They're working on new songs!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zootlesque said:


You start a thread like that in B&C, that too when the Stadium Arcadium craze has not even waned, of course you're gonna get slammed. lol


I know...it's happening with my "REM have been irrelevant since the mid-90s" comment, too. Next will be a similar comment on Pearl Jam....:wink: Don't worry..I won't touch Radiohead, Wilco or Muse for now. :wink:
 
Utoo said:


if by "suck" you mean "kick"....:wink:

Do I need to type out some lyrics here? Second grade quality,

do I need to type some HTDAAB lyrics:wink:

intellectual tortoise :lol:

now Anthony is not the greatest singer or the greatest songwriter....but I don't listen to their music for their lyrics..:shrug:

when you got John and Flea on board lyrics don't mean much

at leat IMO bitches:p
 
A lot of RHCP's lyrics are not very good I agree. The music is my #1 appeal with them, without a question. Actually the lyrics used to be a lot worse OHM, BSSM and before, at least in my opinion. With Californication, they greatly improved in the lyrics dept I think.
 
Utoo said:
I know...it's happening with my "REM have been irrelevant since the mid-90s" comment, too. Next will be a similar comment on Pearl Jam....:wink: Don't worry..I won't touch Radiohead, Wilco or Muse for now. :wink:

You don't like RHCP, REM, Pearl Jam, Radiohead or Muse? :|




:wink:
 
xaviMF22 said:
but I don't listen to their music for their lyrics..:shrug:

Exactly! Same here! The thing that caught my attention with RHCP was mainly the crazy acrobatic bass of Flea and that Frusciante guitar (Scar Tissue) :drool: Under The Bridge was probably my first Chilis song and the bass was awesome even in a slow song like that one!

Whereas with U2, I've always liked the lyrics as much as the music! Bono used to write sheer poetry, esp. in the 80s! Now it is soooo direct and elementary. And the un-exciting guitar, the elusive bass or the standard drum beat don't help in any way. It's not terrible, just mediocre... IMO.
 
Zootlesque said:


You don't like RHCP, REM, Pearl Jam, Radiohead or Muse? :|




:wink:


:lol: No, no. RHCP have had some decent stuff in the past, but haven't had anything new or good in years. Give me an album where they don't talk about California, don't have imbecilic lyrics like "hey oh listen what I say oh," and don't put a stupid cartoonish 1989-style rap in the middle of a 2007 single, and I might give them a nod. REM are good and have made some decent stuff post-New Adventures, but it hasn't been anything more than decent. Pearl Jam, like REM, have made some great stuff and have made some decent stuff post- their prime, but again, only those of us who were in middle school through high school when they were popular in the 90s can say they still like them (or know who they are!). Muse....decent, but I think they're way overblown in B&C. Radiohead---I'm just now getting into them (don't know what took so long), and I like 'em so far....
 
Last edited:
Utoo said:
Pearl Jam, like REM, have made some great stuff and have made some decent stuff post- their prime, but again, only those of us who were in middle school through high school when they were popular in the 90s can say they still like them (or know who they are!).

They're kicking ass though! Who cares if they're low profile or WERE low profile? (up until the last self titled album showed up) I love pretty much all of their albums and if they don't have a worldwide following like U2 does, then so be it. People are missing out on some great music, in my opinion.
 
Zootlesque said:

People are missing out on some great music, in my opinion.


I agree....I'm just saying they're in the same camp as REM in the "irrelevant" argument...though I'd say a bit less so. I don't think that buzz is always important, but I do think that if the majority of a band's fanbase are a small proportion of leftover diehards and very few new fans at all, it must lead one to question the "universality" of the music that band has recently been making. Universality, I'd say, is what has made great bands great.
 
Utoo said:
I agree....I'm just saying they're in the same camp as REM in the "irrelevant" argument...though I'd say a bit less so. I don't think that buzz is always important, but I do think that if the majority of a band's fanbase are a small proportion of leftover diehards and very few new fans at all, it must lead one to question the "universality" of the music that band has recently been making. Universality, I'd say, is what has made great bands great.

I really don't think Pearl Jam's fan base is "a small proportion of leftover diehards". Maybe with their previous album Riot Act, it was closer to being true. But the last one (self titled) was almost like they got back to the mainstream. The album was talked about everywhere, throughout 2006. They had an awesome sold out tour in the summer. Sometimes when I wore my PJ concert tshirt, strangers would come to me and ask me where I saw them.. and that they're interested in seeing them etc. They obviously did not become as huge as U2 but I think they're definitely considered one of the premier established rock bands right now.

As for "Universality", it is SO subjective. A band like U2 or The Beatles may think that factor is important. But clearly bands like Pearl Jam or Radiohead don't care if their music doesn't reach or appeal to EVERYONE. Otherwise Radiohead would have stayed mainstream after Ok Computer and Pearl Jam would have made lots of videos for MTV. They didn't and that doesn't make their music any way inferior. "Universality" may have brought bands like U2 success with something as widely appealing as The Joshua Tree or ATYCLB but it has also made them compromise on their spontaneous instincts as they now have to try to please everyone or at least think a 100 times before incorporating something like a different time signature or a song that's too long for the radio.
 
xaviMF22 said:


now Anthony is not the greatest singer or the greatest songwriter....but I don't listen to their music for their lyrics..:shrug:

when you got John and Flea on board lyrics don't mean much

at leat IMO bitches:p

:lol: Love RHCP fans moaning about lyrics...and universiality does have some part in great bands. It helps but it's nothing if bands don't make great music.

A band is NOT inferior because they promote themselves and U2 and Pearl Jam/Radiohead are really apples and oranges in so many ways, it's not a fair comparison.
We only get more insight into what gets changed/skipped on U2 albums more due to internet, they altered their decisions before too. (deliberatly laying off guitar songs and skipping In cold blood on Zooropa) They didn't start using 4/4 or radio edits for singles in 2000, either. And I think last two albums had songs longer than 3,5/4 minutes.
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
They didn't start using 4/4 or radio edits for singles in 2000, either. And I think last two albums had songs longer than 3,5/4 minutes.

Okay, fine. Maybe those 2 were bad examples. I'm just saying it seems they're having a hard time these days being totally spontaneous like a true artist. Everything on the last 2 albums sounds carefully calculated to please the maximum number of people possible. By spontaneous I mean something out of the ordinary like say, the bizarre Elvis Presley & America or a short strumalicious (yes I just made up that word :drool: )interlude like The Ocean or most of the insane Zooropa or certain songs on Pop like Velvet Dress that sound nothing like a U2 staple. Promenade is another good example. I highly doubt they felt safe releasing these songs to the public. It was a gamble and I'm sure it must have been exciting for them.

Pan to the 00s and you find Beautiful Day, Elevation, Stuck, Walk On, Kite, IALW etc. and Vertigo, COBL, ABOY, Sometimes, LAPOE, OOTS etc. etc. To me, the difference is night and day! They're not taking chances any more with their music. I'm not the least bit surprised that these 2 albums were so popular all over the world and especially in the US. It is because the songs have a universal appeal. Anyone can relate to them. Unlike say Elvis Presley & America. But don't you guys miss the purely artistic side of U2 as opposed to the universally appealing side???

One more thing... in 2000, Radiohead released this song Treefingers on Kid A. The song is nothing but 3-1/2 minutes of synthesizer atmospherics as some of you may know. That's spontaneous, and it's perfect too at that point in the album. And before you say, "but please, you can't compare the wacky Radiohead with U2!!!", flashback to 1995. U2 WERE Radiohead with Passengers and a track very similar to Treefingers... Viva Davidoff. I rest my case.
 
I fail to see how being spontaneous automatically makes something great. I'm not a fan of songs like Treefingers or Viva Davidoff either, they're pretty uninteresting.
 
topplehatU2 said:
I fail to see how being spontaneous automatically makes something great.

I didn't say that. But to me, spontaneity makes things more interesting. In the past they have had a happy balance of crowd pleasers like Streets, Pride, WOWY, One etc. and spontaneous artistic ramblings like The Ocean, Promenade, EPAA, Edge rap on Numb etc. Sure there were other songs that sounded calculated. But the whole damn album didn't sound calculated like the Bomb does, at least in my opinion. It seems like they have stopped having fun with the music and making it interesting. They seem to be focussed much more on the business side of it now. How widely appealing can we make the music so there is no room for disappointment. As I said before, I don't hate their music now. I just wish it was more... free form, for lack of a better term! :shrug:
 
Zootlesque said:


Exactly! Same here! The thing that caught my attention with RHCP was mainly the crazy acrobatic bass of Flea and that Frusciante guitar (Scar Tissue) :drool: Under The Bridge was probably my first Chilis song and the bass was awesome even in a slow song like that one!

.

John and Flea :up:

The Edge:up:

Adam Clayton :yuck:
 
Zootlesque said:


Okay, fine. Maybe those 2 were bad examples. I'm just saying it seems they're having a hard time these days being totally spontaneous like a true artist. Everything on the last 2 albums sounds carefully calculated to please the maximum number of people possible. By spontaneous I mean something out of the ordinary like say, the bizarre Elvis Presley & America or a short strumalicious (yes I just made up that word :drool: )interlude like The Ocean or most of the insane Zooropa or certain songs on Pop like Velvet Dress that sound nothing like a U2 staple. Promenade is another good example. I highly doubt they felt safe releasing these songs to the public. It was a gamble and I'm sure it must have been exciting for them.

Pan to the 00s and you find Beautiful Day, Elevation, Stuck, Walk On, Kite, IALW etc. and Vertigo, COBL, ABOY, Sometimes, LAPOE, OOTS etc. etc. To me, the difference is night and day! They're not taking chances any more with their music. I'm not the least bit surprised that these 2 albums were so popular all over the world and especially in the US. It is because the songs have a universal appeal. Anyone can relate to them. Unlike say Elvis Presley & America. But don't you guys miss the purely artistic side of U2 as opposed to the universally appealing side???

One more thing... in 2000, Radiohead released this song Treefingers on Kid A. The song is nothing but 3-1/2 minutes of synthesizer atmospherics as some of you may know. That's spontaneous, and it's perfect too at that point in the album. And before you say, "but please, you can't compare the wacky Radiohead with U2!!!", flashback to 1995. U2 WERE Radiohead with Passengers and a track very similar to Treefingers... Viva Davidoff. I rest my case.


I think you're using the word "spontaneous" incorrectly. Examples from google:

-- happening or arising without apparent external cause; "spontaneous laughter"; "spontaneous combustion"; "a spontaneous abortion"

--ad-lib: said or done without having been planned or written in advance; "he made a few ad-lib remarks"

"Spontaneous" music would thus be music that came about spur-of-the-moment, without much thought..sort of on a whim. Some of the examples you mentioned in U2's catalog may have come about in such a fashion, but knowing Edge, I highly doubt it. I do agree that Bomb sounds over-produced and overworked...thus maybe making you feel that it's not "spontaneous." However, the great vast majority of U2's catalog is far from spontaneous.

I think you're taking the feeling that Bomb is overproduced & overworked and combining it with your feeling that many of the songs are similar to their previous catalog....combined with an apparent appreciation for what I'd term "random" or "non-mainstream" music...and then misapplying the notion of spontaneity to it all.

For example, Fast Cars by your definition would be called spontaneous. However, the appearance of Fast Cars at the end of HTDAAB isn't "spontaneous." The decision to add it or withdraw it from the album may be spontaneous. The decision to change its form from Xanax & Wine may be spontaneous. But the crafting of the song itself isn't, having been at least based on a previously established song that took a good deal of work and many versions to get to.

You use the word "free form....for lack of a better term," but I think that is partly more what you're implying. That could fit more with EPAA and Numb when you're comparing them to Miracle Drug...but I highly doubt that these free-form-ish songs really arose spontaneously..but rather with quite a bit of work & effort.

But again, I think what you're really trying to say is that you want the music to be 1) off the beaten path and 2) less overproduced.

If you say "free form," I half agree. If you say "less mainstream more off the beaten path," I 3/4 agree. If you say "less overproduced," I 100% agree. But if you say "spontaneity" has anything to do with anything, I fully disagree! :wink:
 
Last edited:
Zootlesque said:


Okay, fine. Maybe those 2 were bad examples. I'm just saying it seems they're having a hard time these days being totally spontaneous like a true artist. Everything on the last 2 albums sounds carefully calculated to please the maximum number of people possible. By spontaneous I mean something out of the ordinary like say, the bizarre Elvis Presley & America or a short strumalicious (yes I just made up that word :drool: )interlude like The Ocean or most of the insane Zooropa or certain songs on Pop like Velvet Dress that sound nothing like a U2 staple. Promenade is another good example. I highly doubt they felt safe releasing these songs to the public. It was a gamble and I'm sure it must have been exciting for them.

Pan to the 00s and you find Beautiful Day, Elevation, Stuck, Walk On, Kite, IALW etc. and Vertigo, COBL, ABOY, Sometimes, LAPOE, OOTS etc. etc. To me, the difference is night and day! They're not taking chances any more with their music. I'm not the least bit surprised that these 2 albums were so popular all over the world and especially in the US. It is because the songs have a universal appeal. Anyone can relate to them. Unlike say Elvis Presley & America. But don't you guys miss the purely artistic side of U2 as opposed to the universally appealing side???

One more thing... in 2000, Radiohead released this song Treefingers on Kid A. The song is nothing but 3-1/2 minutes of synthesizer atmospherics as some of you may know. That's spontaneous, and it's perfect too at that point in the album. And before you say, "but please, you can't compare the wacky Radiohead with U2!!!", flashback to 1995. U2 WERE Radiohead with Passengers and a track very similar to Treefingers... Viva Davidoff. I rest my case.

U2 knew a lot less about the songwriting and the craft in the early years so a Ocean or a EPAA was more likely to appear. Zooropa is hard to compare to other U2 albums as it was done mid-tour, even that had songs Stay and Dirty Day which most U2 fans shouldn't have a problem with. How much of a gamble, really, is releasing something when you're called U2 and millions will listen to you?
Fast Cars was, according to Bono, done on the last day or recording Bomb.

U2 was 20 and 24 years into their career with ATYCLB and Bomb. It's much harder to come up with new sounds after being in the game for so long. And to me ATYCLB was a new direction for U2, they never did pop songs before. I also consider LAPOE and Fast cars new to the band. As for universal appeal...U2 deals with universal topics: faith, love, sexuality, politics..and for every EPAA there was a Pride or UF.

Passengers to me is still more accessible than the Radiohead albums I heard. Again, two bands with different way of making music.
 
i think the last two 'spontaneous' records were necessary for whats coming up next or right after. Imagine U2 without all of these pop hits. They certainly wouldnt be heralded like they are today if they went on making strange songs. Now because of them, people are arguing about are they better than the beatles, stones etc. This wasnt the case after pop. Their catologue is pretty dense now. And they also have absolute freedom to make us scratch our heads again without people questioning their skill. They proved they can write great standard songs when they want to. But I truly believe its time to get abstract and they would probably agree.
 
Last edited:
I liked the music more before they started following so many rules.

Rock and roll doesn't follow the rules! :wink:
 
fast cars shouldve been xanax and wine and it shouldve been in the official tracklisting. its the perfect complement to vertigo. wouldve been right at home at track # 7. If i ever get to meet one of the band members im definitely gonna question them about this. It was such a stupid move. It wouldve given the album that identity they pretended it had.
 
t8thgr8 said:
i think the last two 'spontaneous' records were necessary for whats coming up next or right after. Imagine U2 without all of these pop hits. They certainly wouldnt be heralded like they are today if they went on making strange songs. Now because of them, people are arguing about are they better than the beatles, stones etc. This wasnt the case after pop. Their catologue is pretty dense now. And they also have absolute freedom to make us scratch our heads again without people questioning their skill. They proved they can write great standard songs when they want to. But I truly believe its time to get abstract and they would probably agree.

Great post, totally agree. :up: :up:
 
Zootlesque said:
And before you say, "but please, you can't compare the wacky Radiohead with U2!!!", flashback to 1995. U2 WERE Radiohead with Passengers and a track very similar to Treefingers... Viva Davidoff. I rest my case.
There's no need to go further. There is lots of elements (and even melodies, drum sequences, etc) that we can easily find in "The Bends" and "Ok Computer" that we all recognize from the previous released "Zooropa".
 
Zootlesque said:


I didn't say that. But to me, spontaneity makes things more interesting.

Not necessarily...


Zootlesque said:

In the past they have had a happy balance of crowd pleasers like Streets, Pride, WOWY, One etc. and spontaneous artistic ramblings like The Ocean, Promenade, EPAA, Edge rap on Numb etc. Sure there were other songs that sounded calculated. But the whole damn album didn't sound calculated like the Bomb does, at least in my opinion. It seems like they have stopped having fun with the music and making it interesting. They seem to be focussed much more on the business side of it now. How widely appealing can we make the music so there is no room for disappointment. As I said before, I don't hate their music now. I just wish it was more... free form, for lack of a better term! :shrug:

Who gives you any guarantee that these last two albums didn't represent their last attempt to create songs to please people and to fill stadiums and that they won't pay much attention to it in the future?
 
U2girl said:


U2 was 20 and 24 years into their career with ATYCLB and Bomb. It's much harder to come up with new sounds after being in the game for so long. And to me ATYCLB was a new direction for U2, they never did pop songs before. I also consider LAPOE and Fast cars new to the band. As for universal appeal...U2 deals with universal topics: faith, love, sexuality, politics..and for every EPAA there was a Pride or UF.

I don't understand much of the complaints about U2 playing safe in the last years.
Have you forgot that in the end of the 90's, although sucessfull and recognized, the band felt tired and disapointed with theirselves.
The natural reaction was to make the inverse and start to play "safe", this should be understood.
However, in spite of making average middle-eight songs, U2 had the capacity to make a less risky sound but still to make great songs.
 
Zootlesque said:


One more thing... in 2000, Radiohead released this song Treefingers on Kid A. The song is nothing but 3-1/2 minutes of synthesizer atmospherics as some of you may know. That's spontaneous, and it's perfect too at that point in the album. And before you say, "but please, you can't compare the wacky Radiohead with U2!!!", flashback to 1995. U2 WERE Radiohead with Passengers and a track very similar to Treefingers... Viva Davidoff. I rest my case.

oh god, i hope U2 doesnt try to release something like Treefingers :yikes: I love Kid A and I think it works in the context of the album, but I can't think of a single moment of my life I've ever thought "boy, I really feel like listening to Treefingers!" same with Viva Davidoff. boring!

I think people should just wait and see what U2 comes up with. if they come up with something too "middle of the road" for you, then stop listening to them. but they might not be done experimenting yet. They're never going to be the band they were in the 90's again, but maybe they could be even better. Doubtful, but you never know.

I do wish we could get a quick album...
 
Well, I was just using Treefingers as an example to show that spontaneity can be very interesting. Viva Davidoff is boring as hell, I agree. It's not even a song, more like plumbing noise or something for 5 minutes.
 
:lmao: indeed

though I don't think Treefingers is that interesting. it works in the context of the album, but is it necessary? I would have rather had something more...song-like in that slot.
 
t8thgr8 said:
fast cars shouldve been xanax and wine and it shouldve been in the official tracklisting. its the perfect complement to vertigo. wouldve been right at home at track # 7. If i ever get to meet one of the band members im definitely gonna question them about this. It was such a stupid move. It wouldve given the album that identity they pretended it had.

I like the lyrics and overall feel of "Fast Cars" better than "Xanax and Wine". However, I fully agree that "Fast Cars" should have been on HTDAAB. If U2 insisted on a shorter album, songs like "A Man and a Woman" or "One Step Closer" should have been omitted. I think "One Step Closer" would have made a great b-side to "Sometimes...".

Fortunately, I have the U.K. version of "Bomb" where "Fast Cars" is included - and as such, I consider it part of the album. :up:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom