Anyone think they took the safe option?

[popshopper]

After listening to the album, Mercy and the loop of Fast Cars, I'm starting to think that the band took a slightly safe option when picking the tracks.

Both Mercy and Fast Cars are pretty interesting musically and very dark lyrically (and not as direct as the other songs on the album, with the possible exception of one step closer)

I can't help but think that it you drop Yahweh (it's a good song, but it's lyrically ropy and to be honest smug as hell, and is far too upbeat to end such a doom-laden album with) and replace it with Mercy (which ends the album with a down beat but interesting "I am alive
Baby I born again, and again, and again, and again
again")

and add fast cars after all because of you, as musically seems a bridge between the full on rock of ABOY and soul groove AMAAW, (Though I'm not sure how it fits it lyrically and thematically) you get a much darker and coherent album.

two of the more challenging songs were dropped for a lyrically bland up-beat closer (though its a good song) and an admittedly very, very good but extremely middle of the road soul song.
Though I'll admit the lyrics in AMAAW are central to the album IMHO, however it is the only song which is certain to be played on MOR radio.

 

[Dr_Macphisto]

I can see what you are saying, but I think they simply took Mercy off for its length and lack of a catchy chorus.

 

[Soulrock2]

Hmmm... I don't know. But I do think that Are you gonna wait forever and Mercy really have the potential to be excellent A-sides. A pity...

I prefer an excellent A-side to an excellent B-side, that's for sure...

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

I believe that U2 had a nice dilemma on their hands and that is too many good songs. So what do you do? They have always believed in quality over quantity.

Now I'm not saying that the songs dropped are not quality, it's just that Bono and the boys decided to make a nice, concise album that flows (in their opinions) instead of over burdening the album with too many songs.

I think that Mercy is a pretty good song (in the vein of Bad) and AYGWF is a great Rock song. I'm very interested in hearing Fast Cars, which I feel will become a classic (but I don't know why). At least we can't complain about a lack of quality B-sides, that's for sure.

 

[If you shout...]

After listening to this new album almost non-stop for a good few days, now, I don't think that I can really see it any way other than it now is, you know? It's pretty tough for me now to think of the album other than this pressing, even if that would mean losing some of the weaker songs and replacing them with stronger ones...

I kind of think (and this is all painfully preliminary) that "Are You Gonna' Wait Forever?" (which IS an A-side with just a little little bit of polishing and maybe a new take on the vocals) could have a place on the next U2 record....if, of course, that album is the album which this one was supposed to be: a "beast," a "dragon," a "monster" or whatever other jive Bono was tossing around while Thomas was in the studio.

If U2 took that direction with the next record, I think that this first U2-penned b-side would be a great fit....in theory. Of course, it won't be since it's already become a b-side. Still, an album like the one I want to hear could easily end, I think, with a VERY polished version of "Mercy" (which sounds terrible without having been mastered and which REALLY REALY REALLY needs to see Bono take another pass at the vocal track). It would wrap things up nicely, I think.

All conjecture, though... I bet the next album will see the band just get even more tame and predictable as we watch them rest on their laurels more and more. One can hope, though; they might have another forward-thinking Pop or Passengers left in 'em.

 

[Party Boy]

Fast Cars is on the album as a closer.. at least for us here in UK... so its only Mercy we don't have...

 

[ZeroDude]

and an interesting closer it will be

 

[Lo-Fi]

After listening to this new album almost non-stop for a good few days, now, I don't think that I can really see it any way other than it now is, you know? It's pretty tough for me now to think of the album other than this pressing, even if that would mean losing some of the weaker songs and replacing them with stronger ones...

I kind of think (and this is all painfully preliminary) that "Are You Gonna' Wait Forever?" (which IS an A-side with just a little little bit of polishing and maybe a new take on the vocals) could have a place on the next U2 record....if, of course, that album is the album which this one was supposed to be: a "beast," a "dragon," a "monster" or whatever other jive Bono was tossing around while Thomas was in the studio.

If U2 took that direction with the next record, I think that this first U2-penned b-side would be a great fit....in theory. Of course, it won't be since it's already become a b-side. Still, an album like the one I want to hear could easily end, I think, with a VERY polished version of "Mercy" (which sounds terrible without having been mastered and which REALLY REALY REALLY needs to see Bono take another pass at the vocal track). It would wrap things up nicely, I think.

All conjecture, though... I bet the next album will see the band just get even more tame and predictable as we watch them rest on their laurels more and more. One can hope, though; they might have another forward-thinking Pop or Passengers left in 'em.

I love his vocal in Mercy as it is, it suits the tone of the track, I also feel the unfinished quality of the song gives it something, adds the feel of the song. Something too polished would really take away from that song.

I'd love to see them go away and make another album right out the left field. The only way I see them doing that is when they've lost their thing for competing in the mainstream. A Song like Fast Cars, which is brilliantly weird tells me they can still dip into the abstract field when they want too and they do it so well as well, I actually feel it's one of their major strengths.

 

[innocent_eyes]

for everyone if they buy the box set!

 

[ADecentMelody]

As good as Mercy and AYGWF are, I really don't think they belong in the album. They are definitely b-side material.

I think Bono likes dark lyrics, but just did not have it this time around that is in the album.

 

[Daveone]

I think the 3 non album tracks we've heard so far are certainly U2 at their most experimental (at this time, not when compared to the 90's) and in the case of Mercy and Fast Cars, U2 at their best. Fast Cars would have fit in quite comfortably on HTDAAB - i mean if Vertigo can this can! And Mercy would have been a much better album closer. Nevermind.

 

[mlrg]

After listening to this song over and over I thinks it's because of sound like these that I came to admire U2. The Edge's guitars in this song is just AMAZING... it gives you a sense of echo that you can hear in great songs such as "Until the End of the World". It revolves around you and sticks in your head.

 

[purpleblackeye]

U2 definitely played it safe with this album, but I guess you have to if their aim is worldwide success. it's almost like they are afraid to put off fans now. you will never hear another "Lemon" of "Mofo" or "The Fly"

sad but true

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

I think it's ridiculous of everyone to question their artistic decisions and direction — the vibe they did or did not want for the album. How can anyone sit back and say, This song is better, shoulda been on there … Questioning the bands decisions? I wish to stay away from this kind of pompous attitude. The tracklisting is such b/c those songs mean the most to the band. ENJOY THEM. Think of it this way: would you walk up to Van Gogh and say, Nah, a little more yellow over here, less blue there. Sorry, this stuff just irks me …

 

[AtomicBono]

Still, an album like the one I want to hear could easily end, I think, with a VERY polished version of "Mercy" (which sounds terrible without having been mastered and which REALLY REALY REALLY needs to see Bono take another pass at the vocal track).

Are you bloody insane?! Bono's vocals on Mercy are AMAZING... people are speculating on whether it was recorded in '87 or from Hansa! His voice gives me chills it's so good. I sure hope we see this song live. I love it so, so much.

Fast Cars is a bonus track in the UK and Japan and in all the boxsets, so it's kind of part of the album I haven't even heard Fast Cars but almost everyone really digs it...interesting how U2 bonus tracks are sometimes better than half of the actual album (Ground Beneath Her Feet, anyone?) Mercy is too long and unfinished to be on the album, though with a little more mastering I think it would have fit quite nicely...but I love Yahweh. I wouldn't want it replaced, just have Mercy on after it actually, I just burned a CD with AYGWF and Mercy tacked on at the end and they really fit quite nicely!

 

[If you shout...]

Are you bloody insane?! Bono's vocals on Mercy are AMAZING... people are speculating on whether it was recorded in '87 or from Hansa! His voice gives me chills it's so good. I sure hope we see this song live. I love it so, so much.

Fast Cars is a bonus track in the UK and Japan and in all the boxsets, so it's kind of part of the album I haven't even heard Fast Cars but almost everyone really digs it...interesting how U2 bonus tracks are sometimes better than half of the actual album (Ground Beneath Her Feet, anyone?) Mercy is too long and unfinished to be on the album, though with a little more mastering I think it would have fit quite nicely...but I love Yahweh. I wouldn't want it replaced, just have Mercy on after it actually, I just burned a CD with AYGWF and Mercy tacked on at the end and they really fit quite nicely!

Ha ha ha. A couple people have now taken issue with my critique of the vocals on "Mercy." I just wanna' clarify: I definitely think that Bono's voice sounds fine in the song, and I agree with everybody who has said that the pure quality of his voice sounds better here than it has pretty much anywhere else for some time. It's not the quality of his voice, though, that I take issue with--it's the quality of his vocal PERFORMANCE. I don't know if I'm being clear enough, here...I guess that's the best I can do.

That said, this is a subjective argument of mine. I don't think I could really argue, no matter how hard I tried, that his voice itself sounds bad...that's just silly. I just don't like the way he puts that reinvigorated voice to use in parts of the song; of course, as we've all said, mastering would probably help that out a bit.

 

[ponkine]

I haven´t listened Mercy yet by the way... ponkine@yahoo.com but talking about HTDAAB is really a safe album. I think this new millenium is pretty full of that rather safe and such comercial songs for U2 I don´t think they will dare to do another such innovative things like Numb, Lemon, The Fly, Zooropa, Mofo and other songs
The main problem, as I see is the change of times, I mean, the new generation of U2 teenagers fans grew up with All That You Can´t Live Behind so they love that album but for those who ( included me ) grew up with discs like Acthung Baby, Zooropa, Pop and even Joshua Tree this new U2 is really, really dissapointing and safe
But I think the new fans can´t imagine what U2 was in the 80´s and specially during 90´s, I mean, U2 was THE BAND, every other band must follow their musical rules whenever they changed the music tendences EVEN METALLICA MUST CUT THEIR HAIR AFTER "POP" like a fan pointed out very well, so U2 was a music movement, I can remember perfectly clear those Zoo TV times, every radio, every TV station keeped us informed about Acthung Baby videos, concerts, etc, several Zoo TV concerts were transmited live and I recorded some of them but sadly I recorded into cassette and later my tape aged and finally died. With Pop was pretty much the same, and all reviewers LOVED POP but now it seems all the world media hated Pop, and that wasn´t the truth. Suddenly, after such big Pop success the band turned forever for safe and innofensive music specially for our ears, who have been listening for more than 15 years U2. But now things goes down and down. With Elevation Tour the band didn´t make any surprise, as well with ATYLCB and now with this record, so for the music world U2 is not THE BAND now, is and old band who used to be fantastic and now they´re sleeping, and at least 80% of their success is because they´re a very well named band...for the 80´s and 90´s.So many youngest fans don´t understand us when we said "this new record is simply not so good, sorry" or "ATYCLB was really poor and bad". I wish I had youngest fans lived those extraordinary Zoo TV and Pop Mart times

 

[If you shout...]

"Ponkine," I couldn't agree with you more. I came into the U2 fan-base with Pop when I was a younger teenager, and as I grew into adulthood and heard/was let down by All That You Can't Leave Behind , I watched people a few years younger than myself falling in love with THAT U2 album.

I look around at other music fans all the time and I see the sort of things which you're talking about. You really hit the nail on the head here, and I'd like to make it known that I, too, remember Pop receiving HUGE critical praise the world over and huge commercial success as well....everywhere but dumb-ass America, of course.

I know that others have posted replies both in this thread and in others that the post-Pop U2 has become one more concerned with success in America than in artistic sense. Of course, we ourselves don't and can't know what the band really feels or is really striving for, but I'll tell you this: it sure as shit seems and sounds that way...

Even hearing Bono say something about this new album being their best (ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???? That's crack-smoking talk...) or "Mercy" being their best b-side ever ("Lady With The Spinning Head????" "Holy Joe???" "Spanish Eyes???" etc.) is just insane and pandering.

I always say about Francis Ford Coppola that he used to be a pompous, self-righteous bastard...but he could be that person and say things like, "This film isn't about Vietnam...my film IS Vietnam!" and actually back them up. U2 (especially Bono) used to be just as smug, but they could back that smugness up with their ruthlessly successful innovation and success....these days, I'm really not so sure....

 

[Flying FuManchu]

IMO (and i have to listen to it again) Bono's vocals on Mercy, only sound good b/c he doesn't try to go beyond his range (which results in his voice cracking). I think the song is relatively derivative and doesn't sound that finished... Could be better but since this is the song they put out...

 

[popsadie]

You know...i'm actually sick of the claims that pop era fans don't enjoy the newer sounds of U2. I became a fan with POP...but don't( and never did) expect them to continue that sound. I love both eras..see the music and subject matter growing out of life experiences in BOTH eras....enjoy both acoustic, stripped down music, hard pounding rock n roll AND experimental music.......I loved Pop..but I'm sick of its defense, and by extension..criticism of ATYCLB and HTDAAB!

 

[depe]

agree, Fast Cars is part of an album cos it's on every LTD box version worldwide

 

[If you shout...]

You know...i'm actually sick of the claims that pop era fans don't enjoy the newer sounds of U2. I became a fan with POP...but don't( and never did) expect them to continue that sound. I love both eras..see the music and subject matter growing out of life experiences in BOTH eras....enjoy both acoustic, stripped down music, hard pounding rock n roll AND experimental music.......I loved Pop..but I'm sick of its defense, and by extension..criticism of ATYCLB and HTDAAB!

I know that I'm helping us steer sort of off topic, but I think that you bring up good points about both sides to this debate. First of all, I think that there are a good number of people who feel exactly the same way that you do. I know a number of them, myself. At the same time, though, either I wasn't very articulate about my feelings or I wasn't listened to completely or, more likely, a bit of both.

I think that All That You Can't Leave Behind was one of U2's poorest studio efforts, all in all--I would rank it above only October . That's just my opinion, but there it is. Now, at this point in time, I'm not really sure just where the new album fits into my scheme of things. I really enjoy the album a great deal, but I feel that 1) A lot of people are calling it a "classic," and I'm not sure that they would be saying that had this album not followed the last one, and 2) It's really just a bit too predictable for my taste...I really love the way that the album sounds, but it still bores me a bit...

So...?

Well, I just want to say that I'm not judging these last two albums relative to Pop --I'm judging them relative to the entire output of U2's career. I am measuring this album against every album that the band put out in both the '80s and the '90s, and I'm not using Pop as some sort of holy yardstick with which to judge all of the band's subsequent work. Achtung Baby was the revolutionary album for the band in the '90s...the next two albums were merely extensions of concepts, themes, sounds, and moods which first broke to the surface back in '91.

I would agree with you about people using just that one album to rate all of U2's new music--that wouldn't be fair to the band or, ultimately, to that fan/listener. The Unforgettable Fire was an experimental record when it came out, too--I don't want U2 to sound like they did when they made Pop ...I want them to get back the balls that they had when they made that album.

You spoke of U2's "music and subject matter growing out of life experience," but I think that's just the problem....maybe the subject matter has grown, but the music hasn't. At best, it's stood still. They can write about AIDS, Africa, God, and grace all they want...I would just like to hear them say something new (which they often do) IN A NEW WAY.

 

[popsadie]

See..to me the music on this album is different. It sounds influenced by the experimental noise pop production trend. This album isn't really like JT..much more sonically layered. It has some of the distortion of AB...but the mood is more hopeful. Also, the vocal additions, the chants..there haven't been on an album either. I realize this is your opinion, but I listen to alot of music...and much of this album doesn't seem safe to me. Exoerimentation is fine..IF...it fits the songs. This is what Bono wants to write about...I can't really see it fitting an overly experimental sound.

 

[If you shout...]

Exoerimentation is fine..IF...it fits the songs. This is what Bono wants to write about...I can't really see it fitting an overly experimental sound.

You're definitely right there--and you're right in what you're saying only implicity...that experimentation for the sake of experimentation is just as ill-advised as staying in a creative rut. There has to be inspiration...not just a forced effort. So I see, again, where you're coming from and I totally agree.

I guess I wouldn't really change too much about this album, either...not realistically, anyway. I mean, if I could somehow make Bono's voice as strong as it used to be, then I would; then there wouldn't be so many studio tricks (like the excessively double-tracked vocals around every corner) and I wouldn't feel so sketchy about the production and whatnot. You're right that these songs wouldn't fit an experimental mold....they wouldn't, nor would have the last batch of songs from '00.

What disappoints me to a degree is the fact that those kinds of songs aren't being written. If U2 recorded a whole album of blistering, burn-the-house-down hard rock, then that would be new and exciting...even if it failed. I wouldn't want THESE songs to be presented in that way, though: this album pretty much works as is... At the same time, then, if their next album was a collection of lo-fi, Animal Collective-esque "campfire songs," I'd be down with that, too....U2's never tried anything like that, and I think it would be really fun to follow the band down such a winding path.

I don't think, in closing, that the band has some sort of obligation to heedlessly experiment--you're right in saying that they have to play what they write in the way that they feel they have to. I just really wish that the songs they were writing weren't quite like this new batch--I wish that they COULD and WOULD be interpreted in different ways. Good album...I just hoped for something more.....challenging not necessarily for the listeners, but for the BAND. Does that make sense...?

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

I haven´t listened Mercy yet by the way... ponkine@yahoo.com but talking about HTDAAB is really a safe album. I think this new millenium is pretty full of that rather safe and such comercial songs for U2 I don´t think they will dare to do another such innovative things like Numb, Lemon, The Fly, Zooropa, Mofo and other songs
The main problem, as I see is the change of times, I mean, the new generation of U2 teenagers fans grew up with All That You Can´t Live Behind so they love that album but for those who ( included me ) grew up with discs like Acthung Baby, Zooropa, Pop and even Joshua Tree this new U2 is really, really dissapointing and safe
But I think the new fans can´t imagine what U2 was in the 80´s and specially during 90´s, I mean, U2 was THE BAND, every other band must follow their musical rules whenever they changed the music tendences EVEN METALLICA MUST CUT THEIR HAIR AFTER "POP" like a fan pointed out very well, so U2 was a music movement, I can remember perfectly clear those Zoo TV times, every radio, every TV station keeped us informed about Acthung Baby videos, concerts, etc, several Zoo TV concerts were transmited live and I recorded some of them but sadly I recorded into cassette and later my tape aged and finally died. With Pop was pretty much the same, and all reviewers LOVED POP but now it seems all the world media hated Pop, and that wasn´t the truth. Suddenly, after such big Pop success the band turned forever for safe and innofensive music specially for our ears, who have been listening for more than 15 years U2. But now things goes down and down. With Elevation Tour the band didn´t make any surprise, as well with ATYLCB and now with this record, so for the music world U2 is not THE BAND now, is and old band who used to be fantastic and now they´re sleeping, and at least 80% of their success is because they´re a very well named band...for the 80´s and 90´s.So many youngest fans don´t understand us when we said "this new record is simply not so good, sorry" or "ATYCLB was really poor and bad". I wish I had youngest fans lived those extraordinary Zoo TV and Pop Mart times

You're an overly nostalgic, whining bore...seriously I just cannot stand people who view the past through rose-coloured spectacles...I agree U2 are not as innovative right now as in the past, but that is not the be all and end all of music is it?


You're sounding like a broken record.

 

[alexvilagosh]

They took the safe option for most of the record. It isn't like anyone could really DISLIKE this record, it isn't a Pop effort.

Too bad, I would have loved to see U2 do a Kid A. Maybe next time.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Something that everyone seems to be missing is this: U2 have to make a BIG album right now. Why? Too much is at stake. Bono has recently said that his celebrity is currency, and he wants to spend his wisely. There are Africans dying of AIDS, and Bono needs celebrity in order to have that currency. In order to have that currency, U2 has to put out big, blockbuster albums. So don't expect U2 to make experimental albums for a while....because if you think about it in this way, people's lives are at stake. As sad as it is, the masses will not listen to Bono in the same quantity unless he maintains his fame. Of course, Bono would love to get even more famous and thus have more currency to spend for the cause. This is why we will not be getting any kind of avant-garde record anytime soon.

 

[If you shout...]

They took the safe option for most of the record. It isn't like anyone could really DISLIKE this record, it isn't a Pop effort.

Too bad, I would have loved to see U2 do a Kid A. Maybe next time.

Maybe a bit off-topic, but still...I got a little tiny story.

I still remember when Radiohead released Kid A in September of '00...and I remember finishing the album and just saying to myself, "Oh, shit--U2 isn't the best band in the world, anymore. The new album simply cannot ever trump this..."

How right I was. I look forward to the next Radiohead album (and Beck's new album--out in February--as well), so that we can see where some of the musical giants of our time are currently at.

Bottom line, as some of us have either been saying or indicating: U2 probably does make the most substantive and instantly listenable music out there; when they play it safe, the really do play it safe better than most anyone.... I gotta' admit that much.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

Radiohead's last album didn't go anywhere IMO...many songs seemed like weaker versions of earlier triumphs..they get off lightly in a lot of cases because they are the critical darlings. To me, their music lacks any kind of fun and spirit, its all too easy to wallow morbidly in shit.

 

[AtomicBono]

You're an overly nostalgic, whining bore...seriously I just cannot stand people who view the past through rose-coloured spectacles...I agree U2 are not as innovative right now as in the past, but that is not the be all and end all of music is it?


You're sounding like a broken record.

OMG!!111 I HAIT DAT!!!11 WUT IF I HAIT DA ALBUM 2!!!1//L

where's FullonEdge when we need him

seriously, I'm getting sick of people complaining "U2 isn't as good as they were in the past" and all this... if you don't like the new U2, then go listen to Joshua Tree again! It's still there! It's simply not a valid arguement to say U2 is not "the band" anymore... dunno where the hell you were when ATYCLB came out but it got rave reviews, Rolling Stone declared it U2's third masterpiece, they won 3 Grammy's for Beautiful Day alone and picked up 4 or 5 more the next year, the Elevation tour was a HUGE success, U2 was basically the band that helped America heal after 9/11 (kinda ironic that 4 Irishmen did that eh?)...they even played the friggen Super Bowl! That's not a big deal for other countries but in America it's proof that you're the shit (and that's a good thing ), according to the general public anyway. You may not have liked ATYCLB, but a helluva lot of other people did... and now U2 is getting tons of publicity with the iPod ads and leaked album and such, and almost all the reviews are glowing for HTDAAB. The music world respects U2. Look at some of today's popular bands - Coldplay and The Killers, for example. Guess who is a HUGE obvious influence on both? U2. Tons of bands acknowledge love and/or respect for U2 even if there doesn't seem to be much of an influence... U2 is the model for every band, 25 years in and still relevant, same 4 guys that started out, still making great music.

Your opinion is yours, if you don't think U2 is "the band" then that's fine. But don't try to say that the entire music world thinks the same way as you, because that's simply not true. They don't nessecarily think the same way as I either, but I tend to agree with Mojo's statement - U2 is the last great rock band. They have no one to compete with but themselves. Numerous reviews have said something to this effect, actually... U2 is the band every other band wish they could be, at the top of the music biz. U2 have proven themselves to be the greatest rock band again and again.

That said, I think it would rule if U2 did something experimental next album (Pop rivals Achtung as my favourite album...but right now HTDAAB is ahead of JT as my 3rd fave.) People are suggesting they do some like Zooropa during the tour, or even have it just be an EP instead of an LP... like I've said in other threads I want White Light White Heat U2-style raw rock 'n roll. They could easily afford to do it with the millions they're about to make on HTDAAB...what a bloody brilliant album.