The Magic of U2 (is it in the Bomb?)

[fmattyh]

Well, we finally have (what appears to be) it all. We've heard ALL of HTDAAB, now that Fast Cars is out. And we've heard Mercy, an almost-but-not-quite Bomb track. We've heard 13 new U2 tracks, all over the course of a matter of weeks. Although it's definitely too early to get any kind of perspective on this album, it's never too early to reflect a bit.

First of all, I love Bomb. Not quite up there with TJT or AB, but I'm guessing it'll over right around at #3 or #4 for most people. 9 out of 10 easy (and that's only because U2 set such incredibly high standards with their two masterpieces). The album is great; you can tell the boys were working for perfection. I didn't know they still had this in them. Every song is good enough to play in concert - at least 10 could theoretically be singles.

But that's the problem. I think Time Magazine was mostly right when they said:

The only notable weakness is that the pursuit of those hooks keeps Bomb rooted in the thrill-delivering formula of verse-chorus-verse-pedal-steel solo, depriving it of the mood-altering qualities of Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree.

and

But depth is not what this album is after. It's a statement of competitiveness and relevance, and the best example of intelligent pop hitmaking this year.

I think Bono was on to something when he said:

The better we've gotten at our craft, the harder it has been for us to make magic. Years ago, we weren't good musicians, so we were just dependent on magic. But, as you get older, you start to understand songwriting and the result, if you're not careful, is less original."

I'm not sure if HTDAAB has this magic. You can find traces of it here and there: the Edge's verse + guitar solo in MD, the falsetto in SYCMIOYO, the heavy ground-stomping beat of LAPOE, the scream + guitar solo of ABOY, the final joyful chorus of OOTS, the in-your-face verses of Fast Cars. All throughout this album, you get a taste of this magic; a taste of what makes U2 so special. That's all you get, though - a taste. The album is so close to be mind-blowingly phenomenol, but it falls just short somehow.

What is that magic? What is it about Bad, WOWY, Streets, One, etc. that HTDAAB is missing? Is it missing anything? Am I imagining things? Or does anyone else think it just seems a little off?

I think (for the most part) that HTDAAB is 'over'ed. Overthought - overworked - overproduced? U2 have worked so hard to create a phenomenal album that it's not. I don't see the heart, the joy, and the 'magic' except in little glimpses. Where did it all go?

I think Mercy has this magic. When I listened to Bomb for the first time, I thought, "Wow, these are great songs - this album is very well done. They may be getting older, but they're still creating some amazing tracks." When I first listened to Mercy, none of that came to mind; instead I thought, "This is why I love U2."

I'm not saying Mercy is better than anything on the album. Mercy isn't perfect; it's long and unfocused and doesn't seem to really build to anything in particular. But it has more joy, heart, and magic than anything on HTDAAB. Does anyone else feel this way? What is the magic of this song? Bono's vocals, the production, the raw sound, the chorus? And if this song was left on HTDAAB and "finished," would it still have this magic?

I think that U2 are so concerned with creating instantly catchy songs that the magic is lost under slick production and pretty sounds. SYCMIOYO is a great, great song with some of the most personal lyrics Bono has ever written. But does it have magic? It's hard to tell with all that music in the way. <-- I realize I'm being facetious with that statement, but do you think there's a kernal of truth in there? What about OOTS? COBL? MD? CFYT?

For me, the only song without any hint of magic whatsoever is the biggest blight on the album - City of Blinding Lights. I know that's blaspheme to say that here, but to me, it sounds like U2 trying to be U2 rather than just being them. They're imitating themselves instead of being themselves. (I know that's been said before, but I think it's true.) It's a big, bloated song that builds, gets loud, and ends. I love the fact that this song was inspired by their performance of Streets in NYC after 9/11, seeing the fans laughing and crying and singing along with the band. But couldn't that have inspired something a little less formulaic? The song came into existance because of the magic that only U2 can create at their concerts. Somewhere along the way, however, it lost it all.

Well, I've gone on long enough; most everyone should be able to disagree with at least something here. Once again, I want to clarify that I do love U2 to death and this is one of my favorite albums of all-time and is better than I expected it to be. I haven't posted here for very long; I want you to know that I'm not a pessimistic U2 fan who complains about everything. I am blown away by the quality of this album; I really didn't think they could create another album where every single song was excellent. But that's exactly what they did. And that's why I'm posting this. After listening to Bomb non-stop for a week, I realize that they do have the potential for another Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby. I didn't think those days would be possible again, but after hearing this album, I realize that they are.

So I want more. I want the magic back. I thought it was gone, but it's not. It's just hiding. Will it ever return?

I'll be eagerly awaiting quince.

 

[U2_Guy]

Read my post: http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102479&pagenumber=1

 

[learn2kneel]

fmatt - you have the best avatar of all time! i love that simpsons episode! good, well thought-out post also, although i love COBL and i think miracle drug has "the magic."

 

[Palace_Hero]

You have posted what I have in my head. Top stuff.

 

[innocent_eyes]

I think it's just missing time...

-IN years you could still be listening to HTAAD

-The previos songs you mentioned from the rest of U2's career have a significant bond with you now, you've had a chance to enjoy them, interpret them, re-discover them, and see them live. Only in time will this happen with bomb.

-People liked AB when it came out, but i don't think everyone did, and i also don't think they called it a masterpeice for some time after it's release!

-So just give it time

 

[Hoodlem]

I agree with a lot of what was said in this first post.

 

[fmattyh]

U2_Guy, sorry, didn't mean to exactly to repeat everything you said, though it's nice to know you're somewhat in agreement.

l2k, yeah, I figured might as well combine two loves of mine. Also, I'll agree that out of any track on HTDAAB, I think Miracle Drug comes closest to being more than just a song.

innocent, there is definitely something to the claim that songs from HTDAAB haven't been performed live before, therefore they haven't taken on any additional meaning yet. With songs like Bad or NYD or Sunday Bloody Sunday, they have the magic in part because of how they're performed live, in part due to events that took place after the songs' release. Will Bomb songs begin to take on that magic after they're performed live? Probably.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. If a lot of this has said before, I apologize. But not all of us spend all day reading every single topic here. I'm not that addicted. Yet.

 

[alxj]

I agree more with innocenteyes...with time this will be up there. Trifecta? I don't really know or care...but as someone else posted last week - I thought I would never here this type of music again.

2 thoughts:

When I first played the album I liked nearly all of it instead of finding it hard to get into like POP and ATYCLB (love both for the events in my life at the time). The music resounded instantly.

As well, it took a least a week to begin to decipher which song was which from the beginning first 10 seconds...they all seem to remind me of each other...indistinct yet distinctly in unison (eject LAPOE and AMAAW).

I am already getting even more of a feel for Miracle Drug after BBC.

I think back to hearing AB and getting the same feelings in late '91.

 

[messem]

Great Post!
I aggree with alot of what you said. It seems like the album is a litte over produced. It reminds me quite a bit of JT but like you said COBL sounds great and probably my favourite song on the track but it doesn't have that zing like WTSHNN. Maybe in time it will. I love how the song builds but I don't like how it slows down at the end, I wish they could sustain the momemtum like in JT.
Also I found found alot of songs that were on the verge of greatness but somehow fail. I love Veritgo, SYCMIOYO, species, Yaweh, MD, COYT, ABOY but they just don't standout like Beautiful day or most songs on AB. Maybe in time they will. I think you need to hear U2 perform these songs live before you can really tell if there songs have real magic. Maybe the band needs to just let there music flow more and not analyse and worry so much about every detail of there music. Four years sounds like a long time and maybe too long. I know I'm in no position to criticize their music. However when I first heard ALYCLB I was unimpressed, but after a few months and hearing them perform Beautiful Day Live that song became one of my favourite U2 songs of all time. Overall I really like all the songs on HTDAAB but none of them stand out like beautiful Day but I think the album overall is a better than ATYCTB. Who know, maybe COBL will become my beautiful day song in a few months.
I still give U2 high marks for their new album but I hope this is not the end of their great music to come. I'm just hoping one day they can make another magical album like AB and JT.

 

[roy]

I think it's just missing time...

-IN years you could still be listening to HTAAD

-The previos songs you mentioned from the rest of U2's career have a significant bond with you now, you've had a chance to enjoy them, interpret them, re-discover them, and see them live. Only in time will this happen with bomb.

-People liked AB when it came out, but i don't think everyone did, and i also don't think they called it a masterpeice for some time after it's release!

-So just give it time

Totally agree.

 

[LiveFire]

I'll be eagerly awaiting quince.

I couldn't agree more. There is just a lot of solid music on here but not much special. I have to say that I'm getting a bit tired of it after a week of heavy listening. Unlike ATYCLB which I listened to for a good year the same with POP before they got pushed down to not really listening to them very much.

Also I have no idea how City Of Blinding Lights really fits into the whole 9/11 thing. I mean now that I've read that I get it and the fact that it mentions city means NYC but geez it's a great song but the lyrics are a bit up in the air.

 

[boosterjuice]

Very good topic.

I also am siding with Innocent eyes on this. I'm sure that AB or JT didn't have "the magic" revealed on the first few listens. IT takes time to get into these songs and to see them as they are underneath the production.

 

[kawai17]

What is that magic? What is it about Bad, WOWY, Streets, One, etc. that HTDAAB is missing? Is it missing anything? Am I imagining things? Or does anyone else think it just seems a little off?

There are a number of things that could contribute to your feeling:

1. These classic u2 songs already have a history behind them. Take Bad for example. Were it not played at Live Aid, or perhaps if there wasn't the 12-minute version and the band did play Pride after that, it might not be so heralded. The first time I listened to Bad on CD, i thought it was a really sonically beautiful song but I never recognized its power until I heard the Live Aid version. Streets is another one that wouldn't impact me had I not heard it live.

2. I think many of us have to face the fact that u2 in 2004 is not the same band as they were in '91 or '87 or '84 or '76. They are ever-evolving. Everytime they come out with a new album, they have to almost contend with their back-catalog. As fans, I think we sometimes expect something so compelling and so different, yet still so "u2" that it becomes a double-edged sword. Whether they produce a record thats out-there (Pop, Zooropa) or a record that might be considered "safe" (ATYCLB), they are going to have detractors. It's almost as if we want JT or AB again, but not anything like JT and AB.

3. Also, let's be honest...Bono's voice is NOT what it used to be. I find a lot of the really great early U2 songs are driven by the impact of his voice. Take Pride for example.... it used to be played a 1/2 step down on guitar like many live u2 songs but since Popmart, its been moved down another 1/2 step. While its great live, it doesnt nearly have that "epic" feel to it when its performed in a lower register. This isn't to say the songs they produce are any worse than the older ones, they are just different.

So, maybe the magic is really there, we just have to adjust our own ears (and biases) to find it...

 

[LiveFire]

Re: Re: The Magic of U2 (is it in the Bomb?)

2. I think many of us have to face the fact that u2 in 2004 is not the same band as they were in '91 or '87 or '84 or '76. They are ever-evolving. Everytime they come out with a new album, they have to almost contend with their back-catalog. As fans, I think we sometimes expect something so compelling and so different, yet still so "u2" that it becomes a double-edged sword. Whether they produce a record thats out-there (Pop, Zooropa) or a record that might be considered "safe" (ATYCLB), they are going to have detractors. It's almost as if we want JT or AB again, but not anything like JT and AB.

So, maybe the magic is really there, we just have to adjust our own ears (and biases) to find it...

That's a fair statement and I remember listening to the snippets of ATYCLB when the first 10 second or whatever bits came out and thinking that U2 had officially lost it. But the first time I heard the album I realized how absolutely wrong I was. I'm just not getting the same feeling from this album as I did from the others.

 

[kawai17]

Re: Re: The Magic of U2 (is it in the Bomb?)

I couldn't agree more. There is just a lot of solid music on here but not much special.

This is kind of how i felt with ATYCLB and in some ways with this album. I like the music A LOT more this time than last though. But, I see what you are saying here. There seems to be an emphasis to make 10-11 distinctly great songs on the last two records rather than making a really distinct album.

I mentioned in another thread that I actually think on a whole HTDAAB has stronger songs than JT but JT is much more of a distinct album. AB, i think is so strong because it has both great songs and is a very distinct album.

UF, another very distinctive album, song-for-song not as good as HTDAAB IMO but maybe HTDAAB is lacking a cohesion between the songs that makes it distinct.

And I'm done using the word distinct..

 

[doctorwho]

I don't consider JT a masterpiece - despite what so many claim. In that capacity, already I disagree with many people here think. I think JT is the best album of '87 and one of the best of the 80's, but a "masterpiece"? No. What about it makes it a masterpiece? Reinvention? UF did that. Sales? Big deal - Britney Spears and N'Sync sold 10M+ copies of their albums in the U.S. and we'd hardly call any albums from them "masterpieces". The image JT provided? Sorry, I don't see a desert when I hear JT. Rather, it brings me back to 1987 - a good time to be sure, but not something that makes JT a masterpiece. Has JT stood the test of time? In some ways yes, in many other ways, no. Sometimes I feel it sounds very dated. In contrast, "Boy" still sounds fresh to my ears.

AB, on the other hand is a masterpiece. It could be released today and still sound as fresh and innovative as it did then.

With that in mind, where does that leave HTDAAB? As someone else said, HTDAAB lacks time. Heck, it isn't even officially released yet! LOL! The fact that we are even discussing it being a masterpiece is a HIGH compliment for the album.

Does HTDAAB have that "magic" that AB had? Oh yeah! But this "magic" is subjective. To my ears, JT had it in places - while AB had it all over (barring one song). HTDAAB is, IMO, better than JT. It still has Bono's power and range. Maybe his voice isn't quite as rich as it was on JT, but this is arguably his best vocals on an album since R&H. However, this album shines because of Edge - he's come so far from his overused echo effect on JT. These songs soar, yet have tremendous hooks.

Some feel (like TIME magazine) that HTDAAB focuses too much on "hits". Like JT didn't? Slow songs like "With or Without You" always race to the top of the charts. Perhaps HTDAAB pushes that issue harder - but the truth is NO song is guaranteed to be a hit. "Vertigo" sounds like nothing else on the charts (from what I've heard), yet it's a Top 40 hit everywhere, despite the fact it has less universal appeal that a song like "Beautiful Day" or "Mysterious Ways".

For me, after repeated listenings, I think there is MORE magic in HTDAAB than in ATYCLB! The question now is whether that magic will last (as it did with AB) or fade (as it did for me with JT).

 

[U2DMfan]

I basically agree with the original post. U2 just aren't writing songs in the same vein they used to. It's as different an era for U2 as the Achtung/Zoo/Pop era was different from the 80's material.

My theory is that most of the music from the previous 9 albums came from jamming or improvs and such, and now they are writing almost solely around chord sequences, to give the song more structure. Then to write it and re-record it over and over, the songs are well-rehearsed and tight, but maybe don't have the "live" feeling of UTEOTW or some other song.

All that said you just have to appreciate the music for what it is. U2 aren't the same band that made POP and surely aren't the same band that made War or Boy. They are evolving in a structural manner. The songs are more orchestrated, for lack of a better term. Sure, in the past they've written structured songs, but the last two albums are almost solely in this vein.

I was just hoping simply for a better album than ATYCLB, and I think the consensus is they have done that with ease. It's not the same as previous work, it's unfair to stack it up against Achtung or any other work other than probably ATYCLB.

It's the current incarnation of U2. It's a waste of time for them to not work as hard as they can on 11 or 12 songs and polish them up.

To me, it was the perceived failure of Pop that has caused all of this. The band had big balls, trusted most of their audience would "get it" and most did, not much in America. So the fact that Pop was derided by the press (not intially, it was only after the tour) and even derided by fans, it was seen almost as a waste of time by the band. Couple that with the nature of the rushed finsihed product of the album, Pop, then it seems U2 have gone in the EXACT opposite direction.

It's good music, but when you are a band like U2 who have built a fanbase on so many different brands of song, not everyone will digest the same way. So it seems their formula is to do the best they can to make the songs fail proof in the sense of production, or melodic or chord structure.

It seems that they have taken the path that they will make great music and it will be as they want, and as clean and strong as they can make, and this is the over-correction that leaves a lot of fans scracthing their heads. It's not so much that the music isn't good, it clearly is, it's just the brashness is gone. U2's magic is not definable, but you can see the huge balls they had for a long time are all but gone. They aren't taking risks.

This, to me is the factor. They have absolved the risks, to still make great music and in turn have maybe lost certain things about thei rmusic that earned them a lot of fans.

I'm happy they are still making music, good music, some of it great but I was never under any impression that I would hear anything that would harken back to older U2, even as far back as 97 era U2. They aren't there anymore. Just as Joshua Tree Jesus Bono wasnt coming back in '95 after ZooTv was over.

So we have U2 still making music powerful and earnest all in one, but not the same.

 

[djerdap]

Do they have magic? Hell yeah! Been listening to the album and I was BLOWN AWAY by it.

 

[RobVox]

It is nice to read some real critical thinkers on this forum for a change as opposed to the normal prattle of monotonous devotion I typically read. Having said this let me also say that: I LOVE this band, this love at times makes it hard for me to remain objective about their work; but, to add my “two cents” to what has already been said I agree that the time issue will and does answer a lot of uncertain questions. As our experience with this album moves forward in time so will our opinion. I must agree though that the production value on this album does seem somewhat contrived and a tad formulaic.

I also must concede that U2 are a living breathing organization like all other organizations comprised of people and that as a result such an infrastructure will and must change. So while I long for that magical moment of times past I must try and see what U2 are doing today while removing myself of previous experience which brings with it expectation. Once again we return to the objectivity issue. I do not know if this is entirely possible and would argue that it is not, but none-the-less in order to be fair to what U2 have done with The Bomb this is what I am trying to do.

Objectivity is a grand notion and my quest for objectivity as of yet has not been able to provide the magic like I felt in times past. In order to solve this problem I decided that I was trying to hard to make this work or just thinking too much about it so I took a few days off from the album to clear my head. Upon return I have enjoyed much of what is being done on the record for the reason(s) already articulated by posters before me, but, yes I agree a measure of the magic that I connected with on previous U2 albums is sadly missing.

I too am looking for it; I just still haven’t found what I am looking for but I want to find it. I also agree that the magic is in Mercy and possibly yes because as a song it was not polished to death.

I add my opinion to the stack, still in love with the band that taught me what magic in music is, but somehow missing what could have been.

For an easy target to blame I have cast my unsavory epithets on Jacknife Lee, the newcomer to the U2 formula.


RobVox

 

[fmattyh]

Thanks to everyone who has replied for your thoughts.

Livefire, I think the whole NYC after 9/11 and COBL correlation is with the "All you look so beautiful tonight" part of the song. I am a little confused though, as I thought that they were kicking this song around a bit during the ATYCLB sessions, so how does the Streets performance inspire a song that's already written? Maybe it just gave them the will to keep working on it and finishing it up or whatever - they felt it was an important song to do and should be high priority for them? I dunno, I'm just throwing stuff out here.

kawai, you're definitely on to something when you say that U2 has to "contend" with their back catalog like no other band. That's what makes it so hard; you wonder if they ever really can produce the same magic as albums in the past (or is it that we're just looking in the wrong place because they're no longer the same band?). I guess my main gripe with HTDAAB is that it's just 11 songs. There doesn't seem to be any unifying theme or sound to the album as a whole - just a grab bag of U2. But I think that's what happens when you create an album over the course of a couple years. With guys always come in and out of the studio, starting and stopping recording, bringing in and kicking out producers, it really is impossible to get any unified theme.

Or maybe HTDAAB does have a distinct sound to it, but it's still so new that none of us can pick up on it. Will we look back in 5-10 years and think "now that's a great album"? I hope. I do think, however, that we'll be looking back and thinking, "those are 11 great songs." Not that that's really a bad thing by any means. I'm just not sure it will have the lasting impact of U2's earlier work.

That brings up another point - is it possible for anything to have that sort of impact? With the current state of popular music, what would a groundbreaking album sound like? And how long would it take for us to accept it as an important album?

I do want to point out once again though that I am by no means disappointed in HTDAAB. Some people think of anything less than JT or AB as a disappointment - I'm not like that. I was just so surprised by the quality of HTDAAB that I think they're still capable of a great album - something more than just 11 great songs.

But hey, we can just think of HTDAAB this way - it's like getting a Greatest Hits album of all new songs!

doctorwho, you bring up a good point - what does make an album a masterpiece? Why are JT and AB considered to be masterpieces - what seperates them from the rest? And JT specifically, what's so great about it?

I think that with a lot of us start off with the assumption of an album being a masterpiece, then we listen and form our opinions based on this prior assumption. Do you understand what I'm saying? With me, for example, I didn't really start listening to U2 until a few years ago. Heck, I was 3 with Joshua Tree came out - 6 for Achtung Baby. So with me, I've always "known" JT and AB were masterpieces, whether or not I knew anything about the albums. Now that I've listened through the U2 catalog, I can say my two favorite albums are JT and AB. Does the fact that I "know" these albums are masterpieces make me enjoy them more and think of them as better? Probably - I cannot completely seperate the albums from my expectations.

