Songs of Experience - Part V

[LuckyNumber7]

I would say that title belongs to Zooropa. Pop was pretty accessible, but I guess it depends on what kind of music you were listening to then.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Both Pop and Zooropa can be clumped together. I suppose Zooropa might be less accessible because it didn't feature a song like Discotheque or some obviously identifiable lead single. But Pop is the last album, start to finish, I would recommend to a neutral fan ear.

 

[BVS]

Both Pop and Zooropa can be clumped together. I suppose Zooropa might be less accessible because it didn't feature a song like Discotheque or some obviously identifiable lead single. But Pop is the last album, start to finish, I would recommend to a neutral fan ear.

It's definitely not the place where most would start, BUT I've seen people that say 'I don't like U2' do a 180 after they hear Pop because they're big edm fans.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It's definitely not the place where most would start, BUT I've seen people that say 'I don't like U2' do a 180 after they hear Pop because they're big edm fans.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Does appealing to a different genre make it accessible? Or just make U2 more accessible as a whole?

 

[Irvine511]

It was ironically accessible.

which is also to say "accessible."

 

[BVS]

Does appealing to a different genre make it accessible? Or just make U2 more accessible as a whole?

That's why I said earlier that context matters. When it came out electronic music was already pretty mainstream and doing a lot of crossover, but if you weren't exposed to it I could see where 4 or 5 of the songs were difficult to digest.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

That's why I said earlier that context matters. When it came out electronic music was already pretty mainstream and doing a lot of crossover, but if you weren't exposed to it I could see where 4 or 5 of the songs were difficult to digest.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I mean... U2 has sort of done this their whole existence though. By that standard, every single U2 album is accessible.

 

[BVS]

I mean... U2 has sort of done this their whole existence though. By that standard, every single U2 album is accessible.

I think most are; Zooropa is the only that's really completely different from the times. Maybe UF to a certain point.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[cseggleton]

If Discotheque wasn't "accessible", then why was it Pop's first single?

If they really wanted accessible and a hit with POP they would have introduced Gone first....then IFGWSHA...then Discotheque.

 

[cseggleton]

Then SATS and then LNOE....they really could have had a great success with the record if they marketed it correctly. Oh the joys of hindsight!!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That video sunk the album

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

I was in grade 11 in high school during pop! Good memories! I remember playing pop on my discman none stop lol

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

And before pop I listened to u2 albums on my Walkman haha

 

[BVS]

That video sunk the album

Pretty much


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[RoKKeR]

I think accessible is now my least favorite word.

Man who cares, if they're good songs then all is well. If not, that sucks. These dudes are creeping up on 60, I'm not expecting some big change of sound, some big artistic statement, some Radiohead-esque weirdness, I'm just expecting more U2 and I'm happy that we are still able to expect that. *shrug*

 

[BWU2Buffs]

That video sunk the album

The K-mart press conference did not help either. Arguably one of the most cringe-worthy moments in U2 history IMO.

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

Tedder mentioned production was "very, very accessible sounding... But it’s not pop."

let's discuss what that might mean...

I agree with others that it suggests it'll sound like the more 'radio friendly' tracks on SoI (I.e. The first half, with tedder and Epworth credits).

What I'm really curious about is how long they've been working with Tedder. I said this a while back, but if u2 really want to work with a commercial producer, I wish they'd do it from the start of album sessions rather than towards the end as a 'clean up' maneuver.

The way they've done it at the end of the last couple albums (sessions only with Lillywhite for NLOTH, sessions with tedder and epworth for SoI) has yielded to me very disjointed works.

It's very jarring having Song for Someone and California alongside Sleep like a baby Tonight and Raised by wolves. (The lyrical content does link them, but sonically they're way too distant to me).
Likewise, going from Unknown caller to too Crazy tonight is I'd just too much.

They've shown a tendency to bring in pop producers at the last minute, and we all know they're chasing a big single. It was almost inevitable in retrospect that they'd bring in Tedder for SoE; I just hope it's been from the beginning, rather than right at the end. It would be nice to have a more cohesive album - 'Innocence' almost sounds like two ep's taped together.

 

[trevgreg]

I don't really see too much of a difference sonically between certain songs on SOI... at least in comparison to NLOTH anyway. If you dig deep enough though, you could argue that some songs on almost any of their more recent albums have different sounds/themes. Mofo doesn't sound really close to Wake Up Dead Man, Zooropa doesn't really sound like The First Time, etc.

Yet again, maybe if we weren't aware of the production behind the album or the length in writing songs for it, stuff like that wouldn't really come into consideration?

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

That's true, maybe I'm being too harsh/overly aware of production credits.

I feel the placement of the songs doesn't really help - all the more commercial Epworth/tedder songs are at the front of the album, whereas the Danger Mouse only tunes are relegated to the back half. There feels like a conscious separation.

Similarly, on NLOTH you get that 'middle three' jammed together.

I wonder if that's because the band felt the albums wouldn't have flowed if the two different 'types' of songs were mixed together.

Sure it could just be me, but I couldn't see the track list of SoI going 'Miracle', 'SLABT', 'Song for someone', 'Troubles' etc. The Tedder/Epworth tunes are radio-friendly as hell, the DM only ones are decidedly darker, murkier, weirder.

(I will agree that SoI was a marked improvement over NLOTH when it comes to sonic cohesion though!)

 

[Axver]

Not releasing Gone as Pop's lead single was silly. Not releasing Gone as a single at all is criminal.

 

[dan_smee]

I love Gone, and while I PREFER the album version, it was very unfinished. The passing notes in the mid verses make the song - gives it dynamics missing from the album.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[The_acrobat]

Not releasing Gone as Pop's lead single was silly. Not releasing Gone as a single at all is criminal.

No shit! I remember when SATS was released as the 2nd single, I thought "Okay, that makes sense, SATS is the most commercially appealing song on the album. Gone will probably be the 3rd single". I was confused when LNOE was the 3rd single, and I was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED when Please was the 4th single (great song, not really an ideal radio single). Their single choices were poor at best.

The Discotheque music video really sank the album, though. It was 1997. Music videos were the most popular form of media at the time, EVERYBODY saw that video. It was completely out of step with the cynical '90s general population. Yeah, there was a large hip hop/techno/electronic movement at the time, but people like to compartmentalize. They wanted their 30-somethineg white rock stars to stay in that box, and were unhappy when they didn't. If they'd have made some kind of post-grungy rock song their first single, it would have fared much better. Maybe keep "Mofo" but keep it at the POWER CHORDS.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I agree with others that it suggests it'll sound like the more 'radio friendly' tracks on SoI (I.e. The first half, with tedder and Epworth credits).

What I'm really curious about is how long they've been working with Tedder. I said this a while back, but if u2 really want to work with a commercial producer, I wish they'd do it from the start of album sessions rather than towards the end as a 'clean up' maneuver.

The way they've done it at the end of the last couple albums (sessions only with Lillywhite for NLOTH, sessions with tedder and epworth for SoI) has yielded to me very disjointed works.

It's very jarring having Song for Someone and California alongside Sleep like a baby Tonight and Raised by wolves. (The lyrical content does link them, but sonically they're way too distant to me).
Likewise, going from Unknown caller to too Crazy tonight is I'd just too much.

They've shown a tendency to bring in pop producers at the last minute, and we all know they're chasing a big single. It was almost inevitable in retrospect that they'd bring in Tedder for SoE; I just hope it's been from the beginning, rather than right at the end. It would be nice to have a more cohesive album - 'Innocence' almost sounds like two ep's taped together.

California is not linked lyrically to the rest of the record whatsoever. It sticks out like a sore thumb thematically.

An album about growing up in Dublin and the music they listened to and their first breaks as musicians... to a song about their first trip to California, which occurred after Boy had already been released?

 

[Hollow Island]

Well, Katy Perry had a hit with California Girls so U2 had to try to catch some of that Cali heat.

Or maybe Edge was just looking at his property, dreaming of the riches that would flow in if only the development was accepted...

Or maybe they were adhering to concept album tradition and derailing the album with something that didn't make any sense.

Or maybe it's not a concept album at all. Some of the songs stick to the concept, but half of them could fit on any U2 album lyrically and deal with standard U2 subjects and platitudes. EBW is the biggest offender to me - it' clearly a very adult song.

 

[Hollow Island]

Anyway, I like that album but I really don't want U2 to make a more "accessible" version of it. That adjective is poison when it comes to music. And SOI is pretty fucking bland already.

 

[aMansAman]

What frightens me is - that they bring in Tedder to help with SONGWRITING .. they always had their producers come in and out .. but as far as I remember they were good in composing their own songs ...

Now Tedder is there in the studio to sit in front of the piano - he totally shreds the material done on the road while on tour by talented producers like Andy Barlow ... he puts in some ooooohs for an "accessible" chorus.

My personal nightmare ... but SOE is not out yet so it MIGHT turn out to be a good album (as long as it's as good as the 2nd half of SOI , that's ok )

 

[Hollow Island]

They've shown a tendency to bring in pop producers at the last minute, and we all know they're chasing a big single. It was almost inevitable in retrospect that they'd bring in Tedder for SoE; I just hope it's been from the beginning, rather than right at the end. It would be nice to have a more cohesive album - 'Innocence' almost sounds like two ep's taped together.

I think that they need to accept that they're not going to have a big hit, at least not if they try to. Bowie was U2's age when he released Heathen and he didn't make any videos because he knew he wasn't going to get on MTV. He made videos later, or course, but there was no MTV. It's easier with youtube. Blackstar, one of his strangest songs, was hugely successful (before he died!!) and it's 10 minutes long and has a very...strange video. Sure, being great helps, but it helped that he was just trying to make something good and not appeal to the audience. He learned in the 80s that it was poisonous for the music. U2 have yet to learn that, and they'll slide farther and farther into irrelevancy.

 

[Hollow Island]

What frightens me is - that they bring in Tedder to help with SONGWRITING .. they always had their producers come in and out .. but as far as I remember they were good in composing their own songs ...

Now Tedder is there in the studio to sit in front of the piano - he totally shreds the material done on the road while on tour by talented producers like Andy Barlow ... he puts in some ooooohs for an "accessible" chorus.

My personal nightmare ... but SOE is not out yet so it MIGHT turn out to be a good album (as long as it's as good as the 2nd half of SOI , that's ok )

Producers usually help with songwriting, it's no big deal. Or it wouldn't be if Tedder wasn't a shit songwriter of bland songs with inane lyrics. He did improve EBW though, so maybe this will be OK? U2's choice of collaborators has really taken a hit over the last few years.

80s: Lillywhite, Hannett, Eno, Lanois, Visconti, Iovine, Flood (and they wanted to work with Colin Newman of Wire and Conny Plank). All guys who had solid track records of artistic excellence. Flood had just engineered some (excellent) records, and Lanois was unknown, but Plank, Eno, Wire, and Hannett were already legends. More importantly this showed that the band had great taste. Which is the most important thing in music because it determines what your songs will be.

Now they work with Paul Epworth and Ryan Tedder, two commercial pop producers. They're as far from the likes of Eno and Hannett as you can get.

 

[blueskies]

He did improve EBW though, so maybe this will be OK?

Did he? Can you explain?

 

[aMansAman]

Did he? Can you explain?

 

[Mack_Again]

I know "Accessible" and "dumbed down" aren't technically equal but I consider them pretty much synonymous with each other


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference