Question for them who think U2 are better song writers now...

[Sleep Over Jack]

Got to be the funniest thing I've ever read on here...

While I disagree with Axver's remarks also, its been pretty amusing for me to watch you go off on an ego-trip on this forum of late.

 

[2Hearts]

It's important to understand the concept of the song... which is obviously a lady contemplating suicide and describing the thoughts, feelings and emotions that she is experiencing within this.

She's not waiting on a saviour to come
She's at the bus-stop with News of the World and the Sun
Sun, here it comes
She's not waiting for anyone

This verse has my third favourite line on the pop album. Probably the most clever. As always the first line helps establish context (which is important for each verse) & helps Bono carry through the Messanic theme of Pop. Again we see how the lines flow through from one to another, using the world Sun cleverly as both a paper and a spacial object.

She's living, living next week now
You know she's going to pay it back somehow
She hasn't been to bed in a week
She'll be dead soon then she'll sleep

If you don't appreciate this, then I'm not here

Thanks for explaining your interpretation of LNOE. However, I would not say that it is obviously about a girl who is contemplating suicide. Honestly, I don't think suicide fits into this song at all, but if that makes it work for you, that's fine. I do like the song, I just haven't really settled on an interpretation that is both compelling and coherent. I really like the 'News of the World and Sun' line too. I've always thought that the most immediate interpretation is that of a girl who is living her life at break neck speed and never slows down. But I don't find that to be very interesting, so I look for other possible meanings. I wish there was more discussion on song meanings at this site.

 

[BVS]

You say you don't care about song averages, but I cannot understand why you would expect the same constant quality out of an artist releasing one album a year to another one releasing one every four-five years. I don't understand.

I think to each it's own when and how an artist releases music doesn't matter to me, it's the quality not the quanity.

Vertigo is about as lyrically complex as my Year 4 poetry assignement where I used an acrosstick poem that described me with each letter of my name.

I find the idea of comparing the temptaion of Christ to the temptation of being in a band very interesting and complex...so sue me.

 

[timothius]

I don't find that to be very interesting, so I look for other possible meanings. I wish there was more discussion on song meanings at this site.

Maybe if Bono's lyrics were better there would be more discussion. (Just razzing, I would like it too if it were extend beyond what does 1,2,3,14 mean & what is your favourite lyric).

As I said different horses for courses. Everyone responds differently to songs - thats the great thing about music, and the great thing about post modernism (although there is an equally piss-poor side). I think the pairing with Until The End Of The World during PopMart and the grouping with EBTTRT & Gone also gives us some clues as to what Bono is trying to say through the song.

 

[timothius]

I think to each it's own when and how an artist releases music doesn't matter to me, it's the quality not the quanity.

I'm struggling with this idea. To use an analogy, if I wanted you to build me a house, and gave you 1 year in which to complete the project, yet also I get BonoVoxSuperstar as well to build me a house - but I give him 4 years to do it. You will both be judged on the condition of the house regardless of the time factor. Is this fair? Why or Why Not?

I find the idea of comparing the temptaion of Christ to the temptation of being in a band very interesting and complex...so sue me.

Papers should be served by Wendsday.

 

[BVS]

I'm struggling with this idea. To use an analogy, if I wanted you to build me a house, and gave you 1 year in which to complete the project, yet also I get BonoVoxSuperstar as well to build me a house - but I give him 4 years to do it. You will both be judged on the condition of the house regardless of the time factor. Is this fair? Why or Why Not?

I kinda see what you are getting at but the problem with this analogy is that when building a house you contract a designer to do so. Painters and musicians(at least in U2's position) can produce whenever they feel like it.

They may not produce the ammount of music that other bands do, but we can't prove that if they did they wouldn't have the same quality. It's an impossible idea to prove.

I think there may be a lot of U2 material out there that we've never heard that may not fit onto the album, that we may or may not ever see. I think Mercy, although I don't think it's finished is a perfect example...Brilliant song that for some reason or another chose not to ever release, how many other songs like this one are out there? And if we're just looking at lyrics, there are also a few gems out there like the dark poem(I can't remember the name and don't have time to look it up but had a line about being raped in the mud) that they were toying with during the Zooropa days but decided it didn't fit. So to judge by average per year I don't find fair, but to each it's own.

 

[timothius]

I kinda see what you are getting at but the problem with this analogy is that when building a house you contract a designer to do so. Painters and musicians(at least in U2's position) can produce whenever they feel like it.

They may not produce the ammount of music that other bands do, but we can't prove that if they did they wouldn't have the same quality. It's an impossible idea to prove.

True. I can't say that it definatly would be better either way. Although the past shows their better works come after 1/1.5 years of recording (Joshua Tree/Achtung Baby/Unforgettable Fire).

And while unlike most things music is not completely tangabile... I refute the argument that it is completely untangible as well.

 

[rjhbonovox]

its been pretty amusing for me to watch you go off on an ego-trip on this forum of late.

What in actual words does this mean???

 

[Tennis05]

I find the idea of comparing the temptaion of Christ to the temptation of being in a band very interesting and complex...so sue me. [/B][/QUOTE]

I completely agree. Add that in with a sound reminiscent of The Clash and you have a great song. How many bands do you people know of that combine two concepts like that and make it into a rock song?

 

[Yahweh]

Bob Dylan may be able to write good lyrics but he could break a pain of glass with his voice...one of the absolute worst in music.

 

[doctorwho]

This is a question for the people who agree with Lilyshites quote that "U2 are better songwriters now than they have ever been". Is there any songs off the past 2 albums that are better than - The Fly, One, Where the Streets, With Or Without You, Bullet The Blue Sky, Zoo Station....to name just a few.

In my opinion, there are no songs off the past album that even match these songs let alone are better. In which case, in my opinion, Lilywhites quote is right out of his arse! How can U2 be better songwriters now if they are not making better songs now, doesn't make sense that quote, absolute nonsense!

All of this is ridiculously subjective, so it's nearly impossible to argue.

Furthermore, are you speaking in terms of lyrics or overall sound? If the former, I can rattle off quite a few songs from Bono with very questionable lyrics - even some "classics" (including some of the ones you listed). If the latter, again, it's highly debatable. For every "Streets" there's a disaster like "Trip through...". For every "One" there's an "Ultraviolet". For every "Desire" there's the songs that all sound the same on R&H.

We all know you hate the new stuff. Got it. Move on.

 

[rjhbonovox]

Re: Re: Question for them who think U2 are better song writers now...

All of this is ridiculously subjective, so it's nearly impossible to argue.

Furthermore, are you speaking in terms of lyrics or overall sound? If the former, I can rattle off quite a few songs from Bono with very questionable lyrics - even some "classics" (including some of the ones you listed). If the latter, again, it's highly debatable. For every "Streets" there's a disaster like "Trip through...". For every "One" there's an "Ultraviolet". For every "Desire" there's the songs that all sound the same on R&H.

We all know you hate the new stuff. Got it. Move on.

Ultraviolet is crap then??? Mmmmmm crap musical taste indeed.

 

[thrillme]

This is a question for the people who agree with Lilyshites quote that "U2 are better songwriters now than they have ever been". Is there any songs off the past 2 albums that are better than - The Fly, One, Where the Streets, With Or Without You, Bullet The Blue Sky, Zoo Station....to name just a few.

In my opinion, there are no songs off the past album that even match these songs let alone are better. In which case, in my opinion, Lilywhites quote is right out of his arse! How can U2 be better songwriters now if they are not making better songs now, doesn't make sense that quote, absolute nonsense!

1. Er, Lillywhite has known U2 longer than anyone on this message board, any of their fans, not to mention Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois, if anyone is qualified to say that about U2, it's him.

2. He's talking about songwriting, the whole package. When U2 started out, Bono and Adam were self-taught, no singing lessons, no bass lessons. Edge and Larry had some formal training. From what I've read, all 4, since Zooropa, have taken some formal training. Adam's training documented in an interview with his bass teacher.

Adam's playing is better on the latter albums than on the former, if not, his year of bass lessons was for nothing. His work did seem a little buried in production, and also subtle on his part, on ATYCLB, but not on Atomic Bomb.

1. Pop
2. Atomic Bomb
3. Achtung Baby (in terms of the bass) IMHO.

That's an improvement right there, on Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby.

An improvement in one area, will affect the rest. Maybe Bono's lyrics aren't as inspiring to many on the last 2, but there's some deeper things he touches on, but as he once said, "we just sorta draw our fish in the sand, it's there for those who are interested, it shouldn't be for those who aren't."

 

[barlowdog]

I just have one thing to say. Stop picking on Miami; Miami rules!!

 

[salim117]

I've always thought that Bono was a great songwritter, though he does have his occasional "brain farts". Then again, I've always been a U2 fan so It's sometimes surprising how polar opposite some peoples opinions of U2 lyrics are. Take this review of ATYCLB from Pitchfork for example:

...Song titles and lyrics on All That boldly declare familiar, safe dogma and generic commandments, such as "Grace", "Peace on Earth", "I believe in you," "Won't you take me, take me please," "I know it aches, and your heart breaks," etc. This new batch of songs heralds a conscious and welcome revocation of dance-inflected bubbleglam, but scales back too far. In searching so hard for their souls, U2 have hacked away their flesh and skull, leaving a lobotomized approximation of glory...
"Elevation" slaughters hope with reckless chops of the hackneyed sword, as Bono commits songwriting faux pas #1: rhyming "sky" with "fly" and "high." The details will be spared, but you can work it out. Damn you, God and aerodynamics, for making altitude a necessity for flight, in the sky, which happens to be above us. As the album's sticker proclaims, "Walk On" is locked and loaded as the second single. Epic midtempo should always follow punchy power-rock, you see. Nice, but unexciting. Here, Bono seems dead set on ruining U2's return with clichés. Minutes after the aforementioned poetic gaffe, he returns with, "A singing bird in a cage/ Who will only fly/ Fly for freedom." That little bird is you, guys! Free yourself from your cage! For freedom!...
But it's back into the dark nadir until the album's closer. Bono joins hands with Sinéad O'Connor in healing the world on the tepid carol, "Peace on Earth". "Jesus, can you take the time/ To throw a drowning man a line," Bono asks. Hey, if the world is so dark, take off your sunglasses. Bono's Healing Heart takes a "look at the world" on the next track, and discovers that people "feel all kinds of things." Indeed.

But not even Tom Waits' grizzled pipes could salvage the atrocity of "New York". Over one of the best musical beds he's ever been offered, Bono weaves a Hallmark lover's tale, in the city where "Irish, Italians/ Jews, and Hispanics/ Religious nuts [and] political fanatics/ [Stir] in the stew/ Happily/ Not like me and you." Subtle breakbeat drumming and glistening guitar be damned, Bono will ruin a song. And so the story goes for the entire album-- one of the band's finest, if not for the tweeting and hooting of The Fly and his grating lyrics. Beautiful day, certainly, but the rest of the week was all jetlag and rain. Can't The Edge sing, too?

Sorry but that last part was very funny! At least you can tell the guy likes & respects Edge.

 

[Saracene]

"Songwriting" is much more than just lyrics, and lyrics IMO aren't always the most important ingredient of a song. I'd argue that Lennon & McCartney's greatness is more about the sheer abundance of great memorable melodies they wrote, rather than lyrics.

 

[timothius]

"Songwriting" is much more than just lyrics, and lyrics IMO aren't always the most important ingredient of a song. I'd argue that Lennon & McCartney's greatness is more about the sheer abundance of great memorable melodies they wrote, rather than lyrics.

It's a combination of many things. Lyrics IMO outweigh melody - however the way they interact is imperative. For example anyone can right a catchy melody... Hit Me Baby One More Time has got a ripper melody. Is it a good song? No. Most Radiohead is completely deprived of concious melody - would I classify Thom Yorke & crew as good song writers? Yes.

Lennon & McCartney I feel found a sweet-spot between catchy melodies, progressive music & lyrics that associated with a wide range of people on various levels.

You should know, your city was home to a handful of some of the greatest songwriters in living memory.

 

[Saracene]

It's a combination of many things. Lyrics IMO outweigh melody - however the way they interact is imperative. For example anyone can right a catchy melody... Hit Me Baby One More Time has got a ripper melody. Is it a good song? No. Most Radiohead is completely deprived of concious melody - would I classify Thom Yorke & crew as good song writers? Yes.

I'd say though that when it comes to universally loved songs and artists, music (and vocals) communicate much more than the lyrics do, because the lyrics inevitably impose a language barrier. Artists like Beatles or U2 or Radiohead are loved in many countries where many people either don't understand English or have a limited grasp on it, and don't really know what on earth they're singing about. When I listen to Spanish, Arabic, German, French-speaking artists, lyrics don't play any part in why I think this or that song is great - simply because they can't play any part.

Personally, I think that Baby One More Time is a fantastic pop song and the reason so much derision is heaped on it has more to do with what people think of Britney in general, rather than the song itself. Its lyrics aren't any worse than "yesterday I woke up sucking a lemon".

 

[prof_peabody]

I agree with Saracene. Most people enjoy music for the sound (including vocal, which is very important sometimes). Most of my friends don't analyze the words and meaning of a song when they hear it on the radio. I know I usually read them later and try and figure out what the author is getting at.

Case and point would be the Ladysmith Black mambaso Choir that I heard live a couple weeks ago. Most of their performance was in Afrikaans (sp?), so I have little idea what the individual words meant. The singers explained the songs before they sang them and it was still quite enjoyable.

 

[timothius]

I'd say though that when it comes to universally loved songs and artists, music (and vocals) communicate much more than the lyrics do, because the lyrics inevitably impose a language barrier.

I respectfully disagree 100%. I find it hard to believe that songs such as One, Streets & WOWY would be as equally loved (or on anywhere near the same level) if the lyrics changed (yet melody retained) to those of The Refugee, Grace & Some Days Are Better Than Others respectively.

When I think of the universally loved songs in the world where I live I think of these songs... Hey Jude, Let It Be, Don't Dream It's Over, With Or Without You, Throw Your Arms Around Me, Imagine... you know... the songs that are always in the Top 10 of Most Popular song contests on radio stations that haven't been converted to musical brothels.

I think the argument that the quality of U2s (or any band for that matter) songwriting ability should in anyway be based on its reception in foreign langauge audiences - is frankly a bit bizzare. But I kind of get where you are coming from. However I think that people listening to alternate language music truly can only appreciate the music on a very superficial lever - which focuses mainly on the melody & simplistic concepts - putting them on a par with 90% of the youth of today.

 

[2Hearts]

I've listened to Sigur Ros enough that I sometimes forget that I don't know what they're saying. I feel that I've gotten the message that the songs are meant to communicate.

However, I do realize that my interpretation could have absolutely nothing to do with the real meaning of the lyrics.

So basically, I agree 50% with Saracene and 50% with timothius

 

[Earnie Shavers]

the songs that are always in the Top 10 of Most Popular song contests on radio stations that haven't been converted to musical brothels.

"Musical brothels" - brilliant.

There are plenty of shit songs musically that have great lyrics and plenty of great songs musically that have awful lyrics (see New Order for an entire catalogue of this). In my view, the perfect songwriting is where both tell the story, relate the feel and mood perfectly. In U2's catalogue, take Love is Blindness. Fantastic lyrics, and the music behind it is so in tune with the lyrics that if you actually stripped the lyrics away from that song and left it as an instrumental you still 110% get the same feeling. There's no doubt that the song is in a dark place, and from The Edge's guitar there is no doubt that it is a place of desperation and heartbreak, crying out for something else. Not all great songs of course have to go that far, but if you can get lyrics + music that reaches the same mood and feel of the lyrics + good melody, it's impossible to not 'be there'.

Are U2 better songwriters? I don't really think so. I think there's just an emphasis shift. Like I said somewhere earlier in this post, the melody itself is what seems to be lauded the most about the Bomb and I don't believe for a second that that is missing from U2 previously at all. I just think they structured the songs differently, and steered away from the most obvious/catchy route when possible. You only have to do a cut and paste job on previous U2 songs like With Or Without You or If God Will Send His Angels to have the same verse/hook 1/hook 2/chorus/verse/hook 1/hook 2/chorus etc structure. They instead in the past went for things more along the lines of verse/hook 1/verse/hook 1/chorus/verse/hook1/hook2/chorus etc. And they'd often bury the melody line in a way, either put it more to the back only sporadically popping its head up in the front, or by tricks like fuzzing it a bit (vocals or guitar) or just building to it slowly and patiently. It's just a different approach now, where that pop melody, which has always been there but never the focus, is now the front and centre focus and is in itself what makes the songs.

And each are different in what they prefer in that regard. I think there's much more in the beauty of the way a song like Velvet Dress opens itself up to you slowly, patiently, giving you it's truly melody and hooks only right at the end then there is in a song like Original with it's sugary sweet pop hooks all on big bright display from the get go. Others see it differently and that's why I think they see the songwriting as being better now, more in line with what they prefer perhaps? I don't think there's a difference in level of quality or ability, just that shift in focus.

Bono's lyrics though - down the tube I tell you!!!

 

[david]

There's a lot that they've written in the Pop to Bomb era including b-sides and such that really can rival anything written from Boy to Zooropa.


It's a tough call to say whether or not they're actually better songwriters now than they were then though.

 

[starvinmarvin]

It's a combination of many things. Lyrics IMO outweigh melody - however the way they interact is imperative. For example anyone can right a catchy melody... Hit Me Baby One More Time has got a ripper melody. Is it a good song? No. Most Radiohead is completely deprived of concious melody - would I classify Thom Yorke & crew as good song writers? Yes.

I'm not so sure that anyone can write a catchy melody. It's far easier for the average Joe to come up with a decent lyric than it is to come up with a good melody. Some people bitch at U2 for emphasizing melody over lyrics on their last 2 albums, but what most people fail to realize is that it is more difficult and takes more talent to write great melodies. Sure, U2 could take the easy route and put generic melodies over cut and paste electronic music like they did during Pop, but let's be thankful that they are actual writing SONGS with memorable MELODIES and interesting CHORD PROGRESSIONS now.

Actually, Hit Me Baby does not have a "ripper" melody. The melody is pretty generic, and basically just follows the chords, but what it does have a great hook in the chorus. And actually, radiohead does have good melodies, and THAT is why they are good songwriters. It's all about the melody, and that's why their current music will be listened to 20 years from now, while Pop will sound hilariously dated.

 

[U2DMfan]

A good lyrical piece over the sound of an out of tune guitar, off beat drummer and a poorly pitched singer would be destroyed. However, if the music is performed by professionals it hardly needs any vocals or lyrics. Music can stand alone by itself, it is the key to songwriting, IMO. Lyrics are the key to the populism of the song.

I do appreciate the argument for lyrics, I just totally disagree that they are more important than music, as far as songwriting goes.
Maybe as a listener, you like the lyrics, as a musican I have to think that music is primary. And yeah, I write lyrics and sing, but good lyrics with bad musical ideas make for shitty songs. A great musical idea doesn't need a word spoke or sang over it neccessarily.

 

[t8thgr8]

You make good points. Bono's lyrics do come alive in the music. This is particularly noticeable in the live arena. The lyrics are very catchy & associate with wide groups of people - Beautiful Day is a great example of this. It should be pointed out that a lot of pop artists have the same thing going on.

Onto LNOE...


you are a bunch of bullshit that had a song that you feel youve figured the fuck out all wrong

last night on earth isnt about a suicidal chick. its about a chick on smack. assclown.

She feels the ground is giving way
But she thinks we're better off that way
The more you take the less you feel
The less you know the more you believe
The more you have the more it takes today

shes fucked up, she cant feel her feet.
she thinks were better off fucked up. it feels good.it numbs the pain inside.
the less you know about a drug, the more bullshit you buy(believe) when someone tries to sell to you..
the more you take, the more it takes tomorrow. (tollerance.)

She's not waiting on a saviour to come
She's at the bus-stop with News of the World and the Sun
Sun, here it comes
She's not waiting for anyone

she hasnt any hope.
shes a junky at a cornershop believing whatever she reads, delusions of reality.
the suns coming up, that means a comedown.
time to re-up. no time to waste.

Clock tells her that time is slipping / Slipping away
Tear drop sunshine / Slip slide
Two sides to one feels missing / Too heavy
Something she might be missing / Slipping away
World turns and we get dizzy / The world turns....
Spinning for you / ...and we get dizzy
The way it's spinning for me / Slipping away

right now shes fucked up and hallucinating.
notices time and when youre fucked up, time is distorted.
shes feeling good and one minute shes feeling severely depressed, signs of addiction.
she now has the spins. again, fucked up.

She's living, living next week now
You know she's going to pay it back somehow
She hasn't been to bed in a week
She'll be dead soon then she'll sleep

shes spent money she doesnt have yet.
dealers always get their pay someway or another. most likely through sex in this case.
shes been cracked out for a week and its kept her up.
that happens with hardcore drugs such as ecstacy, crystal, etc..


She already knows it hurts
She's living like it's the last night on earth
The last night on earth
Last night on earth
Last night on earth

she knows her body is bad off, why not take more shit to make it feel better. when it wears off, take more. just as long as the pain is numb everything's cool in her mind. she has a slight idea that shes on her way out but with the drugs in her system, shes not quite worried about it.


before you start criticizing the man's lyrics, try figuring them out a little better. later

 

[Ellay]

There's a lot that they've written in the Pop to Bomb era including b-sides and such that really can rival anything written from Boy to Zooropa.

It's a tough call to say whether or not they're actually better songwriters now than they were then though.

Yeah absolutely, and along the same lines, there've been songs in the different eras that have been as bad as each other as well.

I guess it's down to what you make of them when you listen.

 

[Saracene]

I respectfully disagree 100%. I find it hard to believe that songs such as One, Streets & WOWY would be as equally loved (or on anywhere near the same level) if the lyrics changed (yet melody retained) to those of The Refugee, Grace & Some Days Are Better Than Others respectively.

Well I did specify that I was talking about the non-English-speaking listeners.

Anyway, I can easily imagine One, Streets, etc. sung with some other lyrics put to their melodies. I can't however imagine these songs changing their melody - they're what ultimately makes these songs unique and instantly recognisable.

However I think that people listening to alternate language music truly can only appreciate the music on a very superficial lever - which focuses mainly on the melody & simplistic concepts - putting them on a par with 90% of the youth of today.

Some music, yes. With artists like Nick Cave, I don't think it's possible to fully appreciate their music if you totally miss out on the lyrics. But there are many artists out there, some of them great, whose lyrics either aren't their strongest point at all or aren't their primary tool of communication. Many songs out there, including some of the classics, have lyrics that -are- completely superficial or simplistic to start with and whose main attraction is about something else entirely - vocals, rhythm, melody, production, mood, emotion, attitude, sex appeal, danceability, etc. etc. Are all of these aspects "superficial"?

I guess we'll just have to disagree. You obviously elevate the lyrics above every other ingredient of the song, while I think of them more as an equal to others and sometimes not essential at all.

 

[Auhiz]

I'll admit to often (usually?) paying little to no attention at all to the lyrics in most songs, regardless of the artist. But I still love those most celebrated of songs that you mentioned for eg, timothius, because.. well, they sound bloody great. Of course it's very subjective. Each to their own, whatever does it for you. And the lyrics can definitely add so much to the feeling of a song. But as has already been mentioned, I doubt you could replace the music from those great songs with any old stuff while retaining the lyrics and still have great songs. Vise versa though? I reckon it's possible, if they were sung right.. I enjoy the voice used more as an instrument than a deliverer of lines, even if the meaning of those lines does help to emphasise the emotion.

Oh, and actual thread topic deliberately ignored.

Edit: The awesome Travis cover of Hit Me Baby One More Time should settle -that- little argument..

 

[prof_peabody]

You make good points. Bono's lyrics do come alive in the music. This is particularly noticeable in the live arena. The lyrics are very catchy & associate with wide groups of people - Beautiful Day is a great example of this. It should be pointed out that a lot of pop artists have the same thing going on.

Onto LNOE...

CUT...

before you start criticizing the man's lyrics, try figuring them out a little better. later

Bono refers to God as she. Many U2 songs where she is written refer to God.

I find the true meaning of U2 lyrics are hard to find out, though many of them reference or relate to biblical passages. Take a look at the book "Walk On" by Steve Stockman. He has a good grasp of the spiritual meanings of the songs, though someday I hope Bono writes a memoir and gies us some more hints about what the words mean.

Pop is a very spiritual album.