The new U2 direction in the new album

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
actually it sounds a lot more like the brainwashing post ColdWar tragic historical revisionist media.


I like U2 a lot. I like all of their albums. There's very little they've done that i could even considering fast forwarding through. They've put heart and time into these pieces, and we don't know what speaks most to them, but at the time it had to be at least top 11 to them, so it's more of a snapshot of where the boys were/are at the time. I can't wait for more music to come out, It is universal and personal all at once.
 
ozeeko said:
Alright, everyone keeps arguing that POP was made in a way to stay relevant with what was going on in the 90's, and that's supposed to be like the final nail in the coffin of this argument. So I say, yea maybe they were trying to stay relevant, but at the same time they were taking what was out and there and fucking with it and expanding it! Take "Mofo" for instance. They took all that electronica mumbojumbo and brought it to the next level.

They did? It was only played live for one tour, was never a single, never a dance club hit, never artistically recognized by anyone for its brilliance, including the band; and if not the majority at the minimum a huge chunk of their fanbase. It has all the musical historical relevence as War's Refugee; a total period piece that sounds dated now.

ozeeko said:
What I'm really trying to say is, U2 always tries to be somewhat relevant with the times while also bringing new shit to the table.

Totally disagree. U2 at their best makes other music relevent while they are just doing their own thing. Pop didn't change the musical culture, Pop grew from a musical culture; nothing groundbreaking about that.

ozeeko said:
Only problem is, with HTDAAB, what artists are they trying to be relevant with? Coldplay? Nickelback? Good Charlotte?

I think the only ones they're trying to stay relevent with now is themselves - their only legacy. They're making the music they want to make; about the topics they want to discuss, for the audience that wants to listen; and fuck the rest. You can't get more rock and roll than that and I totally respect it.

ozeeko said:
Or maybe POP just had way better songs?

And that's what it comes down to. And I'm trying not to debate that because it's just personal taste. I'm trying to debate why people like this collection so much and why the feel the need to dismiss the later stuff. They seem to have so many other reasons for it than just "I really liked that chorus", "that guitar lick kicks ass" etc. It's always because "it was so daring" or "it's so experimental" and then just pine away for more "daring" and experimentation. When all they really did was hire a DJ to be their producer and try and tap into the Cotton Eyed Joe craze.
 
Snowlock said:


They did? It was only played live for one tour, was never a single, never a dance club hit, never artistically recognized by anyone for its brilliance, including the band; and if not the majority at the minimum a huge chunk of their fanbase. It has all the musical historical relevence as War's Refugee; a total period piece that sounds dated now.

It's always because "it was so daring" or "it's so experimental" and then just pine away for more "daring" and experimentation. When all they really did was hire a DJ to be their producer and try and tap into the Cotton Eyed Joe craze.

"That song 'Mofo' is hardcore. If I could put my whole life into one song, it'd be something close to that."

that's Bono in the POPmart tourbook. He's probably said other things, that is my quickest reference at this moment.

But I'm sure he doesn't see the aristic merit in it because it's a dance track.... Actually I think it's the most metal song in their catalog.

They didn't play it on the tour, although it was rehearsed, so it's not as if they left it on the shelf because of any other reason than the performance didn't work out. They haven't so much as rehearsed dozens and dozens of songs. Doesn't hold water. Probably because of the synth bass track needed to perform the song as well as the other loops, the synch didn't work or BOno couldn't remember the lyrics to save his life. All of which has nothing to do with the song's relevance being a reason it wasn't performed.

And it was a single, in fact I own this single.
http://www.u2wanderer.org/disco/sing043.html

I don't claim that POP is daring or experimental like many others, but this mythology that surrounds POP goes both ways.

This idea that this was a bandwagon jump has never been substantiated with any teeth, in fact I challenged anyone to substantiate this in a rather 'busy' thread that lots of views and lots of replies and didn't get one bite. Not a single reply. Anyone who had been listening to dance music for a period of time in 1996 or certainly before, when U2 were recording POP knew #1- that this genre was anything but groundbreaking for U2 #2-that this genre was anything but a path to commercial success. This is a fucking myth and it will remain untl proven otherwise. I'm glad to discuss it with anybody though.

Among others, groups like Massive Attack, Underworld, Prodigy and Portishead were spearheading this sound circa 95/96 but to make the assertion that U2 thought this scene would blow-up and become the next craze thus launching them into the biggest band in the world and winning 17 grammies is a fuckign myth.

They chased an artistic path, they incorporated a new sound, no different than anything they've done or any other rock band in the history of rock has done. Somehow this is ok when U2 wants to make a soul record, a song based melodic hook record.

Somehow it's lost on some people that they are incorporating a much older, much more tried and true formula of pop success these days, commercial success, guaranteed formula to the kind of relevance err...commercial success that they want. That is not really a bandwagon jump, that's like the fast train down the middle lane to sales and face time.

If in 1996 U2 were trying to jump on the bandwagon on the way to the top of the charts they could have picked any number of genres to jump to (if you even accpet this premise), it takes no more than a casual look at the billboard charts, the last genre on the list, well one of the last was trip-dance hop, whatever you'd like to call it. But when recoiling back into a defensive state, IMO a lack of perspective perpetuates this myth if for no other reason than it's the only way to explain it away.

So go ahead, anyone and explain it away. We need a good discussion on the board anyways.
 
So Pop was inspired by Rednex' Cotton Eyed Joe???

I've read some bizzarre comments on this site but that's just too much for me to take! :lmao:
 
But I'm sure he doesn't see the aristic merit in it because it's a dance track.... Actually I think it's the most metal song in their catalog.

They didn't play it on the tour, although it was rehearsed, so it's not as if they left it on the shelf because of any other reason than the performance didn't work out. They haven't so much as rehearsed dozens and dozens of songs. Doesn't hold water. Probably because of the synth bass track needed to perform the song as well as the other loops, the synch didn't work or BOno couldn't remember the lyrics to save his life. All of which has nothing to do with the song's relevance being a reason it wasn't performed.

I can see what you point is, and in fact I think you're kind of right. I think that the song should have been released as a "normal" single (not a remixes single as making companion for IGWSHA) and this should have been a few months earlier in the band's releasements schedule. On the other hand, a single version with similar elements and similar feeling of the live version should be there and be aired on the radios.

What I can't see is "the most metal song in its catalogue"... Really? Since when trance (or techno-rock) is in the same vein of metal? That song could perfectly be written by The Prodigy (excluding the lyrics, naturally) and not by a metal band, there are huge differences structurally and musicallyl.
 
Zootlesque said:
So Pop was inspired by Rednex' Cotton Eyed Joe???

I've read some bizzarre comments on this site but that's just too much for me to take! :lmao:

So now can pick arbitrary dance hits and assign them as evidence that U2 was trying to capitalize on the latest 'craze'??

I'm going to say Achtung Baby was inspired by C&C Music Factory because Larry played those hi-hats in EBTTRT and Adam was thumpin' that bass, gonna make you sweat err...you're the real thing...!
 
Aygo said:

What I can't see is "the most metal song in its catalogue"... Really? Since when trance (or techno-rock) is in the same vein of metal? That song could perfectly be written by The Prodigy (excluding the lyrics, naturally) and not by a metal band, there are huge differences structurally and musicallyl.

Since when does trance music have a fucking huge bass line that kicks you in the balls for the entire song? Since when does trance have a herculean live drum performance throught the enitre song. Or a guitar solo? It doesn't Techno does, some does, like the old Detorit techno. Where did industrial metal come from? Think about that for a minute. NIN, Ministry, Skinny Puppy etc. That was the crossroads of that dance culture and you guessed it, metal.

There are not huge differences musically and structurally. In fact it fits perfectly. Metal songs don't have verses and choruses?? Metal songs don't have bombastic drum and bass with mega-distorted lead guitar??

The core of every metal song nearly ever made, a gigantic deep riff. I might pick Mofo or a handful of other songs for a metal band to cover, natural fit.

The bottom line is, this song is as much rock and roll, or metal as it ever was trip hop, techno, dance, whatever. Toss in some loops and you get people all confused.

Is Head Like a Hole a dance song or a rock song, metal? industrial, maybe both? Semantics here, it just feels like a metal song to me. Feel free to disagree.
 
U2DMfan said:


Since when does trance music have a fucking huge bass line that kicks you in the balls for the entire song? Since when does trance have a herculean live drum performance throught the enitre song. Or a guitar solo? It doesn't Techno does, some does, like the old Detorit techno. Where did industrial metal come from? Think about that for a minute. NIN, Ministry, Skinny Puppy etc. That was the crossroads of that dance culture and you guessed it, metal.

There are not huge differences musically and structurally. In fact it fits perfectly. Metal songs don't have verses and choruses?? Metal songs don't have bombastic drum and bass with mega-distorted lead guitar??

The core of every metal song nearly ever made, a gigantic deep riff. I might pick Mofo or a handful of other songs for a metal band to cover, natural fit.

The bottom line is, this song is as much rock and roll, or metal as it ever was trip hop, techno, dance, whatever. Toss in some loops and you get people all confused.

Is Head Like a Hole a dance song or a rock song, metal? industrial, maybe both? Semantics here, it just feels like a metal song to me. Feel free to disagree.

It's bad when someone wants to prove to the whole world by force that he is right, even though he's not that right.
Have you ever heard any album by The Prodigy, for instance? Where in the hell The Prodigy's music is in the same group as Portishead and Massive Attack? Have you ever heard any album by Primal Scream? Primal Scream have powerfull basslines and the greatest trance songs... The same with The Prodigy. If you put MoFo between songs from these bands, nobody that's not much into the music scene will recognize the song as being a U2 song, probably they wouldn't even bother and they wouldn't think "this sounds like Bono singing".

And why did you come with the live version when the arrangement is completly different? I was, naturally, talking about the album version.
I'm not arguing that it could not be covered by a metal band - everything is possible - but the album version of MoFo is definitely, by its elements, its production and its nature techno-rock song.
 
What's with all the statements about Mofo not being played on that tour? I saw U2 for the first time during the POPmart tour, and they friggin opened with "Mofo." It totally kicked ass!

To back up with what U2DMfan was saying, there were many other genres of music being pumped out around the time POP was being recorded. They could've jumped on the post-grunge or Hanson pop or gangsta rap or hootie and the blowfish or spice girls bandwagon, but they didn't. They focused, somewhat, on Trip-Hop and techno. So they chose one genre out of the lot, and made an electronically altered album, that still at it's roots had pure rock songs.

When POP was about to be released, I expected U2 to do a complete turnaround and just play straight ahead rock, like The Joshua Tree or Rattle and Hum days. Coming 3 years after Zooropa, that seemed like the safe bet. But they didn't! They went further down the electronica/dance/whatever you want to call it path, and lyrically they were all over the map. When I first heard the album I was set back because I wasn't sure how I was supposed to react to it. It didn't seem like the U2 I was used to. It was something different. It was heavily layered, and it actually took me sometime to appreciate it. That to me seemed like a risky move on U2's part.

Contrasting that with ATYCLB( which i do like, and I figured it was just U2 trying to hit the charts again just to see if they could still do it, and whaddayaknow they succeeded) and HTDAAB, which I have an entirely different opinion on altogether. Contrasting this with POP, HTDAAB strikes me as DEFINITELY more conforming to what's going on musically in the world right now. IMO, Mainstream rock/pop music today is void of mystery and layers. It's all about find some banal bullshit hook (it doesn't have to be exciting, just catchy), raise all levels in the mix to the forefront, forget about subtlety, and watch everyone flock to BestBuy to purchase it, because hey it's the radio so it must be good.
 
Aygo said:


It's bad when someone wants to prove to the whole world by force that he is right, even though he's not that right.
Have you ever heard any album by The Prodigy, for instance? Where in the hell The Prodigy's music is in the same group as Portishead and Massive Attack? Have you ever heard any album by Primal Scream? Primal Scream have powerfull basslines and the greatest trance songs... The same with The Prodigy. If you put MoFo between songs from these bands, nobody that's not much into the music scene will recognize the song as being a U2 song, probably they wouldn't even bother and they wouldn't think "this sounds like Bono singing".

And why did you come with the live version when the arrangement is completly different? I was, naturally, talking about the album version.
I'm not arguing that it could not be covered by a metal band - everything is possible - but the album version of MoFo is definitely, by its elements, its production and its nature techno-rock song.

Enough of this genre bullshit, I'm not 15 years old, I've heard of those bands and have owned albums by the Prodigy. I wouldn't describe either of those bands as 'trance' but I don't care to get into a discussion of labels I generally detest but use for sake of ease. The whole idea, okay, ease?

If you want to continue to discuss the semantics of genres and what constitutes "trance" and "techno-rock", find some other fool.

I clearly stated why I thought it could be the spirit or the vein of metal, you couldn't counter it at all, so you want to slice the semantics of what makes what. You want to know what makes what? Whatever you want to call it. I could call U2 electric bluegrass and be totally convinced of it, how can you say I'm wrong. These are not official categorizations of any signifigance.

Instead, talk about music, like the album version of Mofo which I was discussing. The phrase "live drum" in reference to bands and artists that use drum machines. The drum machine is the drum machine, the drum that the human is bainging on, is a live drum.
 
Last edited:
ozeeko said:

They focused, somewhat, on Trip-Hop and techno. So they chose one genre out of the lot, and made an electronically altered album, that still at it's roots had pure rock songs.

What they did was abuse the technology.
Audio software was really getting great at the time, the digital revolution opened up their eyes and they just explored it. Bored with guitar, bass and drums. They weren't trying to capture the vaunted 'Chemical Brothers' market or some bullshit that gets parroted in here over and over. They were going down a creative urge. I;m sure they wanted to sell some records, there is no doubt, but it wasn't motivated by it like maybe turning back the gears for The Goal is Soul part 2.
 
U2DMfan said:


"That song 'Mofo' is hardcore. If I could put my whole life into one song, it'd be something close to that."

that's Bono in the POPmart tourbook. He's probably said other things, that is my quickest reference at this moment.

But I'm sure he doesn't see the aristic merit in it because it's a dance track.... Actually I think it's the most metal song in their catalog.

Sure he said it then. I saw an interview from that time period where he says the same thing. But what band doesn't say ultra positive things about their newest offering? They never said it was an unfinished album back in 1997. And if it's so great and sums him up so well, why doesn't he sing it more?

And Mofo is a lot of things, but not metal. That's not a matter of taste either. The tempo, the chords, the lyrical structure, it's just not a metal song. Now if you had said Bullet was their most metal; sure.

U2DMfan said:
They didn't play it on the tour, although it was rehearsed, so it's not as if they left it on the shelf because of any other reason than the performance didn't work out. They haven't so much as rehearsed dozens and dozens of songs. Doesn't hold water. Probably because of the synth bass track needed to perform the song as well as the other loops, the synch didn't work or BOno couldn't remember the lyrics to save his life. All of which has nothing to do with the song's relevance being a reason it wasn't performed.

First it's rumor that it was rehearsed. Unless someone has audio I'm not aware of... But even so, it wasn't such an earth shaking song that they kept at it until they got it right. And if this song summed up Bono so perfectly as he stated at the time, why wouldn't he be able to remember the lyrics?

U2DMfan said:
And it was a single, in fact I own this single.
http://www.u2wanderer.org/disco/sing043.html

Not in it's original form, it wasn't. Again if the band thought it was so great, why release it as a remix only?

U2DMfan said:

I don't claim that POP is daring or experimental like many others, but this mythology that surrounds POP goes both ways.

This idea that this was a bandwagon jump has never been substantiated with any teeth, in fact I challenged anyone to substantiate this in a rather 'busy' thread that lots of views and lots of replies and didn't get one bite. Not a single reply. Anyone who had been listening to dance music for a period of time in 1996 or certainly before, when U2 were recording POP knew #1- that this genre was anything but groundbreaking for U2 #2-that this genre was anything but a path to commercial success. This is a fucking myth and it will remain untl proven otherwise. I'm glad to discuss it with anybody though.

Among others, groups like Massive Attack, Underworld, Prodigy and Portishead were spearheading this sound circa 95/96 but to make the assertion that U2 thought this scene would blow-up and become the next craze thus launching them into the biggest band in the world and winning 17 grammies is a fuckign myth.

Then you weren't there. If you were in your 20's at this time period, and you were single, you were at the minimum dancing to this genre of music. Metal, alternative, rock.. it was all gone from the clubs. This synth pop disco stuff was all the rage, and at it's height, here comes U2 with a synth pop album. Coincidence?

I don 't know for a fact U2's reasoning for taking on this genre so of course it's unsubstantiated. It's all theory. Just as your opinion is because you don't know either. Rumors to the contrary, no one on this board is or was ever in the band.

U2DMfan said:
They chased an artistic path, they incorporated a new sound, no different than anything they've done or any other rock band in the history of rock has done. Somehow this is ok when U2 wants to make a soul record, a song based melodic hook record.

It was different. For one thing it wasn't rock; but disco they were chasing. For another, it was intentionally commercial and mainsream by design. Unlike Rattle & Hum and Achtung Baby, where they were also looking for different sounds, they didn't stay true to themselves in the process.

U2DMfan said:
Somehow it's lost on some people that they are incorporating a much older, much more tried and true formula of pop success these days, commercial success, guaranteed formula to the kind of relevance err...commercial success that they want. That is not really a bandwagon jump, that's like the fast train down the middle lane to sales and face time.

I think what's lost here is the fact that the formula they are using is THEIR OWN. Yes, it's successfull. Yes it's mainstream but not because it's a fad but because they made it mainstream back in 1987. Like I said before, if they're leaning on something in their later years, it's their own legacy.

U2DMfan said:
If in 1996 U2 were trying to jump on the bandwagon on the way to the top of the charts they could have picked any number of genres to jump to (if you even accpet this premise), it takes no more than a casual look at the billboard charts, the last genre on the list, well one of the last was trip-dance hop, whatever you'd like to call it.

I dunno. It seems that if U2 were going to take a plunge for chart success, this was the genre to do it in. Alternative was dying and nearly dead. Mainstream rock like that of their peers was truely dead and gone. Bands like Garbage, Prodigy and others were not only on the radio but in the clubs as well.

U2DMfan said:
But when recoiling back into a defensive state, IMO a lack of perspective perpetuates this myth if for no other reason than it's the only way to explain it away.

I dunno if you should be making accusations about being defensive or lacking perspective.
 
U2DMfan said:


Enough of this genre bullshit, I'm not 15 years old, I've heard of those bands and have owned albums by the Prodigy. I wouldn't describe either of those bands as 'trance' but I don't care to get into a discussion of labels I generally detest but use for sake of ease. The whole idea, okay, ease?

If you want to continue to discuss the semantics of genres and what constitutes "trance" and "techno-rock", find some other fool.

I clearly stated why I thought it could be the spirit or the vein of metal, you couldn't counter it at all, so you want to slice the semantics of what makes what. You want to know what makes what? Whatever you want to call it. I could call U2 electric bluegrass and be totally convinced of it, how can you say I'm wrong. These are not official categorizations of any signifigance.

Instead, talk about music, like the album version of Mofo which I was discussing. The phrase "live drum" in reference to bands and artists that use drum machines. The drum machine is the drum machine, the drum that the human is bainging on, is a live drum.

Why was this reply about? To try to erase the last one for the lack of arguments? Not only you seem not to know what you're talking about but in each post you caught out yourself.
Don't come with the semantic thing, I had been studing it for years. So it's not a question of semantic, it's a question of knowing of what kind / category (or influence, if you don't want to talk about categories) a song can fit in. And "metal" is not definitely the one MoFo belongs to... And, of course I know what a drum machine (besides other stuff you mentioned) is, I have had my bands and performances too. Did you know that trance, trip-hop and techno uses drum machines frequently?

You should read Snowlock's last post, perhaps he explaines the thing better than me.
 
After tracks 1-3 and maybe taking out Miami, Pop is pretty much just a plain old U2 rock/pop record, albeit with slightly different guitar sounds and heavily unfinished production. So I think this argument should be less about Pop than about a minority of the songs on Pop.
 
Snowlock said:
First it's rumor that it was rehearsed. Unless someone has audio I'm not aware of... But even so, it wasn't such an earth shaking song that they kept at it until they got it right. And if this song summed up Bono so perfectly as he stated at the time, why wouldn't he be able to remember the lyrics?

It's not rumour that Mofo was rehearsed; there is even a news report mentioning it being soundchecked in Atlanta. Plus, it seems the band did work quite seriously on it, given fans overheard it being soundchecked on a few occasions across a decent period of time (starting in September; the news report is from November).

And your "why can't he remember the lyrics?" argument holds about as much water as a sieve and is one of the most ridiculous comments you've made on this thread. Why can't be remember? Because he seems to be hopeless with his own lyrics! Bono dislikes rehearsal and is notorious for his inability to recall his own lyrics - just check out Walk On from 2005-09-20, Chicago. I also believe that for some other performances of Walk On and WGRYWH this tour, he had lyrics sheets taped to the stage. So to claim the song isn't all that important due to Bono's inability to recall lyrics is simply preposterous.

bram said:
After tracks 1-3 and maybe taking out Miami, Pop is pretty much just a plain old U2 rock/pop record, albeit with slightly different guitar sounds and heavily unfinished production. So I think this argument should be less about Pop than about a minority of the songs on Pop.

I'm glad someone said that. I don't get this whole dance/techno argument. I mean, is SATS a dancy, techno song? How about IGWSHA, LNOE, Gone, Playboy Mansion, IYWTVD, Please? I don't even think DYFL qualifies. The whole "Pop is a dance/techno album" argument sounds as if it comes from someone who saw the Discotheque video and heard the first 15 seconds of Mofo.
 
Axver said:


I don't get this whole dance/techno argument. I mean, is SATS a dancy, techno song? How about IGWSHA, LNOE, Gone, Playboy Mansion, IYWTVD, Please? I don't even think DYFL qualifies. The whole "Pop is a dance/techno album" argument sounds as if it comes from someone who saw the Discotheque video and heard the first 15 seconds of Mofo.

I have to disagree with you my friend :ohmy:

Have you ever heard the POP arrangements carefully? :yes: POP is an universe of sounds, loops, programming, electronica, etc never found on any other U2 album.

The Same Staring At The Sun at the middle for example, or even before, when the electronic feel starts the beats, etc. Gone has more electronica than natural drums, same with Miami, Last Night On Earth, The Playboy Mansion, etc. Pop is by far the album with the most experimental sounds they've ever put onto record :drool:

It's not the same thing electronica than Techno. Most of people think in remixes when someone talk about electronica, but that's not the true. Pop is an album of electronica, but it isn't an album of dance techno, that's clear ;)
 
ponkine said:


I have to disagree with you my friend :ohmy:

Have you ever heard the POP arrangements carefully? :yes: POP is an universe of sounds, loops, programming, electronica, etc never found on any other U2 album.

The Same Staring At The Sun at the middle for example, or even before, when the electronic feel starts the beats, etc. Gone has more electronica than natural drums, same with Miami, Last Night On Earth, The Playboy Mansion, etc. Pop is by far the album with the most experimental sounds they've ever put onto record :drool:

It's not the same thing electronica than Techno. Most of people think in remixes when someone talk about electronica, but that's not the true. Pop is an album of electronica, but it isn't an album of dance techno, that's clear ;)

Ok, is true what you said, but having loops, electronica and techno/funk feeling or inspiration in a few songs doesn't mean that it's a dance/techno album. Only the first 3 tracks are uptempo danceable, and only Discotheque and MoFo have techno elements in it, DYFL is more funk than techno. Can you see any techno or dance elements in any of the other tracks?
The argument came out when the rumours of a dance album (re)came out by the time the album was being recorded and because of the song/video Discotheque as first promotional thing. Plus the "Pop" title put more wood in the fire.
 
Just because the band/producers chose to throw in drum machines and loops doesn't mean it actually amounts to anything different (as far as pigeon-holing their music into completely different genres). Beautiful Day is driven by a drum machine but no one ever uses the terms "dance", "electronica", or "techno" when referring to it.
 
To whoever:

You need to fucking ask Bono why he doesn't sing it more.
I already told you why I thought he didn't but it's a sore spot for some of you and you have nothing else to say but ask more questions... so that's cool. The rehearsed it a few times and it's been documented, but believe what you like, fools.

Also, 120bpm, that's the tempo and the basic chord structure is primarily in G#, which the whole song basically revolves around.
You have the bass playing the same riff almost entirely thru the whole song, if I had said "industrial" rather than metal which I said in the span of 30 seconds I wrote that first post, I'm not sure much else would have been said.

Instead we aren't talking about the myth that I spoke of, we are talking about genre bullshit, otherwise this thread would probably be dead. So, again, go ahead and counter what I said eariler and for ther record Mofo is whatever you want it to be, a dud, a non single, whatever, claim it as whatever you want.

In fact, my err to bring up Mofo as a metal song has exposed you hilariously. It's almost like a political argument, I gave you the meat and potatoes and you talk about the silverware. Hilarious.

I don't know why the band made it a remix single, I never professed to know, all I know is that you said it wasn't a single. So I tried to help you out with some info.

And as far as "being there" in 1996, I don't know where 'there' is.
All I know is I wasn't oblivious to dance music or dance rock, whatever stupid ass genre term you want to use. And U2 were just grabbing ahold of a DJ and trying to get some loops and beats going. They'd never done it before in that way. But I'm sure they wanted to grab the share of Howie B's market, who I'd swear never dold more than 100K copies in the US, for example.
Ambition baby!!!

Yes, they were chasing disco...because at least one person was duped by the Discotheque video, "Look at them they are the Village People!" Yeah. chasing disco. And also, they had an agreement with McDonalds to use that arch and every cheesebruger sold they get a quarter. God damn.

You say that the formula they are using is their own but say they are chasing disco, or what the fuck ever the other nonsense was, the myth is that they are bandwagon jumping, okay, U2 is using their own way....

U2 either tried to make a buck by making some dance music
Or didn't.

And if they tired to make a buck with dance music, they are more than certainly doing it now, and in the last 5 years, so where does everyone stand?

Are U2 just trying to fucking capitalize on the market space onf the indistry or chasing down musical ambitions???

Let's call it like we see 'em. Maybe not a fun answer for those who care about truth rather than a fanboy montage of cotton eye joe and firestarter. For fucks sake.
 
Ponkine wrote: It's not the same thing electronica than Techno. Most of people think in remixes when someone talk about electronica, but that's not the true. Pop is an album of electronica, but it isn't an album of dance techno, that's clear
hola amigo:wave: great statement:up:
POP = full of ROCK :rockon: and it is U2s last outstanding and relevant album. MOFO is one of their top10 songs and DYFL is one of their most underrated songs. larrys drumming on DYFL is extra-class...MIAMI (=space-blues) and PLAYBOY MANSION (=pimp-blues) & VELVED DRESS (=bedroom-blues) are underrated but exceptional experimental stuff. i hope for a rocking-experimental next album and i hope they don't leer too much at the mainstream.
 
Aygo said:


Why was this reply about? To try to erase the last one for the lack of arguments? Not only you seem not to know what you're talking about but in each post you caught out yourself.
Don't come with the semantic thing, I had been studing it for years. So it's not a question of semantic, it's a question of knowing of what kind / category (or influence, if you don't want to talk about categories) a song can fit in. And "metal" is not definitely the one MoFo belongs to... And, of course I know what a drum machine (besides other stuff you mentioned) is, I have had my bands and performances too. Did you know that trance, trip-hop and techno uses drum machines frequently?

You should read Snowlock's last post, perhaps he explaines the thing better than me.

I think the words speak for themselves.
I replied as close as I could, point for point.
The only thing the viewing and 'listening' public can go on is the replies and the discourse. You argue semantics, have more or less nothign to say, and what is the response?

RESPONSE #159.37 A65.

"It's not semantics! It's knowing MY semantics!!!"

Yes because I probably have to spell it out for you, that was you.....

I have been here for 6 years, I have never once read a more hilarious reply in that it totally ignored anything substantial, focused on the superficial and failed. Yeah, I'm exageratting.

I think I speak on behalf of the better part of all of Interference when I declare this "discussion" officially over. At least between you and I. I'm not interested in anything other than some fun and enlightening discussion that might open up some avenues to different perspectives.

You have responded with crap, and I say "note taken".
 
Last edited:
U2DMfan said:
To whoever:

You need to fucking ask Bono why he doesn't sing it more.
I already told you why I thought he didn't but it's a sore spot for some of you and you have nothing else to say but ask more questions... so that's cool. The rehearsed it a few times and it's been documented, but believe what you like, fools.

Also, 120bpm, that's the tempo and the basic chord structure is primarily in G#, which the whole song basically revolves around.
You have the bass playing the same riff almost entirely thru the whole song, if I had said "industrial" rather than metal which I said in the span of 30 seconds I wrote that first post, I'm not sure much else would have been said.

Instead we aren't talking about the myth that I spoke of, we are talking about genre bullshit, otherwise this thread would probably be dead. So, again, go ahead and counter what I said eariler and for ther record Mofo is whatever you want it to be, a dud, a non single, whatever, claim it as whatever you want.

In fact, my err to bring up Mofo as a metal song has exposed you hilariously. It's almost like a political argument, I gave you the meat and potatoes and you talk about the silverware. Hilarious.

I don't know why the band made it a remix single, I never professed to know, all I know is that you said it wasn't a single. So I tried to help you out with some info.

And as far as "being there" in 1996, I don't know where 'there' is.
All I know is I wasn't oblivious to dance music or dance rock, whatever stupid ass genre term you want to use. And U2 were just grabbing ahold of a DJ and trying to get some loops and beats going. They'd never done it before in that way. But I'm sure they wanted to grab the share of Howie B's market, who I'd swear never dold more than 100K copies in the US, for example.
Ambition baby!!!

Yes, they were chasing disco...because at least one person was duped by the Discotheque video, "Look at them they are the Village People!" Yeah. chasing disco. And also, they had an agreement with McDonalds to use that arch and every cheesebruger sold they get a quarter. God damn.

You say that the formula they are using is their own but say they are chasing disco, or what the fuck ever the other nonsense was, the myth is that they are bandwagon jumping, okay, U2 is using their own way....

U2 either tried to make a buck by making some dance music
Or didn't.

And if they tired to make a buck with dance music, they are more than certainly doing it now, and in the last 5 years, so where does everyone stand?

Are U2 just trying to fucking capitalize on the market space onf the indistry or chasing down musical ambitions???

Let's call it like we see 'em. Maybe not a fun answer for those who care about truth rather than a fanboy montage of cotton eye joe and firestarter. For fucks sake.

I'm not sure what the argument is anymore. Not trying to be difficult or anything, but can you just tell me exactly what point you're trying to make? All I'm understanding is that you're not fond of the word "genre" and Mofo is Metal/Industrial, or maybe it isn't...not sure if you're stating this seriously or if there's a sarcastic angle I'm not picking up on.

I'm guessing that it's your belief that "Mofo" doesn't come with a clear label. That it can be one big melting pot of metal, industrial, electronica, blues- Whatver. If this is your belief, then I agree it's a big stew of things.

I think it's foolish to think U2 weren't somewhat capitalizing on the emerging electronica movement. It's not like they invented it. They were just exploring different avenues and techniques for producing music and ideas.

Fuck this. Let's talk about Depeche Mode.
 
bram said:
Just because the band/producers chose to throw in drum machines and loops doesn't mean it actually amounts to anything different (as far as pigeon-holing their music into completely different genres). Beautiful Day is driven by a drum machine but no one ever uses the terms "dance", "electronica", or "techno" when referring to it.

Exactly. How anyone can possibly argue songs like SATS are dance/electronica or anything of the sort is just beyond me. SATS is essentially Pop's Stay or One.

If Pop is a dance or electronica album, what the hell does that make ATYCLB? It's probably got more artificial/processed stuff going on than Pop.
 
Axver said:

The whole "Pop is a dance/techno album" argument sounds as if it comes from someone who saw the Discotheque video and heard the first 15 seconds of Mofo.

As clear as the sun in the the sky.

I don't care about the genre talk, call it what you will. But you can't sell me that U2 were trying to capitalize on a market, there hasn't been ONE decent argument put forth yet.

This is my point. Talk about THIS, the only rebuttals are really the fact that I called Mofo a 'metal' song. If I hadn't said it, this thread would be dead. So blame me.

Nothing to say, what is there to say? Call Mofo what you want and try to talk about something other than U2 aping disco.

Here's a little hint:
the Discotheque video, the big Mirrorball Lemon, the whole idea:

IRONY, look it up.
 
Are you trying to say U2 were taking the disco scenery and using it as a mirror, held up to reflect the stupidity and shallowness of everything? The glitz, the fashion, the big stage props, the drum machines, was it all in the name of irony? That they were exposing it all as ridiculous baggage that blinds us all from the truth, the essence of what music/life is all about?

Tell me, I must know.
 
Another thought: Could it be the POP era was all about the moral bankrupcy of modern culture? That we don't seek the big questions? That we instead obsess over the new pair of shoes? That we don't do things in life for the right reasons? That it's all for the dollar? That everything is meaningless and God is dead? Was "Wake Up Dead Man" the key to understanding all of this?
 
ozeeko said:


I'm not sure what the argument is anymore. Not trying to be difficult or anything, but can you just tell me exactly what point you're trying to make? All I'm understanding is that you're not fond of the word "genre" and Mofo is Metal/Industrial, or maybe it isn't...not sure if you're stating this seriously or if there's a sarcastic angle I'm not picking up on.

I'm guessing that it's your belief that "Mofo" doesn't come with a clear label. That it can be one big melting pot of metal, industrial, electronica, blues- Whatver. If this is your belief, then I agree it's a big stew of things.

I think it's foolish to think U2 weren't somewhat capitalizing on the emerging electronica movement. It's not like they invented it. They were just exploring different avenues and techniques for producing music and ideas.

Fuck this. Let's talk about Depeche Mode.

You're not sure what the argument is because the argument, fuck that, the discussion I wanted to have was put on the side because there wasn't anything to else to discuss but a semantic.

I said some things about a POP myth, try to get a good discussion going, and people get hung up on how I described one song. So I explained why I thought the way I thought, and then it became a genre argument, "oh that's not metal" "this is trance" blah blah, point being .......who gives a shit?

If I had used my inclinations I would have been rude and said "stop taking you're eye off the fucking ball". But I tried better, it doesn't always end up that way.

All that said, have at it. I'm done with this thread and everyone is probably better off for it. You'll find agreeable fools and bashers all the like. By all means, have some fun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom