been written by a writer for the Associated Press.

I didn't know the AP did reviews...
 
That’s a dumb review, even if it’s positive.

Although points for aptly describing Bono as “unavoidable.”

That’s exactly it.
 
"No longer young men and no longer chasing purpose, U2 finally stop yearning for relevance and produce their most consistent album for nearly a decade."

This implies that at least their last album wasn't consistent (I personally disagree); but then we have to assume since the reviewer is putting their last consistent album within the past decade, we're talking about what? No Line being consistent? Really...?

Also, after opening with a line about not chasing purpose, not yearning, etc. you can't close with a line about how the album shows a band still fighting and still purposeful.

I normally don't poke at things in this forum, but this is one review I certainly can't take to the bank.
 
Rich79 said:
"No longer young men and no longer chasing purpose, U2 finally stop yearning for relevance and produce their most consistent album for nearly a decade."

This implies that at least their last album wasn't consistent (I personally disagree); but then we have to assume since the reviewer is putting their last consistent album within the past decade, we're talking about what? No Line being consistent? Really...?

Also, after opening with a line about not chasing purpose, not yearning, etc. you can't close with a line about how the album shows a band still fighting and still purposeful.

I normally don't poke at things in this forum, but this is one review I certainly can't take to the bank.
Click to expand...
I like Songs of Innocence, but consistent is one of the last words I'd use to describe it.

The split in producers and vision is glaring.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
I like Songs of Innocence, but consistent is one of the last words I'd use to describe it.

The split in producers and vision is glaring.
Click to expand...

I think SOI is consistent in quality. IMO only 1 or two mediocre/bleh songs, about 4 or 5 good to really good, and about 4 great tunes.

compare that to All That, Bomb and No Line...
 
womanfish said:
I think SOI is consistent in quality. IMO only 1 or two mediocre/bleh songs, about 4 or 5 good to really good, and about 4 great tunes.

compare that to All That, Bomb and No Line...
Click to expand...
A) I believe the reviewer is discussing how the songs sound. Innocence is all over the place due to the late shift in production, as Danger Mouse is so unique that it's hard to strip away his elements and combine them with a different producers work without redoing the entire album, and Innocence suffers because of this.

B) I'll take All That You Can't Leave Behind over Innocence 10 times till Tuesday.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
A) I believe the reviewer is discussing how the songs sound. Innocence is all over the place due to the late shift in production, as Danger Mouse is so unique that it's hard to strip away his elements and combine them with a different producers work without redoing the entire album, and Innocence suffers because of this.

B) I'll take All That You Can't Leave Behind over Innocence 10 times till Tuesday.
Click to expand...

hmmm.. i definitely get the Danger Mouse thing, and conflicting sound/style on SOI. In that, All That and Bomb are more cohesive as having an overarching sound.

But taking All that 10 times til Tuesday.?.. SOI doesn't have Wild Honey, Peace on Earth, or Grace as lows...
It has Kite, BD and When I look, as highs, and NY and Elevation are solid. I will always love the album for those songs. But the rest is pretty bland middle of the road stuff or worse. Just doesn't read consistent to me. But just my opinion obviously.
 
womanfish said:
hmmm.. i definitely get the Danger Mouse thing, and conflicting sound/style on SOI. In that, All That and Bomb are more cohesive as having an overarching sound.

But taking All that 10 times til Tuesday.?.. SOI doesn't have Wild Honey, Peace on Earth, or Grace as lows...
It has Kite, BD and When I look, as highs, and NY and Elevation are solid. I will always love the album for those songs. But the rest is pretty bland middle of the road stuff or worse. Just doesn't read consistent to me. But just my opinion obviously.
Click to expand...
Grace is the worst song on the two albums, but other than the Troubles Innocence doesn't come close to the highs of Leave Behind.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
I like Songs of Innocence, but consistent is one of the last words I'd use to describe it.

The split in producers and vision is glaring.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. If we didn't know the production credits or keep track of every interview/tidbit in the 5+ year lead-up to it, I don't know if we'd really be talking about stuff like that. If it's just Joe Schmo listening to the album, I doubt he's listening and thinking "The gap in visions is throwing me off here!" Maybe something like Sleep Like a Baby Tonight doesn't sound exactly like The Miracle, but it's not like a rap song thrown onto a country album either, right?

Aside from that, I'm sure we could look at a lot of other albums by different artists and say something similar if we knew the back story behind it. For example, Back in the USSR or Helter Skelter doesn't sound like Julia or Good Night, but I'm not going to judge them on whether McCartney or Lennon primarily wrote them, or if one's a rocker and one's a melancholy acoustic number, etc. (I'm sure they do that on Beatles message boards though, lol) In the end, I take the album for what it is and either like the songs or don't.
 
Mrs. Garrison said:
Anyone know when Rolling Stone's 5-star review will run?
Click to expand...

