HTDAAB: 2nd Side - Classic, 1st Side - Eh...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
dmesq said:
(Hey, I've got one for him, too: "The more you preach, the less you make sense!!")

Let's get back on track, over here! Despite the fact that, yes, things sure do seem to have gotten a good deal more peaceful now that this thread has totally changed gears, I do think that "dmesq" raised some really good points in that initial post. Maybe a few things have been defended a bit too vociferously and aggressively, but still some very good points, as far as I'm concerned!

What you had to say about Bono's preaching and structures, of late, really hit home with me. I, too, think that this album is pretty damned good, but that it's also NOWHERE NEAR being classic.
 
I think maybe the "preaching" may make things less universal, but for the people with whom the lyrics do resonate, it becomes that much stronger. :shrug:
 
UnforgettableLemon said:
I think maybe the "preaching" may make things less universal, but for the people with whom the lyrics do resonate, it becomes that much stronger. :shrug:

I can see where you're coming from with this (or I think I can, anyway... ;) ), but I also think that I disagree.

I guess that one of the problems I've come to have with this new, post-Pop U2 is the (to me) excessive "preaching" that's gone down, you know? Since all the Jubilee stuff started out, it seems to me that especially Bono has become more of an ideological stuntman than a musician, if that makes any sense.

How does this relate to the album, then...?

Well, I guess that a resultant problem of mine as a result of this perceived shift in U2's "voice" is the "fact" that (and here's where I disagree with you) U2's songs have now actually become a lot MORE universal. Here's what I mean: towards the end of All That You Can't Leave Behind (the album itself, I mean), the songs started getting to big (or universal) for their respective britches. Songs like "New York," "Grace," "Peace on Earth," or even "When I Look at the World" are TRYING to be universal but failing miserably in my eyes. U2 seems to me to be trying to appeal to the world and are, in the process, maybe losing a bit of what made them so special...

I see some of that over-reaching on this new album, as well. Songs like "A Man and a Woman" and "Crumbs From Your Table" (the former of which I hate, the latter of which I like but still find boring, conceptually/thematically) seem to go to far, in my eyes. They, again, are trying to be way too universal and to appeal to way too many...I don't know...maybe not people, but something like views or ideas. Unlike in the past, when I felt that U2's sonic experimentation (even when it didn't totally succeed or just flat-out failed) was fascinating, this sort of "experimentation" and subsequent failure is, to me, more embarassing than it is fascinating.

I think that in the PAST, rather than today as you said, U2's lyrics could mean a lot more to the individuals who were willing to personalize and interpret them at deep levels. To me, these new songs are the ones that appeal to the masses (or which TRY VERY HARD to do so, anyway) about topics which are supposed to be deep....but are addressed in only a surface-level way. You can't talk about "Grace" in four minutes, you know...?

I think some of the ideas you brought up in even so brief a post, even if I disagree with them, are very worth dissection. If you could elucidate a bit, I think it could make for some great discussion, over here! Again, I think I see where you're coming from and trying to go... Do you see where I'm coming from with all of this long-winded rambling? :wink:
 
I think that the more ambiguous lyrics of the past are more universal. The ability to make a song one's own basically leaves the door open for variable interpretation. If someone doesn't agree with what a song is about, it's OK because it's vague and open-ended. When Bono starts singing about the concepts of grace and charity, he is being more specific, ergo less universal. I wasn' t necessarily talking about universal appeal as much as universal interpretation. His songs are more broad, but they're more likely only to appeal to those who are receptive. It's a matter of what you mean by and how you determine "universal."
 
Yes, yes, yes...very true.

As Dylan once sang....

"We always did feel the same,/We just started from a different point of view."

There it is. :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom