U2 raw

[rivergoat]

not sure where to post this...

I don't know what it is with me.. my favorite U2 albums are October and Pop...

On October, the legend is that Bono's notes were stolen and the album was rushed out in four months' time (trying to cash in on the success of 'Boy').

On Pop, this album was also 'rushed out' to meet a deadline, yet a few songs on it were in the works for at least five years (Wake Up Dead Man, Hold Me..., IYWTVD, etc, which didn't make the Zooropa album).

In short, both albums had little time between creativity and post-production... not much after-thought frikking around with, if you get my meaning...

Are these albums both the closest to raw U2?

Anyhow, even though my religion may be best described as agnostic, October remains my favorite U2 album (as a whole) to date, with Pop a close second. October is certainly the most religious-themed of the U2 albums. Both albums have been dissed by a majority of U2 fans ("Well, it's okay, but it's not my favorite" kind of thing).

Am I the only one who thinks these albums are great?

goat

}~

edit: clarity

 

[Salome]

I understand what you mean

though I don't agree about POP
that album even sounds more overproduced to me than that it sounds raw
IMO on some tracks the production fails to bring out what's good about the songs though
while it's true that the band wanted too work some more on the album but were still forced to release it anyway doesn't mean that it was anywhere near raw
just that it didn't work as well as they would have liked to

 

[wolfeden]

*nods*
Well I'm apt to say the Axtung Beibi bootleg is the purest "raw U2" out there (listen to me talking about it like it's a drug.... oh wait, it is.... ) but I definitely agree with you about October.

People look at me crosseyed when I say it's one of the albums that means the most to me -- and I'm not Christian either.

Pop, I dunno, I'm a johnny-come-lately to it but I'm inclined to agree with Salome in that it's a heavily produced album.. I don't get the same feel from it that I always did with October.

 

[david]

I think the closest to raw you can get is seeing them live.

 

[mofo82]

its a good question ... not sure where i stand on this question- "did lack of time create raw album?" i really enjoy POP because its a a giant difference from most of their catalog. im just getting into October and liking its 'rawness'. my guess is that it wasnt nearly been produced as much as their other albums.

POP to me had a large amount of production, and the rush they were encountering didnt give Pop that raw feeling. I think ultimately their artistic approach to Pop, and not so much timing made it raw, because the band has to be creative enough to work up some really great tunes that are raw even within a few months time.

 

[mofo82]

im thinking that u2's rawest album might be zooropa. not raw in the sounds used because there are so many, but raw in that they throw all of that into the music and dont strip it down, which in it self is another process, taking away from its originality. in other words, using what the band had collected up to that point, they created an LP from a group of great individual songs without a unifying theme. they seemed to just want to create new sounds for themselves, unlike AB that could be about two peoples love roller coaster or JT's explorations of the western world (US)

babyface doesnt do much to explain zooropa or numb; some days doesnt build off of daddys gonna pay too much except for its tempo. knowing the time frame zooropa was put together, if they decided not to make it an LP and go into studios more after the first ZOO TV legs, i believe we would have very different lyrics, possibly completely different songs, and a theme for the album to go by. I cannot say the same for October or POP. they seem polished enough not to call them raw.

ok...October is on the edge of raw.

 

[U2DMfan]

mofo82, those were outstanding posts.

POP wasn't raw, it was clumsy. The songs were good, which has been pretty much proven over time, they just weren't ripe at the time that the album had to be delivered.

I would say raw basically means, a band or artist, just sits down, writes a song, goes with the flow. Doesn't dwell on the deatils or do hardly any overdubs, and put out the material.

So essentially I am agreeing with mofo82, Zooropa was raw. It had many different sounds, but you can tell the process was organic. The vitality of those songs come from the rawness of how they were recorded. They made that record, in what? 2 months. I love that fucking album.

War is a pretty raw album as are the first 3.

WHich might be a good thing because Lillywhite produced those albums. Maybe he didn't dwell on too many takes, and let the band capture the moment of being raw. Being in the moment is really where great music comes from. Not production necessary.

POP would have been twice the album, had they recorded the exact same songs, but just did it live. Because the vitality is not on that record. It it were raaw, it would be there.

People can say what they want about October, but at least it's raw and earnest.

 

[U2girl]

The first three albums and Rattle and Hum - raw U2.

 

[Bono's shades]

I'd say their early demos are about as raw as it gets for recorded material.

 

[isabelle_guns]

Pop is not one of my favorite albums but it is a fun listen but I agree that it is overproduced and I think that was the intention of U2, to sound overproduced and to poke fun and have fun with "pop" music.

 

[mofo82]

Originally posted by isabelle_guns:

I think that was the intention of U2, to sound overproduced and to poke fun and have fun with "pop" music.

I am so glad to hear someone say that. it can be so difficult to explain to people what U2's intentions were for that album- lyrically, in their sound, why they chose the Mirrorball Lemon amongst other things, and i think that quote sums Pop up.

Thanks U2DMfan- I occassionally get a a shinning moment and say something worthwhile. Getting a compliment sure beats gettin cut down by other members when you try to take something semi-seriously.

...about the raw thing, seeing that the band's rawest albums have come from those smaller recording lengths of time, my guess is that the next album will not be nearly the same as atyclb, nor will it be as raw, but still rock. just a guess. i dont mind the thought of that. i would expect an album that is a collective whole in theme, sound and lyrics, unlike zooropa. with that said the band owes us another zooropa a year after this one finally gets released- we could use it how bout something Lemon-esque??

 

[rivergoat]

Well, my reason for calling Pop raw was not the way it sounds, but the way it was produced. They had a lot of ideas, and I just don't think they were able to bring them all to conclusion (think them all the way through). Yeah, the production is thick and heavy, but more like a patchwork quilt than an oriental rug (if you get my meaning).

I don't know about Zooropa - I think half of it was well thought out - songs they had been playing with while they were on tour (so they could smooth out the bumps) and the other half were ideas they were just playing with (but didn't finish too well). I think the reason that album was recorded so quickly is because the songs were already ready before they ever stepped into the studio - much different than, well, ANY of their other albums, really.

just my two cents worth...

}~

goat

 

[thrillme]

October's my 4th favourite U2 album, and yeah, I feel it's U2's rawest album. The lyrics were almost string of conscience on Bono's part.

Well Adam said October was his favourite U2 album, though it seems in recent years, it changed to Achtung Baby. He seems to have the most positive comments about October. Bono likes it, but doesn't like his voice on it. I like his voice on that one!

I wouldn't say Pop is as raw as October, nor the first 3 albums, to each his own.

 

[ylimeU2]

October is, IMHO, one of the most raw albums. It's not one of my favorites, but I do enjoy it at certain times. And I love POP, but I do agree it was overproduced. I can't really explain it why I like it, but I just do. I guess part of why I like it is the lyrics. Dead Man, Please, and Gone are some of what I believe are the best and most powerful lyrics. Sometimes I think the music should have been done differently but then I listen again, and somehow, I think the songs would loose their power if it had been. But, in answer to your question, I don't of POP as being a raw album.

 

[madonna's child]

I would describe October and Pop as sketchy albums, but not raw. I think War is U2's rawest album.