ATYCLB Revisited.

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

right, well not all of us want u2 to be a soft cudly band that can be likened to kittens, alright?

 

[U2Kitten]

Then maybe you should listen to another band is all I'm saying. If U2 isn't giving you what you want, listen to something else and don't just keep insulting them. Lots of fans like them like they are. If you don't that is okay, we all have our own tastes. There's been something by them each one of us haven't liked probably. But there's no need to just keep knocking them.

 

[cujo]

first off...I really liked ATYCLB
I think it was because I was in denial. I didn't wantto believe that my favorite band could produce such a dull landscape.

there are around 2 good songs

If they could get back to the idea of continually reinventing themselves I'd be much happier

I would put it on the same plane as october

I unfortunately have to agree...

In general, there is a split between U2 fans... those that have been around for a long time, and enjoy "innovative" efforts... and those that enjoy the softer ballad side (this includes ATYCLB bandwagoners, but not exclusive). I've been a fan for a long time, and I don't think I have outlandish expectations about what the band should do or what they should be... I just want to hear music... new music. So my message is that everyone can be whatever fan they want to be... just don't suppress someone else's preference if it may be contrary to the band's direction. It's not much of a discussion if there's a uniform opinion.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Cujo:

I agree with everything you said in your second paragragh. I disagree, however, that ATYCLB wasn't a re-invention of sorts. To my ears, it is purely a soul album, which is something U2 had only flirted with in the past ('Angel of Harlem' etc). On ATYCLB, we have Bono testing the waters of Otis Redding ('In A Little While'), John Lennon ('Peace on Earth' and even parts of 'Walk On'), Van Morrison ('Stuck'; 'Wild Honey'), and Frank Sinatra to some degree on 'New York'. Even 'Beatiful Day' and 'Elevation' are pumped up soul songs. What they've done with this, however, is to fuse it into the U2 guitar/rock medium, and they've done this by incorporating the best sounds of U2's diverse canon -- which is why you have people (like Bono) saying ATYCLB is a best of album, in this sense, while still managing to be something U2 have never done before.

The other thing I disagree with was the point that there are only 2 good songs on the album. I'd like to know which two, because I bet you'd get a different response from every person who claimed this. Some might say 'In A Little While' and 'Beatiful Day' while others might say 'Walk On' and 'Kite'. Each song is so different, which is part of the album's charm (for me).

That all said, I do agree somewhat with the assertion that U2 did not produce much of an exciting landscape on this album. But, as mentioned, this album wasn't supposed to have one because it is a soul album. It's purely about melody and hook. That was the intent behind it, but I can see why people don't like it for that very reason, as well.

This is why I love this band. They'll piss people off only to please others on every album. And the next album they'll please the pissed off ones only to piss off the pleased ones. Isn't it great?

 

[cujo]

I disagree, however, that ATYCLB wasn't a re-invention of sorts...we have Bono testing the waters of Otis Redding ... John Lennon ...Van Morrison... and Frank Sinatra to some degree ...What they've done with this, however, is to fuse it into the U2 guitar/rock medium, and they've done this by incorporating the best sounds of U2's diverse canon...

I'll agree with that, but by the logic you present it sounds as if it's not really a reinvention. More of a shout out to soul artists of the past... hardly innovative. And incorporating the best sounds of U2's diverse canon? To me you're only affirming what my OPINION is... that the album was not composed of different sounds, and it was not a staggering departure for the band. That's fine, but from some fans' points of view... it doesn't really satisfy the pursuit of a new sound. Maybe they've just exhausted all avenues of their own creativity. Like Bear said somewhere... they've given us 20 years, what else can you ask?

This is why I love this band. They'll piss people off only to please others on every album. And the next album they'll please the pissed off ones only to piss off the pleased ones. Isn't it great?

Well, you better be pissed off next time.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

the two of you never stop debating , do you?

 

[cujo]

the two of you never stop debating , do you?

I will concede Michael's master debating skills.

PS- I still think it's too soon to do ATYCLB revisited... maybe in five years.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I'll agree with that, but by the logic you present it sounds as if it's not really a reinvention. More of a shout out to soul artists of the past... hardly innovative. And incorporating the best sounds of U2's diverse canon? To me you're only affirming what my OPINION is... that the album was not composed of different sounds, and it was not a staggering departure for the band. That's fine, but from some fans' points of view... it doesn't really satisfy the pursuit of a new sound. Maybe they've just exhausted all avenues of their own creativity. Like Bear said somewhere... they've given us 20 years, what else can you ask?



Well, you better be pissed off next time.

No, it's not exactly innovative, but that's not what I was saying. My point is the style of music found on ATYCLB is something U2, themselves have never really done before. Sure, "soul" has been done by other artists, but U2 decided to do it using their sound. Now the fact that it does sound so much like U2 is the basis to your claim that it isn't a staggering departure for the band. This is the crux of the issue, as this is beside the point for me. It's the style, not the sound that showcases the departure for the band. The result is not so much innovation-- though one can argue no one has ever made a record like ATYCLB before, incorporating that sound with soul music--but personal reinvention. That's all I was saying.

As for me being pissed off next time, I really doubt it. I'm one of the lucky ones who has liked pretty much every album U2 has ever put out, including Pop and ATYCLB. Incidentally, Zooropa is my favourite album since Achtung Baby, so yeah, I like innovation, too.

 

[womanfish]

Michael always does throw in some great points.

I like ATYCLB, but can't help but notice that I only listen to about half the songs on the album. And as much as I love some of the softer, soulful, popiness of U2, I really miss being surprised and kicked in the ass by the Edge.

Remember first listening to songs like The Fly, Discoteque, Mofo, Zoo Station, Daddy's Gonna Pay..., Until The End of the World? And some of the darker, moodier songs that grip you and hold you in this dark ambient space, like Ultraviolet, Wake Up Dead Man, Love is Blindness, Running to Stand Still, Velvet Dress, etc...

I guess an album like POP was such an up and down affair of rocking and then sad introspection, that it was an incredible ride and still is every time I listen to it. ATYCLB moves more straight down the middle, and while you touch on different styles as Michael points out, it moves at about the same pace and nothing really throws you much.

THe album lands about in the middle of U2's work for me (surprise). Better than some, worse than some. I think what I'm wanting is an album that challenges me a bit, that grows stronger and then makes me ask myself "Is this as good as JT or AB?" and then to actually give that serious consideration.

I know I'm probably asking too much.

p.s. - I just noticed this was post number 666

 

[cujo]

No, it's not exactly innovative, but that's not what I was saying. My point is the style of music found on ATYCLB is something U2, themselves have never really done before. Sure, "soul" has been done by other artists, but U2 decided to do it using their sound. Now the fact that it does sound so much like U2 is the basis to your claim that it isn't a staggering departure for the band. This is the crux of the issue, as this is beside the point for me. It's the style, not the sound that showcases the departure for the band. The result is not so much innovation-- though one can argue no one has ever made a record like ATYCLB before, incorporating that sound with soul music--but personal reinvention. That's all I was saying.

As for me being pissed off next time, I really doubt it. I'm one of the lucky ones who has liked pretty much every album U2 has ever put out, including Pop and ATYCLB. Incidentally, Zooropa is my favourite album since Achtung Baby, so yeah, I like innovation, too.

I think we're arguing the same argument... as for your last point, I entirely agree. I haven't been pissed off yet, there's just not much else to talk about.

Zooropa

Womanfish... you've been awarded 3 cujo points. Arbitrary to you, but a plus nonetheless.

 

[AchtungJedi]

And in turn, my thinking is along the lines of womanfish. I love the industrial power of Mofo, and it sounds like U2 going all out. Pop was a *rocking* album, and given more time to finish it, I think it would have been a masterpiece.

Now, I think Kite was a classic song, and that it's really the heart of ATYCLB, more than Beautiful Day, Elevation, or anything else on there.

ATYCLB just didn't quite have that same, well, edge (or Edge) that AB, Zooropa or Pop did. It had its own strength, but I guess I like my music straight up and rocking at the core. The best soft or slower songs are like Stay, Kite and So Cruel. Those songs were all at the heart of their respective albums, and it was because they had the essence of the album in mind, not just the sound.

 

[cujo]

ATYCLB just didn't quite have that same, well, edge (or Edge) that AB, Zooropa or Pop did. It had its own strength, but I guess I like my music straight up and rocking at the core. The best soft or slower songs are like Stay, Kite and So Cruel. Those songs were all at the heart of their respective albums, and it was because they had the essence of the album in mind, not just the sound.

I think I found that feeling of lacking as well... there was not a stark contrast between the mood of the songs. The subject matter referred to a lot of different contexts, but the delivery was very much in the same vein. There was no mofo for grace.

 

[u2popmofo]

There was no mofo for grace.

Dont bring me into this.

 

[Strato Edge]

ATYCLB is a bottom line 'soul' album. I love it. I listen to it a lot more than AB or Zooropa. The songs on ATYCLB never have been dull for me, the songs tell a story, goes through so smoothly. It's my second fav. U2 album ('Joshua Tree" is first.) "

Some of their best songs are on ATYCLB. "Beautiful Day", "Stuck", "Walk On", "Kite", "In A Little While", "New York". I can't process the fact that some people don't like this album, but it's their opinion and they are entitled to it.

-STRATO

 

[cujo]

I'm sensing a poll.

 

[u2popmofo]

I can't process the fact that some people don't like this album, but it's their opinion and they are entitled to it.

My feelings entirely.

No need to fight over something like that. Music is a preference. Either you like it or you dont. It's that simple.

It's personally one of my favorite U2 albums, but at the same time I dont care at all if some hates it or not. That's their perogative. They can do what they want to do. (I just quoted lines from a Bobby Brown song)

 

[womanfish]

ATYCLB is a bottom line 'soul' album. I love it. I listen to it a lot more than AB or Zooropa. The songs on ATYCLB never have been dull for me, the songs tell a story, goes through so smoothly. It's my second fav. U2 album ('Joshua Tree" is first.) "

Some of their best songs are on ATYCLB. "Beautiful Day", "Stuck", "Walk On", "Kite", "In A Little While", "New York". I can't process the fact that some people don't like this album, but it's their opinion and they are entitled to it.

-STRATO

Well, the fact is that I don't think that there are a lot of people that DON'T like this album. I just think there is some indifference to it. It doesn't stand out as a huge favorite. Like I said it lands in the middle for me. I mean, Kite is my favorite song of all time.

Don't mistake not overly loving it to not liking it.

And AchtungJedi - Stay, Kite, So Cruel....

cujo, I'm gonna keep collecting my points and when I get enough I want a cheap plastic prize.

 

[Saracene]

I'll agree with that, but by the logic you present it sounds as if it's not really a reinvention. More of a shout out to soul artists of the past... hardly innovative.

Well, by this same logic U2's 90s albums are hardly innovative as well. Plenty of bands did what U2 have done on that trilogy, often with much more striking results. The only difference being, U2 incorporated the sounds from the bands that were around at that time rather than the past masters. Looks like, to be counted as innovative, you just need to borrow from the right people, eh?

 

[david]

It's a very conventional album, but in a weird unconventional way.

U2 made a career out of doing what people didn't expect them to do, but even that became expected.

So each time in between an album we'd just assume they're going to mesmerize us with a tripped out album.

Where do you go from POP?

They made ATYCLB.

 

[cujo]

Well, by this same logic U2's 90s albums are hardly innovative as well. Plenty of bands did what U2 have done on that trilogy, often with much more striking results. The only difference being, U2 incorporated the sounds from the bands that were around at that time rather than the past masters. Looks like, to be counted as innovative, you just need to borrow from the right people, eh?

Borrowing from people isn't innovation, I suggest you consult Websters... sorry to be so frank. However, if you absorb ideas from other artists while at the same time you expand the medium, or present a new perspective on the material... I'd consider that innovative. You seem to be mistaken on the 90's content... U2 utilized contemporary equipment and technology (that admittedly others had used) but expanded their genre by mixing rock tunes with dance/techno beats. Whereas, with ATYCLB, they made a rock record that incorporated sounds of artists from the past (Michael Griffiths, 2003). That's all fine... but technically they didn't really expand their sound, or their genre. After all the medium is the message . There are some U2 fans that think this way... and cite ATYCLB as a very "U2" sounding record (or an album of rock standards). Which is fine... but that kind of goes against the innovative foundations they built up in the nineties. Even Bono said someone should put the bullet in the head of the band when it starts living off its past... becoming rock dinosaurs, the bringers of folk music. With ATYCLB, IN MY OPINION they strattled these lines... if you disagree, that's fine. I'll still listen to their music no matter what they put out... that's my luxury as a fan. Just don't take away my luxury to have an opinion on it.

PS- Is the horse dead yet?

womanfish, another 3 points.

Saracene, you've lost 2 points... but there's still time to catch up.

 

[Saracene]

Borrowing from people isn't innovation, I suggest you consult Websters... sorry to be so frank. However, if you absorb ideas from other artists while at the same time you expand the medium, or present a new perspective on the material... I'd consider that innovative. You seem to be mistaken on the 90's content... U2 utilized contemporary equipment and technology (that admittedly others had used) but expanded their genre by mixing rock tunes with dance/techno beats.

Um, the point of my previous point was that U2 haven't really expanded the medium in any new way; other bands mixed rock tunes with dance/techno beats way before them. IIRC, in Flannagan's Bible Adam had expressed reservation about U2's new direction by saying that Madchester scene was basically over.

I agree that U2's musical adventure in the 90s was probably the most daring thing they've ever done, I simply don't consider it innovative as far as the outside music world was concerned. Moreover, by the end of POP they IMO beat the electronic horse to death, and what was out there fresh and new in music to borrow from anyway?

 

[cujo]

Um, the point of my previous point was that U2 haven't really expanded the medium in any new way; other bands mixed rock tunes with dance/techno beats way before them.

Maybe you should read my reply.

IIRC, in Flannagan's Bible Adam had expressed reservation about U2's new direction by saying that Madchester scene was basically over.

Good point. In fact, that's worth 2 points. Looks like you're in the black. Watch out Womanfish.

 

[Saracene]

I re-read your reply; you're saying that other bands have admittedly used the same equipment and technology while at the same time calling U2 innovators. Well, how can you expand your genre if you're doing what others have already done in your genre before you?

 

[cujo]

I re-read your reply; you're saying that other bands have admittedly used the same equipment and technology while at the same time calling U2 innovators. Well, how can you expand your genre if you're doing what others have already done before?

I'll be facetious and answer with a question. How can you do something different than bands in the past who have used guitar, bass, and drum? Simple: they're different people. How can you argue my point regarding innovation when your argument changes every 2 seconds? First you were criticizing my point (which was apparently forced onto me) that ATYCLB wasn't innovative and 90's stuff was... Now you're asking me if anything is really innovative, and the answer to that is yes. U2 did incorporate their rock styling into the dance/techno scene, and it sounds entirely different to their "contemporaries"... I'm assuming you're thinking of The Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, and others of the like... the point is, they did expand the rock medium. I've heard a lot of new artists who incorporate the Pop type sound into their material (like The Music). Another aspect of being an innovator, is inspiring change... or being an influence. Which they've done with albums like Zooropa and Pop... from my perspective right now, I don't see ATYCLB resonating as an inspirational album for artists... then again it's too early to tell. Which is why I contest the creation of this thread.

There's a difference between invention and innovation, and it pains me to see people make these arguments... throwing in words that they really show no comprehension for. I admittedly used the term in a different way, but I at least defined it. There was already a thread discussing whether or not U2 was still innovative... if you want to continue down that road, I suggest you read it.

Lost 2 points again Saracene.

PS- this is turning into a talk about relevance... which is annoying, seeing as there is an active thread already discussing it.

 

[Saracene]

cujo, I wasn't asking you "whether anything was innovative at all". My previous post was focused -solely- on U2 in their 90s period, except perhaps I didn't make it clear. And I was thinking more about bands like Happy Mondays and Stone Roses as far as their "contemporaries" went. As far as definitions of innovation go, we clearly differ here. I don't equate "innovation" with "invention", but I still consider that moments of true innovation happen quite rarely in music and rarer still in the last decade.

To be honest I can't remember any band or artist (including Music) citing Zooropa or POP as their big influence, maybe you would like to enlighten me.

And personaly I wouldn't lump "inspirational" and "innovative" together, but then it's just my take.

 

[cujo]

cujo, I wasn't asking you "whether anything was innovative at all". My previous post was focused -solely- on U2 in their 90s period, except perhaps I didn't make it clear. And I was thinking more about bands like Happy Mondays and Stone Roses as far as their "contemporaries" went. As far as definitions of innovation go, we clearly differ here. I don't equate "innovation" with "invention", but I still consider that moments of true innovation happen quite rarely in music and rarer still in the last decade.

Fair enough.

To be honest I can't remember any band or artist (including Music) citing Zooropa or POP as their big influence, maybe you would like to enlighten me.

Off hand, I don't know any artists who have jumped up and said... "that's my bible"... but obviously albums such as that have been footnotes in many an artists' repertoire. They may not cite it in the back of their lyrics sleeve, but you can hear some influence on bands like Radiohead, Coldplay, and The Music (who I mentioned before). If you contest this, that's fine. You're entitled to an opinion. I was merely trying to compare the place of ATYCLB in the future, it terms of a benchmark for inspiration.

And personaly I wouldn't lump "inspirational" and "innovative" together, but then it's just my take.

That's just your take then... and I don't have a problem with it. Before I didn't really know you had a take, seeing as you were just finding fault in my opinion, without actually declaring yours. Now that you have... good for you.

2 points.



PS- I've read the last few things I've posted, and it sounds like I absolutely despise All That You Can't Leave Behind. That's not exactly true... a lot of the album has redeeming value for me personally, and I love the guitar on tracks like In A Little While, Kite, and New York. I think my problem stems from the fact that it wasn't the album I was expecting... which I guess is my mistake. Don't take what I say too personally... I just like music so much, that I have a penchant for talking about it at length. There are some great qualities about the album, and if it was done by any other artist it would probably be hailed as an even greater triumph. But when it has to live up to the legacy of massive U2 efforts... it sometimes gets shortchanged. Maybe in a few years, I'll appreciate even more... maybe a thread would be appropriate then.

Dead Horse, how's it going?

 

[Saracene]

It's more like an Undead Horse... no matter how much one flogs it it rises again and again,

 

[cujo]

It's more like an Undead Horse... no matter how much one flogs it it rises again and again,

I would like to bottle its potency, and sell it as a cheap market rip-off of viagra. Megabucks.

I'm sorry for flogging the horse.

 

[sue4u2]

Is this All? That You Can't Leave Behind. For some reason, I still play this cd 2 or 3 times a week. Go figure.. Something about it,
lets see.. could it be I just love it. Yea that's it..