"The records are boring"

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


There were the bells and whistles of Sgt Pepper which were great, but their next full album was the White album, which was as opposite to SP as you can imagine-very stripped down and amazing.
Good music doesn't need bells and whistles to be good-strong structured songs can be just as amazing IMO

I just noticed your post. The White Album had a lot more going on (the weirdness of Revolution no. 9 and Wild Honey Pie, the backwards guitar of While My Guitar Gently Weeps etc.) than the blandness of ATYCLB. I think you're trying to compare it with U2's return to a stripped down sound in ATYCLB. Just the thought is horrendous.
 
Revolution # 9 was crap though, and the Beatles had mastered backwards guitar years before so nothing new there

Anyway I'm not saying that music shouldn't have bells, whistles, lots of things going on, but that there is a spot for well-crafted songs in music. If you don't like the straight forward, more direct music that U2 are putting out now, there's nothing wriong with it, it's all subjective.
I for one don't find "Dismantle" a boring album at all-Likely in my top 3 or 4

Edited to add
Sorry I thought you were referring to the new album, but looks like you were referring to ATYCLB, I thought that album was ok, again song -oriented. For me it lacked something-an ok album but not in my top 5
 
Last edited:
CPTLCTYGOOFBALL said:
Revolution # 9 was crap though, and the Beatles had mastered backwards guitar years before so nothing new there

Anyway I'm not saying that music shouldn't have bells, whistles, lots of things going on, but that there is a spot for well-crafted songs in music. If you don't like the straight forward, more direct music that U2 are putting out now, there's nothing wriong with it, it's all subjective.
I for one don't find "Dismantle" a boring album at all-Likely in my top 3 or 4

Okay. I'm just saying that in my mind, the white album was a continuation of the Beatles pushing the envelope even further. Even Abbey Road has an 'I Want You (She's So Heavy)' but I guess they did kinda return to the classic song format with that one. And definitely with Let It Be. I haven't really sat and compared Let It Be with ATYCLB but Abbey Road is miles ahead... just an opinion, don't flame me. :wink:
 
Having been soundly flamed in Intereference on one thread in this forum, which was kind of fun since I'd never been flamed before, I'll hazard a post. We'll probably better be able to decide whether HTDAAB is a great album in about ten years--after all the hype and discussion and debate is long over. When I first heard it, I was disappointed as all hell. Early commentary on the album was comparing it to Achtung Baby, which for me personally is an absolute perfect album--musically, lyrically. It was a thought-provoking, dangerous album. But, hey, I hated at first some of the music I've come to love the best. So I listened to it again out of duty, then again out of pleasure. I really like the album. I don't like every song on it, like AB. I'm not all that fond of "City of Blinding Lights", "Crumbs from Your Table", "Original of the Species". I don't think the album is their best work lyrically, but I think "Vertigo" is fun, "Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own" exquisite, and "Love and Peace Or Else" pretty rocking for a message song. On the whole, I think the album works better as a unit than All You Can Leave Behind, which had some great songs, but petered out at the end. There's a joyful, celebratory feel about HTDAAB.
 
IMO bomb is the best album since AB, I despaired at the change in musical direction in the 90s being a massive fan of the more straightforward rock n roll anthems of the 80s. I must admit though I think they played it safe with the album its not a massive departure from AYCLB and its certainly not a return to their 80s best. I hated zooropa and pop and they seriously lost their way and some of their fanbase making these records, I hope their next album is more in keeping with a more daring, grundgy, dirty rock sound rather than the horrid dance influenced dance sound of the 90s.
Edge you've re-found some of your "coca cola" guitar sound don't be afraid to use it!!!!
 
I love the 'horrid dance influenced dance sound of the 90's'. Lemon and Discotheque are in my top 10. At this point, U2 has a proven track record with me. I don't have to try to like their music, I just do. Pretty much all of it. There's not one U2 album (including Passengers) that doesn't light me up when I hear it.
 
The Beatles ARE the most over rated band of all time especially on this forum.

And dare I say it was much easier to push "rock" forward in the 60s then it is right now in the 2000s....rock had really only been around for not even a decade when The Beatles first came out....

U2 still have bells and whistles they just dont have the same dressing on them that you heard in the 90s....and who knows we might here some again someday...sooner rather then later I would even venture to guess.
 
As someone who was actually around when Sgt. Pepper's came out, I have to ask: Has anyone actually listened to that album lately? Mr. Kite, Lovely Rita, When I'm 64 -- those are all trite, old-fashioned songs of the music hall genre. Terrible filler actually, and there is no way, with those appalling tracks, this album is a masterpiece. Overated indeed.
 
well, I think the Beatles should be taken relative to what era they were in, and the time frame in which they did it.

It was 3 years between Rattle and Hum and Achtung Baby. In 3 years The Beatles made how many albums? 4, 5?

For instance, the entire Beatles catalog was recorded in a 6 or 7 year period. Of all the dozens and dozens of great songs they recorded in that time, to put it to comparison with any 7 year period in U2's history is not even plausible.

Sgt Peppers is not overrated if taken in it's original context, now almost 30 years later, maybe it does have filler, but overall I don't think it's overrated.

U2 from the end of POPmart, to current, has been 7 years. From Boy to Joshua Tree, 7 years. Achtung Baby to POP, 7 years. Do any of those eras compare to the entire catlaog of the Beatles?

It's not really a fair comparison no matter how you look at it, the Beatles didn't tour during the last half of their career. It's just not really fair to U2 to make comparisons to the Beatles.

So while ATYCLB is essentially U2's Beatle album (I believe it to be), HTDAAB is an extension of that. For a band that has been around for 25 years and released a mere 11 albums, it is a more calculated risk for U2 to change styles as opposed to the Beatles who were popping an album out nearly every 6 months or so (or whatever).

I think ATYCLB and HTDAAB are both boring compared to context of the 91-98 era of U2, but I don't think it's fair to make the comparison in that context. It's not really even the same band anymore.

It's like people comparing Zooropa, Passengers and POP with UF and the JOshua Tree. It's just not fair, IMO. Yeah, it's the same band and all, but U2 decidedly revolted against their own sound, so any deviation back to their old sound will naturally sound as a regression, or even boring.

I think the records are good, if you listening from the context of what U2 tried to do in 91-98, then I could see how you would think they are boring. But a waterfall is boring compared to a rollercoaster, but both can be equally cool. And you don't even have to like it, I personally think U2 have been 3 or 4 seperate entities as a band. It probably speaks a great measure to their song writing abilities that they can change faces so many times and still remain vibrant. Not everyone is gonna love all the music.
Not every Beatles fans likes all their stuff either.
 
People ask me why i listen to U2 were i live, and i reply because no matter what type of music i want to hear U2 have it, from songs that blow me away, that have great guitar solos, drum solos, amazing lyrics, make me feel better etc. its all there I can listen to what music i feel like without having to change bands, U2 have so many different styles thats why they have so many fans, I love every era of U2, like many fans U2 have changed there style but never lost there quality.
 
Ugg, it's amazing that people actually compare the number of albums the Beatles put out in a time period to the number of albums U2 put out in a time period, blah blah blah. Let's not forget that U2 also toured after pretty much every album, most of the time for a year or longer. The Beatled barely every performed live after the Rubber Soul period. Plus, U2 has real normal families that they are kept away from while touring for so long. The Beatles just pushed out album after album with nothing to really worry about. And the family they did have were just nuts. *cough* Yoko *cough*.

Anyway, how is this point even relevent to any conversation every had in this discussion?
 
Carmanah said:

I miss the exciting U2. With the occasional glimmer of magic in a few tracks here and there, I'm finding myself bored with this album. Oh, I'll give it another chance... and another, and another, etc, because it's U2. And the songs will grow on me because they're U2, but even then there's only a limit. That will only take me so far.


Wanted to bring this thread back to its original topic...You're not alone Carmanah. And I think it probably has everything to do with our expectations--what we know they're capable of, and what they actually delivered. I think it's just hard for 40 somethings to make an album that really is innovative. Not impossible, just very difficult. And getting a younger audience (who aren't U2 fanatics) to buy into it is even harder.

I've tried to imagine this (and even considered starting another thread) : What if the exact same album known as HTDAAB had come out instead of The Joshua Tree? Would it's stature be higher? It probably would, because the songs would have sounded 'fresher' back then. And if JT was released in 2004, would we be saying "It's just not as exciting"?

I think JT is the much better album no matter what, but I'd bet money that it wouldn't make that big of an impact if released today like it did in 1987.

Thoughts?
 
Back
Top Bottom