U2 Reflect on Troubled 'Innocence' Release: 'These Songs Have Staying Power''

[Irvine511]

So they're addicted to songwriting now. They're seeing the big picture. You can play any of these songs on a mandolin, banjo, in a different language, in reverse, whatever. It will always sound OK. That's the power of THE SONG. The thing is, anyone can write a song. But not just anyone could create the sounds that they used to make. The Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby...these albums are loaded with incredible band moments and superior production that set U2 apart from anyone else.

i think almost everyone in here would agree with this, and U2DM's post. including the band. they are very upfront that they've been focused on *songs* the past 15 years, and this is a deliberate choice. i wonder why they decided to shift focus?

 

[ImNotSleeping]

i think almost everyone in here would agree with this, and U2DM's post. including the band. they are very upfront that they've been focused on *songs* the past 15 years, and this is a deliberate choice. i wonder why they decided to shift focus?

Rick Rubin?

As much as I love SOI, this quote by Bono does worry me more than I want to admit.

"I know craft can be a dangerous thing. . .but we have been a bit prone to relying on the magic in the room when we play together."

Unless, should it give me hope that he's aware of the danger? I'm not sure which way to interpret it. It initially gave me pause as it felt they were purposefully/knowingly sacrificing the magic in the room for the process, in this case the song.

Let the spirit take you, boys, because for me that is a key part of U2's, dare I say, essence.

 

[Montrose]

They want to be better songwriters because they felt for the majority of their career. , they were just winging it. Brilliantly winging it, but still just making it up as they went along, relying on inspiration to hit them while jamming in the studio. They always talked about this, as well as feeling many songs were unfinished when released and only perfected on tour, while playing them live. Bono's always said as they became better at their craft, it became harder to capture the magic because much of the magic came from not knowing what they were doing, and relying on pure instinct.

This doesn't mean they're not after the same magic. This doesn't mean they don't get there, in a different way.

But it does mean they're serious about trying to become better at this aspect of their job.

How dare they, right?




Sent from my fingertips.

 

[BVS]

They want to be better songwriters because they felt for the majority of their career. , they were just winging it. Brilliantly winging it, but still just making it up as they went along, relying on inspiration to hit them while jamming in the studio. They always talked about this, as well as feeling many songs were unfinished when released and only perfected on tour, while playing them live. Bono's always said as they became better at their craft, it became harder to capture the magic because much of the magic came from not knowing what they were doing, and relying on pure instinct.

This doesn't mean they're not after the same magic. This doesn't mean they don't get there, in a different way.

But it does mean they're serious about trying to become better at this aspect of their job.

How dare they, right?




Sent from my fingertips.

Exactly... this is a balance they've struggled with all of their career. Some haven't been paying attention I guess?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[U2girl]

They want to be better songwriters because they felt for the majority of their career. , they were just winging it. Brilliantly winging it, but still just making it up as they went along, relying on inspiration to hit them while jamming in the studio. They always talked about this, as well as feeling many songs were unfinished when released and only perfected on tour, while playing them live. Bono's always said as they became better at their craft, it became harder to capture the magic because much of the magic came from not knowing what they were doing, and relying on pure instinct.

This doesn't mean they're not after the same magic. This doesn't mean they don't get there, in a different way.

But it does mean they're serious about trying to become better at this aspect of their job.

How dare they, right?




Sent from my fingertips.

I'd say the magic is giving way to craft not so much because they choose to write acoustically (right at the end of SOI sessions when they recorded the acoustic sessions) but because it's a natural effect of spending 20, 30 + years of writing. Eventually you get from "winging it" all the time to songwriting as a craft. You can get great results either way.

If anything SOI's issue isn't, as some have said, the lack of that one great song (Every breaking wave), it's more to do with Edge not going places anymore with his guitar. And I find the line "that's just the way I sound like" dissapointing givem how much he used to experiment.

 

[Nick66]

Songs don't have staying power because Bono says that have staying power. Songs have staying power if they have staying power...which in this case remains to be seen. This is the kind of thing Bono says when he's trying to put a positive spin on something the band perceives to have failed...he made similar noises about Boots and NLOTH. When you have to explain, and make the case that your music has "staying power", it means it probably doesn't. These comments actually are my first real indication that the band is starting to see the record as essentially done and over.

And U2 isn't that good at the "craft of songwriting"...all the sonic ambience, the layered textured sounds, and the "magic"...THAT is U2. In my opinion, all of this business about trying to make music that you can play acoustically was a mistake, and makes them sound like average musicians...which, after all, is what they are. Eno realised that, Lanois realised that, but they guided U2 in a way that brought the things that were great in them. They knew U2 needed those sonic landscapes to truly achieve greatness.

I can't fault the band for trying something new...they've done it before, to mixed success. But I think that this "new" approach wasn't bourn of a desire to try something other than the usual conjuring of magic. I think they were basically forced into doing what they did because they weren't conjuring the magic...or what Bono calls "God walking into the room". You don't start and stop a record with multiple producers for year after year if the art and inspiration is there.

While I like SOI well enough for what it is, it never really felt like a wholly realised "U2" record to me...kind of like a shadow of one. It's the sound of U2 sacrificing the great for the good. I've always felt a disconnect with the music on that record, and to me it's become clear why...U2DM fan really hit the nail on the head. With the exception of a few fleeting moments, especially on Iris, the music never really soars, and while certainly uneven and imperfect, I hear more "U2 magic" on the best of NLOTH than I do anywhere on SOI.

 

[saltlick]

Well we are only 6-7 months in, so it remains to be seen how much staying power these songs have. I do have to say 6-7 months in i personally enjoy this album more then anything they've put out since AB. My only complaint is to me 3 of the first 4 songs are average (EBW is gold to me, very "pretty" song), from 5 on is one of the best stretches of songs they've put together and that includes Invisible, LH, and Crystal Ballroom tacked on. Again everyone has a different opinion, so we'll see maybe the next album will be more suited to someone else's tastes. And hopefully they will have more albums after that!

 

[mama cass]

well i'm still loving the songs, still fresh and beautiful to my ears (and i'm REALLY hard to please )

 

[Irvine511]

It's impossible to say, but it does seem to me that people in here feel more enthusiastically about SOI 6 months after its release than they did about NLOTH. That's just an impression.

As for me, between SOI and NLOTH, I guess I generally agree that SOI brings the consistency and NLOTH has moments of magic. I think SOI is the more engaging, emotional listen, but I've always been drawn to punchier, energetic U2 than the woosh-y Eno soundscapes. When the two are perfectly matched, we get genius (JT, AB), but I'd take War over UF (and Boy over both) and I suppose SOI over NLOTH.

We'll see how it ages. For me, NLOTH has a strong opening 4 songs, and I'm more sympathetic to CT than most. For me, it's the end of the album that has collapsed over time, for me. I think Fez is cool. But WAS and COL are barely there, but not in an interesting way. And Breathe strangely remains turgid, stuck in mud somehow, even live.

 

[thavidesco]

This time Bono is correct. THESE SONGS HAVE STAYING POWER. It is more and more obvious with time passing since the release

(He was also right about Boots

 

[LemonMelon]

On a practical level, it really doesn't matter what music someone else believes has staying power. Certainly, you shouldn't simply take someone else's word on the matter. If you're still listening to it, it has staying power for you and that's all that really matters. I don't think I've heard SOI yet this year; for me the album was DOA. But I'm not going to make an argument for why you shouldn't be listening to it anymore.

To me, it makes a lot of sense that Bono is going out of his way to say the album has staying power; there was a protracted period between the release and tour and he wants to justify the inclusion of the album in the setlist. But then those who agree with him will likely say he simply has good taste.

 

[thavidesco]

On a practical level, it really doesn't matter what music someone else believes has staying power. Certainly, you shouldn't simply take someone else's word on the matter. If you're still listening to it, it has staying power for you and that's all that really matters. I don't think I've heard SOI yet this year; for me the album was DOA. But I'm not going to make an argument for why you shouldn't be listening to it anymore.

To me, it makes a lot of sense that Bono is going out of his way to say the album has staying power; there was a protracted period between the release and tour and he wants to justify the inclusion of the album in the setlist. But then those who agree with him will likely say he simply has good taste.

what is DOA?

 

[LemonMelon]

what is DOA?

Dead On Arrival

 

[thavidesco]

Sorry, but is it possible to be more generic pop punk band than Fall Out Boy?

 

[bobsaget77]

Sorry, but is it possible to be more generic pop punk band than Fall Out Boy?

No. They're awful.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LemonMelon]

They're the worst.

With our luck, Bono will consider their success an inspiration for the next album.

 

[hasin73]

U2 tours are essentially always beyond incredible, and I don't doubt that this will continue the trend. I'm very much looking forward to it.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DevilsShoes]

I’ve always been a bit sceptical about the bands desire to now write ‘classic and timeless’ songs rather than continue to push in new and unfamiliar directions.

That’s partly because I don’t think you can ever really be that calculated about writing ‘an all-time great’ and whenever anyone tries to do it – especially U2 – they almost always end up falling flat.

Its also because, as the band have proven time and time again, they don’t do their best work when they're operating in familiar areas, they know all the old tropes and, almost in spite of themselves, kind of end up recycling them. It’s when they're out on a wire and have no clue what they’re doing that something genuinely inspirational happens.

It’s almost impossible to premeditate precisely what kind of song the public will choose to take to their hearts. A hit song is easy, but one that transcends generations is something else altogether.

The Beatles weren’t trying to write classics, I don’t think the Stones were either or Zepplin, their great moments sprang from the spirit of the times in which they were functioning and how they reacted to it.

It’s probably fair to say that U2 had absolutely no clue that tunes like Bad, Streets, Sunday Bloody Sunday or even With or Without You would go onto to become classics and, by the same measure, you can bet your life they're scratching their heads about why the likes of Stuck, Vertigo and City of Blinding Lights haven’t.

Ultimately it’s not up to U2 whether their songs have staying power or not. But I think it might be a good idea for them to stop trying to write the approved script.

 

[BVS]

I think you'd be foolish to think the likes of The Beatles didn't want to write classics.

Vertigo not a classic? Come on...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[thavidesco]

I’ve always been a bit sceptical about the bands desire to now write ‘classic and timeless’ songs rather than continue to push in new and unfamiliar directions.

That’s partly because I don’t think you can ever really be that calculated about writing ‘an all-time great’ and whenever anyone tries to do it – especially U2 – they almost always end up falling flat.

Its also because, as the band have proven time and time again, they don’t do their best work when they're operating in familiar areas, they know all the old tropes and, almost in spite of themselves, kind of end up recycling them. It’s when they're out on a wire and have no clue what they’re doing that something genuinely inspirational happens.

It’s almost impossible to premeditate precisely what kind of song the public will choose to take to their hearts. A hit song is easy, but one that transcends generations is something else altogether.

The Beatles weren’t trying to write classics, I don’t think the Stones were either or Zepplin, their great moments sprang from the spirit of the times in which they were functioning and how they reacted to it.

It’s probably fair to say that U2 had absolutely no clue that tunes like Bad, Streets, Sunday Bloody Sunday or even With or Without You would go onto to become classics and, by the same measure, you can bet your life they're scratching their heads about why the likes of Stuck, Vertigo and City of Blinding Lights haven’t.

Ultimately it’s not up to U2 whether their songs have staying power or not. But I think it might be a good idea for them to stop trying to write the approved script.

I cannot agree more. Perfectly written.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

i think Leo will transcends generations

everything else is just dad rock and \/ertigo re-writes

 

[womanfish]

I’ve always been a bit sceptical about the bands desire to now write ‘classic and timeless’ songs rather than continue to push in new and unfamiliar directions.

That’s partly because I don’t think you can ever really be that calculated about writing ‘an all-time great’ and whenever anyone tries to do it – especially U2 – they almost always end up falling flat.

Its also because, as the band have proven time and time again, they don’t do their best work when they're operating in familiar areas, they know all the old tropes and, almost in spite of themselves, kind of end up recycling them. It’s when they're out on a wire and have no clue what they’re doing that something genuinely inspirational happens.

It’s almost impossible to premeditate precisely what kind of song the public will choose to take to their hearts. A hit song is easy, but one that transcends generations is something else altogether.

The Beatles weren’t trying to write classics, I don’t think the Stones were either or Zepplin, their great moments sprang from the spirit of the times in which they were functioning and how they reacted to it.

It’s probably fair to say that U2 had absolutely no clue that tunes like Bad, Streets, Sunday Bloody Sunday or even With or Without You would go onto to become classics and, by the same measure, you can bet your life they're scratching their heads about why the likes of Stuck, Vertigo and City of Blinding Lights haven’t.

Ultimately it’s not up to U2 whether their songs have staying power or not. But I think it might be a good idea for them to stop trying to write the approved script.

While i like what you write here and i agree on some points. I think when you stop to think about it a little deeper, it kind of falls apart.

Comparing U2 to the Beatles or Stones doesn't really make any sense. Because while all are considered great bands, the time period in which they made music was critical with their story.
If the Beatles came along in the 80's would they have had any success?? I argue no.

Did the Stones not have any great songs after Tattoo You in 84, 17 years into their career? No, they still had great songs on albums after that, they just didn't resonate the same way, or capture the public like their earlier stuff did because of the stage of their career and the state of music at the time.

Every Breaking Wave is every bit as good as WOWY, BD, or One. But it's 35 years into their career. The public that embraced WOWY is no longer.

I agree that I also want the elusive "magic" to hit the band, and it just happens to coincide with a public that is ready for that certain song at that certain time. (ie. Beautiful Day, in my opinion, not one of their greatest songs, but now a classic)
But it doesn't take away that I think EBW, SLABT, Volcano, RBW, The Troubles, and TCB are some of the strongest songs of their career.

 

[DevilsShoes]

I think you'd be foolish to think the likes of The Beatles didn't want to write classics.

Vertigo not a classic? Come on...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Every band obviously wants to write classics but I don't think Lennon ever really envisioned just how lasting the appeal of Strawberry Fields would be and in the case of McCartney, he probably had no idea Hey Jude would probably go onto become his best loved song. He more than likely had far more faith in Yesterday. But I think the thinking was that songs were more ephemeral back then and the status of 'classic' was reserved for only a few very select numbers.

Lennon in particular had so much admiration for the songs of Elvis and Little Richard that I don't think he never had any aspiration or even expectation of displacing them with his own work.

Vertigo? Hmm, when I look at the mainstream audience I can see them more readily picking Streets over Vertigo, just as I can imagine them picking One over Sometimes You Cant Make It, even though the latter is far better IMO.

Cheers thavidesco for that lovely comment.

 

[thavidesco]

While i like what you write here and i agree on some points. I think when you stop to think about it a little deeper, it kind of falls apart.

Comparing U2 to the Beatles or Stones doesn't really make any sense. Because while all are considered great bands, the time period in which they made music was critical with their story.
If the Beatles came along in the 80's would they have had any success?? I argue no.

Did the Stones not have any great songs after Tattoo You in 84, 17 years into their career? No, they still had great songs on albums after that, they just didn't resonate the same way, or capture the public like their earlier stuff did because of the stage of their career and the state of music at the time.

Every Breaking Wave is every bit as good as WOWY, BD, or One. But it's 35 years into their career. The public that embraced WOWY is no longer.

I agree that I also want the elusive "magic" to hit the band, and it just happens to coincide with a public that is ready for that certain song at that certain time. (ie. Beautiful Day, in my opinion, not one of their greatest songs, but now a classic)
But it doesn't take away that I think EBW, SLABT, Volcano, RBW, The Troubles, and TCB are some of the strongest songs of their career.

Good points. I always wondered about the right time, right place factor for a song to resonate for a wide masses. I guess it is something you absolutely cannot predict or plan. It is a mystery. I never understood why E-Storm, Ground Beneath Her Feet, Windows, Boots, Invisible, Ordinary Love weren´t worldwide hits while a kinda strange song like Beautiful Day was.

 

[BVS]

Every band obviously wants to write classics but I don't think Lennon ever really envisioned just how lasting the appeal of Strawberry Fields would be and in the case of McCartney, he probably had no idea Hey Jude would probably go onto become his best loved song. He more than likely had far more faith in Yesterday. But I think the thinking was that songs were more ephemeral back then and the status of 'classic' was reserved for only a few very select numbers.



Lennon in particular had so much admiration for the songs of Elvis and Little Richard that I don't think he never had any aspiration or even expectation of displacing them with his own work.



Vertigo? Hmm, when I look at the mainstream audience I can see them more readily picking Streets over Vertigo, just as I can imagine them picking One over Sometimes You Cant Make It, even though the latter is far better IMO.



Cheers thavidesco for that lovely comment.

"Bigger than Jesus", they definitely had those aspirations.

Yes many would probably choose streets over vertigo, but that doesn't mean vertigo wouldn't qualify as one of their classics, especially newer fans. I think that comment is just reflecting your own personal preferences.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

Good points. I always wondered about the right time, right place factor for a song to resonate for a wide masses. I guess it is something you absolutely cannot predict or plan. It is a mystery. I never understood why E-Storm, Ground Beneath Her Feet, Windows, Boots, Invisible, Ordinary Love weren´t worldwide hits while a kinda strange song like Beautiful Day was.

Why do you consider BD as strange?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Hewson]

did the stones not have any great songs after tattoo you in 84, 17 years into their career? .

81

 

[DevilsShoes]

While i like what you write here and i agree on some points. I think when you stop to think about it a little deeper, it kind of falls apart.

Comparing U2 to the Beatles or Stones doesn't really make any sense. Because while all are considered great bands, the time period in which they made music was critical with their story.
If the Beatles came along in the 80's would they have had any success?? I argue no.

Did the Stones not have any great songs after Tattoo You in 84, 17 years into their career? No, they still had great songs on albums after that, they just didn't resonate the same way, or capture the public like their earlier stuff did because of the stage of their career and the state of music at the time.

Every Breaking Wave is every bit as good as WOWY, BD, or One. But it's 35 years into their career. The public that embraced WOWY is no longer.

I agree that I also want the elusive "magic" to hit the band, and it just happens to coincide with a public that is ready for that certain song at that certain time. (ie. Beautiful Day, in my opinion, not one of their greatest songs, but now a classic)
But it doesn't take away that I think EBW, SLABT, Volcano, RBW, The Troubles, and TCB are some of the strongest songs of their career.

Yeah, timing is everything, the Paul McCartney of 1985 couldn't have written the classics his 1965 self did.

It doesn't mean that the bands that I mentioned didn't write any good songs after their heyday, many did, and I think its a shame that all too often a mainstream audience doesn't bother to explore an artists career beyond their most culturally and commercially popular period.

With that said, I think the hit ratio of the genuinely great songs tends to fall off quite dramatically the further you go into an artists career.

Cedars of Lebanon is one of the best songs they've ever done, but the rest of NLOTH is pretty subpar IMO.

Same with HTDAAB, I can take Sometimes and - at a push - City, but the remainder is U2 by rote.

Its all so subjective but in my mind you cant compare EBW with WOWY, the latter scores over the former in every way; a perfect vocal, a fantastic lyric that carries a sentiment that anyone and everyone can relate to ( and that's a key part of a timeless song, the ability to tap into something primal) and of course that brilliantly executed transition from a whisper to a scream.

EBW is touching and melancholy, but its lack of crystal clear motif and truly dramatic climax puts it someway short of WOWY. For me anyway.

 

[DevilsShoes]

"Bigger than Jesus", they definitely had those aspirations.

Yes many would probably choose streets over vertigo, but that doesn't mean vertigo wouldn't qualify as one of their classics, especially newer fans. I think that comment is just reflecting your own personal preferences.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yeah its definitely personal preference and I'm sure that Vertigo would probably rank in their somewhere.

I don't know how the mainstream audience feels about U2 in the US but in the UK I'm not entirely certain most people, irrespective of age, would be still be able to name which band created Vertigo, this despite it being a number one. They'd probably have to mull it over a bit. But they'd know who did One much quicker.

Lennon made the 'bigger than Jesus' comment after he saw the effect The Beatles were having on kids. He never said they actually wanted to be bigger than Jesus. That's another thing you could never actually calculate or contrive, no matter how big your ego is.

 

[BVS]

Its all so subjective but in my mind you cant compare EBW with WOWY, the latter scores over the former in every way; a perfect vocal, a fantastic lyric that carries a sentiment that anyone and everyone can relate to ( and that's a key part of a timeless song, the ability to tap into something primal) and of course that brilliantly executed transition from a whisper to a scream.



EBW is touching and melancholy, but its lack of crystal clear motif and truly dramatic climax puts it someway short of WOWY. For me anyway.

You're laying out a formula for a "timeless song". Doesn't this kind of go against your earlier comments about not being able to calculate what makes a hit?



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference