U2's quest for the 'perfect pop song' -- new album talk continued

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think he might be onto something about losing their balls after Pop. It was truly the last time it felt like they did whatever they wanted to do without worrying about how it would be received.

that's ridiculous

Staring at the Sun, If God .., Last Night ... were all attempts to try and make sure they'd get away with MOFO, Miami and Please

even Achtung has some calculated tracks thrown in there to have a better shot at good reception


U2 is indeed not as adventurous now (in some ways) as they were in the 90s
however, their concern about how their work is received hasn't changed 1 iota
they do seem to have realized (for good or bad) however that their core quality is what 'happens when these 4 guys play together', not experimenting with all different kinds of music, nor the grotesquely abused 'fucking up the mainstream' claim
 
that's ridiculous

Meh. Show me a Crazy Tonight in their back catalog.
Even the good songs these days aren't very adventurous; so now we get Crazy Tonight to make sure they get away with No Line on the Horizon instead of Staring at the Sun to get away with Mofo (not sure how you figure Please was a gamble)
 
their core quality is what 'happens when these 4 guys play together', not experimenting with all different kinds of music, nor the grotesquely abused 'fucking up the mainstream' claim

I'd argue that this is what makes them less adventurous. When were they ever just '4 guys playing music together' before the 00s? They've always been at their best when they've experimented. Joshua Tree certainly isn't the sound of 4 men playing in a room. That phrase has been abused much more than 'fucking up the mainstream' and at least with the latter, you know they're striving for something fresh
 
Bono is also striving to sell us the idea that Edge is on fire in outer space
still, this is barely a reflection on the musical outcome
same with the 'fucking up the mainstream' line

and my main point remains that there's no logical evidence that U2 has been more worried about the reception of their albums since POP, while I acknowledge they have rained in their musical adventurous side
(though, IMO, one could forgive them if they had been more worried about the reception of ATYCLB as POP performed substantially less than any of the bands prior offering for over a decade)
 
An Cat Gav said:
Agreed. i often think that too.

If i was a teenager now I doubt that NLOTH (good album though it is) would have turned me into a fanatic. For me it was seeing them play Bad at live Aid, then I discovered The Unforgettable Fire album, the release of the Joshua Tree, the only slightly disappointing Rattle and hum and then what seemed like the eternity of three whole years until the album of my life was released, Achtung Baby, closely followed by ZOO TV, Zooropa, Passengers and then Pop.

I was fifteen or sixteen when No Line came out (it came out right around my birthday, but I can't remember which side). I was already a big U2 fan before it, and a poster on this site, but NLOTH actually did a good job of cementing this for me. I think it is what really turned me into a fanatic. I absolutely loved that album. I thought the world of it and I couldn't stand to see it criticized, including the dreaded Crazy Tonight, Boots, and Stand Up Comedy. I still really like that album, including those three songs, but not quite to the same degree. But I think it certainly is possible for an album like NLOTH to draw new fans in, even if it seems like it pales in comparison to what drew previous generations of young fans in to those previous generations.
 
I only knew Beautiful Day, Elevation, Stuck, Pride and ISHFWILF before Hutdab was released. I thought Don't You Forget About Me was a U2 song. I loved Vertigo, asked for the album for Christmas, got to City of Blinding Lights and here I am, some seven (wtf?!!!! ughh) years later. I haven't listened to the album in years, maybe since the day of the gig I saw in 2006. But it was the start of my fanaticism.
 
I think the irony of bringing Pop into this discussion is that Pop was almost a "fuck it" to U2 fans themselves, the ones who would - and predictably did - drop off as a result of them going so far into the electronic direction. Fast forward 10+ years and they try it again with NLOTH and we still slag on them. They're not fucking up the mainstream as much as fucking up their own fan base...and we never fail to disappoint!

They did it with HTDAAB also, it's basically just another album of them making the music that they want to make. I don't think an argument that they sit around trying to write songs that the average U2 fan will like has much merit to it at all, frankly.

I believe less and less that they give a flying fuck what we think, which is maybe even sometimes why they are releasing what they are.

I mean, how else do you explain a track like SUC or Crazy Tonight? I'd be willing to bet every single last penny I have that at least one person said "the fans are gonna HATE this track" and then someone else said "FUCK the fans! I love this track!!"

Now that's balls! :D


(and ftr, I wouldn't change that about them, either. They've come up with some really great stuff, so I take the good with the bad)
 
I just want to add it took some balls for U2 to perform 'Crazy Tonight' remix during the 360 tour. :wink:
 
zoopop said:
I just want to add it took some balls for U2 to perform 'Crazy Tonight' remix during the 360 tour. :wink:

Yes, definitely. I really like that remix, though. Wonderfully disorienting.
 
gvox said:
(and ftr, I wouldn't change that about them, either. They've come up with some really great stuff, so I take the good with the bad)

This is probably the most level-headed thing I've heard anyone say around here. :up: That's why we're fans. I happen to love the great, and forgive the not-so-great. If I couldn't do that, I wouldn't hang out on a U2 fan website.
 
Agreed. i often think that too.

If i was a teenager now I doubt that NLOTH (good album though it is) would have turned me into a fanatic. For me it was seeing them play Bad at live Aid, then I discovered The Unforgettable Fire album, the release of the Joshua Tree, the only slightly disappointing Rattle and hum and then what seemed like the eternity of three whole years until the album of my life was released, Achtung Baby, closely followed by ZOO TV, Zooropa, Passengers and then Pop.

Obviously if I was young now those incredible thingswould have happened 20 years ago and the bands recent output, good though a lot of it is, would not have inspired me to investigate the band's bck catalogue. Which would be a real shame. I see it with my younger friends and family friends, trying to get them to like U2 is a very hard job as they judge them by their more recent efforts, in the 90s all I had to do to convert my friends was make them a tape of the recently released Ab or TJT!

I wouldn't totally discount new young fans too quickly though. There are still some smart kids out there when it comes to music. Like digitize and cobl04, I opened my teen kids' eyes to u2 during the era between Vertigo and NLOTH. Seeing U23D made them huge fans instantly, and they eagerly awaited NLOTH with me, excitedly waiting for the download that great night it leaked online. :love: U2 are now still one of their favorite bands of all time, and they regularly ask me WHEN will we get a new album. If only I could answer that!

They were also right there singing along on the rail with me for the 360 shows. It was awesome. :D
 
I think "fuck up the mainstream" was in the acceptance speech when Zooropa one "best alternative album" (or whatever the category was called) at the Grammys.

I think it was partially a smirky comment about the fact they'd been lumped into an "alternative" category.
 
Appealing to the lowest common denominator isn't something I look for in the music I listen to. I'd rather an album full of exciting, adventurous music than one full of songs that appeal to the widest audience


This entire comment is irrational - we are talking about U2. Even at their most popular moments, when did they ever really appeal to the "lowest common denominator"?

My point wasn't to make a Black Eyed Peas album full of fluff lyrics and a great beat. However, for U2 to have a hit that lasts, they have to have more open lyrics (WOWY, "Desire", MW, BD) and the type of sound where people scream "turn it up" in the radio. GOYB was not that song.
 
This entire comment is irrational - we are talking about U2. Even at their most popular moments, when did they ever really appeal to the "lowest common denominator"?

My point wasn't to make a Black Eyed Peas album full of fluff lyrics and a great beat. However, for U2 to have a hit that lasts, they have to have more open lyrics (WOWY, "Desire", MW, BD) and the type of sound where people scream "turn it up" in the radio. GOYB was not that song.

I was using that term in the way it is meant to be used (ie, appeals to the widest audience), not in the bastardized 'appeals to the dregs of society' way. I was being quite rational
 
U2 are a mainstream, commercial rock band, a la The Beatles, The Clash, etc. They've always had major focus on the "pop" song in their songs. That's never changed and never will change. That's a part of their gauge of greatness as well. How could it not be when they nursed up on The Beatles, The Clash, etc? A lot of the criticism I hear is usually based on attitude. Seems very "high school" to me.

They actually don't get enough credit for how much the play around and experiment, all within the realm of the mainstream, commercial pop song. They have a fantastic talent for that. They always have. Just like The Beatles, The Clash, etc. They're a great band.

Saturday I sat on the porch and let library shuffle on U2 for hours (which is a fantastic thing by the way.) I can't think of many band's whose catalog has the multiple personalities of U2 whist keeping to this very identifiable and curious core. "I Will Follow" running into "Love Rescue Me" then "White As Snow" is a hell of a thing. So many different, and most importantly, brilliant, colours, and tones there. All with their own energy. We're at the gravy point folks. Most of this band's work is behind them. Anything we get now is gravy.

gravy:drool:

Also, smoke a ton of grass and listen to NLOTH in reverse order. That is all.
 
I think "fuck up the mainstream" was in the acceptance speech when Zooropa one "best alternative album" (or whatever the category was called) at the Grammys.

I think it was partially a smirky comment about the fact they'd been lumped into an "alternative" category.

Yes, that's when it was said. And it was preceded by a comment by Bono like "Alternative, huh?" I think he also said something about how they started on the college charts or something.

People thought it was lame that they were in that category, but Zooropa was a lot more alternative than most albums that have won it since (Kid A is the only one I can think of), and certainly moreso than the other nominees that year. Was anyone complaining when R.E.M. won a couple years previous for Out Of Time, when it beat Nevermind? Because that album doesn't sound very alt. to me.

While U2 themselves may not have been regarded as "alternative" anymore in 1993 because of their popularity, that album in particular was certainly an alternative to mainstream music. Hell, Siamese Dream, which Bono seemed to think was a worthy winner, sounds like a big 70's rock album, and wasn't exactly breaking new ground.
 
Was anyone complaining when R.E.M. won a couple years previous for Out Of Time, when it beat Nevermind?

At that time, REM was truer to what Alternative meant. It didn't used to be a sound. It was a genuine alternative to popular top 40 music and nothing more. Kind of like how 'Indie' doesn't come close to meaning what it used to mean. I know you already know this (hence the zooropa comment), just thought I'd point it out
 
Jive Turkey said:
At that time, REM was truer to what Alternative meant. It didn't used to be a sound. It was a genuine alternative to popular top 40 music and nothing more. Kind of like how 'Indie' doesn't come close to meaning what it used to mean. I know you already know this (hence the zooropa comment), just thought I'd point it out

I tend to think that R.E.M.'s "alternative" days ended with Document.

I remember U2 being in the rock section and R.E.M. in the alternative section in record shops in the 80's.
 
Even still, they were pretty much the epitome of Alternative rock in the 80s. They had cred residue
 
Who the fuck is this guy anyway?

I'm guessing your the kinda guy who inspired this:

That's why I don't really feel comfortable here. I do like this forum, but I'm afraid to talk to people. Not trying to sound insulting towards the posters here, just saying.

Welcome to the forum.

You could engage me as a person who knows and loves music as much as you.

Or you could go with "You're not allowed in our clique. Now shut up. I know better."
 
Or you can continue making passive aggressive comments about posts that were clearly jokes. That's cool too. Keep fighting the good fight

Yet they wrote the same verse/chorus pop songs all the top 40 artists wrote. Cred schmed. An invented level of BS.
 
Back
Top Bottom