SOE 31: Yes, we have no bananas

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


Snippets of 5 songs from the album, the 5th being the studio Little Things



Where can I find THAT version of 'Heaven & Hell'!?! It's nowhere on YouTube. All I can find is the regular version with completely different lyrics. This version has these lyrics...

You used to think I was something special
I know you haven’t thought that in a while
You liked the company of my inner devil
Cos my inner devil could make you smile


Please someone HELP!! This version is amazing, but nowhere to be found!!
 
Last edited:
Where can I find THAT version of 'Heaven & Hell'!?! It's nowhere on YouTube. All I can find is the regular version with completely different lyrics. This version has these lyrics...

You used to think I was something special
I know you haven’t thought that in a while
You liked the company of my inner devil
Cos my inner devil could make you smile


Please someone HELP!! This version is amazing, but nowhere to be found!!

Does anyone know if there's a difference between the Salome demo version or the official one released on the AB anniversary set?
 
Those are the lyrics that are on the version from the Achtung anniversary set. Not sure why people are acting like some lost treasure has been unearthed.

And from what I remember, that version has a new vocal from Bono. It's not from the original sessions. All those syllables give it away.
 
I am going to guess with the running time of the album, that all songs are going to be very pop oriented, or RAWK.

U2 are making the songs they wanted to make when they first started out, but weren't experienced/good enough to do. They always looked up to Ramones, Beatles, etc and wanted to make those type of songs.

They were limited by their technical ability, and had to create their own style (though influenced by the new wave / punk at the time).

So we got some very interesting songs from them, songs that didn't sound like anything else. Now they are great at creating hooks, and it shows over the last two decades of output. These are good pop songs.

GOOYOW is stuck in my head. Growing up with U2, I never really had their songs in my head. I'm sure they were, but not on repeat like a catchy chorus. For me U2 albums were something of a journey. To sit down and get lose in the music, and the space they created.

NLOTH was close to that, until Crazy Tonight/SUC.

SOI flowed better than NLOTH, but I never found myself lost in the music. It was just a pop song followed by pop song.

So it's not so much that U2's goals have changed. They've always wanted to be on the top of the charts. And they reached it by doing it their way. Now with age and experience they have learned how to craft a song the traditional way, and this is what we have to accept going forward.

Unless the go into the next record with the idea of not wanting a pop sound.
 
Those are the lyrics that are on the version from the Achtung anniversary set. Not sure why people are acting like some lost treasure has been unearthed.

And from what I remember, that version has a new vocal from Bono. It's not from the original sessions. All those syllables give it away.
Because it's nowhere to be found on YouTube or on the net as far as I can tell. Nor is it available for digital purchase, nor on Spotify. But thanks for the info. I guess the only way of finding it is by buying the Super Deluxe box set. Do you happen to know when Bono recorded the vocals?
 
I am going to guess with the running time of the album, that all songs are going to be very pop oriented, or RAWK.

U2 are making the songs they wanted to make when they first started out, but weren't experienced/good enough to do. They always looked up to Ramones, Beatles, etc and wanted to make those type of songs.

They were limited by their technical ability, and had to create their own style (though influenced by the new wave / punk at the time).

So we got some very interesting songs from them, songs that didn't sound like anything else. Now they are great at creating hooks, and it shows over the last two decades of output. These are good pop songs.

GOOYOW is stuck in my head. Growing up with U2, I never really had their songs in my head. I'm sure they were, but not on repeat like a catchy chorus. For me U2 albums were something of a journey. To sit down and get lose in the music, and the space they created.

NLOTH was close to that, until Crazy Tonight/SUC.

SOI flowed better than NLOTH, but I never found myself lost in the music. It was just a pop song followed by pop song.

So it's not so much that U2's goals have changed. They've always wanted to be on the top of the charts. And they reached it by doing it their way. Now with age and experience they have learned how to craft a song the traditional way, and this is what we have to accept going forward.

Unless the go into the next record with the idea of not wanting a pop sound.
Great post. Back when U2 were "great", they weren't exactly "very good" (as technical musicians). Now they are actually very good. But as Bono likes to say, the enemy of "great," is "very good", hence the predicament they now find themselves in. Edge once said he believed in limitations - because it was out of those limitations as musicians that U2 found their sound and Bono found his spiritual depth as a poet and a singer. As Ridyard Kipling wrote, "If you can think, but not make thoughts your aim..." This described U2's approach to melody and hook and lyrics up until about 1995. Once U2 started to actively compete with the likes of Oasis and Radiohead for the biggest band in the world title, they started gaining the ability to construct pop songs like 'Staring at the Sun' and 'Playboy Mansion', but losing the ability to lose themselves musically and let the music find them as often as it did in the past. This has been the trend ever since 1997.

Interestingly enough, this was also around the time Bono's voice changed from the deep, velvet, baritone we remember at his peak, to the more scratchy and surface vocals we find on Pop. Perhaps the change of songwriting approach also suited his changing vocal abilities as well, as he was no longer able to completely let go vocally as he did up until Zooropa (think of 'Stay' for example).
 
Last edited:
I am going to guess with the running time of the album, that all songs are going to be very pop oriented, or RAWK.

U2 are making the songs they wanted to make when they first started out, but weren't experienced/good enough to do. They always looked up to Ramones, Beatles, etc and wanted to make those type of songs.

They were limited by their technical ability, and had to create their own style (though influenced by the new wave / punk at the time).

So we got some very interesting songs from them, songs that didn't sound like anything else. Now they are great at creating hooks, and it shows over the last two decades of output. These are good pop songs.

GOOYOW is stuck in my head. Growing up with U2, I never really had their songs in my head. I'm sure they were, but not on repeat like a catchy chorus. For me U2 albums were something of a journey. To sit down and get lose in the music, and the space they created.

NLOTH was close to that, until Crazy Tonight/SUC.

SOI flowed better than NLOTH, but I never found myself lost in the music. It was just a pop song followed by pop song.

So it's not so much that U2's goals have changed. They've always wanted to be on the top of the charts. And they reached it by doing it their way. Now with age and experience they have learned how to craft a song the traditional way, and this is what we have to accept going forward.

Unless the go into the next record with the idea of not wanting a pop sound.

Interesting. Does this mean that U2's career has been built on "happy accidents" in their songwriting? :hmm: They're the Bob Ross of music! :lol:
 
I think one of their problems is that they seem to constantly be a bit behind the times. The garage rock explosion of the early 2000s clearly influenced the band, but they got there too late - Vertigo was a hit, but by the time Boots came out, the 2000s garage rock scene was over. These songs just sound dated. And even worse - they sound stale. While Edge was busy trying to come up with blues riffs to impress Jimmy Page and Jack White, a new brand of alt-rock had taken over with bands like The Arcade Fire who, ironically, were influenced by U2!

The band seems confused as to what counts as relevant these days, which I suppose I understand. At U2's peak, the coolest band could also be the band you heard on the radio. These days, it doesn't work that way - yet they don't seem to understand that. To them, a watered-down pop-rock band like OneRepublic is relevant because they have hits on MOR radio. Meanwhile bands like The Arcade Fire (despite their recent flop - Reflektor was awesome) and The National are putting out incredible, critically acclaimed music with no help from FM radio.
 
Because it's nowhere to be found on YouTube or on the net as far as I can tell. Nor is it available for digital purchase, nor on Spotify. But thanks for the info. I guess the only way of finding it is by buying the Super Deluxe box set. Do you happen to know when Bono recorded the vocals?
Oh Berlin is also exclusively on that box set. And I like that one. But i cannae get it without the purchase of the whole set.

Disappearing Act is another that requires deluxe purchase.

Even if they charged double a normal song price but still made them purchasable...

Ps: this thread is wandering like a little old lady. We need to refocus on refu-jesus.
 
We just found the three people whose lyrical opinions should be forever ignored. I bet you even like the little old lady lyric in Stand Up Comedy. :wink:

Nope. Not SUC. dont think this is brilliant, but really not as big a deal as some here are making it out to be. As I said, it's a rock song, not high literature

EDIT: Sorry, didn't notice your comment was 17 pages back... wouldn't have replied to it if I had.
 
Last edited:
Really? I don't think they have written an absolute classic since Stay. That's what's been lacking in their albums since Zooropa imo, the truly great songs.
At least Kite. I'd argue for MOS (didn't think it was a classic until very recently). I like a lot of SOI but dont think its old enough for any of its songs to qualify as a classic yet.
 
The band seems confused as to what counts as relevant these days, which I suppose I understand. At U2's peak, the coolest band could also be the band you heard on the radio. These days, it doesn't work that way - yet they don't seem to understand that. To them, a watered-down pop-rock band like OneRepublic is relevant because they have hits on MOR radio. Meanwhile bands like The Arcade Fire (despite their recent flop - Reflektor was awesome) and The National are putting out incredible, critically acclaimed music with no help from FM radio.

This is a very good point, put well. I suppose it's what I was getting at yesterday. There really isn't a cohesive music mainstream any more, at least not as it was understood in the eighties and nineties. It's far more fragmented, and the stuff that successfully crosses boundaries (genre, social, whatever) doesn't generally do it through radio. Looking at charts can give a very false impression. Somebody - I'm sorry, I forget who - mentioned Portugal the Man as having a big hit in the States at the moment, if you go by radio play. I find that almost impossible to believe. They're a niche band I've known for over a decade, if not followed closely. The idea they are at any sort of music cutting edge now seems kind of ludicrous, let alone that they are some massively popular act. The one time I saw them live, about four years ago, they were on in the early evening at a festival; no doubt the bands above them on the bill have worse chart figures, but oh boy their streaming stats will be insane.

You can tell the decline of charts as an indicator of popularity by the fact so many of the niche artists I like are now, late in their career, suddenly charting well. It's not because their audience has expanded much, but because they have a diehard fanbase that goes out and buys enough physical shit, while the flavour of the month sells no CDs but streams the fuck out of Spotify and YouTube. No Steven Wilson fan, except the most Sil of them, would dare suggest he's at the peak of his career right now. Basically everybody agrees that was in Porcupine Tree. But his solo career is charting like PT never did, because in 2002 people still bought physical media of the flavour of the month, while today his 20,000 sales or whatever are good for number ones across Europe.

But i cannae get it without the purchase of the whole set.

My refu-jesus you're from Dunedin.

Nope. Not SUC. dont think this is brilliant, but really not as big a deal as some here are making it out to be. As I said, it's a rock song, not high literature

EDIT: Sorry, didn't notice your comment was 17 pages back... wouldn't have replied to it if I had.

Yes, it's a rock song. Not half-arsed toilet paper.

And you know you're feeling refu-jesus and had to reply to defend your saviour. :wink:
 
And re: when U2 last wrote a classic, sure Stay is good, but Gone rang. So did Please. Mofo and LNOE are right up there.

And there's The Ground Beneath Her Feet, though maybe that doesn't count since Bono didn't write the lyrics.
 
Hahahahahah.... it needs no defence. I said in my original post supporting its place in the song that its funny, and not in the least offensive. I understand that it grates with you (like the 'ate all your friends' verse from CFYT did for me), but it really isn't a big deal. Plus, as one of those whose lyrical appreciation you singled out as irrelevant ;) said, it's the delivery I enjoy. And the actual words made me laugh, but not in a bad way. Rock songs are allowed to have their funny bits, I think.
 
Last edited:
Oh man, "ate all your friends". I really like how Crumbs sounds, but that line makes me wary of defending it. And the shitty double-tracked vocals. Bono did that a few times on HTDAAB and it was 100% a bad idea.
 
Oh man, "ate all your friends". I really like how Crumbs sounds, but that line makes me wary of defending it. And the shitty double-tracked vocals. Bono did that a few times on HTDAAB and it was 100% a bad idea.



Remember the drunken HtDaAB listening party? Good times.
 
Yeah, Crumbs is one of those irredeemable songs for me. Maybe I identify it as the point where Bono took the decision to just say things as opposed to try and make people think them. But yeah, "mouth full of teeth, you ate all your friends" is bad. And I know there are some people here who like the song, no disrespect, it's purely a matter of taste and how it sounded to me in late 2004
 
Last edited:
I think the music of Crumbs is a wonderful example of raw u2 working well. It is also the moment Bono started writing prose instead of poetry
 
Oh man, "ate all your friends". I really like how Crumbs sounds, but that line makes me wary of defending it. And the shitty double-tracked vocals. Bono did that a few times on HTDAAB and it was 100% a bad idea.



I always felt that the following line rescued it:

“You broke every heart, thinking every heart mends...”

“Refu-Jesus” is an immersion breaker from which there is no way back.

Bono’s lyrics and interview fodder have become completely interchangeable. There doesn’t seem much in the way of artistry there anymore, it’s all so literal and didactic. Where there is poetry, it’s become shot through with trite simile.
 
Last edited:
I always felt that the following line rescued it:

“You broke every heart, thinking every heart mends...”

“Refu-Jesus” is an immersion breaker from which there is no way back.

Bono’s lyrics and interview fodder have become completely interchangeable. There doesn’t seem much in the way of artistry there anymore, it’s all so literal and didactic.

:up:

Good point. I definitely like that "heart" lyric. Refu-Jesus is the culmination of the lyric, and "ate all your friends" isn't. Perhaps the most excruciating part is that if you cut out the little bit with Refu-Jesus, that section isn't so bad. It's still probably the weakest part of the song, but not enough to sink it.
 
I'm starting to feel a little concerned the lyrical critique of American Cliche is solely focusing on refu-jesus.

Just to be sure: is there an argument out there that a song with a big fuzzy blues riff can have an opening lyric of 'it's not a place this country is to me a sound' - and be taken seriously?

'look around, it's a sound'. Well, Bono, i can't see sounds so looking around won't help.

'this country is to me a thought...'
'this is a dream the whole world owns...'

This song is to me a thought I'd prefer you forgot before you recorded it, Mr Vox.

I'm not even dipping my toes into the refu-jesus cesspit.

This is surely the worst lyric to ever happen a Bono, no?
 
I totally agree, yet it's shooting fish in a barrel and we've had that line for a while from that shoddy Kendrick sample.

Refu-jesus is new and legit hilarious, in the worst way.
 
In my book, Mercy and Winter are U2 classics, but U2 won't officially release and promote these songs.
 
I always felt that the following line rescued it:

“You broke every heart, thinking every heart mends...”

“Refu-Jesus” is an immersion breaker from which there is no way back.

Bono’s lyrics and interview fodder have become completely interchangeable. There doesn’t seem much in the way of artistry there anymore, it’s all so literal and didactic. Where there is poetry, it’s become shot through with trite simile.
I think the "broke every heart" line makes what came before worse. It's a sincere song with 'sincere' u2 music. Then we get your face caught up with your psychology and ate all your friends (at that point I am thinking 'so is he having a laugh midway through a sincere song'), then the last line culminates in sincerity again. It's just inconsistent bullshit that honestly I could have bettered, and I'm no poet.

American Soul, from the start I knew that the song was a rocker and your lyrical expectations are kind of tempered with that realisation; it's more about what sounds good and flows with the music. From then on, it's pretty consistent. I guess that is what I look for in any song, that the lyrical and musical world it inhabits is consistent. 'Sexy Boots', meanwhile, does not belong in any U2 song (don't hate GOYB, but that is shameful).
 
Back
Top Bottom