Edge's recent solos

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dr. Lemonseed

The Fly
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
192
Location
NC, USA
Was anyone else really disappointed in the solos Edge offered up on HutDub? They sounded more or less like scales, nothing really interesting. Almost like something a novice would come up with to make themselves think they were really rocking out.

Love and Peace and All Because of You are especially culpable... He just works up and down a scale, or else repeats the same riff over and over.

Your thoughts...?
 
Yes, I agree.

Where are the UTEOTW or IGC style solos? UTEOTW may be the best guitar solo ever.
 
Last edited:
all because of you was pure classic rock there.
love and peace i thought was pretty cool.
wits solo is all a scale there.

im ready for some molten metal solos.
 
Dr. Lemonseed said:
or should i say HTDAAB. Dunno where the HutDub moniker came from. Saw it earlier.

Yeah I just figured it out. You must have read the "let's talk about pronouncing Interference acronyms" thread.
 
I was especially let down by LAPOE. I mean, I get the idea of avoiding rock cliches and stuff, but the end of that song should have torn your head off. And when he didn't fix it live was a disappointment...
 
LemonMelon said:
Does anyone like anything U2 does anymore?

We're going to like No Line On The Horizon for the next three seconds.

Otherwise? Hell no.
 
Axver said:


We're going to like No Line On The Horizon for the next three seconds.

Otherwise? Hell no.

The U2 cycle of discontent, updated 2008 version:

1. New song, album is released. Fans are so tired of previous release that they embrace it with open arms.

2. Tour begins. Album is beginning "to grow on" some people. Some say it will age like fine wine.

3. Bootlegs from tour are released. People begin to discuss production quality, using adjectives such as "loud" and "sucks ass" to describe the album versions of their favorite live songs.

4. Threads begin to emerge about how horrible the album was. Pitchfork and Stylus articles are used as "proof".

5. Rumors of new album begin. People breathe a sigh of relief, but are only cautiously optimistic, due to the crappiness of previous release.

6. New song, album is released. Fans are so tired previous release that they embrace it with open arms.
 
The Vertigo Tour was great.

And HutDub (love that nickname) resulted in good songs: COBL, OOTS; live versions of LAPOE and Yahweh.
 
You said it

LemonMelon said:
Does anyone like anything U2 does anymore?

You asked a good question. At first (1 or 2 years ago), I quite enjoyed the Interference forum, but I don't use it much anymore. It's largely because of the ridiculously critical people here. Of course, we should all be critical of U2 -- indeed, it helps them to keep their standards high -- but if you glance at the discussions of recent U2 music by the "fans" on this site, you'd get the impression that the band had sold out ala Rod Stewart in 1979.

Reality check! U2 are making records as good now as they did in 1980, or 1985, or 1991, or 1997.

(Sorry, didn't mean to hi-jack the thread.)
 
My first ever post on interference:

This is my first post, please forgive me if I ramble on.

I'll start by saying that I've been a U2 fan since 1982/83, cannot recall exactly when, but after October's release, before War. I got exposed to them by the older brother of a close friend of mine, and I liked them immediately. Since then, the band have provided me with so much joy that it's impossible to accurately convey it via words. If any people can understand, it's you people.

I have been reading a lot of the posts lately, and am a bit stunned at some of the negativity. I know, I know, this site is for discussion, and that implies good and bad takes on things. But, some of the negative feedback seems so....petty. When a band ascends to U2's heights, by design or not, it is implied that their songbook becomes large. They simply cannot get up there and play 100 songs and satisfy every single person. So, when they play An Cat Dubh/Into the Heart in San Diego, and I'm there, and I start to tear up because I'm in shock that they are playing a song I NEVER thought I'd hear live....well, to me, that's ecstasy. Guess what these songs have in common.....Heartland, Do you Feel Loved, When I look at the World, Crumbs from Your Table....they all are my favorite individual songs from their respective albums, and they are all songs I've never heard live. I might never hear any of them live. I don't care, though. The 2 hours of joy and bliss that U2 provide me each time I opt to pay to see them transcends any little disappointment I might have ten fold. I'm too realistic to dream of dream set lists.

Quick story - took a friend to see them in Anaheim on Friday. He's a moderate fan, knows the hits, some other stuff, but not a dork like me about it. Anyway, Bullet the Blue Sky starts, and I think to myself as it starts "I've heard this song every time I've seen them live in my life"....not that I dislike it, just....well, anyway, as I'm thinking about this, my friend grabs my arm and says "This is my friggin favorite U2 song, holy crap!!!"...he was transported for 5 minutes during this song, and it reminded me that my favorites are not someone elses, and that not everyone has been lucky enough to see them as often as I.

Anyway, I don't wear blinders, I'm aware of corporate involvement in music and of technical glitches during songs and of Bono not remembering the lyrics to every song every night, etc. I am aware of all this, but it does not bother me one iota. I love this band, they've literally been the sound track of the bulk of my life, and if anything, I owe them a debt of gratitude that cannot be measured.

So, I'll shut up now, sorry for the long rant. See you at Staples on Wednesday, and in San Jose on Saturday!!
 
Re: You said it

65980 said:
Reality check! U2 are making records as good now as they did in 1980, or 1985, or 1991, or 1997.

um no. That is your opinion. And my opinion is that what they're making now no way even compares to what they've done in the past especially in the 80s and 90s! Music is subjective, remember?
 
Here's something for you guys: U2's only great album was The Joshua Tree.

That's right, I said it. And I believe it too. That's my opinion.
 
Re: Re: You said it

Zootlesque said:


um no. That is your opinion. And my opinion is that what they're making now no way even compares to what they've done in the past especially in the 80s and 90s! Music is subjective, remember?

Yes, it is, and you should have kept that in mind with your Foo Fighters thread.
 
Re: Re: Re: You said it

No spoken words said:


Yes, it is, and you should have kept that in mind with your Foo Fighters thread.

And the Hey Delilah thread.

And most other threads you've made. :wink:
 
Re: Re: Re: You said it

No spoken words said:


Yes, it is, and you should have kept that in mind with your Foo Fighters thread.

When did I force my opinion about the Foos on anybody?
 
Re: You said it

65980 said:
Reality check! U2 are making records as good now as they did in 1980, or 1985, or 1991, or 1997.

No, they aren't, at least not if you ask me. And maybe we could actually have a discussion about that rather than you bitching about how some people don't agree with your particular opinion.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: You said it

Zootlesque said:


When did I force my opinion about the Foos on anybody?

You forgot to put IMO in your thread title. If IMO isn't anywhere in your post, it's not really your opinion.




It's the property of Sicy. :wink:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: You said it

Zootlesque said:


When did I force my opinion about the Foos on anybody?

You didn't. You started a thread and stated the greatness of the Foos first album like it was fact. It's not a fact, and their album, in my opinion, is far from perfect. That's all. If you're going to admonish people about how subjective music is, you just ought to keep that in mind, then.

Additionally, nobody in here is forcing an opinion on you, looked to me like an opinion was stated and you managed to take it personally.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You said it

LemonMelon said:
You forgot to put IMO in your thread title. If IMO isn't anywhere in your post, it's not really your opinion.

I can only hope you're joking!

There is a difference between saying "Reality check! They're as good as they ever were!" and saying "this album is perfect!". The former is like forcing your opinion and the latter is stating an opinion.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You said it

Zootlesque said:


I can only hope you're joking!

There is a difference between saying "Reality check! They're as good as they ever were!" and saying "this album is perfect!". The former is like forcing your opinion and the latter is stating an opinion.

They're the same thing. They're both stating an opinion.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You said it

Zootlesque said:


I can only hope you're joking!

There is a difference between saying "Reality check! They're as good as they ever were!" and saying "this album is perfect!". The former is like forcing your opinion and the latter is stating an opinion.

No, they're both stating an opinion. One is just more rude-sounding than the other.

And yes, I was joking. :wink: I hate it when people say you're "stating an opinion as fact". Pretty much anything and everything musical is opinion.
 
I think there is a bit of a difference between saying an album is perfect and telling people who disagree with you that they need a "reality check".
 
Axver said:
I think there is a bit of a difference between saying an album is perfect and telling people who disagree with you that they need a "reality check".

Again, they both state an opinion. The only difference is that one person chose to tack an insult onto the front of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom