What do you think NLOTH's reception means for future releases??

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm not the biggest fan of How to dismantle .... but it's the most mature album the band's ever made
this pop kids crap is really quite ridiculous

:shrug:

I agree, its not like they've been making music for "pop kids" but they have molded their releases this decade around how they think it'll do commercially somewhat more than they used to.
 
I also want people to know that I started this thread because the thought popped into my head and I wanted to know what you guys thought, I'm not basing NLOTH or bemoaning it as a failure, just wondering out loud with everyone here where they'll go in the future.
 
I also want people to know that I started this thread because the thought popped into my head and I wanted to know what you guys thought, I'm not basing NLOTH or bemoaning it as a failure, just wondering out loud with everyone here where they'll go in the future.


I think now they are free to do whatever they want....mix up their albums, do whatever they want. reggae, dance, pop, opera, country, gospel and yes, EVEN rock...they can do anything....some will love it, others will hate it. But, they are not, and never have been worried about the "pop" kids.

I would also like to say that just because something is not weird or not overtly "experimental", does not mean they are trying to play it safe. 'Beautiful Day' was definitely not safe at the time. It was like nothing else on the radio at turn of the century. Heck, it was even a bold move to sell something that straight-forward to their hard-core fans! The whole album was the exact opposite of irony. It was sincere. To sell sincerity is always a risky move, and they pulled it off.....massively.
'Get On Your Boots' was NOT safe......people still don't get it. Why? Because it is a straight-forward rock and roll song and people don't get that spirit of rock anymore. Rock and roll to people now is spilling your guts out, bleeding all over your song, screaming to the top of your lungs, and playing the guitar as hard or fast as they can. So many bands can create that sound. Those bands are not pure rock and roll. Those bands are playing to the pop kids. U2 dare to be different. Other bands wish they had their guts. Most bands want to be loved and try too hard to fit in until they sound like the rest of the pack.
U2 wants to be loved, too, but they are also not afraid to be hated, which makes them brilliant.
 
'Get On Your Boots' was NOT safe......people still don't get it. Why? Because it is a straight-forward rock and roll song and people don't get that spirit of rock anymore. Rock and roll to people now is spilling your guts out, bleeding all over your song, screaming to the top of your lungs, and playing the guitar as hard or fast as they can. So many bands can create that sound. Those bands are not pure rock and roll. Those bands are playing to the pop kids. U2 dare to be different. Other bands wish they had their guts. Most bands want to be loved and try too hard to fit in until they sound like the rest of the pack.
U2 wants to be loved, too, but they are also not afraid to be hated, which makes them brilliant.

I like your spirit, but I have to disagree with you about "Boots". It is safe, and very calculated IMO. It is trying to connect with the "pop kids" too. They structure the song a lot like "Vertigo", and I am sure they were going for a similar audience. 4 + years is a long time though, and I don't think kids today want to hear guys pushing 50 singing about sexy boots. I also think it turns off some long time fans as well. I really wanted to like "Boots" as a first single, but it was a real disappointment for me. It's like they made a really artistic album, and had to throw on this track because they were scared they wouldn't have a big hit single. I think it backfired. "Vertigo" was their last "hit single", at least in the US. They remain relevant obviously, but there is no need to chase the hit single and the pop kids anymore. I don't mind "Boots" in the context of the album, but I still think it is the weakest track on NLOTH. It would have been better as a B-side or on the cutting room floor IMO. I'm really glad "Magnificent" is the next single, and I think it will do well on radio, but they need not worry about the Top 40 singles chart anymore. Just worry about the album charts. I think NL would have done even better if "Mag" was the first single. I'm sure some people heard "Boots" and had a similar feeling about "Discotheque"; "If this what the rest of the album sounds like, I think I might pass.". Luckily, U2 are much bigger now than in 1997 thanks to the last 2 albums. Also, their image isn't as out there as on POP. Therefore, I think "Mag" & the tour will keep the album selling for quite a while. But "Boots" was a misstep IMO.
 
To answer your question, what NLOTH's reception means for later releases is that THEY'LL RELEASE THEM IN THE DAMN AUTUMN.
 
I'm not the biggest fan of How to dismantle .... but it's the most mature album the band's ever made
this pop kids crap is really quite ridiculous

:shrug:

I would have to respectfully disagree.

I think U2 were more mature during the 90's. Call it whatever you wanna call it. Maybe the music listeners were more mature, hadn't been exposed yet to the likes of Lil' Wayne. But Bono himself was writing in a much more mature style. Even on JT, there are lyrics, like in "Running To Stand Still", where his chops were up there with the likes of Reed and Dylan, writing stories, not judging, leaving it up to us to fill in the blanks.

I think with MOS he still has the goods, if only he could resist the urge to stop writing lyrics in the style of CT and SUC. I'm tough enough, i can handle a U2 song these days that isn't telling me everything is going to be alright.
 
U2 is going to release Breathe and NLOH as singles and then they are going to win like 50 grammys and then they will sell like a billion more records. U2 should not think in commercial terms. I know that they believe in commerce and all that bollocks but they need to leave all there inhibitions behind and crank out some more awesome tunes. If they aren't scared of what they are producing then they aren't doing their jobs right.

p.s.
I had a dream that I heard the entirety of Every Breaking Wave from SOA and it was :drool: I hope the real song is even better. I can't wait for Songs of Accent.
 
I actually think GOYB was quite daring- it's more Discotheque than Vertigo and that can only be a good thing. I never thought it was a single, however- they ought to have gone with Magnificent or Breathe maybe.
 
I'm quite surprised by how much many of you use the word 'experimental' to describe No Line On The Horizon. What exactly is 'experimental' about it?

"Boots" and "Stand up Comedy" sound like late 70s Cheap Trick; "Go Crazy" sounds like an ATYCLB outtake; "Magnificent" sounds like New Order with a better singer (or rather like "Ultraviolet (Light My Way)"; "White As Snow" is a folk melody. "Fez" might be called experimental in that it's slightly non-linear and doesn't have a chorus, but the same could be said of 'Promenade' or 'Elvis Presley and America' a quarter-century ago. And Eno squeaking away on his digital keyboard to make a squeal and squelch here and there sounds like a lot of records in the early 90s.

So, unless your idea of contemporary sounds is Miley Cyrus, I don't know how No Line would be considered "experimental". It seems that, with U2, when the band isn't obviously going for the commercial jugular with every release, their fans assign it to being an 'experimental' phase.
 
Sorry, I got off-topic above.... To address the thread's topic: I would like to think that U2 couldn't care less about how many records they sell or how much radio exposure they get, but I can't. I really cannot imagine the group existing, at this point, without a massive international audience to preach to.

So, for better or for worse, I do suspect that the reception of NLOTH will affect how they piece together the next album, and how they approach their impending 50s. They have a long history of reacting strongly to the popular perception of each release, and I don't think they're going to stop this anytime soon.

In a way, I admire that about them; in another way, as a long-time fan who couldn't care less about how many records they sell, it's annoying.
 
I'm quite surprised by how much many of you use the word 'experimental' to describe No Line On The Horizon. What exactly is 'experimental' about it?

"Boots" and "Stand up Comedy" sound like late 70s Cheap Trick; "Go Crazy" sounds like an ATYCLB outtake; "Magnificent" sounds like New Order with a better singer (or rather like "Ultraviolet (Light My Way)"; "White As Snow" is a folk melody. "Fez" might be called experimental in that it's slightly non-linear and doesn't have a chorus, but the same could be said of 'Promenade' or 'Elvis Presley and America' a quarter-century ago. And Eno squeaking away on his digital keyboard to make a squeal and squelch here and there sounds like a lot of records in the early 90s.

So, unless your idea of contemporary sounds is Miley Cyrus, I don't know how No Line would be considered "experimental". It seems that, with U2, when the band isn't obviously going for the commercial jugular with every release, their fans assign it to being an 'experimental' phase.

I agree that NLOTH is not experimental, but the band, and Eno and Lanois, marketed it as such in interviews leading up to the release, and I think that's where all this experimental talk came from. I was excited to hear that it was supposed to be breaking new sonic barriers, but it doesn't sound like that to me. I still love it, but I wish they would have been more accurate with their description of it. Maybe it was shaping up to be more experimental until the last minute, and the more experimental stuff will be on SOA, who knows?
 
The quality of their live performances is now so light years ahead of their 80s shows, and even Zoo TV, that's it's very hard not to notice.

Hmmm, while the above quote reinforces your argument, personally I may have to dispute it... Having been to all tours since JT (apart from LoveTown) ZooTV, for me was on another level to Vertigo and Elevation. Musically and visually still THE best tour I've ever seen by any band before or since... A 3D version of this show at it's best would, I believe, blow minds of those unfortunate enough not to be able to attend and regrettably Vertigo would pale in comparison.
 
Hmmm, while the above quote reinforces your argument, personally I may have to dispute it... Having been to all tours since JT (apart from LoveTown) ZooTV, for me was on another level to Vertigo and Elevation. Musically and visually still THE best tour I've ever seen by any band before or since... A 3D version of this show at it's best would, I believe, blow minds of those unfortunate enough not to be able to attend and regrettably Vertigo would pale in comparison.

Zoo TV 3D!! wow, can you imagine????
 
I only quoted it because that's what Bono said around the time of Zoo TV. I thought that was what others were referring to in this thread. I was not trying to be eliteist.

I was referring to that Bono quote as well.....I don't like it that some people keep bringing it up to squash the new stuff. To me, their new stuff is like nothing that mainstream is listening to. Beautiful Day is not a typical pop song, not a typical U2 song. Vertigo is an homage to classic punk and classic U2, but different. And Get on Your Boots is rock and roll. None of that is mainstream these days. U2 is making their own brand of music. That's where I was coming from.
 
I'm quite surprised by how much many of you use the word 'experimental' to describe No Line On The Horizon. What exactly is 'experimental' about it?

"Boots" and "Stand up Comedy" sound like late 70s Cheap Trick; "Go Crazy" sounds like an ATYCLB outtake; "Magnificent" sounds like New Order with a better singer (or rather like "Ultraviolet (Light My Way)"; "White As Snow" is a folk melody. "Fez" might be called experimental in that it's slightly non-linear and doesn't have a chorus, but the same could be said of 'Promenade' or 'Elvis Presley and America' a quarter-century ago. And Eno squeaking away on his digital keyboard to make a squeal and squelch here and there sounds like a lot of records in the early 90s.

So, unless your idea of contemporary sounds is Miley Cyrus, I don't know how No Line would be considered "experimental". It seems that, with U2, when the band isn't obviously going for the commercial jugular with every release, their fans assign it to being an 'experimental' phase.

If we talk like this there is no experimental music any more :shrug: Nothing is experimental if someone does it before, and U2 have never really been experimental, u2 were just experimental with their sound. Even albums like Kid A aren't experimental seeing as stuff like that was done before by tonnes of artists
 
It's time to bid the "pop kids" a final farewell and move into a more mature songwriting process. There are artists that can't move 1% of U2's sales, but they still produce beautiful, well-crafted music at the same caliber. I think when U2 set out to be commercially viable, they lose a crucial part of what makes them who they are. Part of the magic of the 80's and 90's was that they didn't seem to care how commercially viable they were. That may have been a clever sheen, but the adventurousness of the music backed it up. The 2000's U2 lost that edge. NLOTH is another lopsided album that doesn't fully commit itself either way. If Songs Of Ascent is put out without any overcooked, overly-tight U2 Karoake Pop Hits and just lets itself flow effortlessly into the theme of the album and the soul of the music, U2 may well get a second life. They will lose some of their viability, but they are U2, they can make whatever music they want to make and still attract attention. I'm really hoping Songs of Ascent tilts forward into a more mature landscape and marks a new beginning. If it's another NLOTH with the crazies, boots and comedies painfully trying to be artlessly poppy, their goose is cooked.

I cannot possibly disagree more with everything you wrote.

"Stand Up", I think it's U2 at a high peak, not low - and I'm confused by the hate by many here. Maybe the "God...old lady" line is a bit corny, but the thought behind that line is powerful. I refuse to give up on a song because one token line is a bit odd (like "heavy as a truck" - I thought nothing of that line until I came here and saw everyone mocking it). "Stand Up" has great ideas, great themes, great vocals and great guitar work. I was driving yesterday and that song rocked out of my speakers! :hyper: Plus, that song is NOT like old U2 (maybe old Zeppelin, but not old U2).

That said, I refuse to get into some song by song argument. To me, it's an overall album - yes album - vibe and I like this album a lot. Still, an album is a collection of songs - ideally different from each other. Some will be pop, some rock, some more bluesy and some ambient.

"Pride" was written as U2's attempt to have a pop hit. Yes, it's about MLK and martyrs in general - a tough theme - but U2 has always found a way to make interesting ideas accessible (like a death of a parent, the war in Ireland or the difficulties in Poland).

UF, JT and NLOTH are very similar to me. All have soaring vocals, big ideas, some rock songs and some pop songs. You may not like all the versions of these genres on NLOTH, and I don't like all of them on UF or JT either. But in reality, none of those albums are immediately accessible. Rather, they grow on people.

The real situation is that some of NLOTH is just that - reminiscent of U2's past. And I think people have problems with that - U2 sounding like U2.

That lack of instant accessibility is what makes NLOTH stand apart from AB, "Pop", ATYCLB and HTDAAB and even R&H. There aren't songs that just leap out as the big Top 40 hit. Each of those albums had those songs. In contrast, one has to listen to the album several times before you glean that something like "Crazy" could be a pop hit (has yet to be seen if that's true).

So if U2's next album is another NLOTH, hurrah! :applaud: If it's another HTDAAB - joy (even with some major hiccups in that album, it's still very good). If U2 decide to sound more rock and try for AB, great! :hyper: But what I hope is not an album full of self-indulgent songs that only a handful enjoy. And based on your words, that sounds to be exactly what you want.
 
There's a cynicism that comes with being too much into the underground. If you completely disdain the mainstream, then you really can't hope to have anything good come out of it. John Lennon, for as much as he became ingratiated in the avant-garde, always understood how to have a larger-than-life voice. And so, I don't think it's a bad thing that U2 want to and CAN remain relevant and hugely popular. That will no doubt have diminishing returns, as time goes on. But, even though we don't all like their most recent stuff, if they are attracting new fans of all ages, I think that is positive for them.
 
I only quoted it because that's what Bono said around the time of Zoo TV. I thought that was what others were referring to in this thread. I was not trying to be eliteist.

No, I understand that...

But it was said, 18 years ago, and in a somewhat tongue n cheek way, it doesn't fit in todays context.

I think those(I don't mean you in paticular) that keep using it today are showing a certain naive arrogance.
 
No, I understand that...

But it was said, 18 years ago, and in a somewhat tongue n cheek way, it doesn't fit in todays context.

I think those(I don't mean you in paticular) that keep using it today are showing a certain naive arrogance.

I prefer to say a more discerning palette. You've got to have standards- life cannot be some relativist free for all. If that makes me elitist, fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom