If U2 used more musiscianship.......

[Bono's shades]

I don't give a crap about "musicianship" and guitar wankery. I just want U2 to find new ways to get music out of two or three chords and start writing some great lyrics again.

 

[Utoo]

and start writing some great lyrics again.

I think the key to that is for B to stop reading so many facts & figures and to start immersing himself in fiction and poetry like used to.

 

[VertigoGal]

In the sense that I've seen big name guitar virtuosos, who can play amazing guitar solos for hours on end, but their songs have no spirit, no emotion, not one thing that touches the human spirit.

But there are so many that do. If there's one thing that seems to run consistent through all of their albums, it's tha Edge always seems like he's trying to play as few notes as possible...sometimes it's not even a solo that's missing, just that a few more notes in there would make some of the songs so much more fluid, almost. I just wish after 25 yrs he would get a little confidence in his playing. While he's probably nowhere near great technically, I know he's capable of a lot more than he tends to show esp on albums...I mean, he plays solos on songs like the Fly and Bullet constantly (may not be technically impossible, but at least it sounds like a great solo). It just seems like he's not confident with soloing more on new albums or on songs other than the few designated solo songs.

They're still probably my favorite band and solo aren't essential to my listening experience or anything. I just think they could do so much musically if they stopped forcing themselves to go with the "3 notes per chorus" thing..

 

[AtomicBono]

I think Bonovoxsupastar gave the right answer to this question, a great artist knows his limits and tries not to overcome them. In the case of U2, running ways they would not know could be very dangerous, they would kinda lose themselves. The fact is one, U2 has probably still 2 records (hope so) in front of them, they don't need to show anything more, the risk would be to make a longer step as the leg can do. The guys aren't technically gifted, they make great music in the way they do and in the way they have always done. What you say, would be suitable for a band that starts now, but not fo a band that plays since 1976.............always in the same (superb) way

See, I have to disagree with that. In the 90's U2 took the sound that made them famous and completely changed it. I suppose some could say they've always stuck to a minimalistic style, but exactly what qualifies as minimalist? Is The Fly minimalist? Acrobat? What about Pop? That album has so much going on I literally notice something new everytime I listen to it, and I'm quite sure I've listened to Pop thousands of times, no exaggeration. U2 came a long way in the 90's and I think they felt that they were beginning to lose themselves and what made them U2 - hence, ATYCLB and HTDAAB, a return to basic U2 rock songwriting upgraded for the 21st century. But they had three successful albums (plus Passengers) in which they experimented and streched the limits of what made them U2. I think they could and will do that again, in a different way of course. With Zooropa and Passengers U2 tried making music with little or no guitar. Perhaps they could do the opposite now and make music that is more guitar-driven than anything they've ever done, let Edge be on fire. Whatever they do, pushing the boundries is something that is a risk but also a career-saver. If U2 had stuck to their formula after the success of Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum, they would probably would have become "just another 80's band." By taking a risk with their sound and making Achtung Baby, they saved their career. They can push the boundries again. They don't have to make music 'the way they have always done.' And while they may not be the most technically great musicians, I think they're far better at this point than they give themselves credit for. They've been playing for 30 years and they've all at some point taken some sort of lessons (I'm pretty sure). I'm sure they could do far more "musically complex" stuff if they wanted to.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

there's a challenege to being a 3-piece band and performing the huge stadium songs that U2 does. i don't think Bono should play that much guitar. i think their ability to fill the musical space of their huge songs with only 3 musicians and a singer is one of their best talents.

The problem with your belief that the "3 piece thing is fine" is that U2 doesn't 100% believe in using ONLY 3 musicians and a singer on almost all their studio albums. Guitars are constantly over-dubbed and the majority of their songs use backing synths or the dreaded backing track live! Why do they not believe in just having an album with only 3 people playing instruments and the lead vocalist? Its b/c they believe overdubs and more instruments make for an interesting sound. I dare say they even avoid playing some songs b/c some songs just sound better with 2 guitars, etc. OR EDGE just forgot how to play some songs.

They may rearrange the songs to allow for a 3 piece with backing tracks but even they see the problems with JUST having a 3 piece with voacalist.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

But under which aspect do you mean basically? Sound or technique?

I would say both. Better technique can lead to more interesting sounds. Jeff Beck uses very little to no effects while not being considered the stereotypical virtuoso (b/c he doesn't/ or maybe can't shred). HOWEVER he is famous for squeezing out sounds from his guitar with just a distortion pedal and his marshall amps. That is an example of technique leading to interesting sounds.


Technique isn't just about playing fast or moving up and down the fretboard. Those harmonics (bells ringing sound in I Will Follow for instance) are technique. No guitar newb just plays stuff like unless he is musical wunderkind. Doing the whole chimey bell thing in I Will Follow (the slow iterlude) takes practice as well. Stuff like that is "expanding the toolbox." Again, I talk about the slide. WHAT if the Edge never bothered developing his slide technique. We would never have songs like COBL, EBTTRT, Mysterious Ways solo, Sometimes, etc.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Not so at all. Many people would argue that BOY is U2's best album.

Could you explain the "not so at all" part?

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I guess I'm getting more at technique. Edge has already proven to be a wizard of sound. I'm just wondering if expanded playing skills might expand songwriting possibilities. I tend to think they can, but U2 has historically shied away from those possibilities due to their 'philosophy'.

I'm not really railing against their minimalist philosophy. It's served them extremely well, but is that philosophy a result of true belief or a result of necessity because when they started they couldn't play a lick, as they've said many times over the years.

Is their still a pressing reason to hold onto that philosophy as tightly as ever or would opening themselves up to the possibilities that expanded playing skills could offer to the U2 formula do U2 some good?

I think the minimalist philosophy is fine. I also don't expect U2 to go PROG or the Edge to start doing songs that have shredding in them BUT in terms of ART, why hold on to a particular formula for a long time.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Absolutely.

More possibilities doesn't mean better songwriting. You can give a man a whole garage full of tools, but if he only needs a hammer and nails to do the job, then the other tools are useless to him and would weigh him down.

I have a problem with that statement, in regards to U2. Why is there is some kind of fear that U2's taste or vision will all of sudden change into that of Poison/ CC Deville. IF the Edge got really good at shredding, do you all of a sudden expect him to change they way he writes songs? Would expect U2 to make albums with huge drum solos with 5 minute guitar solos involving a millions notes per second? Why should one believe that would happen all of a sudden?


Its also ridiculous to believe that the EDGE would be hampered by having more tools considering he has the ONE OF THE MOST complicated guitar rigs around. The number of effects that he's used and experimented with would make any person/ guitarist go crazy IMO. The Edge is a living example of having more tools than most guitarists and being able to use them well. IMO him having more technical skills/ knowlede would make things much more easier for him in terms of creativity IMO.


Adam actually has gotten more praise for his bass playing for POP up to HTDAAB than any previous times... IMO, its b/c of the lessons he took for that one year.


Hell, Larry couldn't even keep time in the Boy days. How much of hinderance would that be in the recording process OR live if your drummer is off. That would potentially ruin any show or make the recording process unbearable. Better technique would offset such problems.

 

[namkcuR]

More musicianship would be a good thing...as has been said, the more tools they - and other band or musical artist for that matter - have, the better. It's just a matter of knowing which tools to use when. But the more tools you have, the more interesting the music is likely to be, and that can only be a good thing. Edge has done some genius-level thing with his trademark minimalism...the outro of WOWY where he could've gone nuts but chose not to, the 'Bad' riffs, the 'One' riff, etc, but that doesn't mean that's what he ALWAYS has to do. If he does his chimes in every song, they lose their effect. But if there's only one song per album with his chimes, then they're special. Same thing with solos, same thing with anything else. Moderation and variety are key, and more musicanship would only help those two causes, imo.

 

[boystupidboy]

Hell, Larry couldn't even keep time in the Boy days. How much of hinderance would that be in the recording process OR live if your drummer is off.

funny

 

[STING2]

I would say both. Better technique can lead to more interesting sounds. Jeff Beck uses very little to no effects while not being considered the stereotypical virtuoso (b/c he doesn't/ or maybe can't shred). HOWEVER he is famous for squeezing out sounds from his guitar with just a distortion pedal and his marshall amps. That is an example of technique leading to interesting sounds.


Technique isn't just about playing fast or moving up and down the fretboard. Those harmonics (bells ringing sound in I Will Follow for instance) are technique. No guitar newb just plays stuff like unless he is musical wunderkind. Doing the whole chimey bell thing in I Will Follow (the slow iterlude) takes practice as well. Stuff like that is "expanding the toolbox." Again, I talk about the slide. WHAT if the Edge never bothered developing his slide technique. We would never have songs like COBL, EBTTRT, Mysterious Ways solo, Sometimes, etc.

You can have those songs without the "slide technique".

 

[STING2]

I have a problem with that statement, in regards to U2. Why is there is some kind of fear that U2's taste or vision will all of sudden change into that of Poison/ CC Deville. IF the Edge got really good at shredding, do you all of a sudden expect him to change they way he writes songs? Would expect U2 to make albums with huge drum solos with 5 minute guitar solos involving a millions notes per second? Why should one believe that would happen all of a sudden?


Its also ridiculous to believe that the EDGE would be hampered by having more tools considering he has the ONE OF THE MOST complicated guitar rigs around. The number of effects that he's used and experimented with would make any person/ guitarist go crazy IMO. The Edge is a living example of having more tools than most guitarists and being able to use them well. IMO him having more technical skills/ knowlede would make things much more easier for him in terms of creativity IMO.


Adam actually has gotten more praise for his bass playing for POP up to HTDAAB than any previous times... IMO, its b/c of the lessons he took for that one year.


Hell, Larry couldn't even keep time in the Boy days. How much of hinderance would that be in the recording process OR live if your drummer is off. That would potentially ruin any show or make the recording process unbearable. Better technique would offset such problems.

Larry does just fine on the Boy tour boots I have and I'm sure Adam would have been just fine on HTDAAB with or without the Bass lessons.

 

[STING2]

Could you explain the "not so at all" part?

In reference to your general theory.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

You can have those songs without the "slide technique".

You can but would they be the same song and would the song have the same effect or meaning? I don't think so.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Larry does just fine on the Boy tour boots I have and I'm sure Adam would have been just fine on HTDAAB with or without the Bass lessons.

LOL... ask Lillywhite back in the day what he thought about Larry's not being able to keep time and how much trouble that was. Ask Adam if he believes not taking lessons didn't help him musically and creatively. Would Adam just be fine on HTDAAB, POP, ATYCLB, etc.? The larger question was could more technique/ improving help? Didn't Larry have to change his drumming style (so as to relieve his back and the back problems he had?). Sometimes being too unorthodox isn't a good thing in the end.

 

[STING2]

You can but would they be the same song and would the song have the same effect or meaning? I don't think so.

I think that songs would be just fine without it or with something else.

 

[STING2]

LOL... ask Lillywhite back in the day what he thought about Larry's not being able to keep time and how much trouble that was. Ask Adam if he believes not taking lessons didn't help him musically and creatively. Would Adam just be fine on HTDAAB, POP, ATYCLB, etc.? The larger question was could more technique/ improving help? Didn't Larry have to change his drumming style (so as to relieve his back and the back problems he had?). Sometimes being too unorthodox isn't a good thing in the end.

Yep, I'm sure it was a lot of trouble. Hell it took how many weeks to record both Boy and October? U2's performance on the Boy tour at many shows was simply stunning, well ahead of most artist at that time.

As for Adam, no one can positively say whether those lessons helped in the actual recording of the last three albums or not. His bass line for New Years Day is still my favorite.

The fact is, at the end of the day, U2 are the best band in the world. Finding those songs and melodies is vastly more important than the technical complexity of the guitar or bass lines that go with it. Its about what fits the song that is being written not how long an unneeded guitar solo is, or how technically difficult it is for some amuture to play the damn thing would be.

 

[BVS]

I have a problem with that statement, in regards to U2. Why is there is some kind of fear that U2's taste or vision will all of sudden change into that of Poison/ CC Deville. IF the Edge got really good at shredding, do you all of a sudden expect him to change they way he writes songs? ....

Of course his songwriting would change.

 

[Layton]

I think Bonovoxsupastar gave the right answer to this question, a great artist knows his limits and tries not to overcome them. In the case of U2, running ways they would not know could be very dangerous, they would kinda lose themselves. The fact is one, U2 has probably still 2 records (hope so) in front of them, they don't need to show anything more, the risk would be to make a longer step as the leg can do. The guys aren't technically gifted, they make great music in the way they do and in the way they have always done. What you say, would be suitable for a band that starts now, but not fo a band that plays since 1976.............always in the same (superb) way

What you say makes sense, but U2 has made a career of reaching beyond their grasp. It seems kind of sad that they would stop, just because they're closer to the end of their career than the beginning. It's true that aspirations change as one gets older, though.

 

[Layton]

I think the minimalist philosophy is fine. I also don't expect U2 to go PROG or the Edge to start doing songs that have shredding in them BUT in terms of ART, why hold on to a particular formula for a long time.

Yeah, I just wonder if U2 has become boxed in a little by the minimalist thing. I might be way off base here, but I think they've partly held onto that 'philosophy' for so long due to self doubt.

It's one thing to hold onto a philosophy because you truly believe it's the best way to artistically express yourself. It's completely another to hold onto it because you're 'afraid' to step into another way of doing things.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think U2 are inflicted with self doubt and/or low self confindence when it comes to playing skills on their instrument. To me, that's the wrong motivation to hold so tightly to a long-standing 'philosophy'. Basically, I believe U2 want to show more musicianship, but are either too tentative or uncertain on how to do so.

In another thread, there's a discussion about the possibility of Rick Rubin producing the next album. Somebody brought up the point that Rubin is great at getting artists to 'face their fears' in order to bring out other great aspects of their art. I tend to think that U2's biggest fears revolve around their playing skills. Why else would you consistently joke about this deficiency over the years, unless it's always in the back of your mind?