roy
Refugee
shart1780 said:
Steve Averill Q & A - 2 seperate Albums and re-issue of the complete backcatalogue?
- Thread starter light
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Why did you ban Brau? I think that's ridiculous. Our arguments will heat up and cool down just as they always do. So someone's musical tastes were questioned. I don't think this is a big deal.
Last edited:
Salome
you are what you is
listening to music tends to be massively restricted thoughshart1780 said:
who ever listens to music that doesn't come from the US, Britain oand whatever country they're from themselves?
maybe some rock group from Canada or some French electronic act but that's about it
who really has time to listen to it all?
I agree that length shouldn't be a restriction though
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
shart1780 said:
Who said he was banned?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
shart1780 said:
yes, but they are emotions that other bands do as well.
U2 owns their own colors.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
U2girl said:
$$$$ Eno was pissed that he didn't get a songwriting credit on the ATYCLB stuff. Because he was annoyed about it, the band froze him out for a little while. He was let back into the fold around HTDAAB. (This is all according to Eno, BTW.) Maybe this is penance.
"Music by" = residuals = $$$. It's the reason why U2 have always split the songwriting credit equally -- although that seems to have changed in recent years after AB/Zooropa, a situation discussed in Flanagan's book -- note that Bono and often Edge now usually have lyrics credit, while music is credited to U2, reflecting what may be a change.
Either way, if U2 give Eno/Lanois songwriting credit, they have to re-evaluate how they write again and who gets what. Money splits up bands.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
U2girl said:
My guess is that there's a tipping point to both all this "biggest band in the world" shtick, with all the hype and bombastic music that has come with it, and with Bono's high profile. Another round of it in tandem, and the backlash could be severe. If they're aware of that, they'll swing it somehow. Perhaps they don't want to overhaul U2. Perhaps they don't feel the need to deliberately sabotage their profile and sound again at this late stage in their career. Bono, I assume, genuinely feels that his extra-curricular work is more important than any personal image thumping he takes along the way for it. If all of that is true, then what they are doing - or this rumour - makes good sense to me. Drop PassengersII out there, show off a more adventurous and creative side to themselves, and it effectively neuters all the arguments and critics that no doubt will be plentiful when later on they release another big bombastic MOR pop-rock record later on in the year. I've been championing the idea of a second avenue for U2 - be it Passengers II or a soundtrack or something - forever, as it really is the perfect solution, ie keep doing this if you must, it's just a shame that you're not doing *that* anymore and if it's because the U2 brand is now just going to be this monolithic thing and is going to be limited because of that, then release it some other way, under a different name even.
Surely that kind of music is still swirling around in their heads, you can't make it for 20 years and then just completely turn it off. As I said earlier, there's so much great stuff from U2's past that just would never, ever, ever make a Bomb-type tracklist. Not because it's experimental or weird, just because it doesn't fit the profile for the Big U2 Album. A simple and beautiful song like Running to Stand Still would never be on a Bomb. A song featuring an Italian opera singer or a US country and western legend would never be on a Bomb. The Bomb has no time or room for these things. Passengers does. Doesn't have to be freaky deaky. Being left field of the Bomb is like being left field in the Republican Party, ie not at all. At least half - easily half - of the songs that feature on all U2 albums before the 00s are too left field for a Bomb type album.
SO it gives U2 a load of room, even it's not a specifically 'inspired' album (ie Moroccan or whatever), it just gives them the room to take everything in their heads that isn't sterilised 3-4 minute MOR pop-rock and put it somewhere, while at the same time it's like a pre-emptive attack on everyone - myself and others like me included - who will jump on them if/when another Bomb style album is released later on. It shuts us up, essentially. For everyone who is a huge fan who knows the band well, you'd probably have my attitude "They can do better", but for every one of us there are 20 people who don't know them well enough to know that, like my non-hardcore-U2 friend who was exposed via flicking through channels and coming across the Elevation clip and exclaiming "Fucking hell, how the mighty have fallen". It gives us the opportunity in those moments to turn around to them and go, actually no, they haven't lost it, have a listen to this.
BrandU2 can continue on this path forever if they want, and keep absolutely everybody completely happy.
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine511 said:
Well, I disagree with that too.
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Salome said:
Well, I don't really understand what you mean by constricted. I've never felt that I couldn't find a way to get ahold of any kind of music at all. Sure, there's a lot of stuff you can't get at Best Buy, but you can find a huge variety of different styles of music anywhere.
My point is that once you've listened to a lot of different music, apart from all this mainstream, well known stuff like Coldplay and Kanye West and Madonna and stuff, you'll realize that the world of music is infinitely larger than you imagined. I remember when I was younger I used to listen to a couple dozen bands regularly, mostly U2.
I went through a phaze of trying out a ton of different bands and I found a ton of really different stuff I loved. Try listening to Tales from Topographic Oceans by Yes, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel, Up by Peter Gabriel, The Mysterious Production of Eggs by Andrew Bird, This Binary Universe by BT, Mezzanine by Massive Attack, Illinois by Sufjan Stevens, 13 by Blur, Takk by Sigur Ros... I could go on but it would last forever.
ALL of those albums have touched me in a way U2 never has, and I doubt they ever will, simply because they're different. Is that bad? No, every band is different (well, a lot are). I'd even go as far as to say many of those albums have touched me in a deeper and more significant way than U2 ever has. The reason I like U2 the best is because they're the most consistent band I know of, and I have so many memories with them. In all honesty, if it wasn't for nostalgia U2 might not be at the top of my list.
Since Atomic Bomb came out U2 has taken up probably around 5% or less of my listening time.
Last edited:
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
Irvine511 said:
Horrifyingly I agree with Shart on this.
The kinds of emotions U2 evokes are totally different to you. They aren't totally different to everyone else.
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
I dunno Earnie. I kinda think you're entering "Tin Hat" territory. The band made 2 straight rock records. This after spending most of the 90's coping that "outa space" sound. It sounds to me like you're going to be let down no matter what they do but that seems to be what you enjoy. Lord knows something about "The Bomb" makes it into every post you make (and I love your posts).
t8thgr8
War Child
I think people are putting way too much thought into something I sincerely think U2 is not.
Its very simple:
!987-1993 U2 is the shit
1995-1999 not so much
2000-2006/7 Bigger than ever
a sacrifice was made but it may not have been as big a sacrifice as we/you all think they made. Music is music. words are words. maybe they just felt like making some more direct songs that shine at the surface. a whole new concept for U2. The return was a resurgence in popular acceptance/interest. Lets not forget that it couldve easily backfired.
U2 can and will only make the music they feel like making. The ingredient for success is clarity. As long as they have a clear concept in mind and follow through then they can do no wrong. When they fuck around too much or dwell too long they lose clarity and thus a successful album.
Here's my logical prediction on what U2 is about to slap us with:
Fez/Morocco sessions are to be released as a passengers type deal sometime in 2008. Most likely early 2008.
They wallow in the return for that and shortly thereafter they release their beatles inspired album and third mainstream rock/pop record in a row produced by old rubin. The fact that there are two projects going on leads me to believe that there will be fallout from the fez sessions that sculpts the face of the new U2 record. Therefor the new actual U2 record will be a beatles psychadelic pop/rock theme. Late 2008 or maybe even 2009.
Whatever happens, Im excited that lanois is in the passenger's ship this time to add more of what i think the first one lacked.
I dont think U2 can make music for others. I believe they make the music they want to hear. If people like it, great! Especially now since they really dont have any monkeys hitching piggy-back rides these days. I just dont see Bono singing a song he doesnt believe in. The way he sings I just dont think it's possible.
Its very simple:
!987-1993 U2 is the shit
1995-1999 not so much
2000-2006/7 Bigger than ever
a sacrifice was made but it may not have been as big a sacrifice as we/you all think they made. Music is music. words are words. maybe they just felt like making some more direct songs that shine at the surface. a whole new concept for U2. The return was a resurgence in popular acceptance/interest. Lets not forget that it couldve easily backfired.
U2 can and will only make the music they feel like making. The ingredient for success is clarity. As long as they have a clear concept in mind and follow through then they can do no wrong. When they fuck around too much or dwell too long they lose clarity and thus a successful album.
Here's my logical prediction on what U2 is about to slap us with:
Fez/Morocco sessions are to be released as a passengers type deal sometime in 2008. Most likely early 2008.
They wallow in the return for that and shortly thereafter they release their beatles inspired album and third mainstream rock/pop record in a row produced by old rubin. The fact that there are two projects going on leads me to believe that there will be fallout from the fez sessions that sculpts the face of the new U2 record. Therefor the new actual U2 record will be a beatles psychadelic pop/rock theme. Late 2008 or maybe even 2009.
Whatever happens, Im excited that lanois is in the passenger's ship this time to add more of what i think the first one lacked.
I dont think U2 can make music for others. I believe they make the music they want to hear. If people like it, great! Especially now since they really dont have any monkeys hitching piggy-back rides these days. I just dont see Bono singing a song he doesnt believe in. The way he sings I just dont think it's possible.
Last edited:
t8thgr8
War Child
Then again, U2 is all about surprises so theres no telling what theyre cooking up. It could possibly catch every one of us by complete surprise.
Nathan1977: Eno was mad at the band for not giving him enough credit on ATYCLB . Music by = money indeed. But lyrics by = always Bono (sometimes Edge gets credited too). Does the lyric writer get money too ? I think it's generous of Bono and Edge that they still split everything 4 (5) ways.
Passengers had music by = Passengers for obvious reasons. I guess it's either down to collaborative writing reasons, like Passengers, or the music is so much different to a "U2" album that is why it won't be called U2.
Passengers had music by = Passengers for obvious reasons. I guess it's either down to collaborative writing reasons, like Passengers, or the music is so much different to a "U2" album that is why it won't be called U2.
Earnie Shavers said:
But their interviews of late indicate they are aware of doing the dangers of "Bomb part II", and they do want to shake it up one more time.
I don't think this project is just a mask to keep churning out current type of U2's music (or in fact even keep Bono's activism). All their eras had an end, and so will the current songwriting based one.
I think the non-Bomb-ness can be done for other U2 albums. RTSS fits with JT's sound, themes and came to U2 in that time (maybe it'd get slicked up a la '98 S. Thing but I could easily see that one on either of last two of U2's albums too). Only on AB would a song like One find a home. Similarly, I can't imagine BD anywhere else but on ATYCLB. Or, say, Sometimes belonging on Bomb. Most bands do a "back to the roots" album once in their career, and this was it for U2 (though they don't always execute the 80's-like songs well, ie Walk on, Miracle Drug).
I don't know what to say about those who think all there is to the last two albums is stuff like Elevation or Vertigo and who refuse to ackowledge the band did write good songs in the past 7 years. I know if you like AB-Zooropa-Pop you probably won't get much out of Bomb (not saying it's impossible, but I get the feeling the vast majority of Bomb naysayers like that era of U2 best). But there's a difference between saying "I don't like this because it isn't what I want/expect/hope for... from them" - which is, from what I can gain, the main anti-00's U2 argument - and saying "This isn't good enough", even avid Bomb (ATYCLB) complainers will admit these two were good collection of songs - after all any strong album needs those.
Let's assume the next album is really more of the same we've been getting on Bomb. I really doubt there's anything U2 can do to prevent a backlash. With Passengers part II, that particular segment of U2 fans I mentioned above would actually gain more ammo: "See, they can sound different! They're deliberatly cashing in!". Know what I mean ? I see that happening more than "OK, more of the same, but I don't mind as long as we got the other album."
My thoughts = mix of Earnie's & t8's posts.
Good job, fellas.
The move in ATYCLB was for a simpler sound---a more "direct" sound. Lyrically, there's directness in places, but poetry still remains in several songs. With Bomb, they added a little more to the mix instrumentally, but they amplified the "directness" with the lyrics. While the band's stle of music will ebb and flow over time, there's a possibility that the directness of Bono's lyrics may be a little more permanent. The reason I say this is that with nearly 30 years of writing--and reading--Bono has honed his writing skills. Much of the lyrics of the early records--especially Boy & October, but I'd say all the way through to JT--are so lyrically vague and spacey (and beautiful) in part because of the fact that Bono was such a young, early songwriter, often searching for his own voice. This came out in the songs, sometimes literally ("I, I don't know what's got to be said," THBAO). But with his love of reading and years of practice, his lyrical prowess developed. I'd say that his lyrical peaks would be AB, Pop, and, in some parts (but not all!), ATYCLB. But with HTDAAB, the clarity sought with ATYCLB was amplified lyrically. By choice--probably; but not, perhaps, entirely uncaused by a few other things----the years of experience of "finding the voice," and possibly all of the extra-curricular charity work. Who knows how much time Bono currently spends writing lyrics versus how much time he spends reading economic & health statistics and writing speeches. Those latter two things are extraordinarily direct, non-vague, non-creative media. I personally have found that the more I concentrate on and read for work (medicine), the less creative I become when I try to write lyrics with my friend.
None of this would concern me, save for the fact that Bono has recently and repeatedly said he feels like he's "closer to the song in [his] head." Sure, he talks a lot. He says things that aren't entirely true. But this one's a pretty big thing to say, and I partly believe it. The problem is that if it's true, if he's closer to finding his true voice, is the directness of recent lyrics representative of that? A man who nears 50 years of age, who has long had love, who no longer is searching for the mysterious ways of lust and romance, whose friends are in fairly stable relationships, whose children are growing, who spends half his time in a mansion on the beach, who spends a good deal of time talking about malaria statistics and marketing campaigns...........How much vagueness and soundscape can seep into his thoughts?
I don't know. I'm not saying there's no way we can get the beauty of a UF-type soundscape, nor the poetic mastery of AB any more. If there's anything that can stimulate that, it may very well be having Eno & Lanois and making a new style of music altogether. Still.....just thoughts that float around my head from time to time.
Good job, fellas.
The move in ATYCLB was for a simpler sound---a more "direct" sound. Lyrically, there's directness in places, but poetry still remains in several songs. With Bomb, they added a little more to the mix instrumentally, but they amplified the "directness" with the lyrics. While the band's stle of music will ebb and flow over time, there's a possibility that the directness of Bono's lyrics may be a little more permanent. The reason I say this is that with nearly 30 years of writing--and reading--Bono has honed his writing skills. Much of the lyrics of the early records--especially Boy & October, but I'd say all the way through to JT--are so lyrically vague and spacey (and beautiful) in part because of the fact that Bono was such a young, early songwriter, often searching for his own voice. This came out in the songs, sometimes literally ("I, I don't know what's got to be said," THBAO). But with his love of reading and years of practice, his lyrical prowess developed. I'd say that his lyrical peaks would be AB, Pop, and, in some parts (but not all!), ATYCLB. But with HTDAAB, the clarity sought with ATYCLB was amplified lyrically. By choice--probably; but not, perhaps, entirely uncaused by a few other things----the years of experience of "finding the voice," and possibly all of the extra-curricular charity work. Who knows how much time Bono currently spends writing lyrics versus how much time he spends reading economic & health statistics and writing speeches. Those latter two things are extraordinarily direct, non-vague, non-creative media. I personally have found that the more I concentrate on and read for work (medicine), the less creative I become when I try to write lyrics with my friend.
None of this would concern me, save for the fact that Bono has recently and repeatedly said he feels like he's "closer to the song in [his] head." Sure, he talks a lot. He says things that aren't entirely true. But this one's a pretty big thing to say, and I partly believe it. The problem is that if it's true, if he's closer to finding his true voice, is the directness of recent lyrics representative of that? A man who nears 50 years of age, who has long had love, who no longer is searching for the mysterious ways of lust and romance, whose friends are in fairly stable relationships, whose children are growing, who spends half his time in a mansion on the beach, who spends a good deal of time talking about malaria statistics and marketing campaigns...........How much vagueness and soundscape can seep into his thoughts?
I don't know. I'm not saying there's no way we can get the beauty of a UF-type soundscape, nor the poetic mastery of AB any more. If there's anything that can stimulate that, it may very well be having Eno & Lanois and making a new style of music altogether. Still.....just thoughts that float around my head from time to time.
Last edited:
TheFirstBigW
The Fly
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Messages
- 262
You made several good points.Utoo said:
Writing lyrics that directly refer to something and specifically mean something while still maintaining a poetic quality is much harder to do than just writing lyrics that are vague and spacey.
After Pop, Larry said something to the effect of "Why can't we actually make an album with popular music in it instead of making a less accessible album and just calling it 'Pop'?" Bono, in response, has talked about how their less accessible period of music during the 90's may have been partly due to them running away from the pressure of trying to create songs that the majority of the public would enjoy listening to on the radio. I think that struggling with that fear was perfectly natural since they had recently created a pop music phenomenon of global proportions with The Joshua Tree, and who wouldn't feel intimidated by the pressure of having to follow up success like that with more hit singles?
So, after Pop, they decided to face that fear dead on by setting a goal of writing quality music that would also have a chance of appealing to people on a popular level and get played regularly on the radio (any musician who says that they wouldn't love to stay true to their artistic principles and be widely appreciated at the same time is probably also running from that fear to a certain extent).
The cool thing about ATYCLB is that not only did they face that fear and overcome it, but they actually succeeded at the same time!
In the same way that Bono has said that any first year art student can create art about darkness and negative feelings but the truly difficult thing to do is create something that can give people joy, the same thing can be said for writing clear and concise lyrics that are brave enough to actually make a specific statement rather than hiding in the shadows by writing vague lyrics that aren't necessarily saying anything.
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I'm all for songs about joy and all that jazz... I just don't want them to be boring and predictable anymore.
TheFirstBigW
The Fly
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Messages
- 262
Now that they've cleared the pop music hurdle, maybe that's U2's next goal...to create music that is able to challenge people on an artistic level in a new musical direction while still managing to appeal to them and give them joy at the same time. Maybe that's what Bono means when he talks about getting closer to the "perfect" song.shart1780 said:
I don't know if all of that is possible, but if anyone can do it, I believe they can...
Utoo said:
I think by that he just meant now they can get closer to getting the music in their heads, since they are now more accomplished musicians than they were in their youth.
I think maybe more than reading stats or poetry, his lyrics are affected by what is going on in his life. (he was recently seen reading WW 1 poetry book, whatever that's worth) It's easier for a 20 year old to think about the transition from boy-man, for a 30 year old to ponder marriage and a 30+ year old to poke at commercialism/crisis of faith - but a 40,50 year old has a much more grounded life. Personally I'm surprised he isn't chanelling his frustrations over broken promises and hard work in his activism - perhaps the band is vetoing that...I find it hard to believe in a decade or so since he's been heavily involved, Crumbs is the only one directly inspired by his extracurricular activity. (according to Lillywhite, they were uncomfortable with him doing Native Son)
And even at that, he's still writing about extremely personal topics, he's still fighting his demons if you will. Didn't he have a big medical scare before they made ATYCLB (something about throat cancer that would end his career) ? That would surely be something to make you re-evalue your priorities in writing.
Last edited:
Salome
you are what you is
I'd say that the music you mention there is all quite similar in a wayshart1780 said:
besides what you mention I was thinking of the desert rock of Tinariwen, the fado of Mariza, the bossa nova of Tom Jobin, Os Mutantes' tropicalia etc
and even then I know I'm still missing out on many many things I never heard
many genres, many styles
all that music I have heard does touch me in a different way then U2 does
I hardly ever listen to U2 really
but when I do there is something there you can't find anywhere else
I also think calling their music now boring and predictable is a bit ridiculous in a way
I know I never predicted ATYCLB, I don't think anyone on this forum did
and even How to dismantle .... (though not one of their best efforts) is an album that can stand on its own 2 feet
it is missing something, but that something has little to do with being boring or predictable
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Salome said:
people make the mistake (not you, just jumping off your comment) of asserting that if they don't personally prefer whatever style U2 are operating in, then the band have somehow failed. wong. U2 set out to do something very specific with "Behind" and "Bomb," and by all accounts, they've succeeded. if you didn't personally like it, that's fine, that's called taste. it isn't that U2 are coasting, or are boring, or are predictable, or whatever.
it's incredibly narcissistic, that U2 should make music with whatever *i* might want, they should put *my* needs first.
what they need to do is follow their own passions and interests. the rest will follow.
EdgeIsTooSexy
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 10,828
Irvine511 said:
you got it.
Reggie Thee Dog
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
Great points, however this will fall on deaf ears for the most part as some people can't get past the fact that U2 was using their exceptional songwriting skills to make albums of great songs.
One point I will give the HTDAAB haters is that HTDAAB was not as cohesive as some other albums (say AB or JT...even...dare I say Pop). However the songs individually are all strong. I think ATYCLB was the better exercise in that regard, but HTDAAB had it's moments, and as a collection of songs is
Still, I'm not sitting around complaining about 'musical direction' or what 'I' want in the next album. I just want 'another' album...and as long as the songs are good I'll listen to what they offer and make up my mind then.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
It is definitely possible. U2 already achieved this with Achtung Baby, and even to some extent on The Joshua Tree. What I love about that period of U2 is that they didn't aim to make hit singles. They instead had the faith that their artistic aims would be widely received. Take a song like 'With or Without You', for instance. The band thought it would tank as a single. It has no typical verse, chorus, verse, chorus structure. It's like a gentle wave that climaxes, fervently, into what may be called the chorus, but it is near the END of the song. There was no popular agenda from the band. But they had faith there would be a LARGER agenda, one which would arrise from their collective ambition. And so they gave in to the art, and let the art lead the way, rather than the other way around. That's where the challenge is. To get back to that place from the position they now occupy. It's much more difficult to surrender to it now, from the precipice of reclaiming the title of being the biggest band in the world.TheFirstBigW said:
Anyway, great discussion....keep it going...
Last edited:
rihannsu
Refugee
Just an interesting thought here. If U2 has three albums left to deliver on their contract and they release the remastered JT for one then all of a sudden dump two albums worth of new material on Universal's doorstep, then they are free to not resign with the label at all if they don't want to, ala Radiohead. This would mean that conceivably U2 could be out from under contract in a year. Also another reason for not releasing the new material this year is to give time for this whole industry upheaval to shake down. Universal's battle with Itunes and such I mean. Give time for the kinks to get worked out better in the whole distribution aspect and then dump the fulfillment of their contract on the record company then they are free as a bird to take advantage of the new possibilities with the additional advantage of other bands having tested the waters this time instead of them leading the charge. Might be some very savy planning going on here.
Dana
Dana
Mr. V
Refugee
really? how did One Step Closer make it on then?Earnie Shavers said:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i just don't understand when people pit one album against the next. i totally understand prefering one album over the other, like i totally prefer "boy" over "uf," but that doesn't mean that i think one is a success and the other is a failure. i think "uf's" fault is that it tries to follow "art" too much, and that it's lazy and self-indulgent in far too many places, unfinished sketches. i think "boy" is tight and coiled and ready to pounce at any momen and is perhaps the most lyrically mysterious and ambiguous (especially sexually) album they've ever released. but both albums were honest expressions of where the band was. i think we're reading way too much into "biggest band in the world" of the '00s and sensing that U2 are just trying to outdo Matchbox 20 when the fact is that they've *always* been about getting on the radio. people bring up WOWY as somehow being so daring. i agree, it's not a typically structured song, but it crescendos up into a "hit" (like drugs) over the high note that's the equal of anything in popular music. it's stunning, and exhilerating, and that's what makes a #1 song, and that's what Gavin (i think it was ... it's in one of the U2 books) said to the band. their pop instincts were so poor that they didn't see the potential in WOWY to be a smash hit, Gavin did, he told them they were idiots not to release it as a first single, so they did the *pop* thing and didn't listen to their pure inner artistic voices, and guess what we got? arugably one of the best singles of the 1980s. this is a band that thought RHMT would be a good follow up single (and not ISHFWILF or Streets or IGC?!?!?!) to WOWY. and what did they do? they listened to other people who had better pop instincts, and they sold 15m copies.
the point is that U2 wants to be on the radio, and they know how to play the game. i think it can be argued that what detracts from "bomb" (imho, at least) is that they're trying too hard to deliver the goods, but this does not mean that they were innocent artistic naifs in 1986 who would pain lonely portraits of themselves and wear black and sigh at the rain on a Tuesday morning. it means that they got better over 20 years.
the point is that U2 wants to be on the radio, and they know how to play the game. i think it can be argued that what detracts from "bomb" (imho, at least) is that they're trying too hard to deliver the goods, but this does not mean that they were innocent artistic naifs in 1986 who would pain lonely portraits of themselves and wear black and sigh at the rain on a Tuesday morning. it means that they got better over 20 years.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Michael Griffiths said:
i totally respect your post, but i really, really don't think this is true.
"pride" is as much about hitmaking as it is about MLK.
they've always wanted hits. always.
RademR
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
i just want some new u2 shit. they always impress me.
Similar threads