With HTDAAB, however, this is the first time I've heard a U2 album without "knowing" whether or not it was a masterpiece, a great album, a good one, or even a bad one. This is the first time I've been able to listen objectively. Is that how come I don't think this is a masterpiece - because no one's told me it is? Could be. If five years from now, everyone starts saying HTDAAB was a masterpiece, will I think so too? There's a good chance. I think we are all susceptible to that group mentality sort of thing - it can often be difficult to seperate our opinions from the opinions of "them".

You mentioned JT doesn't remind you of the desert like it's "supposed" to. I wonder, why is it that JT reminds people of the desert or of the open plains? Does the music really sound like that kind of music? Or have the combination of the cover art plus everyone else saying it reminds them of the desert gotten us to believe that the Joshua Tree really is successful in that regard? If no one else had said anything; if the Joshua Tree had Achtung Baby's cover art, would we still say it sounds like the desert? If there was a mountain on the cover, would JT evoke images of mountain scenery?

For me, JT does bring to mind the desert and/or wide-open plains. Why? Probably because I listen to that album frequently when driving back and forth between home and college, which takes me across the flat interior of the United States. When I listen when driving across the plains, I think "I'm listening to the Joshua Tree where I'm supposed to be listening to it - it's a perfect fit." So now when I hear it, I think of that area of the U.S. Is it the music that does it? Or just me believing what I've been told?

U2DMfan, I agree that U2 seem to be writing songs differently than when they were younger. Someone else mentioned that U2 seem to be writing a catchy chorus first - the verse then comes as an afterthought. Consequently, we get very catchy and enjoyable songs, but maybe not songs with the same depth as before. COBL anyone? You think they wrote that verse before the chorus?

That goes back to what Bono was saying though - they're simply older and the songs don't instantly flow like they used to. This is why bands usually decline with age - the songwriting doesn't come as freely as it used to. They've sung the songs that were in them - now where do they get the rest? Making music is much harder work for them now than it used to be. And I think - to some extent - it shows.

 

[U2_Guy]

I basically agree with the original post. U2 just aren't writing songs in the same vein they used to. It's as different an era for U2 as the Achtung/Zoo/Pop era was different from the 80's material.

My theory is that most of the music from the previous 9 albums came from jamming or improvs and such, and now they are writing almost solely around chord sequences, to give the song more structure. Then to write it and re-record it over and over, the songs are well-rehearsed and tight, but maybe don't have the "live" feeling of UTEOTW or some other song.

All that said you just have to appreciate the music for what it is. U2 aren't the same band that made POP and surely aren't the same band that made War or Boy. They are evolving in a structural manner. The songs are more orchestrated, for lack of a better term. Sure, in the past they've written structured songs, but the last two albums are almost solely in this vein.

I was just hoping simply for a better album than ATYCLB, and I think the consensus is they have done that with ease. It's not the same as previous work, it's unfair to stack it up against Achtung or any other work other than probably ATYCLB.

It's the current incarnation of U2. It's a waste of time for them to not work as hard as they can on 11 or 12 songs and polish them up.

To me, it was the perceived failure of Pop that has caused all of this. The band had big balls, trusted most of their audience would "get it" and most did, not much in America. So the fact that Pop was derided by the press (not intially, it was only after the tour) and even derided by fans, it was seen almost as a waste of time by the band. Couple that with the nature of the rushed finsihed product of the album, Pop, then it seems U2 have gone in the EXACT opposite direction.

It's good music, but when you are a band like U2 who have built a fanbase on so many different brands of song, not everyone will digest the same way. So it seems their formula is to do the best they can to make the songs fail proof in the sense of production, or melodic or chord structure.

It seems that they have taken the path that they will make great music and it will be as they want, and as clean and strong as they can make, and this is the over-correction that leaves a lot of fans scracthing their heads. It's not so much that the music isn't good, it clearly is, it's just the brashness is gone. U2's magic is not definable, but you can see the huge balls they had for a long time are all but gone. They aren't taking risks.

This, to me is the factor. They have absolved the risks, to still make great music and in turn have maybe lost certain things about thei rmusic that earned them a lot of fans.

I'm happy they are still making music, good music, some of it great but I was never under any impression that I would hear anything that would harken back to older U2, even as far back as 97 era U2. They aren't there anymore. Just as Joshua Tree Jesus Bono wasnt coming back in '95 after ZooTv was over.

So we have U2 still making music powerful and earnest all in one, but not the same.

You said it all, my friend.

Best post i've ever read.

 

[tomtom]

I basically agree with the original post. U2 just aren't writing songs in the same vein they used to. It's as different an era for U2 as the Achtung/Zoo/Pop era was different from the 80's material. [/i]

My theory is that most of the music from the previous 9 albums came from jamming or improvs and such, and now they are writing almost solely around chord sequences, to give the song more structure. Then to write it and re-record it over and over, the songs are well-rehearsed and tight, but maybe don't have the "live" feeling of UTEOTW or some other song.

This is a brilliant insight - in general, I really enjoy reading your posts. I've been moving towards this conclusion for a while now myself as well. Look at Kite and Walk On - they are based on chord progressions, and then embellishments have been added on top of them. Which doesn't make them bad songs by any means - I like Kite better than anything off of HTDAAB. But it does make them more predictable, more structured, less vital, less dynamic, less interesting musically. And for a lot of people, this aspect of U2's music has been central to their interest in the band (including myself). That's why the 90's were so luscious.

I think Bono has mentioned this himself in interviews for Bomb, when he says that the band are much better at writing songs than they used to be, so they dont have to rely on 'God walking into the room' (which was the aim of the jam method of songwriting). Which he thinks is actually dangerous, because there is the possibility of losing originality. What's weird is that they seem to have fallen into this trap even though they are aware of it. Even the songs that seem to have been born from riffs, hooks, or musical ideas have been subjected to this structurisation process - there is a supporting structure around the riff, the production is huge, they have been built up into these big pieces. Contrast this to Bad which is (guitar-wise) 2 riffs at most. But it has that 'magic'. Once again, this is not a value-judgement - I just had a very enjoyable listening session with ATYCLB, and I love Springsteen, who writes songs in an even more structured fashion than U2. My only regret is that there are some other artists who can already give me brilliantly written, structured songs, with engaging verses and catchy-but-not-saccharine choruses. NO ONE ELSE could have given me Bad, or Acrobat.

If I had to pinpoint a particular member as exemplifying this change in direction, it would be Adam (followed closely by Edge). Just listen to War, or POP - the man is RIFFING all over the place. He's almost like a second guitarist. The bass lines are catchy, dynamic, yet they hold up the back end. A lot of slap-bass is played, a lot of funk, a lot of off-key weirdness in places (Please). The last 2 albums have seen Adam do just 2 things - the first is to anchor the chord progression (plus in 4/4 time, which makes it even more pop-structured). Sometimes Adam is actually responsible for the melody, as in When I Look at the World or SYCMIOYO (Pride and WOWY form the earlier days). Other times, he's just content to sit back and play the chord notes (Beautiful Day, New York, Electrical Storm). Or else, the song has an actual baseline, like AMAAW, Elevation, or LAPOE. This is becoming increasingly rare though. I think Adam himself has stated in interviews that bass-playing has become far simpler, that before he felt intense pressure to blow everyone's minds, and now he has a more relaxed approach to it. I think this lack of (musical) ambition makes its way into the brain of the listener, no matter how subconsciously its going on. Once again, its not a bad thing.

I guess what everyone REALLY wants to know is, is this new incarnation of U2 temporary or permanent? Is this how U2's music will be from now on, or is this just another 'phase'? I'm not sure even they know at the moment. But for right now, it seems that this is the kind of music they are interested in making at the moment, and I think they have succeeded with HTDAAB pretty damn well.

But damn, the basslines in War rule...

 

[Michael Griffiths]

fmattyh - some really great insights. I really relate to the way you see and think about U2. And some great discussion by everyone here...

Here's a post I made some time ago that has some relevance to this discussion, though I wonder if I'll get the same flack for it now as I did then!

I Miss The "Accidents" From U2

http://forum.interference.com/t95229.html

"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."

 

[U2_Guy]

I miss the "accidents".

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

Do you think the new album have the accidents? What's your opinion?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I think this album has a few of them. Just from listening to the album, I can feel the spontaneity in songs such as 'Love and Peace', 'All Because of You' and 'One Step Closer'. A song such as 'Yahweh' feels pre-determined, pre-chord sequenced...in short, a bit too crafted to me (though it is a great song), lacking in that indefinable magic that U2 used to stumble upon a few times an album ('One', 'Bad', half of JT, etc). Neil McCormick recently said Bono used to come into the studio and come up with something on the spot, but all of the pressure was on him to do so. So instead, now U2 rely on all the members to write a song, and go through it more methodically. The more they understand music, the less they a have to rely on the magic, seems to be the common consensus.

I suppose there are a few moments on the new album that evoke a naturalism, a sense of the mystic that U2 were so loved for back when they were trotting around with steam coming out of their mouths, and fires lighting up their amphitheatres...back when it literally seemed like "across the field the sky had ripped open." But U2 relied on the mystic then, whereas now they get their inspiration from other sources, be them rock bands from the past or present, or simply a desire to stay "relavent". The band seems far more competitive now. Maybe they think they have to be, I'm not sure...but there has been a shift. I remember Edge stating in The Unforgettable Fire video that their aspirations have only ever been artistic ones, never commercial - that they were aiming for the top of the mountain, but doubted they'd ever get there...and didn't know what they'd do if they ever did. Now they're at the top of the mountain in almost every way, except possibly the way that got them there. They may want to go back down and check out the slopes again. U2 are very interesting when teetering on slippery ground.

Sorry, a bit off topic, wasn't I?

HTDAAB is still a 4 1/2 star album, IMO...but for different reasons now.

 

[kawai17]

First, let me say that I have really enjoyed reading everyone's post on this subject. By far the best thread I've read in a while. I've actually had to rethink a lot of my own opinions on where the music has headed and this concept of "accidents" and "magic" is something I completely understand now...

And it seems to me, after thinking about it, that maybe the "magic" is really loving everything that is NOT necessarily in the music itself. What I mean is, what gets to me in a song like Bad, Streets, Pride, NYD, and all of the old classics is that I can actually feel the emotion that it took to write the song...its hard to describe, but there is something about the "let it go" part of Bad or the urgency of Edge's guitar in Streets that takes me to some place that isn't necessarily musical. TomTom makes a good point about Adam's baseline from early to current U2. In a similar way, I miss that kind of brute struggle the Edge used to have with his guitar... Pride, Streets, NYD, SBS, (along with songs like Wire, IGC, AIWIY). And, as I mentioned earlier with Bono's voice aging, I think Edge almost has to change the way he plays to match the way Bono's voice has changed. Again, not necessarily worse but different.

Ultimately, I think the "magic" is this: My brain tends to like U2's music now, whereas my heart tends to like U2's music then. The songs sound good now, but they felt good then.

Still, like everyone in this post, I do like HTDAAB (more than ATYCLB) but I do understand the sentiment that there is something intangibly different or missing nowadays.

 

[doctorwho]

I basically agree with the original post. U2 just aren't writing songs in the same vein they used to. It's as different an era for U2 as the Achtung/Zoo/Pop era was different from the 80's material.

My theory is that most of the music from the previous 9 albums came from jamming or improvs and such, and now they are writing almost solely around chord sequences, to give the song more structure. Then to write it and re-record it over and over, the songs are well-rehearsed and tight, but maybe don't have the "live" feeling of UTEOTW or some other song.

All that said you just have to appreciate the music for what it is. U2 aren't the same band that made POP and surely aren't the same band that made War or Boy. They are evolving in a structural manner. The songs are more orchestrated, for lack of a better term. Sure, in the past they've written structured songs, but the last two albums are almost solely in this vein.

I was just hoping simply for a better album than ATYCLB, and I think the consensus is they have done that with ease. It's not the same as previous work, it's unfair to stack it up against Achtung or any other work other than probably ATYCLB.

It's the current incarnation of U2. It's a waste of time for them to not work as hard as they can on 11 or 12 songs and polish them up.

To me, it was the perceived failure of Pop that has caused all of this. The band had big balls, trusted most of their audience would "get it" and most did, not much in America. So the fact that Pop was derided by the press (not intially, it was only after the tour) and even derided by fans, it was seen almost as a waste of time by the band. Couple that with the nature of the rushed finsihed product of the album, Pop, then it seems U2 have gone in the EXACT opposite direction.

It's good music, but when you are a band like U2 who have built a fanbase on so many different brands of song, not everyone will digest the same way. So it seems their formula is to do the best they can to make the songs fail proof in the sense of production, or melodic or chord structure.

It seems that they have taken the path that they will make great music and it will be as they want, and as clean and strong as they can make, and this is the over-correction that leaves a lot of fans scracthing their heads. It's not so much that the music isn't good, it clearly is, it's just the brashness is gone. U2's magic is not definable, but you can see the huge balls they had for a long time are all but gone. They aren't taking risks.

This, to me is the factor. They have absolved the risks, to still make great music and in turn have maybe lost certain things about thei rmusic that earned them a lot of fans.

I'm happy they are still making music, good music, some of it great but I was never under any impression that I would hear anything that would harken back to older U2, even as far back as 97 era U2. They aren't there anymore. Just as Joshua Tree Jesus Bono wasnt coming back in '95 after ZooTv was over.

So we have U2 still making music powerful and earnest all in one, but not the same.

While this is very eloquently stated and even sounds convincing, I can't help but disagree with it upon reflection.

This notion of "having balls" or "magic" or whatever adjective you deem appropriate doesn't apply to a lot of U2's work.

"October" and "War" followed in the footsteps of "Boy". Nothing revolutionary with those two albums - nothing magical. They were just fine-tuning "Boy" (granted, "October" was a bit of a step back). The same comments you are making about HTDAAB could have been said about "War". In fact, if we could turn back the clock, we probably WOULD be saying them. We'd also be discussing Bono's rather horrid vocals on that album!!

Now, U2 did have chutzpah with UF. "War" may not have been revolutionary at all - but it gave U2 some hits. It gave them a "rebel" image. It gave them acceptance in the U.S. People were expecting more of the same - and U2 took off in a different direction. Bono practically relearned to sing! And the song construction was radically different on UF when compared to the previous albums. U2 was finally ready to break through - and they took a big risk.

Then comes JT. And for the first time ever, U2 sounded overproduced. It took 3 years for U2 to release that album - after releasing 4 albums in 4 years! I recall some of my friends thinking U2 had disbanded! JT sounds tight.

Was JT risky? Only in the sense that no other band was making music like that at the time. In '87, we were at the height of the "me generation". For a band to come across as earnest and preachy was unique - and I think that was a lot of their appeal. They weren't another big hair band or some flashy pop band, they seemed sincere.

So while U2 had appeal at that time, I find nothing risky or overly grandiose about JT. I don't find it innovative. It was unique compared to other artists, but NOT unique for U2. It's as if they took the sound they had on UF and polished it to perfection.

So if you fault HTDAAB for sounding like a polished ATYCLB, so be it. But this process is not unique for U2. They've done it before.

As we all know, AB was also a dramatic turn for U2. But really, it wasn't THAT revolutionary. For U2, it was another turn. However, AB is just chock full of songs that could be hits - and they indeed became hits! "Mysterious Ways" is easily U2's most catchy song. "One" is a slow love song destined to be a hit (even Bono asked - albeit a bit facetiously - if "One" would reach #1). In other words, while AB incorporated new sounds for U2, it was also the album that had the most "hits" on it.

So now we are with HTDAAB. And what I hear is maturity. I don't hear some band sounding "desperate" to be relevant. If so, I wouldn't expect anything like HTDAAB.

Yes, maybe U2 aren't being as risk-taking with HTDAAB as they were with UF and AB (and to a lesser extent, "Pop"). With the last two albums we have U2 sounding like U2. The thing is - it works!! For many artists, like INXS, sounding too much like themselves caused stagnation. Additionally, fans grew weary because it was the "same old/same old". In contrast, with these last two albums, U2 have found a way to sound like U2 yet not sound stale. They sound fresh and invigorated. That said, U2 are still exploring. Nowhere before have I heard a song like "Stuck..." on a U2 album. On HTDAAB, even U2's "ballads" are rockers! They soar, without being overly emotional or slow (barring one exception). And "Fast Cars" proves U2 is still experimenting.

So while I do agree this is a different era for U2, one where their songs may be far more stuctured, I disagree that this is at the expense of innovation. Furthermore, I feel that U2 expanding on the sounds created for ATYCLB is not unique, as U2 did the same with "October", "War", JT and R&H.

 

[fmattyh]

Man guys, some great thoughts - I'd love to respond to some of the recent comments, but alas, I do need sleep before class tomorrow.

It seems as though most of us agree that with HTDAAB, U2 has not taken off with a new "innovative" album and has instead release an upgraded, superpowered ATYCLB (aka "basic U2"). The question is, is this a bad thing?

I think it's hard telling since we don't know the future. If I was convinced that U2's next album would be innovative, then I don't mind (and actually rather invite) their efforts to craft 11 great, solid songs to the best of their abilities.

But we don't know yet. Bono has stated that they feel pressure to stay on top - they have to remain the world's biggest band in order to accomplish his outside goals (AIDS and the like). Will the pressure to stay on top limit their artistic freedom? Can we expect more innovation and forging ahead in the future, or are the risks too great? Is failure not an option?

As you can see, I've always got questions, but no answers. Such is life.

Once again though, great discussion everyone. If I had a few hours to spare I'd comment on everything bit-by-bit. You're too fast for me though.

 

[U2DMfan]

This notion of "having balls" or "magic" or whatever adjective you deem appropriate doesn't apply to a lot of U2's work.

Seperate. I even stated that you can't define U2's magic.
As far as balls, why would you fathom I would be talking about the earlier work? I am talking about an overhaul of their sound after their most brilliant success (JT/RH into Achtung/Zoo era) but moreso the gigantic balls of the image overhaul. That is risk at it's greatest. The elaborate tour, something which had never been attempted, much less by an already decade-long established critical darling rock band. Risk risk risk balls balls balls. Following up two album re-inventions with an album they didn't even title as recorded by U2 (Passengers) that's at least confidence. And then after 4 or 5 years of all that, they trup it on Pop and more pointedly POPmart. The largest TV screen ever constructed (at the time) and a gigantic mirror balled lemon.

This is what I am talking about when I use the term "balls"

And I was just using it to offset the difference between U2 in say, 1998 and what U2 became in 99/00 and have furthered with HTDAAB in 2004.

So if you fault HTDAAB for sounding like a polished ATYCLB, so be it. But this process is not unique for U2. They've done it before.

I'll quote myself from my post above.

"The songs are more orchestrated, for lack of a better term. Sure, in the past they've written structured songs, but the last two albums are almost solely in this vein. "

Sure, they've done it before but not at near the rate of the last two albums.

As we all know, AB was also a dramatic turn for U2. But really, it wasn't THAT revolutionary.

With the last two albums we have U2 sounding like U2.

So while I do agree this is a different era for U2, one where their songs may be far more stuctured, I disagree that this is at the expense of innovation. Furthermore, I feel that U2 expanding on the sounds created for ATYCLB is not unique, as U2 did the same with "October", "War", JT and R&H.

The last few points. Sure, AChtung wasn't revoltionary in terms of innovation, but U2 don't innovate, they incorporate. They were brave or "ballsy" to do what they did for that entire era. For themselves, for their own music, it was revolutionary, but not inoovative neccessarily.

U2 sounding like U2, is fine if you discount a whole chunk of their catalogue as not sounding like U2. I guess what I would say is it all sounds like U2 to me. I get the point you make, and don't mean to parse words, but I think Lemon and Mofo are not trademark U2, but it is part of what a lot of us love about them.

I don't lack for excitement about the new album and tried to say as much, or whenever I have expressed opinions about it. I really like it, and I don't feel as forcing myself to do so as became apparent with ATYCLB (just a personal preference).

U2 have expanded on ATYCLB with this album. And I am glad they did. It is a logical progression in the way U2 have always worked, if you believe in the theory that they have 4 eras, and this is the 4th. And I don't have a gripe about the quality of the music, but the gripe, I suppose, is in spite of more "interesting" song explorations, they wanted to include more cohesive stronger songs. But, I understand the reasons why they didn't, for one, they want to make what they want to make, but also I truly believe they don't want to take the big risks anymore.

Purely a personal preference. I'd rather have a track like Mofo, or Lemon, something a bit challening than say, A Man and A Woman or another token mid-tempo melodic love song. That's all. It's not really even a gripe, it's just a preference. I love the album and won't spend much time dwelling on what U2 didn't produce as opposed to what they did, I am just happy they are still trying to make great music and not mailing it in.

 

[U2_Guy]

I'd rather have a track like Mofo, or Lemon, something a bit challening than say, A Man and A Woman or another token mid-tempo melodic love song. That's all.

Me too. With tunes like MOFO or Lemon you can explore the sounds for years and years without getting bored. On the contrary, songs like AMAAW are good for a little while, then there's nothing to explore anymore and it becomes a good song to sing or hum while you wash the clothes or clean the house.