I Miss The "Accidents" From U2

[Michael Griffiths]

Just posted this in another thread, but thought it would be a good topic.....

I actually feel that Pop was the album where U2 began to cator a little too heavily to the commercial aspect of U2. By that I mean, they allowed the commercial necessity ("necessity" because U2 is a business as well, afterall) to overtake the artistic one. Before this, both were in balance...but with Pop I felt there was much more of a compromise than there was in the past. The songwriting suddenly had an agenda - U2 were now catering to the commercial viability of, in this case, the electronica storm (that ironically never came). Pop was an album that took a risk commercially, but not because U2 didn't want to compromise, but because electronica simply might not (and didn't) become the "next big thing" in the mainstream as they had hoped it would.

Further, songs such as 'Wake Up Dead Man', while formulated to sound desperate and intimate, were still a formulation. In other words, it sounds forced (to me), as did a few others. This trend continued with ATYCLB. It's no longer "songwriting by accident". U2 songs now sound like they've been constructed with the end in mind. To me, the magic that you find in a great song (not just U2, but anyone) usually comes when the "accident" happens - songs such as 'One', 'Bad', and probably half of The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were born this way. That's the U2 I miss. ATYCLB does have some accidental songwriting. 'Kite' is by no coincidence one of those songs. It's the best thing they've done since 'Stay' in my opinion.

Another point: In my opinion, the only time in the last couple years where U2 really took a break from this type of compromising was during the M$H soundtrack recordings. I adore 'Stateless'. It's got that evocative, organic feel that most closely resembles The Joshua Tree. Songs like 'Never Let Me Go' are what I used to love about U2 - songs that allow you to float down a river or a sea shore or a field or a winter night by a fire and wash you up on a beach somwhere to let you soak in the flickering light of the sublime. Songs that take you places.

The songwriting on ATYCLB is actually very subtle in some ways, but that's probably not what is meant when people complain that it is "trying too hard". Songs such as 'Stuck' and 'Wild Honey' come across as effortless, but they're highly orchestrated. This is something to be admired, yes, but it's a different kind of songwriting than I'm used to from U2. I miss the "accidents".

I'm hoping the new album will have a few of them.

 

[tarquinsuperb]

Must we indulge in this old stuff great, new stuff rubish yet again.....................................................................................

 

[Michael Griffiths]

This is neither. This is a serious discussion!


Is it a crime to have intellectual discussions on this board these days? Won't anyone else indulge in my painfully serious summations?






Anyway, tarquinsuperb.....if you don't want to participate in this "rubbish", then why post?

 

[The Sage]

This is all a matter of opinion. In my opinion the vast majority of the Pop album doesn't sound forced (although WUDM does nothing for me either), but this just comes down to what you feel makes a good song and what to you sounds natural and effortless. To me, Achtung Baby is U2's most 'forced' album, it feels very disjointed and artificial, while Pop to me feels much more natural. It's just a matter of taste.

 

[what a bomb!]

well the snippet of Vertigo sounds promising! thats if its is Vertigo! lol

 

[tarquinsuperb]

OK, I'm participating because usually a discussion has more than one side.
There seems to be a lot of these type of posts at the moment and it seems almost like the 'in' thing to bash ATYCLB.
I would go along with sage above in that in terms of the one sitting album Pop is more natural than AB and I would argue that ATYCLB is the same.
Is your complaint against marketing, production techniques or that the new songs are in some way lacking in 'soul'. My view is that what has made U2 a truly great band is that they're producing awesome music more than twenty years after they bugun which few if any of their counterparts have managed.
I think overall I find it hard to believe that if you were moved by previous albums that you were unmoved by ATYCLB.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

This is all a matter of opinion. In my opinion the vast majority of the Pop album doesn't sound forced (although WUDM does nothing for me either), but this just comes down to what you feel makes a good song and what to you sounds natural and effortless. To me, Achtung Baby is U2's most 'forced' album, it feels very disjointed and artificial, while Pop to me feels much more natural. It's just a matter of taste.

Yes, it is a matter of opinion, as are most things worthy of discussion. But we can look to the band in some instances and listen to what they have to say. I remember Bono saying that 'One' and 'So Cruel' and 'Acrobat' were examples of songs that were born in a moment, that kind of took on a life of their own, almost by pure accident. Those are the kinds of songs that you don't have to sit down and work out chord arrangements for and decipher which chord would convey the "right" mood for the "proper" effect upon the listener, etc. Those are the songs I'm talking about. These songs usually flow for me in ways that heavily crafted songs do not. Yes, in my opinion of course.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

OK, I'm participating because usually a discussion has more than one side.
There seems to be a lot of these type of posts at the moment and it seems almost like the 'in' thing to bash ATYCLB.
I would go along with sage above in that in terms of the one sitting album Pop is more natural than AB and I would argue that ATYCLB is the same.
Is your complaint against marketing, production techniques or that the new songs are in some way lacking in 'soul'. My view is that what has made U2 a truly great band is that they're producing awesome music more than twenty years after they bugun which few if any of their counterparts have managed.
I think overall I find it hard to believe that if you were moved by previous albums that you were unmoved by ATYCLB.

1. This isn't a Pop vs. ATYCLB thread.

2. This isn't an ATYCLB "bashing" thread.

3. If ATYCLB seems more natural to you, then you must prefer conventional songwriting - which, by the way, is perfectly fine. Music is subjective anyway.

4. I'm not compalining about marketing, production, or any lack of soul. What I've written has nothing to do with any of that. U2 has always been a business, and always will be. It's simply that the type of songwriting is simply making me question if U2 now write songs with the end in mind. Neither a good thing or a bad thing, objectively, just not what I prefer.

5. I didn't once say I was unmoved by ATYCLB. I simply inferred I was moved more with previous albums - and that, in my view, it's because of the difference in songwriting technique and approach.

 

[Blue Room]

1. This isn't a Pop vs. ATYCLB thread.

2. This isn't an ATYCLB "bashing" thread.

3. If ATYCLB seems more natural to you, then you must prefer conventional songwriting - which, by the way, is perfectly fine. Music is subjective anyway.

4. I'm not compalining about marketing, production, or any lack of soul. What I've written has nothing to do with any of that. U2 has always been a business, and always will be. It's simply that the type of songwriting is simply making me question if U2 now write songs with the end in mind. Neither a good thing or a bad thing, objectively, just not what I prefer.

5. I didn't once say I was unmoved by ATYCLB. I simply inferred I was moved more with previous albums - and that, in my view, it's because of the difference in songwriting technique and approach.

OK, so whats the point then? You like unconventional songwriting methods? Great, dont buy or listen to the albums you feel U2 have done that. No one is forcing you to listen. You obviously like some albums by them. Listen to those. My hope for what U2 do is that THEY like it. If they dont like it they are done. Everything I have heard the band say about ATYCLB is that they really like it. Thats what matters. I would rather have the "constructed" U2 songs versus no U2. They still put out music that is better than 90% of what else is out there.

Like you said music is completely subjective. So when people get all technical about it I just get put off. You either like it or you dont. Its that simple. If you dont like it, dont listen. If you dont like the new album, dont buy it. I hope the new album is great, but here is a guarantee. Not everyone is going to like it!! Imagine that! LOL

 

[Michael Griffiths]

OK, so whats the point then? You like unconventional songwriting methods? Great, dont buy or listen to the albums you feel U2 have done that. No one is forcing you to listen. You obviously like some albums by them. Listen to those. My hope for what U2 do is that THEY like it. If they dont like it they are done. Everything I have heard the band say about ATYCLB is that they really like it. Thats what matters. I would rather have the "constructed" U2 songs versus no U2. They still put out music that is better than 90% of what else is out there.

Like you said music is completely subjective. So when people get all technical about it I just get put off. You either like it or you dont. Its that simple. If you dont like it, dont listen. If you dont like the new album, dont buy it. I hope the new album is great, but here is a guarantee. Not everyone is going to like it!! Imagine that! LOL

Blue Room, yes, you did miss the point. I wasn't here to say that U2 should cator to my needs, which, judging by your reply, seems to be what you got out of what I said. Yes, I'm fully aware that I don't have to listen to music (U2 or otherwise) that I don't enjoy. But guess what? I would love to enjoy new U2 music! Funny that, hey? So here's the point: it dawned on me recently why I prefer their music up to Zooropa and Passengers - which is not to say I don't like their current music, by the way - and I wanted to share this realization for a serious discussion to see if others would offer any insights. I didn't mean to elicit a shut up and don't listen type of response. It was simply food for thought on what makes their current music feel different than everything up to circa 1993. It was a bit of a mystery to me before, perhaps still is, and I'm an inquisitive sort, always trying to figure things out, including the music I love or don't love quite as much but wish I did - make sense?

 

[RademR]

I see your point, MG. I think maybe some of ATYCLB came out as forced, but I think that POP wasnt much forced at all. POP was as far away from u2 as they could possibly be, and some people think they went too far with their experimentation (I loved it). So with ATYCLB they were trying to maybe make a "safer" and radio friendly record unlike it's predeccessor (I loved it also). So maybe thats why it sounds forced.

 

[U2DMfan]

Things sounding "forced" can usually reside in the production.

"Accidents" are usually just ideas that arrive from jamming.
They wrote ATYCLB this way too. Remember the article where Edge belted out the riff to what ended up being Beautiful Day, and Bono said to him "That sounds TOO U2" and Edge just basically scoffed back at him witha glare. It's exactly those moments which create the basic melodies, riffs, chord sequences, whatever you want to call them. Then they certainly change those ideas to fit the type of osund they want.

The chords to Stuck were written by Edge in a hotel room right after the POPMart tour. Walk On was crafted together from two seperate songs. Maybe Wild Honey sounds forced because it's just a simple song with a decent melody. Elevation was built around the main guitar riff. Kite sounds very natural as if it were an 'accident' at first. When I look At the World seems liek exactly that. An idea (or accident) that really had promise and it ended up turning into a song that some people love, some people don't.

To me the only thing that was "forced" was the production. WILATW and Elevation seemed over processed, In A Little While has some of the worst drum sound, IMO, on any U2 album.

My guess is that Daniel Lanois had a bigger hand in the end result than many people give credit for. It has his fingerprints all over it. Where are the Eno parts? Grace, maybe? Possibly WILATW.

Now with most bands producers don't really enter the creative process all that often, unless it's someone like Rick Rubin. Bono was already working with Lanois on the MDH stuff.

I am not sure Eno was all that invloved in the eventual sound, he's quoted as saying "guitars bore me" or something to that effect.

I think the parts where the accidents get lost is where, the vitality of the orginal idea is transformed so much that it's almost completely different. U2 write "on the fly" constantly changing verses, lyrics, chord changes, tempos etc.

My guess is that some ideas, accidents, whatever you want to call them are just better than others. Some songs are just better than others, some 'sounds' are just better than others. But in judging which ones are better it IS entirely subjective.

My personal theory is that ATYCLB didn't have a lack of ideas or accidents, it had a heavy handed producer who was trying to capture a certain sound.

It worked for more than most people.
As I've said 100 times on this board, ATYCLB is not my favorite U2 record, not even in the top 6 or 7, but it's a great record. Awesome, in fact, because you have to look no further than this board to find the plethora of fans who adore it, who discovered U2 because of that music, who are probably forever going to be U2 fans because of that album.

I try to take my personal opinion on what "I wanted" from U2 and put it into context. When I write songs and record them and try to make them better, they are always often different from the accidents or ideas that they were born from. Sometimes they aren't but really good ideas aren't always good songs.

ATYCLB was a "songs" album, they basically said it was their Beatles album. Where "every song is a potential single".

I think the only thing that was forced about it was just that.
They forced themselves to write 'songs' in a traditional sense.
Wild honey is the perfect example. But why is it anymore forced or contrived than Stay? It's not. It's songs crafted from the whole creative process. Sometimes they work for the listener and sometimes they don't. And if they don't, the tendency is to pick it apart and find things that you were hoping that were there instead of just appreciating for what it is, all by itself.

 

[RademR]

i think thats a perfect summary of the album, thanks for the info. I didnt know about all the details of how the songs came about.

 

[U2DMfan]

That was a bit long-winded, so sorry about that.

I want to make clear that I like Daniel Lanois very much and I wasn't trying to speak ill of him, just saying that I think he played a big role in the eventual sound of the album, good or bad.

Anyhow, I think it's a good topic for discussion. Some people get really sensitive when you say the slightest negative thing about ATYCLB. It takes some abuse on this board, for sure, but not near the amount that POP has received.

POP and ATYCLB are almost the antithesis of each other.

My guess is that what Griffiths was saying was similar to what Edge said in the Interference home video.
(paraphrase) "I like the ideas that, sort of, ....arrive. One was a song like that, So Cruel was a song like that"

But if he hadn't said that how would you even know or begin to tell? If we had heard ATYCLB outtakes in 1999, how much different would the songs have been and how much easier would it be to look at the creative process?

In the end, it doesn't really matter. In the end, there is the music that you want U2 to make and there is the music that they actually release to the public.

I got over that notion long ago. I think making music for myself has really taught me a lot of things about the creative process.
The music in your head usually doesn't end up in the finished result. And if a musician could really harness all those ideas and craft the song around only those good ideas, well then they would be pretty successful, I would say.

Basically "accidents" that work real well don't come around as often. Edge said "they are the easiest ones to make". Well if they were all easy it wouldn't take 2 1/2 years to record the album.

 

[EvolutionMonkey]

Why is that when people say something, anything percieved as derogatory against U2, they get jumped on by 1,000 pound gorillas ? Why not just debate the discussion in a civilized manner ?

Having said that, I understand what your saying although for me POP does not seem contrived or forced but ATYCLB definately does. When i hear Elevation i hear a band trying to attract radio listeners more than their current fans. I just think (we are allowed to still do that right ?) that they felt POP was a disater in some ways (production, opening concert, lacluster sales in some markets, half sold stadiums) and wanted to do something about that which was to make a radio friendly album that would be bought not just by their current fans but specifically the younger demographic.

Just look at the video for Stuck in Moment which is about Hutchence death but the video is about football and a kid in it, what does that have to do with Hutchence ? I too think they played an end game strategy with Atyclb (and it worked) and will continue to do that with this next album. Does that mean I don't like Atyclb at all? No it doesn't mean that but it means i wish i didn't feel that way when i listen to that album and i hope i don't for the next one. I do love POP though and it has a flowing feel to me but i just don't get that with Atyclb and we shouldn't have to apologize for feeling that way about an album or else we would be liars.

I have my own theory of why i don't feel a connection to that album which is it was recorded completely on digital where as all their other albums were recorded at least in some part on analog tape and i just feel the production is missing something almost on a subconscious level, like eating something but not feeling completely full. Now when i hear those songs live i feel a lot better about that album but i still don't like Elevation.

 

[Bono's shades]

I have my own theory of why i don't feel a connection to that album which is it was recorded completely on digital where as all their other albums were recorded at least in some part on analog tape and i just feel the production is missing something almost on a subconscious level, like eating something but not feeling completely full. Now when i hear those songs live i feel a lot better about that album but i still don't like Elevation.

I had no idea ATYCLB was recorded completely on digital. Maybe that's why the production on the album has always bugged me and why I liked the live versions so much better. I hope they returned to doing at least some analog recording on the new album.

 

[mofo82]

EvolutionMonkey, you made a great point about the video for 'Stuck in a Moment...". that is a pretty heavy song, with its origins in Hutch's suicide, and they completely ignore that. I cringe at that video and skip it on the DVD. Relating that to the original topic at hand, i do believe ATYCLB is 'accident-free' and safe. The band members are at an age where they need to stay relevant in the music market and unfortunately popularity tends to follow youth. marketing and publicity for ATYCLB was never seen before with past albums. the number of tv spots and TRL visit is one example.

the sad thing is that they KNEW this going into the studio because the topical news that the casual American listener heard was that POP was a failure. if i am correct, it grossed much less in US than expected and really couldve signalled an end to the band. they played it safe and put together a safe album in ATYCLB. the upside to this though is once they brought these 'accident-free' songs to the live stage, the band played them closer to the ideal way thy'd like to hear them. when it comes to U2, i try not to emphasize an album's songs til they are played live becasue of the lengthy production time and added filters that their producers bring to their final product.

another note, i think the freedom that you might find in U2's earlier work vs. its restricted feeling in latter work not only says how important the almighty dollar and popularity can influence a band, but on a much larger scale the world is much more cautious and careful. look at how simple and separated music was from worldly situations in the 80s-90s. i think that music is catching up to a trend U2 had almost all to themselves, that being a serious band that can rock out. now you have a handful of bands who can attempt to realistically match significance of music to great numbers of people. one way to do this is by not naming names in songs but translating ideas that are general enough that they can be conveyed by many people.

rap, hip-hop, pop all get caught up in naming names and brands of clothing, that limit your imaingation. coming full circle to what i said earlier, U2 has reversed their style a bit and countered what the other bands that caught up to them used to do. they did the 'uncool' thing by going polished, unraw, even corporate if you will. MY BIG HOPE here is that it was a temporary move to gain leverage and build a bigger, newer fanbase so they may continue their worldwide domination of rock and/or roll. I HOPE ITS A MEANS TO A GREATER, MORE HONEST END.

 

[Salome]

To me, Achtung Baby is U2's most 'forced' album, it feels very disjointed and artificial, while Pop to me feels much more natural. It's just a matter of taste.

I don't know if I would call Achtung Baby their most forced (by lack of better words) album but I do agree that ever since Achtung Baby U2's songwriting has been more forced than it was before
this makes sense with Achtung Baby since it was sort of a forced break with their past

I can't say it really matters a lot to me
though I will agree with the heights of non forced songwriting go beyond those achieved through craft (the lows also tend to be more painfull though)
ever since Achtung U2 tends to have songs from both categories on them (I still say Stuck in a Moment was sheer inspiration and I don't care if no one agrees with me on that one) and that's probably how it will always be except for side projects as Million Dollar Hotel

I do hope they'll make an album in the same vein as Stateless and Falling at your Feet, but I can't blame the band for not rushing to release an album like that just yet

 

[EvolutionMonkey]

I had no idea ATYCLB was recorded completely on digital. Maybe that's why the production on the album has always bugged me and why I liked the live versions so much better. I hope they returned to doing at least some analog recording on the new album.

Bono's Shades i hope they do too but i doubt it will happen because it is so much easier in a studio setting to use a digital machine to press buttons and redo recordings in seconds versus minutes of rewinding big analog tapes. I actually went to music recording school in the early 90's for 2 years and the sound difference between analog and digital is really dramatic but digital is getting quite good over the past 5 years and will only get better. They recorded Sweetest Thing in '98 with a digital machine called the RADAR a company which is only a couple miles from house and they were so impressed with how close it sounded to analog that thay decided to record ATYCLB with that machine. But it was not just the fact that is so close to analog in terms of the sonic quality of recording but the "ease of use" is what sold it for them. They save so much time in the actual studio recording that it's ridiculous and then at the end of having many takes of a given song they just piece the best parts from all the takes to form the song. This was done by all bands even with analog (so nothing new) but with digital editing on a computer it just makes it so much easier that most bands are doing that now. But the problem is even though this machine is very close to analog it's still missing the extra something that i hear on their UF and JT albums especially. Like take Mothers of the Disappeared and you hear the quiet part with the cricket noises or whatever they are just give me goosebumps all over as if they are all around me (if i have the lights off) but i just don't get that atmosphere or 'airy' feeling with digital recordings, it's like everything is compressed and no dynamics.

POP and even AB were mixed in digital but i do believe both those albums instruments were tracked with analog tape which makes a big difference then going all digital. But everything before that was analog all the way.

I think this is an interesting sub topic of this thread because i have heard many people say they love those songs live but don't listen to that cd very much and this might be one big reason why.

 

[EvolutionMonkey]

MY BIG HOPE here is that it was a temporary move to gain leverage and build a bigger, newer fanbase so they may continue their worldwide domination of rock and/or roll. I HOPE ITS A MEANS TO A GREATER, MORE HONEST END.

This is my hope too mofo82 and we'll know in a few months but even if it is in the same vein as ATYCLB which i am now thinking it will be i will just go back to loving the old music even more so either way it's going to be a good time in late November. We're in the 'eye of the storm' right now here and everything is deadly silent but we know everything is going to be flying around come November, so get ready for what's coming.

 

[Lo-Fi]

Mmmm, I actually get where you're coming from Michael. I personally don't agree with Pop though. Pop to me feels like it was born from way back on Actung Baby, through Zooropa then (and especially Passengers). It has a very natural feel in it's course. u2 were hanging in night clubs and taking in the general vibe of these places and getting influenced in the process. So they started to put these elements into their own music. So I don't really feel that it is a forced record. It is disjointed in places, but I still feel it's an exceptional record and as the band had said, if they had a few more months they would have finished a stunner. Also, lyrically is some of U2's best work IMHO.

I do agree with ATYLCB there was an element of it that felt forced to me as well. We had all heard they were going back to an organic form of 4 musicians in a room type of affair. But listening to some of the songs I just can't connect with some of them. Songs like Walk On, which I know are regarded very highly by some seem like a backwards step to a degree to me. It's classic sounding U2, hell they are U2 so no one is gonna do that better. But as a fan I got accustomed to hearing progression in their music throught the '90's and I felt that this record was an attempt to gain their commercial clout again. It's not a bad record by any means. But I do feel there is a forced element on the record in some of the songs. I think I even read somewhere that Bono and Edge had both commented that the songs were perhaps a little too structured. With the sound of Vertigo, I think you can already hear something that sounds a little freer, the vocals seem a bit more relaxed and the back vocals sound fun and vibrant.

Just my opinion, I know there's a ton ya'll that'll disagree!

 

[Leeloo]

Well it looks like you think ATYCLB was an accident. So you don't have to miss accidents then do you?

For the record I do not think ATYCLB was an accident and I don't know why anyone would think it was slow and for old folks. Look at all the new teenage fans we have here who became fans because of it!

 

[mystery girl]

This is a great topic to discuss.

I think that U2 have definitely been more attuned to the "commercial" aspects of music recently. This was most clear to me when I saw the Electrical Storm video - I was a little surprised to see the Larry/Samantha Morton scenes. I mean, I'm aware that many of the music videos that are currently on heavy rotation rely quite a lot on hot girls, kissing etc. But, from what I've seen, U2 always managed to make meaningful videos without this kind of thing. Then this video comes along where they have the most "photogenic" member of the band making out with a young actress. And, I'm not an old fuddy-duddy, or anything - I'm U2's target audience, lol - but it just seemed, to me, that they were out to appeal to young people, and to sell - and that they wanted to use a proven means of reaching these goals.

As for the songwriting, when I listen to Pop, the songs don't sound forced to me. So it's my opinion that U2 were experimenting with electronica because this is what they were genuinely interested in at that point in time, rather than because they consciously set out to make a commercially successful album. ATYCLB has a more commercial, "forced" sound, I think; but I'm not sure if this is due to the songwriting, or the (over?) production.

 

[V Nura]

I for one feel we really can't judge atyclb until maybe 1-2 albums down the line


we may look back it as an album that opened doors for the band down the road though it wasn't spectacular a feeling that many hold about October.


I dont disagree with michael at all but I'm willing to hold out a while before passing final judgement

 

[BigMacPhisto]

ATYCLB is my second favorite release of theirs, but valid points have definitely been brought up.....I too feel that the band has changed its recording methods....it seems like Bono comes up with the lyrics early on nowadays, rather than in the old days where he would just sing at random until a formidable song (both musically and lyrically came about).....I think the band is capable of writing a great song using either method though, so.....

Go new album go!

 

[Blue Room]

Why is that when people say something, anything percieved as derogatory against U2, they get jumped on by 1,000 pound gorillas ? Why not just debate the discussion in a civilized manner ?

Is this directed at me? Where was I nasty? I just said I dont understand the point? How is that uncivilized? If you think that was nasty all I can say is WOW! LOL

I think U2MDfan summed it up the best on this thread. U2 write songs the same way they always have. I guess the difference now is that they like it to be somewhat cohesive as an album so maybe that steers songs in a certain direction. I think U2 have always done that to a certain degree though. U2's biggest two albums JT and AB were worked to death other than a couple of songs. I think it boils down to you want U2 to do what you want and when they dont you are disappointed. I certainly dont like everything U2 have done either. I dont care for Zooropa or October all that much. But there are a few good songs on each.

See, I still dont see the point of a thread like this. I find it amusing though that someone is starting an analytical contrived thread about how they wish U2 would go to unconventional songwriting!! LOL Where is this taking us? Nowhere, U2 will do what they want and we will either like it or we wont. Its just that simple.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Mmmm, I actually get where you're coming from Michael. I personally don't agree with Pop though. Pop to me feels like it was born from way back on Actung Baby, through Zooropa then (and especially Passengers). It has a very natural feel in it's course. u2 were hanging in night clubs and taking in the general vibe of these places and getting influenced in the process. So they started to put these elements into their own music. So I don't really feel that it is a forced record. It is disjointed in places, but I still feel it's an exceptional record and as the band had said, if they had a few more months they would have finished a stunner. Also, lyrically is some of U2's best work IMHO.

I do agree with ATYLCB there was an element of it that felt forced to me as well. We had all heard they were going back to an organic form of 4 musicians in a room type of affair. But listening to some of the songs I just can't connect with some of them. Songs like Walk On, which I know are regarded very highly by some seem like a backwards step to a degree to me. It's classic sounding U2, hell they are U2 so no one is gonna do that better. But as a fan I got accustomed to hearing progression in their music throught the '90's and I felt that this record was an attempt to gain their commercial clout again. It's not a bad record by any means. But I do feel there is a forced element on the record in some of the songs. I think I even read somewhere that Bono and Edge had both commented that the songs were perhaps a little too structured. With the sound of Vertigo, I think you can already hear something that sounds a little freer, the vocals seem a bit more relaxed and the back vocals sound fun and vibrant.

Just my opinion, I know there's a ton ya'll that'll disagree!

Lo-Fi - yeah, I agree with you on Pop's lyrics. It's a stunner lyically. The quiet bridge in WUDM is some of Bono's best writing ever - wish you could hear it on the record! I guess that was the point - "Listen over the hum of the radio..." I do know U2 were really getting into club culture before and during the Pop recordings.....it's just a different type of process for them - beginning with the end firmly in mind. I'm not sure if Pop sounds like what they quite had envisioned, but it was definitely a risk commericially if not artistically.

'Walk On' to me sounds like it reminds me of classic U2, but it's kind of bringing back the old with an updated sound, which is something classic U2 was never about. It was always about discovering uncharted territory. I remember Bono saying during Zoo TV that rock music at the time had never been so dull. He called it the "folk music of the 90s" and "retrogressive". He went on to say that this kind of nostalgic music wasn't appealing to people because it was great, but because it reminded poeple of something great. Many of the songs on ATYCLB are based on classic models, kind of exactly what Bono said they didn't want to do. But that's what U2 is all about - embracing the contradictions.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Well it looks like you think ATYCLB was an accident. So you don't have to miss accidents then do you?

For the record I do not think ATYCLB was an accident and I don't know why anyone would think it was slow and for old folks. Look at all the new teenage fans we have here who became fans because of it!

I didn't say anything about it being slow or old. And I think you missed my point about accidental songwriting. I would actually have preferred if it was!

 

[Michael Griffiths]

This is a great topic to discuss.

As for the songwriting, when I listen to Pop, the songs don't sound forced to me. So it's my opinion that U2 were experimenting with electronica because this is what they were genuinely interested in at that point in time, rather than because they consciously set out to make a commercially successful album. ATYCLB has a more commercial, "forced" sound, I think; but I'm not sure if this is due to the songwriting, or the (over?) production.

I agree, mystery girl, that they were genuinely interested in electronica, but I also think they did set out to capture - and even propel - the electronica craze that never came to the mainstream (as it turns out). It would have been a brilliant move had it worked!

I think ATYCLB is a great pop album, but the production makes it sound overblown in places. I like my pop music de-silked, a little more raw, but that's just a personal preference. The vocals do indeed bring an earthiness to it, which is great.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Things sounding "forced" can usually reside in the production.

"Accidents" are usually just ideas that arrive from jamming.
They wrote ATYCLB this way too. Remember the article where Edge belted out the riff to what ended up being Beautiful Day, and Bono said to him "That sounds TOO U2" and Edge just basically scoffed back at him witha glare. It's exactly those moments which create the basic melodies, riffs, chord sequences, whatever you want to call them. Then they certainly change those ideas to fit the type of osund they want.

The chords to Stuck were written by Edge in a hotel room right after the POPMart tour. Walk On was crafted together from two seperate songs. Maybe Wild Honey sounds forced because it's just a simple song with a decent melody. Elevation was built around the main guitar riff. Kite sounds very natural as if it were an 'accident' at first. When I look At the World seems liek exactly that. An idea (or accident) that really had promise and it ended up turning into a song that some people love, some people don't.

To me the only thing that was "forced" was the production. WILATW and Elevation seemed over processed, In A Little While has some of the worst drum sound, IMO, on any U2 album.

My guess is that Daniel Lanois had a bigger hand in the end result than many people give credit for. It has his fingerprints all over it. Where are the Eno parts? Grace, maybe? Possibly WILATW.

Now with most bands producers don't really enter the creative process all that often, unless it's someone like Rick Rubin. Bono was already working with Lanois on the MDH stuff.

I am not sure Eno was all that invloved in the eventual sound, he's quoted as saying "guitars bore me" or something to that effect.

I think the parts where the accidents get lost is where, the vitality of the orginal idea is transformed so much that it's almost completely different. U2 write "on the fly" constantly changing verses, lyrics, chord changes, tempos etc.

My guess is that some ideas, accidents, whatever you want to call them are just better than others. Some songs are just better than others, some 'sounds' are just better than others. But in judging which ones are better it IS entirely subjective.

My personal theory is that ATYCLB didn't have a lack of ideas or accidents, it had a heavy handed producer who was trying to capture a certain sound.

It worked for more than most people.
As I've said 100 times on this board, ATYCLB is not my favorite U2 record, not even in the top 6 or 7, but it's a great record. Awesome, in fact, because you have to look no further than this board to find the plethora of fans who adore it, who discovered U2 because of that music, who are probably forever going to be U2 fans because of that album.

I try to take my personal opinion on what "I wanted" from U2 and put it into context. When I write songs and record them and try to make them better, they are always often different from the accidents or ideas that they were born from. Sometimes they aren't but really good ideas aren't always good songs.

ATYCLB was a "songs" album, they basically said it was their Beatles album. Where "every song is a potential single".

I think the only thing that was forced about it was just that.
They forced themselves to write 'songs' in a traditional sense.
Wild honey is the perfect example. But why is it anymore forced or contrived than Stay? It's not. It's songs crafted from the whole creative process. Sometimes they work for the listener and sometimes they don't. And if they don't, the tendency is to pick it apart and find things that you were hoping that were there instead of just appreciating for what it is, all by itself.

UDMfan - amazing post. This is the type of resonse I was hoping to get with this thread! Actually, there have been many great responses in this thread.

Yeah, you may have a point about some accidents just being subjetively "better" than others, depending on the listener. For me, though, I think it was the meanderings that U2 used to embark on far more loosely - as though they were trying to light their way through unseen paths - that really compelled me. Songs like 'Stay', though just as catchy as songs like 'Wild Honey', had more adventure and spark - for me. Why is this? I don't know, exactly. But 'Stay' did not sound like the folk music Bono was referring to back during Zoo TV (refer to one of my previous posts).

Interesting stuff....