U2, The Joshua Tree/SOE, fear and failure

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Did SOI fail? If it was an album they intended to give away, well, that's accomplishment.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
If people are criticizing this tour as if it's a contradiction of Bono saying "there are no reverse gears on this tank" (or similar sentiments) you had to have your head in the fucking sand for most of this whole century.

It's been mostly nostalgia central from U2 for years and years and it has been mostly mired in 1976-1983 throughout but especially with SOI. They just repackage it slightly differently and some of you have been fooled.

ATYCLB was essentially a breaking down of the raw elements of the band and getting back to that more basic place after the crazy 90s. It had a very 'return to the 80s' feel though I don't necessarily buy that it was (not really that many sonic touchstones) - but it was in the ballpark enough spiritually to have gotten a sense of it. Down to talking about the 'coca-cola' riff in Beautiful Day. Point is, U2 weren't always exactly shying away from the traditional U2 sound in this period. Now, it wasn't blatant JJ Abrams Member Berries, but it was evocative.

Bono (and thus U2), partly do this his father's passing, was stuck in that "Cedarwood Road" mode as early as 2002. We got the 'Boy' tribute in concert with An Cat and Electric Co. or Gloria or whatever it was. It felt, to me, like we had definitely revisited the Boy/October period plenty thru the Vertigo Tour.

With NLOTH and 360, I'm not sure it was highly nostalgic but it definitely wanted to pay tribute to the 90s more than the two previous records. There was the unearthing of Zooropa and the nightly Ultraviolet and the dancey (almost Zoo-POPish) Crazy Tonight remix in concert.

And of course, SOI...the most blatant nostalgia yet. Sorta pre-band, late 70s. I'm not saying it was all redundant but a lot of it was. And I'm not even saying this was a bad thing...just making the point.

Bono has been talking about that pre-TUF period for upwards of a dozen years or more. They've been regurgitating the tone of it, the stories, the mythology. You never hear them do that with the rest of their work. It's always the glorifying of "we come from punk rock", so much so it seems they're trying to convince themselves of it. 'Member...

And then of course, there have been remasters, re-releases, re-recordings, and a documentary about Achtung all throughout. This was not true of pre-POP U2. But it has been ever since. But especially since the Vertigo tour. I get it, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm asking "where have some of you been?" As if TJT tour is any great departure from this?

That Pitchfork writer was pretty much dead on the money. They're finally fully leaning into it and not pretending it doesn't exist. They've been living off the gas of their older work for a long time now. Especially the latter 360 shows.

And there is nothing wrong with that IN THE WORLD. These are not criticisms, this is just saying there definitely HAVE BEEN "reverse gears on this tank."

U2 playing The Joshua Tree in concert 30 years later? If you find yourself somehow criticizing this move you've definitely (as Bono would say) "disappeared up your own arse". It's awesome. Bring it the fuck on.
 
I disagree with the idea that they need a hit. They are in their late 50s. Pushing to try for a hit only comes off as sad. If it happens, let it happen organically. The constant striving for hits is far sadder than touring a 30 year old album.

On the point of taking more risks? I don't find experimenting for the sake of experimenting to be "ground breaking." The author of this article is clearly a country fan. He thinks Little Big Town making albums with Pharrell and Justin Timberlake to be a positive because they're experimenting. I think it's sad, and it's exactly what U2 HAVE been doing... pandering. Pandering to a younger crowd in a desperate search for "relevance;" which is a bullshit goal. Playing events and festivals and ignoring most of your back catalogue to play more songs from 2000 on isn't something that should be applauded as being "relevant." Coming to the Rock Hall of Fame and playing Vertigo, Magnificent, Beautiful Day, Stuck in a Moment and dueting with the Black Eyed Peas isn't "we're not like these old guys, we still make new music," it's "we're the old guys in the club who can't let go of our youth and we drastically misread the moment."

I will agree that I hope they have a new outlook in recording... not that they need to experiment more, but that they need to simply be comfortable in their own skin and record what they want to record and not feel the need to push for hits hits hits. To not throw a song out because it sounds too much like "classic U2." To not be afraid of releasing the more Moroccan tinged No Line instead of whitewashing it in search of radio "relevance." To simply do what they want, rather than what they feel they need to do to get hits. Then and only then will they even have the shot at this fourth life they're so desperately searching for.
 
So do you think their lasting legacy would be harmed if they had released more music over the last 20 years or so? Rather than striving for the hit single, or perfection from an album, have strict start and end dates and release what they have with no pressure or obligation to tour it or even massively promote it.

I get that it's not all going to be "perfect", or brilliant, but it would be a true reflection of where they are at the time and I'd argue that they might use the chance to take more risks and experiment a bit and they'd be admired for that. There might be some real gems unearthed, songs that would otherwise not see the light of day due to their propensity for over-thinking everything they do.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
I disagree with the idea that they need a hit. They are in their late 50s. Pushing to try for a hit only comes off as sad. If it happens, let it happen organically. The constant striving for hits is far sadder than touring a 30 year old album.

On the point of taking more risks? I don't find experimenting for the sake of experimenting to be "ground breaking." The author of this article is clearly a country fan. He thinks Little Big Town making albums with Pharrell and Justin Timberlake to be a positive because they're experimenting. I think it's sad, and it's exactly what U2 HAVE been doing... pandering. Pandering to a younger crowd in a desperate search for "relevance;" which is a bullshit goal. Playing events and festivals and ignoring most of your back catalogue to play more songs from 2000 on isn't something that should be applauded as being "relevant." Coming to the Rock Hall of Fame and playing Vertigo, Magnificent, Beautiful Day, Stuck in a Moment and dueting with the Black Eyed Peas isn't "we're not like these old guys, we still make new music," it's "we're the old guys in the club who can't let go of our youth and we drastically misread the moment."

I will agree that I hope they have a new outlook in recording... not that they need to experiment more, but that they need to simply be comfortable in their own skin and record what they want to record and not feel the need to push for hits hits hits. To not throw a song out because it sounds too much like "classic U2." To not be afraid of releasing the more Moroccan tinged No Line instead of whitewashing it in search of radio "relevance." To simply do what they want, rather than what they feel they need to do to get hits. Then and only then will they even have the shot at this fourth life they're so desperately searching for.
Click to expand...


We need to get a beer.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
You were saying that under the right circumstances...









U2 can make more money with a flop than with a hit.
 
I have a hard time imagining that actively striving for hits/songs that resonate with the masses isn't part of the U2 dna.
They have aimed for this (with various degrees of success) on every album they ever released and even on Passengers.

How they would be more true by themselves to deviate from this after almost 40 years, I don't get.
 
ascender_RS said:
So do you think their lasting legacy would be harmed if they had released more music over the last 20 years or so? Rather than striving for the hit single, or perfection from an album, have strict start and end dates and release what they have with no pressure or obligation to tour it or even massively promote it.

I get that it's not all going to be "perfect", or brilliant, but it would be a true reflection of where they are at the time and I'd argue that they might use the chance to take more risks and experiment a bit and they'd be admired for that. There might be some real gems unearthed, songs that would otherwise not see the light of day due to their propensity for over-thinking everything they do.
Click to expand...

As someone who's tinkered around with writing stuff in the past, the deadline things in an interesting concept by itself. The only problem is that when you rest of the 10-12 songs you write in a certain period of time, you're almost always guaranteed to come back to it after a period of time and think, "Hmmm... this part needs to be redone." Or "This song isn't really that good, is it?" Then you re-record, write a few more songs, etc. And even when something is finished, you might still come back to it and think, "Oh, that could have been so much better." Nothing is ever set in stone in your head, actually!

That's why I've always had trouble subscribing to the idea that they're just writing to "have a hit" or do something that'll appeal "to the kids". If it was the later, we would have had the will.i.am and Timbaland collaborations a long time ago by this point. The band's always used things like I–V–vi–IV progressions in it's work too, like most other big artists... so unless they subscribe to being an ambient or country band all of a sudden, I'm not positive the process is too different from what it was back in the day. It's hard enough to write a decent song as it is, and if it doesn't come along as easily, then you're obviously going to spend more time on it until it makes sense to you. Doesn't make things easier for us as fans, but yeah...
 
In my late teens - mid 20s, I was in a band (34 now). We wrote quite a few songs, and recorded 3 albums (never had any kind of deal, just gave them away at gigs we played, to friends, etc. There are some songs that I think are pretty good, but some of our early stuff we just threw together and said THERE'S OUR SONG! Years later, now that it doesn't even matter anymore, I have thought about how many different things we could've done with certain songs. Certain songs I realize were never good, but were just the best idea we had at the time.

I can understand how it's hard to release something, especially if your resources and time are unlimited. I just wish U2 could've kept up with releasing an album every 3 years, and just toured regularly throughout.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
We've had three albums and three major tours since ATYCLB/Elevation

If they had been able to do every three years instead of what has happened, there would have been albums in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and one next year.

The quality of these albums divides people, so it certainly would have been interesting to see if they were better or worse for them being a bit more trigger happy.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I'm not so sure about what I just said. I do recall some of the early versions of the HTDAAB songs from the proposed 2003 album that Jimmy Irvine was ready to release.

SYCMIOYO in particular benefitted from the extra time spent working on it, as did Yahweh and ABOY. I feel torn on Fast Cars vs Xanax and Wine; two very different songs, sonically speaking. But had X&W been on the album, we'd not have known the difference I guess.

Then there's Vertigo vs Native Son. Obviously they made the right choice there, as far as chasing a hit. Native Son would have never been a hit, or in an iPod commercial, etc. there are some elements of NS I like better, but over I think they benefitted on that song from waiting.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
dan_smee said:
This is unproven though, right? Unless you've heard the demos/early version of the album?
Click to expand...

That's sort of how I look at it. We can have ideas based on behind the scenes videos and whatever, but who knows if anything with a full lyric even survived those ideas. You can gather that there were some interesting sounds there, but a whole song? Unless you hear it, who knows...

They have given hints at what could have been changed though. One thing from SOI was how Bono said they were experimenting with different key changes and such on the songs they'd written. Based on the alternate version of The Troubles and the fact that Lykke Li had to record her part again, one could assume that was one of the songs and, arguably, it benefited immensely from the last-minute change.
 
trevgreg said:
Based on the alternate version of The Troubles and the fact that Lykke Li had to record her part again, one could assume that was one of the songs and, arguably, it benefited immensely from the last-minute change.
Click to expand...

Yeah, definitely agree with you on that. For all the talk sometimes of U2 not writing to the standard they used to, at least when they release alternative/work in progress versions of songs you can see there's a significant leap by the time they finished them.

At least that's how I feel personally, the alternative versions never grabbed me but then again I suppose you just get used to the songs as you know them! They could finish albums earlier and who knows whether we'd enjoy the songs or think "shit, if only they'd spent another year on this, these songs sound half baked!" :wink:
 
trevgreg said:
That's sort of how I look at it. We can have ideas based on behind the scenes videos and whatever, but who knows if anything with a full lyric even survived those ideas. You can gather that there were some interesting sounds there, but a whole song? Unless you hear it, who knows...



They have given hints at what could have been changed though. One thing from SOI was how Bono said they were experimenting with different key changes and such on the songs they'd written. Based on the alternate version of The Troubles and the fact that Lykke Li had to record her part again, one could assume that was one of the songs and, arguably, it benefited immensely from the last-minute change.
Click to expand...


Certainly agree re the troubles. And I for one think that on the whole, there are examples either way, but things do seem better for the extra work. Assuming overcooking leads to the things people don't like about 00s U2 is confirmation bias


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
dan_smee said:
This is unproven though, right? Unless you've heard the demos/early version of the album?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

Which is why I said "presumably". But considering the final three songs, produced by Danger Mouse, are considerably better than what comes before them (and I enjoy most everything on the album as it stands), I'm making an educated guess.
 
gareth brown said:
At least that's how I feel personally, the alternative versions never grabbed me but then again I suppose you just get used to the songs as you know them! They could finish albums earlier and who knows whether we'd enjoy the songs or think "shit, if only they'd spent another year on this, these songs sound half baked!" :wink:
Click to expand...

Exactly. I know the same thing happens sometimes when fans hear live versions of songs before they're officially released too.
 
I see Gorillas have just released a new single and video which is being mentioned in the headlines as being anti-Trump.
 
U2DMfan said:
If people are criticizing this tour as if it's a contradiction of Bono saying "there are no reverse gears on this tank" (or similar sentiments) you had to have your head in the fucking sand for most of this whole century.

It's been mostly nostalgia central from U2 for years and years and it has been mostly mired in 1976-1983 throughout but especially with SOI. They just repackage it slightly differently and some of you have been fooled.

ATYCLB was essentially a breaking down of the raw elements of the band and getting back to that more basic place after the crazy 90s. It had a very 'return to the 80s' feel though I don't necessarily buy that it was (not really that many sonic touchstones) - but it was in the ballpark enough spiritually to have gotten a sense of it. Down to talking about the 'coca-cola' riff in Beautiful Day. Point is, U2 weren't always exactly shying away from the traditional U2 sound in this period. Now, it wasn't blatant JJ Abrams Member Berries, but it was evocative.

Bono (and thus U2), partly do this his father's passing, was stuck in that "Cedarwood Road" mode as early as 2002. We got the 'Boy' tribute in concert with An Cat and Electric Co. or Gloria or whatever it was. It felt, to me, like we had definitely revisited the Boy/October period plenty thru the Vertigo Tour.

With NLOTH and 360, I'm not sure it was highly nostalgic but it definitely wanted to pay tribute to the 90s more than the two previous records. There was the unearthing of Zooropa and the nightly Ultraviolet and the dancey (almost Zoo-POPish) Crazy Tonight remix in concert.

And of course, SOI...the most blatant nostalgia yet. Sorta pre-band, late 70s. I'm not saying it was all redundant but a lot of it was. And I'm not even saying this was a bad thing...just making the point.

Bono has been talking about that pre-TUF period for upwards of a dozen years or more. They've been regurgitating the tone of it, the stories, the mythology. You never hear them do that with the rest of their work. It's always the glorifying of "we come from punk rock", so much so it seems they're trying to convince themselves of it. 'Member...

And then of course, there have been remasters, re-releases, re-recordings, and a documentary about Achtung all throughout. This was not true of pre-POP U2. But it has been ever since. But especially since the Vertigo tour. I get it, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm asking "where have some of you been?" As if TJT tour is any great departure from this?

That Pitchfork writer was pretty much dead on the money. They're finally fully leaning into it and not pretending it doesn't exist. They've been living off the gas of their older work for a long time now. Especially the latter 360 shows.

And there is nothing wrong with that IN THE WORLD. These are not criticisms, this is just saying there definitely HAVE BEEN "reverse gears on this tank."

U2 playing The Joshua Tree in concert 30 years later? If you find yourself somehow criticizing this move you've definitely (as Bono would say) "disappeared up your own arse". It's awesome. Bring it the fuck on.
Click to expand...

Well, most bands and artist play their old songs in concert. New album is usually only 10 songs and you have to fill up a 20 to 25 song set list. So playing old songs in concert can't be considered an example of the band having reverse gears and being totally for nostalgia or whatever.

I mean, the War tour was far more nostalgic about the Boy area, than the Vertigo Tour with four songs from Boy opening the setlist every night.

But actually naming a tour in 2017 "The Joshua Tree Tour" and playing the entire album live start to finish, now that is indeed different from what they have been doing live previously, nostalgic and certainly a fit for the term reverse gears. But at the same time, its a bit of fun with a time limit of about 10 weeks. Call it a selection of shows, a summer vacation before getting back to work on the main project Songs Of Experience and the rest of the innocence and experience tour.
 
bono2017 said:
But at the same time, its a bit of fun with a time limit of about 10 weeks. Call it a selection of shows, a summer vacation before getting back to work on the main project Songs Of Experience and the rest of the innocence and experience tour.
Click to expand...

Kinda like "A Conspiracy of Hope Tour" in 1986 during the recording of the Joshua Tree...:hmm:
 
bono2017 said:
But at the same time, its a bit of fun with a time limit of about 10 weeks. Call it a selection of shows, a summer vacation before getting back to work on the main project Songs Of Experience and the rest of the innocence and experience tour.
Click to expand...


It's a summer vacation that will gross ~$200 million....I wish my summer vacations were like that lol.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Its def going be interesting to see how they play these songs . The big 3 off this album have been cornerstones of the live shows for decades. And streets is the showstopper. If they played it in order the big 3 would be first . Not really building up to something like before. For me, a band like u2 doing this is a bit of backtrack. Its like every other band had done this except u2 and madonna because they at least they would try or pretend the album is the center of the tour. U2 would start iff with that and then kinda scale back to old hits. I dont hate it or anything . Just a bit taken back.
 
U2DMfan said:
ATYCLB was essentially a breaking down of the raw elements of the band and getting back to that more basic place after the crazy 90s.
Click to expand...

I could argue they were getting Nostalgic starting with the Outside Broadcast in 1992 after bring some oldies back into the setlist when they moved to bigger venues.

Not to mention the 1998 best of/sweetest thing/JT Classic album documentary.
 
As for SOI and SOE and No Line...I'd rather they tinker than release an uncompleted album like Pop that has songs that should have been among the greatest they ever did (Gone, Please, SATS, IGWSHA should ALL be massive hits given the time...they were fantastic songs). We have seen the realization of Gone and Please, primarily, through time, but I still feel both excited when I listen to them and a bit sad at what they could have been. Unforgettable Fire certainly has some of that. What if someone had taken the time to make sure Exit wasn't volume-knobbed right off the album?

I am as frustrated as everyone with the delay of SOE, but I would rather they tinker (just with fewer cooks) than give me a song or an album that I hear potential unrealized

As for the JT30 tour...I really have no problem with artists going against prior statements. In fact, I would encourage artists to change direction here and there. It's their canvas...if we don't like it, and not liking it is a perfectly understandable reaction, then we don't buy. But, I, personally, have personal reasons for being overjoyed by this that override any concerns over credibility. Maybe that is selfish, but I also think it is perfectly in line with a band that changed their sound virtually every album in their heyday to change their mind...repeatedly, if necessary.

And yeah...they gonna be rich...er. I don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Hello From Alberta, Canada
Replies
4
Views
399
NormB
N
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
821
zoo skis
Z
N
I’m new here and like the recent stuff
Replies
2
Views
755
Sicy
Sicy

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom