This deserves it's very own thread

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

The difference is that back when U2 first started out - and well into the 80s and early 90s - the hits came about because the songs arrived due to trusting the outcome, and most importantly, by letting go. The songs were almost gifts. Llike U2 was simply the vehicle in which to harness the song. Now, it's almost like they want to build the song themselves. Like they have an agenda when it comes to the writing process.

That doesn't mean I don't like the last two albums. It's just a totally different approach, I feel. It's more structured, more focused, and more disciplined, I'm sure. But the real magic always came when they let go and surrendered to something other.

The songs still arrive, the difference is just that, naturally, U2 got better at songwriting, the craft of it. This is not to say there aren't any good songs on the last two albums.

I think that for all the marketing, for all the TV shows they did (it's one thing to go out there when you're about 30, but completely different when you're 40+), they have very little hits this decade. Which is why I think this is, much as I like the ambition to be out there and to compete with the radio's "usual suspects", in the end not worth the trouble. They are too "old" for the US. (they have more hits ROW, Europe in particular)
 
Aygo said:


If U2 is so predictable today and if they're forcing thing to spawn hits, why "Discotheque" was the last U2 song to get in the first 10 positions of the Billboard Hot 100? A

This just has to do with the randomness of the Billboard 100. U2 stopped releasing singles in the US after Pop and that made it very difficult to hit the top 10 on airplay only. In terms of airplay, Beautiful Day had way more than Discotheque (although Discotheque did go higher on modern rock - #1 vs. #4). And Vertigo would have been in the top 10, most likely top 5 if digital sales had counted when it was released. They changed that a few months after Vertigo came out (partly due to the success of Vertigo). And looking at the success of other songs after the rule changed (such as Coldplay's Speed of Sound which reached #8 with comparable digital sales but lower airplay at that specific time), Vertigo would have done extremely well.

Overall, the Billboard 100 is extremely flawed and can't be used to measure success in the US. You have to look at every format individually. Both Beautiful Day and Vertigo were very successful on Modern Rock, Mainstream Rock, Adult Top 40, Mainstream Top 40, Triple A Radio and the songs took many months to go away. Discotheque, on the other hand, did not do as well outside of Modern Rock and only lasted a couple months.
 
the billboard 100 baffles me

it seems like an antiquated system that doesn't take all the modern technology of today into effect... almost like it's two guys sitting in a room and just decide who gets to what spot based on how much money the record companies give 'em

i consider myself to be down and hip with the kids these days :wink:

but there's like 5 songs in the top 20 on the current hot 100 that not only have i never heard, but i didn't even know that the artists who perform the songs even existed.
 
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths said:

The difference is that back when U2 first started out - and well into the 80s and early 90s - the hits came about because the songs arrived due to trusting the outcome, and most importantly, by letting go. The songs were almost gifts. Llike U2 was simply the vehicle in which to harness the song. Now, it's almost like they want to build the song themselves. Like they have an agenda when it comes to the writing process.


"They hated that song, he says. I spent a month on it and I still don't think it was as realised as it could've been. The Americans had heard it and said, That's your radio song there, because they were having trouble with some of the more industrial elements. It's almost like a covers band doing a U2 moment. Maybe we tried too hard."

Steve Lillywhite comments on how they desperately tried to grind out a hit single for their record company in 1991 (WGRYWH).
 
roy said:


"They hated that song, he says. I spent a month on it and I still don't think it was as realised as it could've been. The Americans had heard it and said, That's your radio song there, because they were having trouble with some of the more industrial elements. It's almost like a covers band doing a U2 moment. Maybe we tried too hard."

Steve Lillywhite comments on how they desperately tried to grind out a hit single for their record company in 1991 (WGRYWH).
Really? To me it doesn't sound like they were trying to grind out a hit single at all. Almost the exact oppostite, in fact. From reading Lillywhite's comment, it sounds more like they had the hit, but didn't want it to sound like it for artistic reasons. It simply states the Americans wanted it to be a hit by keeping it the way it was, "because [U2] were having trouble with some of the more industrial elements" (ie, taking it somewhere else creatively, which was their actual intent). And his comment about "trying too hard" refers not to making it a hit single, but making it sound industrial.
 
U2 have always, always wanted to be on the radio, on MTV, and exist in the popular consciousness, to be part of conversation, discussion and argument, and to grab people by the collar and demand that they pay attention, whether they love or hate what they hear.

you need hit songs to do that. they've been trying to write hit songs since "I Will Follow."

and there's nothing wrong with it. one need not sacrafice substance for form.
 
U2girl said:


The songs still arrive, the difference is just that, naturally, U2 got better at songwriting, the craft of it. This is not to say there aren't any good songs on the last two albums.

I think that for all the marketing, for all the TV shows they did (it's one thing to go out there when you're about 30, but completely different when you're 40+), they have very little hits this decade. Which is why I think this is, much as I like the ambition to be out there and to compete with the radio's "usual suspects", in the end not worth the trouble. They are too "old" for the US. (they have more hits ROW, Europe in particular)
I somewhat agree with you second paragraph, but you never know. U2 might become "cool" again in an "elder statesmen" sort of way, ala Johnny Cash. Bono would be one cool 60 year old, I'll bet you anything.

As for your first paragraph...I agree, and as I said in my former post that you just quoted, their songwriting is more structured, more focused, and more disciplined now. They are better craftsmen now. My point was that it doesn't matter how good you become at songwriting, you still have to surrender to the spirit of the music. And I'm sure U2 realize this, but they approach it much differently now. The result is a tighter song that may or may not have the magic that you would find in even the most loose arrangements on earlier records. But as I said, I love ATYCLB, and it's one of their better albums - it's just a totally different approach. I do feel that "God walked into the room" quite a bit on ATYCLB (ie, 'Kite'; 'Walk On' to some degree; 'In A Little While' to some degree)...and there is the feeling of sunlight scattered throughout the album, yet I can't help but feel it was almost too put together in places. Very structured, very organized. The same goes for Bomb and, not to go out on a complete tangent, but I feel that despite Bomb having a higher number of "good, tight, structured" pop songs, it lacks even more magic than ATYCLB. Of course, this is all merely an opinion.
 
Irvine511 said:
U2 have always, always wanted to be on the radio, on MTV, and exist in the popular consciousness, to be part of conversation, discussion and argument, and to grab people by the collar and demand that they pay attention, whether they love or hate what they hear.

you need hit songs to do that. they've been trying to write hit songs since "I Will Follow."

and there's nothing wrong with it. one need not sacrafice substance for form.
I agree completely with all of that.
 
Michael Griffiths said:

I somewhat agree with you second paragraph, but you never know. U2 might become "cool" again in an "elder statesmen" sort of way, ala Johnny Cash. Bono would be one cool 60 year old, I'll bet you anything.

As for your first paragraph...I agree, and as I said in my former post that you just quoted, their songwriting is more structured, more focused, and more disciplined now. They are better craftsmen now. My point was that it doesn't matter how good you become at songwriting, you still have to surrender to the spirit of the music. And I'm sure U2 realize this, but they approach it much differently now. The result is a tighter song that may or may not have the magic that you would find in even the most loose arrangements on earlier records. But as I said, I love ATYCLB, and it's one of their better albums - it's just a totally different approach. I do feel that "God walked into the room" quite a bit on ATYCLB (ie, 'Kite'; 'Walk On' to some degree; 'In A Little While' to some degree)...and there is the feeling of sunlight scattered throughout the album, yet I can't help but feel it was almost too put together in places. Very structured, very organized. The same goes for Bomb and, not to go out on a complete tangent, but I feel that despite Bomb having a higher number of "good, tight, structured" pop songs, it lacks even more magic than ATYCLB. Of course, this is all merely an opinion.

I would sign up for that immediately, if U2 rejuvenated their career like J. Cash did. You know, the kind of "he's back, an he's great again" way, not the "he's old, he's a legend, but when is he going away?" kind of legend.

I feel magic on certain songs on both ATYCLB and Bomb too, as well as times when the band despite trying doesn't get there. Perhaps craft replaced the instinct in some ways but that is expected with more developed skills. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
since U2 has been going at this for about 30 years I actually do think that trying to combine magic and craft is about the only way they can push themselves

I do understand the need for people to hear something new - and I wouldn't be surprised if U2 did manage it - but I think for a band that has been at it for such a long time it would be quite dangerous even when your only aim is to go for a new sound

going for something new is in the end less difficult than producing something good that fits you
 
If they released a new album at Christmas and played new songs on the 5th leg, would they start all over again?:sad: I didn't see Vertigo - my kids came first THIS time. That sounded mean, but it's a long story.
 
Back
Top Bottom