Album 13: Mirror mirror on the wall, there's no album so let's just talk y'all

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Mysterious Ways was around in the 80's? :huh:


Good thing you weren't a fan of INXS, Musky. They played every song exactly as it was on the album. No solos. I'm no musician, but they used to call that playing "tight".
 
Mysterious Ways was around in the 80's? :huh:

Quite possible. It's fascinating to see and hear the songwriting process on this one on "From the Sky down"...It was originally called "Sick Puppy".

I wish the band would make more Documentaries about writing and recording one of their albums. I love this stuff :drool:
 
Yeah, although the 360 tour was a great spectacle and quite different from the Vertigo tour which itself was very enjoyable... performances of individual classic songs seem to have become very samey in nature. For example Mysterious Ways, whether you listen to it from 360 or Vertigo or Elevation will probably sound the same. Wasn't the case in the old days.

Vertigo and 360 are pretty similar, but Elevation did have the different intro, and didn't just go straight into it.

Zoo TV just sounds the best to me, but there are some pretty good Vertigo and Elevation versions. Did miss the solo on 360, but it's just such a good song that I don't mind. One of my favorite songs by anybody, really.
 
I just see a lot of people make arguments about how U2 used to do this or do that when the truth is nothing's changed.

Sure sounds like the music's changed in the last 30 years. Several times in fact.
 
Sure sounds like the music's changed in the last 30 years. Several times in fact.


Not what I was talking about...

When I said "nothing's changed" I was speaking to those certain arguments that come up over and over. Should have worded it differently.
 
What hasn't changed exactly? I would think the mentality of 20 year old kids is significantly different from the mentality of men in their fifties. You're always making the argument that U2 has held the same principles since day one. I highly doubt their priorities have never changed.

(to BVS)
 
They have just made it harder. They've abandoned the true 'God walking through the room' magic of the way they used to make records. They'd jam and accidentally just stumble into something incredible.

These days, straight from the horses mouth, they won't even pursue something unless it "can be put across on an acoustic guitar". Because, you know, that totally applies to so much of their best music. Like Streets, Pride, I Will Follow...I could keep going and going.

They've changed how they conjure up the songs - for the worse.

The song Bad is basically two chords (almost entirely) throughout. And yet it is more dynamic than anything they've made in the last 15 years. So if you catch my drift, it cannot be said any better than that.

Bono even remarks about this very thing in U2 BY U2. As soon as they got good (he used to say "we weren't any good, we were just great" and he was right), they lost something. It's too formulaic, it doesn't provide for much magic. I run into the very same thing in writing music. I can empathize.

I just wish they'd say "let's do one like the old days". And just bang one out like they used to. And if the tune doesn't have discernible chord structure, so what? But they won't. Bob Dylan once said to them "nobody will be able to play your songs". That's the single greatest compliment that U2 has ever received (that I've heard). And yet they recoiled against that idea.

They deliberately moved away from that magic so that they could write classic pop songs. They took away what made U2 so uniquely different and special. I still love them, but I miss that magic. It's not there. No matter what anyone says, no matter how nostalgic they are for Beautiful Day, it isn't there in that song. Good song, great song, whatever floats your boat. Same with Invisible, fine song but it's not magic.


Great post and I agree 100%.

The other night I watched JT show from LA in 87...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugGM_3yh4l4
Just wow.
360 tour?
zzz.....that claw thing was stupid and so were the recent songs.

No one has to agree with my opinion but that's how I feel.
 
They have just made it harder. They've abandoned the true 'God walking through the room' magic of the way they used to make records. They'd jam and accidentally just stumble into something incredible.



These days, straight from the horses mouth, they won't even pursue something unless it "can be put across on an acoustic guitar". Because, you know, that totally applies to so much of their best music. Like Streets, Pride, I Will Follow...I could keep going and going.



They've changed how they conjure up the songs - for the worse.



The song Bad is basically two chords (almost entirely) throughout. And yet it is more dynamic than anything they've made in the last 15 years. So if you catch my drift, it cannot be said any better than that.



Bono even remarks about this very thing in U2 BY U2. As soon as they got good (he used to say "we weren't any good, we were just great" and he was right), they lost something. It's too formulaic, it doesn't provide for much magic. I run into the very same thing in writing music. I can empathize.



I just wish they'd say "let's do one like the old days". And just bang one out like they used to. And if the tune doesn't have discernible chord structure, so what? But they won't. Bob Dylan once said to them "nobody will be able to play your songs". That's the single greatest compliment that U2 has ever received (that I've heard). And yet they recoiled against that idea.



They deliberately moved away from that magic so that they could write classic pop songs. They took away what made U2 so uniquely different and special. I still love them, but I miss that magic. It's not there. No matter what anyone says, no matter how nostalgic they are for Beautiful Day, it isn't there in that song. Good song, great song, whatever floats your boat. Same with Invisible, fine song but it's not magic.


Yeah, I can understand both sides to this. What you're saying is very true, and I believe it's what makes MOS so special. But I can also understand the desire of a musician to want their song to be able to translate to any medium.

Bono tells a story about how Edge and he are backstage with some of their contemporaries, I think during one of the amnesty tours, and people are sharing new songs they are working on and they were embarrassed because they couldn't just pick up an acoustic and play Unforgettable Fire.
 
I think during one of the amnesty tours, and people are sharing new songs they are working on and they were embarrassed because they couldn't just pick up an acoustic and play Unforgettable Fire.

And I would say to Bono and Edge that's actually something to be proud of, not something to run away from.
Oh well.....
 
What hasn't changed exactly? I would think the mentality of 20 year old kids is significantly different from the mentality of men in their fifties. You're always making the argument that U2 has held the same principles since day one. I highly doubt their priorities have never changed.

(to BVS)


Of course, I'm talking about those that say the 90's were cooler because they didn't care about hits, of course they did they were just shy about saying so. Or those that don't realize they've had static playlist for most of their career.
 
And I would say to Bono and Edge that's actually something to be proud of, not something to run away from.

Oh well.....


But you don't understand the mentality that many musicians share that a good song is a good song no matter if it's played on a ukulele or a piano.
 
But you don't understand the mentality that many musicians share that a good song is a good song no matter if it's played on a ukulele or a piano.

It's a common say amongst musicians but it is so true !

Image the complete Zooropa album played live by the band on Accoustic guitars, Ukulele and Larry on the Jimbe !

Or better yet : MOFO or the Playboy Mansion !

There's only three words for this : Tour De Force :wink:
 
Last edited:
But you don't understand the mentality that many musicians share that a good song is a good song no matter if it's played on a ukulele or a piano.


Pretty sure I do understand it.
And anyway, they could certainly play UF or whatever on an acoustic guitar and still get the song across...the best part is the vocal melody anyway, so what's the big deal about strumming Dm and Bb?
I mean, what about "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Kashmir" or "Baba O'Reily"?
Same kind of thing; those songs weren't presented in a way that you would think is playable "on acoustic guitar" but they can be....

This whole acoustic guitar theory is kind of silly in my book anyway. I mean, could Stravinsky have played "The Rite Of Spring" on an acoustic guitar? LOL.
 
Of course, I'm talking about those that say the 90's were cooler because they didn't care about hits, of course they did they were just shy about saying so. Or those that don't realize they've had static playlist for most of their career.

Nobody sane is saying they didn't care about the hits in the 90s. And I didn't get the impression they were shy about them either. What I think most people are saying is that they didn't have that factor count as the ultimate priority which made them weary about their approach to songwriting. They made hits - but on their own terms and they have followed their instincts to make them. They certainly didn't let the desperate need for hits and relevance dictate their whole creative process.

And the acoustic guitar argument is one of many ludicrous things that have come out of their mouths in the last ten or so years. If there is any big band out there whose hits are very often incompatible with the acoustic guitar - it's U2.
 
Nobody sane is saying they didn't care about the hits in the 90s. And I didn't get the impression they were shy about them either. What I think most people are saying is that they didn't have that factor count as the ultimate priority which made them weary about their approach to songwriting. They made hits - but on their own terms and they have followed their instincts to make them.

And the acoustic guitar argument is one of many ludicrous things that have come out of their mouths in the last ten or so years. If there is any big band out there whose hits are very often incompatible with the acoustic guitar - it's U2.


Have you noticed how many insane people that are in here?
 
They have just made it harder. They've abandoned the true 'God walking through the room' magic of the way they used to make records. They'd jam and accidentally just stumble into something incredible.

Just some accumulation of my thinking based on what I've learned about the band. Turns out this kinda long. Forgive me.

The band is in a similar state as they were in 1990, except even worse.

ATYCLB and HTDAAB were a huge force in the charts and radioplay, but as soon as they got comfortable and decided to make NLOTH just for kicks, they were then disappointed. Remember NLOTH was a collection of songs that wasn't initially planned to be ever released. The band thought they had great songs, but they turned out to be highly irrelevant to listeners in 2009.

What they thought was interesting and cool in Morocco was not anywhere interesting for the audience back home. It's kind of like Rattle and Hum. U2 wanted to show America its roots, but America was like OK...that's cool for you...but kind of boring for us. In 2008-2009, they though they could progress their sound by bringing in some Northern African elements, which they found interesting, but the mainstream audience doesn't really care what inspiration you find for your sound. They just want exciting sounds.

It's not really anybody's fault, but the whole method of just going into the studio to just jam out songs didn't work for them. Why should it work for them now?

The band has gone for almost TEN years without a radio hit. That is a LONG time. The stretched out world tours of Vertigo and 360 (lengthened by illness and injury), plus the long recording time of NLOTH, has no doubt killed their relevance. Think about what has changed in the music scene since 2004. The teenagers of today were toddlers. They grown up listening to manufactured pop music or a crummy indie scene, or even worse...dubstep. What did the teenagers of 2004 grow up listening to? A much more diverse set of music of the 1990s. Since then rock n' roll in general had died in the mainstream. It was dying after the exhausting 1990s, but fortunately U2 benefited from a short garage-rock revival in from 2003-2005. The mainstream audience has moved on, and U2 has unfortunately fallen way behind.

U2 recognizes this. The odds are stacked against them. They are in their 50s, and that makes them super uncool from the get-go. They are great musicians, but it doesn't make a damn difference if they can't connect with today's audience. I can only think they are in the studio trying to not only integrate back into airplay, but also "fuck up the mainstream". Because that is really what U2 is best at. Their albums are never truly mainstream, but are fresh enough to captivate listeners.

I constantly see people comment "why should U2 even care about radio hits?" My answer is: Probably because they are still trying to challenge themselves. They've shown they can release great music with NLOTH. But without a strong hook, those are just songs. It doesn't excite your friends. Music that hooks listeners beyond your core audience and gets people talking is U2's definition of success.

I quote Bono's last line in From the Sky Down: "You have to reject one expression of the band first before you get to the next expression, and in between you have nothing. You have to risk it all."

U2 is trying to start afresh. They have nothing at the moment. They are just trying to find the songs. I wish the band never released Ordinary Love and Invisible, because people automatically assume that these are going to be the best U2 can put out. The band is just testing the waters. The lackluster response to Invisible is probably an indicator as "Hey, we still have more work to do. We just don't quite have it yet." It's very important that they get this right. Because....

This next album is IT. It's success will probably determine the fate of U2. If they can't be successful in their mind, then what is the point of continuing on? They've always said it. We don't want to be the Stones, but we will keep releasing music if it keeps you and us interested. This next album is the hardest album they are going to write. I prefer they take their time with it. Because I don't want U2 to retire.
 
And the acoustic guitar argument is one of many ludicrous things that have come out of their mouths in the last ten or so years. If there is any big band out there whose hits are very often incompatible with the acoustic guitar - it's U2.

Totally agree with this! The Beatles wouldn't have cared playing a song on acoustic guitar, they cared about the song, and using whatever they could to make the best sounding, most interesting music they could (catchy and melodic at that).

U2 seems to be too caught up in the same sorta thing they were going through during the recording of Pop...the desire to stay relevant (in terms of what's going on w/music at that particular time).

Also U2 needs a producer who's going to make the 'final' decision, because obviously they can't.
 
Edge's acoustic arrangement comment made me wince as well. It's a pretty conservative, to say the least (close-minded would be more apt), view of music. There are entire genres of music which would be rendered defunct if the notion that a song's substance has to be composed of some core was actually true. That the layers can be stripped away without taking away from the song's essence. Ludicrous.

The irony is that some of the best U2 songs would lose their essence if you stripped them to their bare bones. The dense production, all those fucking delays and effects The Edge actually got famous for.....they actually MAKE the songs. And when you start thinking about bands like Radiohead/Atoms for Peace and industrial music (Krautrock was meant for acoustic arrangements, right?).......yea, okay.....
 
U2 seems to be too caught up in the same sorta thing they were going through during the recording of Pop...the desire to stay relevant (in terms of what's going on w/music at that particular time).

They had the intention of having hits with Pop, but they hardly let the desire to stay relevant motivate the creative process behind that record. I for one certainly don't hear it.
 
Edge's acoustic arrangement comment made me wince as well. It's a pretty conservative, to say the least (close-minded would be more apt), view of music. There are entire genres of music which would be rendered defunct if the notion that a song's substance has to be composed of some core was actually true. That the layers can be stripped away without taking away from the song's essence. Ludicrous.

The irony is that some of the best U2 songs would lose their essence if you stripped them to their bare bones. The dense production, all those fucking delays and effects The Edge actually got famous for.....they actually MAKE the songs. And when you start thinking about bands like Radiohead/Atoms for Peace and industrial music (Krautrock was meant for acoustic arrangements, right?).......yea, okay.....

Great Post :up: agree with everything you said there.

Edge is, in my mind the most talented and prolly smartest one of the bunch and to hear him say this kinda :huh:???
 
Back
Top Bottom