Steve Averill Q & A - 2 seperate Albums and re-issue of the complete backcatalogue?

[shart1780]

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.

I disagree. The reason I didn't like Atomic Bomb wasn't because the songs were straigh forward pop. Heck, I really liked ATYCLB a lot, and that was pretty darn poppy stuff. The reason Bomb was boring to me was because... well, it's just boring. Shallow lyrics, shallow songwriting, the sound wasn't very interesting. All in all it was just a disapointment.

Some of my favorite records are straight forward pop albums. I just find U2 to be not nearly as interesting as they were even 5 years ago. My gripe with the album isn't the style, it's the execution.

 

[rihannsu]

I disagree. The reason I didn't like Atomic Bomb wasn't because the songs were straigh forward pop. Heck, I really liked ATYCLB a lot, and that was pretty darn poppy stuff. The reason Bomb was boring to me was because... well, it's just boring. Shallow lyrics, shallow songwriting, the sound wasn't very interesting. All in all it was just a disapointment.

Some of my favorite records are straight forward pop albums. I just find U2 to be not nearly as interesting as they were even 5 years ago. My gripe with the album isn't the style, it's the execution.

I sometimes wonder if I'm listening to the same album everyone else is. What on earth is shallow about Bomb? Maybe we need a definition of what constitutes shallow because I can't see any way shape or form to see these lyrics as shallow.

Dana

 

[Irvine511]

i wonder if the directness of Bono's more recent lyrics actually masks their profundity.

i'm sorry, but COBL has way more to say about life than "WGRYWH" -- and i love both songs.

 

[angelordevil]

I would love for "U2" to feel comfortable being nutty...

Viva la Passengers.

I think you said it.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

I sometimes wonder if I'm listening to the same album everyone else is. What on earth is shallow about Bomb? Maybe we need a definition of what constitutes shallow because I can't see any way shape or form to see these lyrics as shallow.

Dana

the lyrics are not shallow, but imo they do seem less poetic at times. there's a trade-off in their becoming more direct that keeps them from being as multi-dimensional.

the fact that Bono was off campaigning so hard probably made it difficult to switch into a more poetic mode when he was writing and recording the material with the band.

in the 80s and 90s double meanings and multiple interpretation were hallmarks of most U2 lyrics. the same is not as true of the last two albums.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

i wonder if the directness of Bono's more recent lyrics actually masks their profundity.

maybe so.. i've noticed lots of people tend to think of darker lyrics as more profound, which isn't necessarily true at all. atylcb and htdaab are more uplifting albums on the whole than the 90s albums. however there was a poetry to achtung baby in particular that i don't see as often on htdaab.

i'm sorry, but COBL has way more to say about life than "WGRYWH" -- and i love both songs.

interesting point. again, here i think the 00s lyric (COBL) is more uplifting, and the 90s lyric (Wild Horses) is darker..

you're causing me to realize something i'm not sure i've really thought about before- in the 80s u2 lyrics were generally "uplifting" (for lack of another word at the moment) as was the music; in the 90s there were really two bigs changes that happened at once: 1) the music got more experimental and 2) the lyrics got darker.

in the 00s, its been generally back to more radio-friendly music AND brighter lyrics, though the brighter lyrics are more "direct" ie less poetic or multi-dimensional.

as they move forward, if Bono truly is able to spend more time on the lyrics again, we could see a return to the poetry of the 80s and 90s, the optimism of the 80s and 00s, and the musical experimentalism of the 90s. that would lead to some pretty amazing material, i'd imagine. (!!)

 

[shart1780]

There are plenty of U2 songs that are lighter and more poetic. Take Streets for example. IMO that's the most uplifting song U2 has ever done. It's definitely more multi-dimensional than anything on Bomb could ever dream of being. Also One Tree Hill, A Sort of Homecoming, MLK, Miss Sarajevo and Promenade. Those songs are actually capable of lifting me up because I feel like they rise to me intelligence level instead of assaulting me with cheesy cliche's.

There ARE some songs on Bomb I do like a lot, don't get me wrong. I'd say Vertigo, COBL and OOTS are classics. My opinion of course. Maybe Fast Cars too. Everything else on there pretty much bores me now. None of those songs have particularly good lyrics though.

I don't feel like anything on Bomb has anything meaningful to say about life. I'm less than half Bono's age, but when I listen to songs from Bomb I'm thinking to myself "ok... so what?". Listening to U2's music lately has been more like reading a halmark card with music. "Time won't leave me as I am, time won't take the boy out of this man.... you look so beautiful tonight" honestly means nothing to me. It says nothing about life. Definitely much less than "Took a drive in the dirty rain, to a place where the wind calls your name. Under the trees a river laughing at you and me. Hallelujah, Heaven's wide rows, the doors you opened, I just can't close".

Now tell me. Which one is more beautiful? Which one is more layered? Bono can sing about getting on his knees and never wanting to lose his inner child all he wants, but I can hear that any time I want by turning on a family channel original movie. I'm definitely not gonna hear Until the End of the World or The Fly on there though.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

There are plenty of U2 songs that are lighter and more poetic. Take Streets for example. IMO that's the most uplifting song U2 has ever done. It's definitely more multi-dimensional than anything on Bomb could ever dream of being. Also One Tree Hill, A Sort of Homecoming, MLK, Miss Sarajevo and Promenade. Those songs are actually capable of lifting me up because I feel like they rise to me intelligence level instead of assaulting me with cheesy cliche's.

sounds like we're seeing some of the same patterns in their music.

with the exception of Miss Sarajevo, all the songe you mention are from the 80s. To me the lyrics from each decade fall generally into this pattern (this is oversimplified, but generally an accurate way to regard them)

1) 80s lyrics- poetic, multi-dimensional, uplifting
2) 90s lyrics- poetic, multi-dimensional, darker
30 00s lyrics- literal, 1 to 2-dimensional, uplifting

 

[dr. zooeuss]

Re: Steve Averill Q & A: 2 separate Albums and re-issue of the complete backcatalogue?

Source: http://www.zootopia.de/

Steve Averill said at the Q & A U2 graphics exhibition called 'Stealing Hearts from a Traveling Show'
that U2 have two projects at the moment. A project similar to the Passengers that won't be a U2 album where Eno and Lanois will be equal collaborators and a new full U2 project.

Steve also said he has to deliver the new JT 20th Anniversary Edition designs by Tuesday. He also went on to say that he is looking forward to re-visiting all of the back catalogue albums for future re-issues.

i noticed that's a german site.. does anyone have an english translation of what averill said, exactly? thanks-

 

[rihannsu]

There are plenty of U2 songs that are lighter and more poetic. Take Streets for example. IMO that's the most uplifting song U2 has ever done. It's definitely more multi-dimensional than anything on Bomb could ever dream of being. Also One Tree Hill, A Sort of Homecoming, MLK, Miss Sarajevo and Promenade. Those songs are actually capable of lifting me up because I feel like they rise to me intelligence level instead of assaulting me with cheesy cliche's.

There ARE some songs on Bomb I do like a lot, don't get me wrong. I'd say Vertigo, COBL and OOTS are classics. My opinion of course. Maybe Fast Cars too. Everything else on there pretty much bores me now. None of those songs have particularly good lyrics though.

I don't feel like anything on Bomb has anything meaningful to say about life. I'm less than half Bono's age, but when I listen to songs from Bomb I'm thinking to myself "ok... so what?". Listening to U2's music lately has been more like reading a halmark card with music. "Time won't leave me as I am, time won't take the boy out of this man.... you look so beautiful tonight" honestly means nothing to me. It says nothing about life. Definitely much less than "Took a drive in the dirty rain, to a place where the wind calls your name. Under the trees a river laughing at you and me. Hallelujah, Heaven's wide rows, the doors you opened, I just can't close".

Now tell me. Which one is more beautiful? Which one is more layered? Bono can sing about getting on his knees and never wanting to lose his inner child all he wants, but I can hear that any time I want by turning on a family channel original movie. I'm definitely not gonna hear Until the End of the World or The Fly on there though.

So you are half Bono's age, that explains right there why a lot of Bomb is not reaching you. Look, Bono has always written about what is going on in his life. The themes on Bomb are very relevant to me maybe because I'm Bono's age. But that doesn't mean that younger people can't get it, just that they might not if it doesn't impact their life. Songs like SYCMIOYO connect with anyone who has lost a parent. COBL is more likely to connect with someone older and has that viewpoint. But just because you can't identify with the songs doesn't make the lyric any less worthy. Bono has said himself that the poetry that people talk about in the early lyrics is a result of laziness on his part in not really writing lyrics but merely sketching with words. He was never being deliberately poetic. When he looks at his early work all he sees are unfinished songs and poor lyric writing. Which I might add he was heavily criticized for during those time periods. Now that he spends more time actually writing lyrics, he is getting criticized for not being poetic enough. So it's six of one half dozen of the other. Either way he takes shit for it.

Dana

 

[last unicorn]

Dana, great post, and I fully agree.

I'm in my mid-thirties and I feel that the lyrics of both of U2's last albums relate very strongly either to me personally or to people I know or to life in general. There is beauty and truth in those songs. I love them because they are lifting me up, comforting me, taking me away from some of the darkness and cynism of the world.

A lot of these lyrics are giving me hope, and that means a lot to me. I have been through some things in life and I can totally relate to things like Bono's childhood analogies. This is something that is constantly occurring in my own poetry as well.

But there are so many other themes as well, death is also a theme and both of the songs dealing with it are very close to me, though they represent two very different approaches to this particular issue.

I love many of these songs because they are so personal and I know that Bono actually means what he writes. They appeal to my heart maybe more than to my intellect at times, and this is what makes them great for me.

Saying they have no relevance to people's life is simply ignorant. Unless you live a life that is better matched by today's radio and chart music.

 

[TheFirstBigW]

In U2 by U2, Bono said that they are in danger of losing some of their spontenaity and magic as songwriters as they become better and better at the craft of songwriting, presumably because it becomes easier to write songs using their head rather than their heart.

I'm not saying that the music in their last album doesn't have heart, because it does, but it does seem that they focused more than they ever have on the craft of songwriting, and because of it they ended up producing more structurally sound and well crafted music at a slight expense to their spontenaity. Maybe it's that feeling that the album was so carefully constructed as opposed to having been written by blind inspiration on the fly as they have in the past that has some people feeling like the music is "boring" or whatever.

Anyway, from what they've said since their last album, it sounds like they've taken the focus on craft for the sake of producing quality popular music about as far as it can go, and from what we can tell from their latest sessions, it sounds like they're veering more towards experimentation for their next album.

Both avenues are good, and both have enabled them to produce good music, but I'd say that many of us agree with U2 in that we're ready for them to go in a new direction...

 

[Irvine511]

Now tell me. Which one is more beautiful? Which one is more layered? Bono can sing about getting on his knees and never wanting to lose his inner child all he wants, but I can hear that any time I want by turning on a family channel original movie. I'm definitely not gonna hear Until the End of the World or The Fly on there though.

one is about sexual jealousy, the other is about how innocence can lead you to great heights despite the odds. any 19 year old can write about sexual jealousy, it takes an adult to look back at that 19 year old and take account that what he didn't know then enabled him to become the man he is now. that's a far more sophistocated set of feelings than wondering who's next going to be fucking your significant other now that you've broken up. those lyrics at the end of WGRYWH are a perfect example -- they sound pretty, but they're also pretty empty, any depressed high school sophomore could come up with them.

i think you're falling into the trap that just because they sound challenging, or are evocative of darker images ("dirty rain") that they somehow mean more. just the title of COBL is deeper than it sounds. they've been blinded by the lights of these great big cities -- New York, London, Paris -- and the potential for greatness within each of them, the cities are alive ("neon heart, dayglo eyes") with potential and possibility and the rest of the world is forgotten, just like in a concert, but then, as in NYC after 9/11, the lights suddenly go on and U2 can suddenly see again, after the blindness, and what do they see? beautiful people, awash in the house lights that come on during "streets" and particularly in NYC a battered and bruised and emotional people, and suddenly they realize that it's not about them, the band, but it's about the moment, the space, the connectedness, and the rediscovery of exactly why that 19 year old wanted to be blinded by the lights to begin with -- to go to that other place, that place where the streets have no name, and where the cities are nameless but for their blinding power. i do see COBL as a sequal to "streets," and while i prefer "streets," as sequals go, it's more "empire strikes back" than "phanom menace."

 

[MrBrau1]

one is about sexual jealousy, the other is about how innocence can lead you to great heights despite the odds. any 19 year old can write about sexual jealousy, it takes an adult to look back at that 19 year old and take account that what he didn't know then enabled him to become the man he is now. that's a far more sophistocated set of feelings than wondering who's next going to be fucking your significant other now that you've broken up. those lyrics at the end of WGRYWH are a perfect example -- they sound pretty, but they're also pretty empty, any depressed high school sophomore could come up with them.

i think you're falling into the trap that just because they sound challenging, or are evocative of darker images ("dirty rain") that they somehow mean more. just the title of COBL is deeper than it sounds. they've been blinded by the lights of these great big cities -- New York, London, Paris -- and the potential for greatness within each of them, the cities are alive ("neon heart, dayglo eyes") with potential and possibility and the rest of the world is forgotten, just like in a concert, but then, as in NYC after 9/11, the lights suddenly go on and U2 can suddenly see again, after the blindness, and what do they see? beautiful people, awash in the house lights that come on during "streets" and particularly in NYC a battered and bruised and emotional people, and suddenly they realize that it's not about them, the band, but it's about the moment, the space, the connectedness, and the rediscovery of exactly why that 19 year old wanted to be blinded by the lights to begin with -- to go to that other place, that place where the streets have no name, and where the cities are nameless but for their blinding power. i do see COBL as a sequal to "streets," and while i prefer "streets," as sequals go, it's more "empire strikes back" than "phanom menace."

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

There is a wisdom in the current lyrics that just doesn't lend itself to being dark, and mysterious. Wisdom is usually based in the simple, the obvious. A person who's been around long enough to understand how shit goes down, and understand themselves and how they relate to the world.

Bono at 45 is different than Bono at 27.

Impossible concept for some.

 

[rihannsu]

i do see COBL as a sequal to "streets," and while i prefer "streets," as sequals go, it's more "empire strikes back" than "phanom menace."

Good one!

Dana

 

[rushu2]

So you are half Bono's age, that explains right there why a lot of Bomb is not reaching you. Look, Bono has always written about what is going on in his life. The themes on Bomb are very relevant to me maybe because I'm Bono's age. But that doesn't mean that younger people can't get it, just that they might not if it doesn't impact their life. Songs like SYCMIOYO connect with anyone who has lost a parent. COBL is more likely to connect with someone older and has that viewpoint. But just because you can't identify with the songs doesn't make the lyric any less worthy. Bono has said himself that the poetry that people talk about in the early lyrics is a result of laziness on his part in not really writing lyrics but merely sketching with words. He was never being deliberately poetic. When he looks at his early work all he sees are unfinished songs and poor lyric writing. Which I might add he was heavily criticized for during those time periods. Now that he spends more time actually writing lyrics, he is getting criticized for not being poetic enough. So it's six of one half dozen of the other. Either way he takes shit for it.

Dana

I'm almost Bono's age and I don't relate to the lyrics on Bomb! I have to say one thing I like about Bono is that he is willing to write joyful lyrics. I think he said joyful songs are harder to write than dark songs and I believe that and I applaud him for that. There are just way too many artists that are going dark and depressing. However, he is no way near his 80's self nor is the music. My opinion of course.

*currently listening to Closer to the Heart by Rush - perfect example of a great uplifting song*

FYI- my husband just gave me a quick tip about where Bono is going to be tommorrow (as he saw me typing this) - in Boston. -No he's not a stalker he just knows this from the type of business he owns.

 

[Irvine511]

i also want to say that i'm not at all saying that post-00 U2 is better, or worse, than 80s or 90s U2. for me, my two favorite albums remain AB and JT, followed by Boy, followed by ATYCLB. to me, the 00's do sound a little bit too overcalculated, a bit too ambitious, a bit too nervous, a bit too let's-get-this-on-the-radio, and i do think some songs could use a bit more air and space, but, song-for-song, the past two albums are comparable with everthing they've ever done, and there's still a gigantic beating heard behind every single song (and what they do better now than before is positively *thrill* -- what's more exciting than the (somewhat lame) bridge into the visceral solo of "miracle drug"?

i think The Onion's review of Bomb captured my feelings precisely:

[q]Sometimes innovation gets overrated, and it's not like the band is all that safe even when playing it safe. Few acts could work on the large scale that U2 favors and not look silly: Nudged a little, The Edge could sound self-indulgent, and it's almost scary how little it would take for larger-than-life, heart-on-his-sleeve frontman Bono to resemble that guy from Live.

[...]

When "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own" builds on a slow Adam Clayton bassline, a between-the-notes Larry Mullen drum tap, and a Bono vocal that builds in drama until it explodes with the line "You're the reason why the opera is in me," as The Edge unfurls a muscular, angelic guitar line that only he could play, U2 secures its status as the Biggest Band On Earth, assuming the planet is still big enough to hold it.[/q]

no rock band has ever managed this feat. and they still slay live. i just don't think that there's anything remotely lazy about "bomb" and "behind," nor do i think that the U2 of 1984 didn't care about hit singles and were obsessed with art. there's not all that much that's changed, really, over the past 20 years, at least in intention. yes, they are different men, but the goals remain about the same.

saying an album isn't to your taste is one thing, but doubting U2's intentions is something different.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

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.

Irvine, great discussion, and I agree with you. Yes, they have always wanted to make hits and be the biggest band in the world, but my point was that they used to have faith that the hits would take care of themselves as long as they stuck to their artistic aims first. It's almost as though the hits on some of those albums ('One', 'Streets' and WOWY, Pride, and 'Bad', for example) were merely a bi-product of their overall desire to be understood as artists by a large audience. Their overall motivation was to be understood. That is why they wanted to be big. They wanted everyone to understand. It wasn't the number of records sold, it was how many people were hearing the message. And what was it they wanted people to understand? Their inner most feelings. These feelings just turned out to be universal, which went hand in hand with their desire to be one of the great groups of all time. Call it destiny, albeit an overly simple way to sum up the U2 phenomenon. Their challenge now is to surrender to that faith again without having to think "hit first", something very difficult to do after reclaiming the position they are now in. I would argue it would take much more courage than the about turn they faced in the early 90s, for example.

 

[roy]

Yes, they have always wanted to make hits and be the biggest band in the world, but my point was that they used to have faith that the hits would take care of themselves as long as they stuck to their artistic aims first.

I don't think that is true at all. Look how hard they tried to 'make' WGRYWH a hit just to satisfy the record Execs. That doesn't sound like a hit taking care of itself.

 

[U2girl]

"Our first pop song" - Bono, on Pride.

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine, great discussion, and I agree with you. Yes, they have always wanted to make hits and be the biggest band in the world, but my point was that they used to have faith that the hits would take care of themselves as long as they stuck to their artistic aims first. It's almost as though the hits on some of those albums ('One', 'Streets' and WOWY, Pride, and 'Bad', for example) were merely a bi-product of their overall desire to be understood as artists by a large audience. Their overall motivation was to be understood. That is why they wanted to be big. They wanted everyone to understand. It wasn't the number of records sold, it was how many people were hearing the message. And what was it they wanted people to understand? Their inner most feelings. These feelings just turned out to be universal, which went hand in hand with their desire to be one of the great groups of all time. Call it destiny, albeit an overly simple way to sum up the U2 phenomenon.

while i'm hardly a rock star, i do work in what's known as a "creative" industry, and the terrible secret is that the people who are the most successful are those that work the hardest. there's very little to do with sitting back and letting art flow from your fingertips and suddenly magic appears. the magic might come from the inspiration, but the rest of the product -- song, film, tv show, novel -- is the result of blood, sweat, and tears, and lots of hard work getting something to sound right and even working on that "connection." i can agree that you can try too hard, that things can sound forced or belabored, but that doesn't mean that the effortless sounding things are actually effortless. take "one." you're right, it did appear out of the blue, or at least the inspiration for it did. a magical moment. but as they talk about in the into the heart book, actually getting it all together was fiendishly difficult. "streets" is another example of a very, very difficult song that's the result of hard work that's now their signature live song.

i guess my main point is that these songs are simply more successful than, say, ABOY, because that song, to me, sounds strained, whereas "one" sounds effortless, but the work done and the intentions behind both songs are nearly the same, i'd argue. AB has the ballad (one) the smash pop song (MW) the rocker (EBTTRT) and the yearning quest song (WGRYWH) as well as follow-up ballad (SC). Bomb has the ballad ("sometimes") the smash pop song (OOTS) the rocker (ABOY), and the yearning quest song (COBL) and even the follow up ballad (MD).

 

[Michael Griffiths]

"Our first pop song" - Bono, on Pride.

Once again, they always wanted to make popular music. I have always said this. They have now become so good at it, though, I feel some of the magic and ambiguity of U2 has been left in the studio. The hit singles used to be merely windows to their albums, an avenue for the general public to get intrigued and then later rewarded by the dense forests within the records....Now, all the tracks are windows to each other. Makes for a less dimensional experience, at least for me. I love the new stuff. Songs like 'In a Little While', 'Wild Honey' and 'Kite' warm my soul. Songs like 'Vertigo' are catchy, yes. I guess I miss the mystery and bewilderment at times, and the pure surrender.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

"less dimensional experience" - exactly.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

while i'm hardly a rock star, i do work in what's known as a "creative" industry, and the terrible secret is that the people who are the most successful are those that work the hardest. there's very little to do with sitting back and letting art flow from your fingertips and suddenly magic appears. the magic might come from the inspiration, but the rest of the product -- song, film, tv show, novel -- is the result of blood, sweat, and tears, and lots of hard work getting something to sound right and even working on that "connection." i can agree that you can try too hard, that things can sound forced or belabored, but that doesn't mean that the effortless sounding things are actually effortless. take "one." you're right, it did appear out of the blue, or at least the inspiration for it did. a magical moment. but as they talk about in the into the heart book, actually getting it all together was fiendishly difficult. "streets" is another example of a very, very difficult song that's the result of hard work that's now their signature live song.

i guess my main point is that these songs are simply more successful than, say, ABOY, because that song, to me, sounds strained, whereas "one" sounds effortless, but the work done and the intentions behind both songs are nearly the same, i'd argue. AB has the ballad (one) the smash pop song (MW) the rocker (EBTTRT) and the yearning quest song (WGRYWH) as well as follow-up ballad (SC). Bomb has the ballad ("sometimes") the smash pop song (OOTS) the rocker (ABOY), and the yearning quest song (COBL) and even the follow up ballad (MD).

You said it in the second paragraph - ABOY sounds forced, wheras 'One' sounds effortless. I disagree that the intentions behind each song are the same. Intention arises from so much more than merely conscious decision. It is based on the moment, the situation(s), and feelings of the band and individuals at play at the time. There was a lot of personal chaos at the time of 'One'. It was cathartic for the band in a very unique way.

'Streets' was born in a magical moment with Edge. They did work on it for a long time, almost half the length of the entire recording of the album, but the original inspiration wasn't tampered with (thankfully). It was still born in a moment and kept in tact.

You compare AB and Bomb's common song placements... but the songs themselves are coming from completely different places.

 

[Irvine511]

You compare AB and Bomb's common song placements... but the songs themselves are coming from completely different places.

and we'll have to agree to disagree here. there are clear, conscious singles on AB in the same way that there are on "bomb." AB might be more successful, and i think it is, but i don't think it's at all a more pure album. i just want to warn against any misty-eyed romanticism of the U2 of 20 years ago.

 

[BVS]

You compare AB and Bomb's common song placements... but the songs themselves are coming from completely different places.

I love how fans act as if they know where the songs are coming from...

It reminds me of this radio interview I heard of Chris Cornell years ago. This DJ came out and had this huge theory as to what Black Hole Sun meant and that he understands where the band was, blah, blah, blah... Chris basically laughed and said, I don't even know what that song is about, I was just playing around with lines.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

and we'll have to agree to disagree here. there are clear, conscious singles on AB in the same way that there are on "bomb." AB might be more successful, and i think it is, but i don't think it's at all a more pure album. i just want to warn against any misty-eyed romanticism of the U2 of 20 years ago.

It's not misty eyed romanticism. I think in the end it comes down to what it is you like in music in general, what you get from it, what you look for in it. If what you are getting from it hasn't changed at all, then, essentially, the music hasn't changed at all. However, if what it is you enjoyed so much almost completely ceases to exist now - then yes, the music has changed dramatically for you. It seems really easy for me to articulate it in fluffy ways to people who feel the same, and really hard to explain it in logic to those who genuinely see no difference. It's easy to explain the feeling - or lack of - to people who know it, but really hard to point to anything concrete for those who don't see it and just assume it must be some issue with something minor and concrete, ie sound or image or structure or promotion or some pissed off 90s hipster/cool thing (sorry Brau and U2girl, but it's just not, no matter how much you desperately want it to be). The feeling though is this: It's the first wave of new U2 songs that wash right over you without leaving a single trace of anything behind.

So whatever *that* was that used to drench me, it's not on this album. What it is that I adore about pretty much the entire U2 back catalogue, from Out of Control to Like A Song to Promenade to Desire to Acrobat to Lemon to Staring at the Sun to Stateless, is simply not to be found at all on Atomic Bomb and these threads just prove that endless debating of where you find your 'concrete' evidence of that is pretty much pointless, because it's like describing the apple someone else is holding as an orange, and someone else describing the orange I am holding as an apple. Or more to the point, to me, All I Want is You and Mofo have more in common to me than One and Sometimes You Can't Make it On Your Own.

 

[U2girl]

Once again, they always wanted to make popular music. I have always said this. They have now become so good at it, though, I feel some of the magic and ambiguity of U2 has been left in the studio. The hit singles used to be merely windows to their albums, an avenue for the general public to get intrigued and then later rewarded by the dense forests within the records....Now, all the tracks are windows to each other. Makes for a less dimensional experience, at least for me. I love the new stuff. Songs like 'In a Little While', 'Wild Honey' and 'Kite' warm my soul. Songs like 'Vertigo' are catchy, yes. I guess I miss the mystery and bewilderment at times, and the pure surrender.

Maybe there is "less" magic (I say "less" because I think a lot of fans get plenty out of certain songs on the last two albums, just as they got plenty out of certain songs in the 80's and 90's) because the band got better at writing, ie their craft, better at getting the sounds in their heads on tape ?

Their usual way of operating was, according to Bono, going to the studio and basically have no idea what to do. Now, says Adam (their last two albums), "Edge tends to do his homework and brings chords and more structured song ideas". Know what I mean ? That may have caused the band to sound more craft-y and more singles-based. The last real album they made was AB, anyway.

That said, who knows how much work went into something like WOWY or One ? (on the JT DVD, they say Streets probably took something like half of recording the entire album). Would WOWY be worth any less if you knew it took 100 takes to get it right ?

It's great when something like I still haven't found... comes your way in the studio, and you get inspired and write a great song, but hands down, how often will you get that lucky ?

I also don't see why it always has to be this 80's vs 90's vs 00's competition. Is it that hard to believe someone likes UTEOTW or RTSS and something like COBL without overly analyzing it ?
I do believe that the things you like about the band can influence your opinion on their music at any given time. If you really enjoy what they stood for in the 90's (I say 90's because it's much talked about and a lot of fans came on board in that time), I can see why you might have problems with the last two albums, musically and lyrically.
There is also the issue of the band changing personally, they couldn't be writing about things they did in the 80's or 90's now and they'll probably be writing about other things in the next decade. As for intentions and places the songs come from...none of us are flies on the wall in the studio so it's pointless to speculate "they were about art before but they're all about cash now", especially on what was probably their most emotional record since AB.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I love how fans act as if they know where the songs are coming from...

It reminds me of this radio interview I heard of Chris Cornell years ago. This DJ came out and had this huge theory as to what Black Hole Sun meant and that he understands where the band was, blah, blah, blah... Chris basically laughed and said, I don't even know what that song is about, I was just playing around with lines.

I love it, too. It's ironic how 'One' is the most played U2 song at weddings...

The difference is, I actually read how the band feels about the songs, and where they came from, where the DJ you are writing about obviously hadn't heard anything from Chris Cornell...

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Maybe there is "less" magic (I say "less" because I think a lot of fans get plenty out of certain songs on the last two albums, just as they got plenty out of certain songs in the 80's and 90's) because the band got better at writing, ie their craft, better at getting the sounds in their heads on tape ?

Their usual way of operating was, according to Bono, going to the studio and basically have no idea what to do. Now, says Adam (their last two albums), "Edge tends to do his homework and brings chords and more structured song ideas". Know what I mean ? That may have caused the band to sound more craft-y and more singles-based. The last real album they made was AB, anyway.

That said, who knows how much work went into something like WOWY or One ? (on the JT DVD, they say Streets probably took something like half of recording the entire album). Would WOWY be worth any less if you knew it took 100 takes to get it right ?

It's great when something like I still haven't found... comes your way in the studio, and you get inspired and write a great song, but hands down, how often will you get that lucky ?

I also don't see why it always has to be this 80's vs 90's vs 00's competition. Is it that hard to believe someone likes UTEOTW or RTSS and something like COBL without overly analyzing it ?
I do believe that the things you like about the band can influence your opinion on their music at any given time. If you really enjoy what they stood for in the 90's (I say 90's because it's much talked about and a lot of fans came on board in that time), I can see why you might have problems with the last two albums, musically and lyrically.
There is also the issue of the band changing personally, they couldn't be writing about things they did in the 80's or 90's now and they'll probably be writing about other things in the next decade. As for intentions and places the songs come from...none of us are flies on the wall in the studio so it's pointless to speculate "they were about art before but they're all about cash now", especially on what was probably their most emotional record since AB.

I'm not sure if your post was directed at me at all, or as a general reaction to other posts, but if it was at me... I have no conception of this 80s vs 90s vs 2000s thing, either. To me the album Pop has far more in common with their 2000s albums than AB or Zooropa. As for the "art vs cash" thing, also a separate issue from anything I was discussing.

As far as how long it takes to record a song (like 'Streets' for example), I really don't think it should matter. It's how the song was born, the inspiration that brought it into being. If that magic is there, and isn't sliced and diced in the production process, than take 10 years and make it even better if that's what it needs.