Lorde got 4 stars and Kendrick 4.5 and they were in front of U2 on the best albums list. So I guess it will be 4 star review, 4.5 maximum. :shifty: but I really don't care, this album is a gem. Surely I'll still get pissed off by NME, Pitchfork and some other reviews though :angry:
 
Last edited:
trevgreg said:
I don't know about that. If we didn't know the production credits or keep track of every interview/tidbit in the 5+ year lead-up to it, I don't know if we'd really be talking about stuff like that. If it's just Joe Schmo listening to the album, I doubt he's listening and thinking "The gap in visions is throwing me off here!" Maybe something like Sleep Like a Baby Tonight doesn't sound exactly like The Miracle, but it's not like a rap song thrown onto a country album either, right?

Aside from that, I'm sure we could look at a lot of other albums by different artists and say something similar if we knew the back story behind it. For example, Back in the USSR or Helter Skelter doesn't sound like Julia or Good Night, but I'm not going to judge them on whether McCartney or Lennon primarily wrote them, or if one's a rocker and one's a melancholy acoustic number, etc. (I'm sure they do that on Beatles message boards though, lol) In the end, I take the album for what it is and either like the songs or don't.
Click to expand...
I really didn't think the difference between the danger mouse produced material and the non danger mouse produced material was a matter of debate...

Not the quality (although we can debate that as well) but the actual production values..
 
Well, Pitchfork, I'm sort of curious (granted I don't expect anything high). It will be progress if it reaches at least 5.0, as they gave NLOTH and SOI, a 4.2 and 4.6 I believe. I'm not huge on both, though SOI is more consistent, but I'd rate both above 5s still.

They did give Noel Gallagher's latest a 7.1 though, which is a nice surprise (they really shit on much of Oasis' stuff, but I'm not a huge fan either). I like his latest album too and think it's his strongest solo release so far.
 
I think a 6 from Pitchfork would be a success. Who knows, Pitchfork could decide, that since it's cool to hate U2, that they are actually gonna love U2 now and be even cooler than the U2 haters. They seem to pull this shit all the time.

So I'm guessing it will be a 5 or a 9 deciding on what sort of hipster trend they want to continue or change.
 
The confusing part for me is both of the last two reviews fail to, in a call-out of virtually every song, mention "The Little Things That Give You Away", which is, for me, the moment in this album, the outro ripping my heart out while the band plays with dynamics like they were recording the Joshua Tree again...
 
Y2K said:
Interesting. That review is also in the Washington Post, having been written by a writer for the Associated Press.



I didn't know the AP did reviews...
Click to expand...



It’s a good thing the AP liked it because that will appear in many, many papers across the country.
 
I think the issue here might come down to an individual's operating definition of "consistent." One person might hear the word and think, "unchanging over a period of time," while another might view the term as "compatible in a series." So, sonically speaking, SoI might sound to some as a bit too capricious in its production, thereby viewing the collection of songs as inconsistent, whereas others listen to the material as a thematically compatible tracklist.

Furthermore, I have no idea why I'm writing all this hah... peeps in this thread are clearly intelligent enough to understand what "consistency" means lol. But I would like to take a moment and profess an incredibly minority opinion regarding SoI: it is the most cohesive album in U2's discography.
 
I still think this album doesn't reach a 6 on Pitchfork. My reasons being that, while the melodies are catchy as hell and the playing is nimble, the album still makes a few boneheaded rawkish choices (Edge still playing the blues), values craft over innovation, and has a few songs/moments (Love is Bigger, for example, or the anthemic outros to a couple tracks) that are, imo, too obvious and totally uncool. This is just my personal opinion, of course, and I feel that it is the Pitchfork in me talking. I almost feel like the 7.1 for Noel was simply a kick in the groin to U2 fans thinking that Songs of Experience will receive similarly respectful treatment.
 
Last edited:
Headache in a Suitcase said:
I really didn't think the difference between the danger mouse produced material and the non danger mouse produced material was a matter of debate...

Not the quality (although we can debate that as well) but the actual production values..
Click to expand...

Hate to say it and also to continue the tangent; but other than "This is Where You...", I can't detect a lot of Danger Mouse's footprint on SOI and even that song flows well with the rest. I listen to that album and nothing seems out of place. Most of the tracks sound like they were made for the same collection ( a few push the boundaries). I know they brought in a bunch of producers but it still has a feel like none of them strayed too far from the core feel of the album.

Maybe it's just me, but it holds together nicely...

(And to bring it back around)

which makes me even more excited about SOE, since a solid album seems to be the consensus on these reviews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
The Final Countdown - U2 at Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part 3
18 19 20
Replies
574
Views
25K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Sticky
U2 Fans Helping Other U2 Fans Get Tickets
16 17 18
Replies
519
Views
27K
clerks
clerks
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
291
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Scorpionac
Songs that would fit better on SOI vs. SOE?
Replies
1
Views
412
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom