Steve Lillywhite On U2's 'No Line'

[Canadiens1131]

Typical Interference.

~

"Steve Lillywhite is really starting to stick out on the recent albums and be irritating."

So you must HATE BOY, OCTOBER, AND WAR.

There would be no U2 HITS WITHOUT STEVE LILLYWHITE!

If you don't like U2 than DON'T POST HERE!!!

~

I still love you guys, though

 

[Salome]

as Boy, October and War were released in the 80s they aren't even considered to be 'true U2' albums on Interference

I don't love you guys

 

[Canadiens1131]

I don't love you guys

Actually, neither do I, come to think of it.

 

[LemonMelon]

He produced Boy and The La's debut. I can't hate the man. But his contributions to NLOTH do stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[Salome]

I don't think Crazy tonight stands out at all production wise
the song is like some sunlight after the opening 4 and the production follows it
I love this song though, which is what I think makes the biggest difference to people who for some reason claim Lillywhite is a shite producer nowadays

Breathe sounds great
cello and guitar interplay, drum intro
no complaints on my part
again, production suits song

Stand up comedy
not a favourite, but I think it sounds very good
fair enough if you have a problem with the song,
but I don't remember Steve writing that one

 

[rihannsu]

The way you all are talking I begin to wonder if the band does any fucking thing at all. When something sucks you blame the producers but when it works you think the band is great. Heads up people, the band make the final decisions. Lillywhite had a policy of not doing more than two albums with a band. U2 insisted he come back for War because they couldn't find anyone else they liked at the time. They tried out several people but didn't click with them. Since then the band has called him in on EVERY album at some point, even if it is just a listen. Yes, he's what you would call a hit maker. But that's one reason they get his opinion. They want that perspective to balance out the experimental side. Eno and Lanois didn't make the decision to go in the more experimental direction, the band felt that the music they were trying to make at that point was more atmospheric so they chased after Eno until they convinced him to work with them. Lanois was an add on because Eno orginally planned to dump U2 off on him. Lillywhite's approach and vision is pretty much the opposite of Eno's but having both perspectives gives the band more options. I think too much blame is being attached to the production teams when it is well known that U2 are nobody's pushovers. The final decisions are theirs all the way through. More than any other band in the business they take full responsibility for all the decisions. It's not like they haven't tried working with other producers but I really think nobody else quite knows what to make of U2 in the studio. These back and forth arguements about the producers all end up sounding as if all the decisions and creativity is theirs and not the band's.

Dana

 

[ozeeko]

The way you all are talking I begin to wonder if the band does any fucking thing at all. When something sucks you blame the producers but when it works you think the band is great. Heads up people, the band make the final decisions. Lillywhite had a policy of not doing more than two albums with a band. U2 insisted he come back for War because they couldn't find anyone else they liked at the time. They tried out several people but didn't click with them. Since then the band has called him in on EVERY album at some point, even if it is just a listen. Yes, he's what you would call a hit maker. But that's one reason they get his opinion. They want that perspective to balance out the experimental side. Eno and Lanois didn't make the decision to go in the more experimental direction, the band felt that the music they were trying to make at that point was more atmospheric so they chased after Eno until they convinced him to work with them. Lanois was an add on because Eno orginally planned to dump U2 off on him. Lillywhite's approach and vision is pretty much the opposite of Eno's but having both perspectives gives the band more options. I think too much blame is being attached to the production teams when it is well known that U2 are nobody's pushovers. The final decisions are theirs all the way through. More than any other band in the business they take full responsibility for all the decisions. It's not like they haven't tried working with other producers but I really think nobody else quite knows what to make of U2 in the studio. These back and forth arguements about the producers all end up sounding as if all the decisions and creativity is theirs and not the band's.

Dana

We're not blaming Lillywhite for everything! We're just saying we don't like the results of when U2 works with him lately. That's all! He did great stuff in the past, doesn't seem to be working as well these days. It's our opinions. I think the time has come they should sever ties with the man as a producer, and seek other creative minds.

 

[Fullonedge3]

The way you all are talking I begin to wonder if the band does any fucking thing at all. When something sucks you blame the producers but when it works you think the band is great. Heads up people, the band make the final decisions. Lillywhite had a policy of not doing more than two albums with a band. U2 insisted he come back for War because they couldn't find anyone else they liked at the time. They tried out several people but didn't click with them. Since then the band has called him in on EVERY album at some point, even if it is just a listen. Yes, he's what you would call a hit maker. But that's one reason they get his opinion. They want that perspective to balance out the experimental side. Eno and Lanois didn't make the decision to go in the more experimental direction, the band felt that the music they were trying to make at that point was more atmospheric so they chased after Eno until they convinced him to work with them. Lanois was an add on because Eno orginally planned to dump U2 off on him. Lillywhite's approach and vision is pretty much the opposite of Eno's but having both perspectives gives the band more options. I think too much blame is being attached to the production teams when it is well known that U2 are nobody's pushovers. The final decisions are theirs all the way through. More than any other band in the business they take full responsibility for all the decisions. It's not like they haven't tried working with other producers but I really think nobody else quite knows what to make of U2 in the studio. These back and forth arguements about the producers all end up sounding as if all the decisions and creativity is theirs and not the band's.

Dana

Like Ozeeko has pretty much said, I think you're missing the point here. Of course the band has the final say with any song mix, but I think the band has become too reliant on Lillywhite as a crutch. It's like they make some great songs, get cold feet, and bring in good ol' Lillywhite to make sure the songs are catchy enough. Yes, ultimately it's U2's fault for putting so much faith in the guy, but what we're saying is U2 should trust their first instincts and learn to know when their old producer is harming rather than helping a song.

 

[rihannsu]

Like Ozeeko has pretty much said, I think you're missing the point here. Of course the band has the final say with any song mix, but I think the band has become too reliant on Lillywhite as a crutch. It's like they make some great songs, get cold feet, and bring in good ol' Lillywhite to make sure the songs are catchy enough. Yes, ultimately it's U2's fault for putting so much faith in the guy, but what we're saying is U2 should trust their first instincts and learn to know when their old producer is harming rather than helping a song.

I think you are missing my point. It's not that the band is getting cold feet, it is that the band wants to be somewhat experimental but they don't want to loose accessability so they are trying to balance the two. Most of the complaints seem to be that it is the Lillywhite's fault that the band isn't experimental enough, but I'm saying that U2 doesn't want to go that far out on a limb. There are quite a few folks calling for the band to really go all out with the experimental shit and what they don't seem to understand is that that approach is not what the band is or ever has been about.

These discussions also seem not to be taking into account the undeniable fact that their age is a factor in what the public will accept. If they had stayed with their original vision for the album they might well have created a better piece of work artistically but the world at large would have most likely turned a blind eye toward it. They might have been the darlings of the underground (though I seriously doubt it because they just aren't "out there enough") but they would have lost the very audience that they have always been directed towards. People complain about the band's so called "revisionist history" but folks here are just as revisionist when they try to make U2 into some little cult band and stuff them into some little experimental rock box. I find it kind of sad that after 30 plus years of trying to get people to stop building walls that some hardcore U2 fans are still not willing to let the band out of the box they've insisted on cramming them in. Most of these arguements have more to do with that fact that U2 isn't doing what the particular fan wants rather than what is truly good or bad.

Dana

 

[Salome]

If they had stayed with their original vision for the album they might well have created a better piece of work artistically but the world at large would have most likely turned a blind eye toward it. They might have been the darlings of the underground (though I seriously doubt it because they just aren't "out there enough") but they would have lost the very audience that they have always been directed towards.

I think this is the main thing
U2 wants to balance the experimental with the commercial because THAT's what they're good at
they make a mediocre experimental band at best and a weird band to have storming the charts given what else is commercially successful, but they are (arguably) the best at creating some sort of bridge between these 2
this is the band's DNA
they are not about being a study of art through music or about how to create a hit in 3 easy steps
they are about connecting to as many people possible in the most meaningful way
it's what they do best

I find it kind of sad that after 30 plus years of trying to get people to stop building walls that some hardcore U2 fans are still not willing to let the band out of the box they've insisted on cramming them in. Most of these arguements have more to do with that fact that U2 isn't doing what the particular fan wants rather than what is truly good or bad.

bingo

 

[U2girl]

I don't think Crazy tonight stands out at all production wise
the song is like some sunlight after the opening 4 and the production follows it
I love this song though, which is what I think makes the biggest difference to people who for some reason claim Lillywhite is a shite producer nowadays

Breathe sounds great
cello and guitar interplay, drum intro
no complaints on my part
again, production suits song

Stand up comedy
not a favourite, but I think it sounds very good
fair enough if you have a problem with the song,
but I don't remember Steve writing that one

I guess Eno/Lanois (btw, thanks for keeping Boots on the album, Eno) take no crap for Breathe, only Lillywhite ? They were producing that one too.

 

[corcovadosong]

I have to agree with rihannsu, although for different reasons.

I might not like Lilywhite's songs, and I might generally consider Steve Lilywhite's production as anathema to all things innovative and exploratory in the last ten or fifteen years. But U2 made the choice here.

U2, the band that gave you War, JT, AB, and your other favorite albums, sabatoged their own album. I wouldn't have liked a big poppy album, but I would have understood it as something they're doing now. I would have loved a consistent, album length work of some sonic innovation. But they started with the latter then tried to cram the former in the middle. They thought the album could stand on it's own even after they broke one of it's legs.

The real issue of concern for me is: is U2 capable of making these kinds of greater-vision/aesthetic-goal choices anymore? Because the last three albums (and three is an awful lot guys) would have me very much say no. Did the band take all that criticism of Pop to heart? It's painful to think, even though I genuinely love a lot of NLOTH, that this band is probably not going to give me that album-length experience again. Good songs, but without the unified, cohesive aesthetic statement.

 

[Fullonedge3]

I think you are missing my point. It's not that the band is getting cold feet, it is that the band wants to be somewhat experimental but they don't want to loose accessability so they are trying to balance the two. Most of the complaints seem to be that it is the Lillywhite's fault that the band isn't experimental enough, but I'm saying that U2 doesn't want to go that far out on a limb. There are quite a few folks calling for the band to really go all out with the experimental shit and what they don't seem to understand is that that approach is not what the band is or ever has been about.

These discussions also seem not to be taking into account the undeniable fact that their age is a factor in what the public will accept. If they had stayed with their original vision for the album they might well have created a better piece of work artistically but the world at large would have most likely turned a blind eye toward it. They might have been the darlings of the underground (though I seriously doubt it because they just aren't "out there enough") but they would have lost the very audience that they have always been directed towards. People complain about the band's so called "revisionist history" but folks here are just as revisionist when they try to make U2 into some little cult band and stuff them into some little experimental rock box. I find it kind of sad that after 30 plus years of trying to get people to stop building walls that some hardcore U2 fans are still not willing to let the band out of the box they've insisted on cramming them in. Most of these arguements have more to do with that fact that U2 isn't doing what the particular fan wants rather than what is truly good or bad.

Dana

I think you're still missing my point. I'm not saying it's Lillywhite's fault the band isn't "experimental" these days. Except for Passengers, U2 isn't an "experimental" band. But tell me that you don't notice a general difference between the Lillywhite songs and the Eno/Lanois songs on NLOTH. I wouldn't call the Eno/Lanois songs "experimental" anyways, but they contain the flavor that I think NLOTH was meant to have. And yes, as I said before, ultimately it's the band's fault for trying to straddle two different worlds. Maybe it has more to do withe the mixing though, because to my ears there are three specific songs on this album where the sound quality (NOTE: not song quality) takes a nosedive: Crazy Tonight, SUC, and Breathe. And guess what? Lillywhite is credited with producing and mixing Crazy Tonight, mixing and additional production on SUC, and both producing and mixing Breathe. If you remember from the interviews, U2 re-recorded Breathe late in the process, and I'm guessing that's why Lillywhite, not Eno or Lanois, is credited as the primary producer.

By no means am I saying I hate the guy. All I'm saying is there's an obvious difference between U2's music Lillywhite works on these days, and the music other producers work on. And I think U2 would be better served by looking to other producers.

 

[lazarus]

The real issue of concern for me is: is U2 capable of making these kinds of greater-vision/aesthetic-goal choices anymore? Because the last three albums (and three is an awful lot guys) would have me very much say no. Did the band take all that criticism of Pop to heart? It's painful to think, even though I genuinely love a lot of NLOTH, that this band is probably not going to give me that album-length experience again. Good songs, but without the unified, cohesive aesthetic statement.

I feel the same way.

The stuff Lillywhite did for No Line isn't necessarily "bad", but it just doesn't fit. They take four songs to set up a very interesting vibe, and then it all goes out the window for a few tracks. Breathe slightly derails it again, but the song is so good I can't complain as much.

The follow up album is really going to tell us a lot about what could have been, so it's hard to fully pass judgement yet. But as I've said before, I really do feel there was something much greater to be made from the available recordings.

 

[catlhere]

In that Bono interview on EYKIW's board he says the desire (for the band or album, not sure) was to push themselves experimentally and keep the core essence of U2. They're not going to be 100% innovative ever. They're never going to go all they way outside their comfort zone. So all the people waiting for that just need to suck it up and deal. U2 isn't that band. They WANT songs like Crazy Tonight on their albums alongside FEZ. If Bono felt like the three tier beginning/middle/end approach to NLOTH worked great, then that's his business. If it's not what someone wanted them to do personally, then that's just too bad. But it's silly to claim things like "it could have been so much more!" or point the finger of blame at someone when it all just comes down to ones own personal preference in music.

 

[lazarus]

You know what, this isn't one person's opinion. There's a lot of people who all see the same trouble spots.

"Suck it up and deal"? You are entitled to have your opinion. If you think the structure and song choices work, so be it. You said it yourself that people have their own personal preference in music. Go hang out in the appreciation threads if you don't want to hear criticism.

Personally, I could care less what the band WANTS. They are artists. They create something, and put it out there for the audience to listen to, interpret, and determine for themselves how the music affects them.

In this instance, we know that a more conceptual version of the album was in the works, and it was abandoned because Bono felt it was too proggy, too artsy, not mainstream enough, whatever. And it's perfectly fair to examine the choices an artist makes, especially when as they get older and start to second guess themselves. I don't see what's so silly about it at all.

 

[Salome]

what's silly is to pretend that we know the album would be better with the 3 Lillywhite songs replaced as we don't know what they'd be replaced with and as we don't know whether it would have been to be too much of the same and end end up being boring

it's too hypothetical for my liking and it takes away from just taking the album as it is and appreciate that

 

[U2girl]

One of the songs was probably Winter - and thanks U2 for not listening to Eno on that one.

 

[lazarus]

what's silly is to pretend that we know the album would be better with the 3 Lillywhite songs replaced as we don't know what they'd be replaced with and as we don't know whether it would have been to be too much of the same and end end up being boring

it's too hypothetical for my liking and it takes away from just taking the album as it is and appreciate that

I'm not trying to make some kind of absolute statement on the subject. Until we hear the material (and since Winter is "unfinished" it's not fair to pass judgement on that song either) we can't know for sure. What we do know is that these songs weren't put aside for reasons of quality. It was because they wanted the album to have more accessibility.

And sure, those other songs may have sounded similar to the others. Hell, I think Ultraviolet comes off a bit musically redundant by the time you get that far into AB. But the album still all sounds all of one piece, and this one doesn't.

Also, the quote from the interview about wanting to be experimental and still having the core of U2, I don't see what that has to do with Stand Up Comedy and Crazy Tonight being on the album. The other songs don't have that core? Bono himself gives Magnificent as an example of "crystalized Edge". The former is something that was worked over to death, and the latter included for commercial reasons. I don't know how the inclusion of either of those makes the album somehow "more U2".

 

[U2girl]

From the interview thread: "The album started out effortlessly in Fez (where they are currently), and ended on a high - but the middle period was difficult and they "lost their way". Larry in particular was saying "we don't have to put out an album"... the difficulty came when a deadline came.

Two desires: 1) completely ourselves and get to the essence of U2 and 2) be completely experimental. The album has both sides."

Sounds to me a bit like Pop where they had the straighforward guitar songs, experimental songs and the dance songs - albeit with better results this time IMO. I don't see the "let's make $ so bring in Crazy tonight" attitude in that second paragraph, especially with some of Bono's other comments considered.

 

[rihannsu]

I feel the same way.

The stuff Lillywhite did for No Line isn't necessarily "bad", but it just doesn't fit. They take four songs to set up a very interesting vibe, and then it all goes out the window for a few tracks. Breathe slightly derails it again, but the song is so good I can't complain as much.

The follow up album is really going to tell us a lot about what could have been, so it's hard to fully pass judgement yet. But as I've said before, I really do feel there was something much greater to be made from the available recordings.

But not everyone thinks that the album lacks cohesion. I love it as it is and listen to it beginning to end without skipping anything and I feel it flows perfectly and all the songs make sense where they are in the order. I don't even like to be interrupted in listening to it because to me the songs belong together. The reviews are mixed as well. There are just as many saying the album is a true cohesive album as there are people saying it doesn't work. So the balancing act may not have worked in your case but that doesn't automatically mean it was a failure because it has worked for a lot of people. In a way the album is closer to the type of emotional journey the concerts take you on in that it has three different sections that take you through different moods or emotions.

Whether they could have done something greater is kind of subjective too, because what some would consider greater or better wouldn't necessarily accomplish what they want to accomplish. I think that too many forget that the band has a definite purpose in mind other than simply producing something to listen to. Their goal has always been to communicate, to open hearts and minds. That is their main focus and will always take precedence over any musical aspects. It's one of the reasons that I don't really think of them as musicians because actually the music is just a vehicle for what they are trying to get across. Sometimes reading all these threads disecting the music I just get the feeling that in all the over analysis the true beauty and essence of U2 is lost. I often think that the sort of non-musical types like me get something entirely different from the band and wonder whether the muso types ever get the same things that I do. I'm sorry but maybe I'm just not cut out for these discussions.

Dana

 

[corcovadosong]

There's the core of U2: a song like Magnificent would be one - a big epic song, chiming guitars, lyrics about God - but lest we forget, there's a lot of depth there, a suffusion of mystery. It's big, but it's not necessarily easy. Streets is enormous, but I don't know many people who'd say it's easy (in the creative sense, not the musical facility sense). Streets has an air of mystery to it, so does WOWY. You can still sing along to it, but it's not blindingly obvious.

And then there's "New Classic" U2. U2 as present in the songwriting, but only exercising their songwriting chops for accessibility. Crazy Tonight is NOT a "classic U2" song, and it's not an example of accessible U2. It is a Top 40 Radio song, and that's it. That's not to demean it or say it's not good. But it has one job, only one - to be catchy while making sacks of cash. Magnificent actually has some enjoyment, some mystery, and is a really really interesting song, from the intro to all the things going on in the background.

U2 realized, it seems, during ATYCLB that they could write an easy Rock Radio song like nobody's business. Walk On is a lovely song, however it is not a classic U2 back-to-basics, four-guys-in-a-room song, as much as they'd like us to think it is. The argument can be made (and I'd probably support it) that 00's U2, with some exceptions, is a new artistic movement on the band's part, a movement towards dominating the music market and being as accessible and ubiquitous as possible. That's fine, even if I may be opposed. But SUC and Crazy Tonight, and the majority of HTDAAB are not "returns to form." At best, they're U2 consolidating their songwriting strengths. At worst, they're blatant stabs at easy, conventional pop songs with little sonic innovation or depth.

if "it's not a hill, it's a mountain" is even close to the best Bono can muster, then I'm the queen of england.

 

[corcovadosong]

In a way the album is closer to the type of emotional journey the concerts take you on in that it has three different sections that take you through different moods or emotions.

Whether they could have done something greater is kind of subjective too, because what some would consider greater or better wouldn't necessarily accomplish what they want to accomplish. I think that too many forget that the band has a definite purpose in mind other than simply producing something to listen to. Their goal has always been to communicate, to open hearts and minds. That is their main focus and will always take precedence over any musical aspects.

A couple of things:

1. I think the real argument here, that's being debated, is whether or not it's good as an album. An album can have an emotional journey, but the songs can be uncohesive (sp?) or not fit together right. I think CT is a really well performed and written song. Good songs do not a good album make. Ideally, all the songs are great as well, but CT and SUC (for me) compromise the mood of the album. I would gladly listen to the song on the radio. But when I pop in NLOTH, I will skip those songs every time. Because that's where the reinvention falls flat. We can argue whether the album format is best anymore - a good argument to have - but they put out an album, so that's what we judge it against, right?

2. I would love to know the consistent emotional journey you see on this album. Because just talking about love and struggle doesn't make it an emotional journey for me, it needs to be told in a moving and compelling way, and part of that is showing it to me in a way I haven't heard before. If every romance movie that came out was a near shot-for-shot remake of Gone with the Wind (likely a bad example, but go along with it), I'd be bored as hell. I don't think, in terms of an emotional journey, that NLOTH pulls it off. Because there is real depth and complication of emotion, up until track five, where it's all happy-go-lucky YEAH! sentiment. That DESTROYS the journey in a significant way. Once again, see WOWY - seems like it's about love, not really a love song. At best a longing song, but even that is complicated. "I can't live, with or without you," says something, whereas "I know I'll go crazy if I don't go crazy tongiht!!!!" says close to nothing.

3. I don't think U2 is ignorant / doesn't care about musical innovation. You can say its subservient to the meaning, but the music is the vehicle for that meaning, and the band knows that. There was a lot of shit in AB that if played like The Joshua Tree would have felt redundant. However, they had the music, the sonics, to make a case for it. Also, I don't know how a band who breaks their money-getting, people-reaching formula (getting successful with War and Lilywhite, then stopping that and making a comtemplative, oddity little album with Eno and Lanois;; also see chopping down the joshua tree) to avowedly experiment and create fascinating music can be considered to put new-agey, "opening hearts and minds" kinds of concerns over the music. Because FEZ-BB puts the music first, the mood, the style and aesthetics, and I'll be goddamned ifthat doesn't hit me 1000% harder in the heart than CT.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

One of the songs was probably Winter - and thanks U2 for not listening to Eno on that one.

Maybe, except it sounds like the version we have is not what they finished with. The recent description from Rolling Stone sounds like a very different song - or at least a significantly tweaked version. What is on Linear is likely where they were at with it last summer, not what was ditched in December.

 

[Irishteen]

The only song I think is even a little out of place on the album is Boots, plus the fact that the middle three are the weakest songs on the album. However Breathe is too awesome to complain about

 

[quiv]

So what? Yeah, he was instrumental in crafting the band's early sound. They changed gears (several times), and his work often doesn't rise to the occasion any more.

I don't know what celebrating his contributions from 20 years ago has anything to do with this. Also, he only mixed WOWY (and Streets), and had NOTHING to do with the recording of Pride, so, uhh...you're wrong anyway.

Normally, a producer has the final say. Not so with U2. He says it himself. Like it or not everything they do is up to them.

Blame U2 if you don't like what they're doing. They are releasing what they want to. It comes down to choice as far as fans. It's like any relationship: You have to recognize when it's time to let go.

They aren't ever going to listen to fans. Who would respect them if they did?

Listening to fan expectations to determine how they move forward as artists?

Like them or don't like them. That is the bottom line.

Of course it's great to share opinions for those of us who have the commodity of time to do so.

Nobody forced them to use Lillywhite. He's not the blame.

Your expectations are.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I don't listen to the middle three songs at all anymore

 

[Salome]

emotional journey you see on this album. Because just talking about love and struggle doesn't make it an emotional journey for me, it needs to be told in a moving and compelling way, and part of that is showing it to me in a way I haven't heard before. If every romance movie that came out was a near shot-for-shot remake of Gone with the Wind (likely a bad example, but go along with it), I'd be bored as hell. I don't think, in terms of an emotional journey, that NLOTH pulls it off. Because there is real depth and complication of emotion, up until track five, where it's all happy-go-lucky YEAH! sentiment. That DESTROYS the journey in a significant way.

actually to me it's a journey exactly because it gets out of the darkness and dawn of Moment of Surrender & Unknown Caller into the light of Crazy tonight before being we go back into more serious issues again
rehashing the same mood isnt a journey, it is rehashing
to me that is

I don't think anyone who doesn't recognize the journey of this album and reckons "cohesion" is as 1-dimensional as being a single mood (lyrically, musically and production wise) will never ever enjoy this album fully

 

[lazarus]

So basically, they could have put any song in the #5 slot and you'd find some way to defend it. If it were something as deep as 1-4, you'd argue for the consistency. But this way you can say "the contrast is part of the journey". You can't lose. This is a load of crap to me.

I am not one of those people who gets off on bashing the albums this decade. There isn't one song on any of these last three albums that I dislike--I would rather have seen some of them as b-sides, but there isn't ANYTHING I skip over. Yet the way people bend over backwards to defend every artistic decision the band makes is really quite sad. If we can't see what they're up to, then we just don't "get it".

You say that the people who have issues with the lack of cohesion "will never enjoy this album fully". I could say the same thing about sycophants who are so blind to anything resembling a misstep; if you can never recognize something that doesn't work, you'll never understand the value of a true masterpiece.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I do too. That makes you and me one of the dozen fans who actually like it.

I also love Peter Gabriel's album called 'Security' in the U.S. (LP3?)
Which, if memory serves was produced by Lillywhite.

Doesn't mean that the guy isn't a capable producer or that he's 'beyond' capturing some great stuff, it's that... at this point and time in U2's career, he doesn't bring the best out in them.

He'd rather U2 go for the obvious and I would rather U2 not.
Some people are good at that sort of thing and I think he is.
Why else would U2 bring him in as a 'closer' over Eno and Lanois?

I also love The Refugee and pretty much everything else you've said here.