Shuttlecock XVII - The Best Title That Ever Happened a Thread

[joyfulgirl]

Hey guys, time to throw away those creepy masks.
How a humanitarian crisis tarnished Nobel winner Aung San Suu Kyi's legacy, perhaps forever - LA Times

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I'm fully prepared for Songs of Experience. I don't like Songs of Innocence, so I've already had that moment of finally disconnecting from the band. They will always be my favourite band ever, always, and they have a wealth of music I dearly love, they played an amazing concert just a few months ago that I got to see twice, I'm happy, however much this new album sucks.

That's a pretty good summation. I'll say this, when you mature musically, you come to realize that an artist's worst efforts never really take away from their triumphs. New U2 that is ear bleedingly bad is never going to retroactively harm their earlier stuff.

Back in the days of $15-20 CDs (and perhaps before that), we'd be so protective of our favorite artists and so angered over ones we deemed to be terrible or not as good. Kind of a lot of weird cults that developed simply due to music basically being way more inaccessible than it was now...you got a recommendation from someone or heard a single and then blew an exorbitant amount of cash in today's dollars for an album that you would be stuck with and kind of have to force yourself to like. In short, it was pretty lame.

That sort of carried over for myself with feeling "betrayed" by acts that churned out shit piles such as Weezer's fifth album or Pearl Jam's avacado record. The latter basically prevented me from seeing them live (something I had always wanted to do - and with Sonic Youth, no less!) simply because I felt gutted by how they weren't even trying anymore artistically. My opinion on PJ and their later stuff is still the correct one, but I've since learned not to take too personally any lameness from aging acts, and in fact, a lot of the best live shows I've been too were from artists that had just put out a disappointing LP.

tldr; Nothing will ever take away from U2's brilliance, and because of that, people shouldn't feel like they're forced to like this inferior product either. I mean, why would you force yourself to like anything when you have thousands upon thousands of great albums available at your fingertips thanks to streaming?

Although...something has been taken away from "Walk On" and it's now an outright fraud of a song since it's written about someone who supports genocide. Let's hope U2 never performs that one again.

 

[LemonMelon]

I'm not so surprised they seemed more confident and passionate on Bullet. It's a song they've played night after night this year, and indeed for most of their tours since 1987. It's a song they know well. Best Thing, on the other hand, besides being new is one they've been tinkering with and aren't yet sure how to play live. They really needed to use those Detroit and Buffalo shows as practice, though.

It's not so much that they were tentative on a new track, that's fine, it just felt dreary and plodding. I do think it needs a tempo boost or a new approach to the rhythm (and new lyrics, guitar parts, vocal melodies, etc.)

Maybe they'll take the Crazy Tonight comparisons to heart and give us a dance remix for the tour.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

If everything were like Best Thing or Song for Someone or Stand Up Comedy, I'd be long gone. But Fez, No Line on the Horizon, Cedarwood Road, The Troubles, and - yes - The Blackout are enough to at least keep me vaguely interested, and halfway hopeful they can put out an album I'll like more than the last four. I don't expect them to record anything on a par with their eighties or nineties work, but I sure don't think they are doomed to only record songs I hate. And I think they can still surprise me positively as well as negatively.

A nice optimistic sense there. I've loved exactly one U2 song since NLOTH and that's "California" which is both successful at being a catchy tune and a very emotional roller coaster.

"Iris" and "Invisible" are both awesome, but let down immensely by their productions, particularly the former which I hated on the LP. I absolutely loved those two live while the rest of the SOI stuff was just as stale as ever. "Every Breaking Wave" is actually quite good in a stripped down manner, but I know I'm in the minority on that one.

"Little Things" is neat for its emotional vulnerability. So I guess the overall total for me is one great tune and four more pretty good ones from 2010-2017. Not much, but it shows they aren't completely dead yet.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Why the fuck aren't they playing Bullet that way on the fucking tour, that's what I want to know.

For the nostalgia aspect since that's what the paying customers want...plus "Exit" takes up a lot of the political slack, probably because Bono just doesn't even like that song so he wanted to give himself something to do with it.

But yet we've got a different arrangement of "Running To Stand Still" to my ears than anything we've had before and, obviously, a new version of "Red Hill Mining Town" so that it can be played live (which, in my opinion, is the JT set's only weakness). So much for trying to sound faithful to the original album...

 

[cobl04]

If that's your definition of brilliant and passionate, you've fallen a long way. That's pretty soft.

Hahaha, touché.

No one in this thread has dedicated hundreds of posts to tearing the new songs apart. Maybe a dozen.

Best Thing sounded even worse than it did on the album IMO. Dragged terribly, Bono sounded awful, the guitar tone lacked the crunch of the studio take, etc. It was a mess. At least when they were awkwardly rolling out Sexy Boots, we had the let me in the sound portion to look forward to each time. I always thought that was cool. Every second of Best Thing sounds like lame dad rock.

Bullet, in contrast, oh my GOD. If they dropped that song this week, do you really think the consensus in here would be so mixed/negative? Fuck no. That's a song that sounds like it matters today. Relevant, scary, brilliant. Nobody in here is hating just to hate. U2 can still sound amazing in 2017, the new stuff just sucks because it's written poorly. Pretty sad to me how much less passionate they sound performing their newest material compared to something written 30 years ago, but that's what they've become and I hate it.

Perfectly summed up.

 

[corianderstem]

Hey guys, time to throw away those creepy masks.
How a humanitarian crisis tarnished Nobel winner Aung San Suu Kyi's legacy, perhaps forever - LA Times

YES. I've been trying to follow these stories but on Twitter all you get is people posting political cartoons in response that I do NOT understand.

Trying to find more information but not get caught up in propaganda. But I suspsect it's intentional that "The Lady" is not featured on the screen during aultraviolet.

Please excuse typos I just had happy hour witg FitzChivalry and other friends.

 

[the tourist]

No one in this thread has dedicated hundreds of posts to tearing the new songs apart. Maybe a dozen.

As for me, I wasn't just referencing that song. I was referencing the last decade of new U2 material and the constant venom that's spewed about it. I'm curious if it's only because the expectation is so high since it's U2. Boots, The Miracle, The Best Thing, Crazy Tonight, Window... none of them are high points in U2's storied career. But all of them have some redeeming qualities and solid moments if nothing else. Based on what I see all the time on this board it's like those songs drowned your (editorially, not you specifically) puppy and made you watch. And so that's why I'm usually quiet. Because my "eh, it's alright" would be so out of place with the consensus.

 

[corianderstem]

LOL for some reason I only just now noticed the thread title.

Ha ha haaaaa

 

[intedomine]

I don't see why we should be dissuaded from critiquing (or express discomfort with) some of the decisions of the band.

I see myself as a stakeholder in the band's legacy. I want to be telling people how great U2 are because I sincerely believe that they are super. Some of the decisions that the band have made regarding certain things (whether it be political, musical or commercial) make it hard to be the advocate I want to be.

Doubt whether I am as diehard all you want. Doesn't change the fact that I've invested thousands of dollars in music/tours/books, countless months of having their songs/albums playing into my ears and a lazy 7000 odd posts in a dedicated forum. I want U2 to be the very best that they can be, and I'll call them out and be bitterly disappointed in them when they're not.

 

[corianderstem]

Naaaah. Y'all do what you need to do. Some of us are skimming your posts, but we're all still here.

[emoji813] [emoji813]

 

[lazarus]

Crazy Tonight, Window...all of them have some redeeming qualities

Debatable.

I literally will never listen to either of these songs again. And I can't say that about ANYTHING before 2006.

I don't see why we should be dissuaded from critiquing (or express discomfort with) some of the decisions of the band.

I see myself as a stakeholder in the band's legacy. I want to be telling people how great U2 are because I sincerely believe that they are super. Some of the decisions that the band have made regarding certain things (whether it be political, musical or commercial) make it hard to be the advocate I want to be.

Doubt whether I am as diehard all you want. Doesn't change the fact that I've invested thousands of dollars in music/tours/books, countless months of having their songs/albums playing into my ears and a lazy 7000 odd posts in a dedicated forum. I want U2 to be the very best that they can be, and I'll call them out and be bitterly disappointed in them when they're not.

I think you may have nailed it more than anyone else, and there have already been some good arguments made.

As Cobbler will attest, I'm a true believer. I like more of their material than most fans in this subforum. Every time I see a show I try to take someone who has never seen them to "spread the gospel". And every time there's a news item or new release I'm on tenterhooks hoping that it will better their reputation and praying they don't embarrass themselves further. Case in point: after that wet fart performance of Best Thing last night, Bono had the audacity to call it "punk Motown" and I couldn't fucking believe what I was hearing.

 

[LemonMelon]

Case in point: after that wet fart performance of Best Thing last night, Bono had the audacity to call it "punk Motown" and I couldn't fucking believe what I was hearing.

A smiley does not do justice to how hard I laughed at that. Bono is such a tool sometimes.

As an aside, many people don't realize how much flair, energy and verve the best Motown instrumentals had. Like the drumming on Uptight? Get the fuck out of here. No reason to tack a punk prefix onto that.

 

[lazarus]

Like if he wants to call the studio version of IALW their take on Motown, I can buy that. It overstayed its welcome on multiple tours, but that original recording is raw soul and sounds legit old school.

There's nothing classic or soulful about TBT.

 

[cobl04]

As for me, I wasn't just referencing that song. I was referencing the last decade of new U2 material and the constant venom that's spewed about it. I'm curious if it's only because the expectation is so high since it's U2. Boots, The Miracle, The Best Thing, Crazy Tonight, Window... none of them are high points in U2's storied career. But all of them have some redeeming qualities and solid moments if nothing else. Based on what I see all the time on this board it's like those songs drowned your (editorially, not you specifically) puppy and made you watch. And so that's why I'm usually quiet. Because my "eh, it's alright" would be so out of place with the consensus.

All due respect, this is crap. And blatantly untrue. Myself, Laz, Ax, Impy and more were all positive about The Blackout, and my first response to The Best Thing was literally "eh it's alright". As Peef said, it's like we're looked down upon for not being sycophants at times. It's perfectly okay to roast some of the shit U2 has done. And all of us who have been negative have also consistently been positive about a lot of post-2000 U2 at different points.

But your views are totally valid as well, I don't see why it has to make you quiet. Everyone has differing views. I, for one, quite like Crazy Tonight's chorus. I think it's disingenuous to proclaim that we're all constantly getting a kick out of being negative.

I don't see why we should be dissuaded from critiquing (or express discomfort with) some of the decisions of the band.

I see myself as a stakeholder in the band's legacy. I want to be telling people how great U2 are because I sincerely believe that they are super. Some of the decisions that the band have made regarding certain things (whether it be political, musical or commercial) make it hard to be the advocate I want to be.

Doubt whether I am as diehard all you want. Doesn't change the fact that I've invested thousands of dollars in music/tours/books, countless months of having their songs/albums playing into my ears and a lazy 7000 odd posts in a dedicated forum. I want U2 to be the very best that they can be, and I'll call them out and be bitterly disappointed in them when they're not.

The last par in particular = spot on.

As Cobbler will attest, I'm a true believer. I like more of their material than most fans in this subforum. Every time I see a show I try to take someone who has never seen them to "spread the gospel". And every time there's a news item or new release I'm on tenterhooks hoping that it will better their reputation and praying they don't embarrass themselves further. Case in point: after that wet fart performance of Best Thing last night, Bono had the audacity to call it "punk Motown" and I couldn't fucking believe what I was hearing.

Did he really. My goodness.

 

[namkcuR]

I don't understand why he keeps wanting to associate himself and the band with "punk" when they haven't done anything remotely punk since Vertigo. And since they were never really a punk band at all, but rather a post-punk one.

I don't love TBT. I think they have really become inept at picking singles. They've pretty much blown it most of the time since 2009. Boots to kick off NLOTH, and then only the safe Magnificent and Crazy Tonight after that, never even thinking of putting MOS out as a single, or maybe the title track would've been a cool single too.

SOI, I personally love The Miracle even though a lot of you hate it, but after that the only singles were the slow version of Every Breaking Wave and SFS. No California, no Volcano, hell, Cedarwood or RBW could've been singles. Maybe even The Troubles if they were brave, considering the Lykke Li feature.

It's unfortunate that I'm having to actually hope that they're just once again picking relatively uninteresting single material and leaving the good stuff on the record.

I don't know why this has happened, because even in the ATYCLB/HTDAAB era, they generally nailed the singles.

 

[the tourist]

All due respect, this is crap. And blatantly untrue. Myself, Laz, Ax, Impy and more were all positive about The Blackout, and my first response to The Best Thing was literally "eh it's alright". As Peef said, it's like we're looked down upon for not being sycophants at times. It's perfectly okay to roast some of the shit U2 has done. And all of us who have been negative have also consistently been positive about a lot of post-2000 U2 at different points.

But your views are totally valid as well, I don't see why it has to make you quiet. Everyone has differing views. I, for one, quite like Crazy Tonight's chorus. I think it's disingenuous to proclaim that we're all constantly getting a kick out of being negative.

Maybe it's just that I'm "lucky" enough to only really check in on this thread when a group of people are completely bashing stuff. Also, I don't think every single one of you hates every single one of the songs I listed. But I've seen all of them viciously dogpiled, the older ones obviously more often.

As for why I'm quiet, usually whenever I post anyway, unless it's something like this, no one really responds. Usually because songs I think are okay are derided as the worst thing on planet earth.

 

[LemonMelon]

And all of us who have been negative have also consistently been positive about a lot of post-2000 U2 at different points.

Hell, I'll talk your ear off about how much I love NLOTH. It has its embarrassing moments, but the title track, MOS, Fez, Cedars? Come on. This is the kind of stuff I complain that they're not doing enough of anymore. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't at least praise it a little. But I even find a lot of charm and quality in tracks that catch flack, like Magnificent, Unknown Caller and Breathe. The great production of Eno and Lanois went a long way to lift that album.

HTDAAB's production, meanwhile, is absolutely awful, but I long to feel about new U2 material the way that album made me feel in 2004. I still have a lot of nostalgia for that album and I think tracks like A Man and a Woman and One Step Closer are a good model for the approach they should be taking as they age. Not to mention wonderful outtakes from the era like Mercy, Smile and Fast Cars.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I feel like U2 use uncoolness as a sort of artistic human shield these days, or for many years. It's like, you can't get at us for putting out dull, mediocre work, because it's sincere! We're sincere, man. And that's what makes us punk.

 

[lazarus]

Well, they didn't even try to play the new song at tonight's show.

I mean if you're going to play it on TV to millions who cares if you don't pull it off in front of 50,000 or whatever?

 

[corianderstem]

Okay, side-eyeing them hard now. What the actual fuck. These fuckin' guys.

 

[prbiker15]

Clearly it's not a priority for them.

 

[david]

I guess the new songs await the revival of the I+E tour.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

There probably should be more discussion about how NLOTH not setting the world on fire basically made them dial things back. That album was clearly the last time they reached for the stars and went for something big with a lot of the tunes whereas everything since it's basically an attempt at a four minute hit for only Triple A radio and it's 50s-something listeners. Pop's commercial failings changed the style, but NLOTH's changed the approach forever.

I mean, you figure the band themselves are no longer chasing the hit although TBT is probably their best attempt since HTDAAB given how memorable the chorus happens to be. Seems like the bigger problem was insisting on doing a stadium tour for NLOTH compared to arenas for SOI. When you play to 80,000 people every night, particularly in America were U2 isn't as popular per capita as elsewhere, of course you're going to have tens of thousands of people that could give a fuck about the new songs.

It also helps matters that the novice fans/SOI-haters could just sit back and gawk at pretty visuals for "Song for Someone" or "Cedarwood Road" even if they could give a fuck about the actual songs. But, hate to break it to the band, the excitement was far, far more palpable in the second half of those shows when they busted out the classics.

Maybe things are a bit different on the floor, but the seated patrons that make up at least 90% of the attendees clearly were way, way more into the second half of those shows.

Of course, we could never have the discussion on here in the past debating this issue since the forum was filled with people that went crazy for SOI. It helps that the average Interferencer outside of this thread literally listens to no more than three new albums in a given year. I imagine anything new from an artist you love would feel heaven sent.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I guess the new songs await the revival of the I+E tour.

They know they'll be playing their favorite new tunes hundreds of times, anyway, on the next installment of that arena tour (a.k.a. Why The Fuck Does The Screen Take Up So Much Space? Tour, Part II).

 

[mikal]

There probably should be more discussion about how NLOTH not setting the world on fire basically made them dial things back. That album was clearly the last time they reached for the stars and went for something big with a lot of the tunes whereas everything since it's basically an attempt at a four minute hit for only Triple A radio and it's 50s-something listeners. Pop's commercial failings changed the style, but NLOTH's changed the approach forever.

I mean, you figure the band themselves are no longer chasing the hit although TBT is probably their best attempt since HTDAAB given how memorable the chorus happens to be. Seems like the bigger problem was insisting on doing a stadium tour for NLOTH compared to arenas for SOI. When you play to 80,000 people every night, particularly in America were U2 isn't as popular per capita as elsewhere, of course you're going to have tens of thousands of people that could give a fuck about the new songs.

It also helps matters that the novice fans/SOI-haters could just sit back and gawk at pretty visuals for "Song for Someone" or "Cedarwood Road" even if they could give a fuck about the actual songs. But, hate to break it to the band, the excitement was far, far more palpable in the second half of those shows when they busted out the classics.

Maybe things are a bit different on the floor, but the seated patrons that make up at least 90% of the attendees clearly were way, way more into the second half of those shows.

Of course, we could never have the discussion on here in the past debating this issue since the forum was filled with people that went crazy for SOI. It helps that the average Interferencer outside of this thread literally listens to no more than three new albums in a given year. I imagine anything new from an artist you love would feel heaven sent.

Did you complete a study to determine that people st "The Other Place"' only listen to 3 albums per year? If so, I wasn't part of it.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Did you complete a study to determine that people st "The Other Place"' only listen to 3 albums per year? If so, I wasn't part of it.

I choose one album per year and then play the fuck out of it.

 

[Axver]

There probably should be more discussion about how NLOTH not setting the world on fire basically made them dial things back. That album was clearly the last time they reached for the stars and went for something big with a lot of the tunes whereas everything since it's basically an attempt at a four minute hit for only Triple A radio and it's 50s-something listeners. Pop's commercial failings changed the style, but NLOTH's changed the approach forever.

I mean, you figure the band themselves are no longer chasing the hit although TBT is probably their best attempt since HTDAAB given how memorable the chorus happens to be. Seems like the bigger problem was insisting on doing a stadium tour for NLOTH compared to arenas for SOI. When you play to 80,000 people every night, particularly in America were U2 isn't as popular per capita as elsewhere, of course you're going to have tens of thousands of people that could give a fuck about the new songs.

It also helps matters that the novice fans/SOI-haters could just sit back and gawk at pretty visuals for "Song for Someone" or "Cedarwood Road" even if they could give a fuck about the actual songs. But, hate to break it to the band, the excitement was far, far more palpable in the second half of those shows when they busted out the classics.

Maybe things are a bit different on the floor, but the seated patrons that make up at least 90% of the attendees clearly were way, way more into the second half of those shows.

Of course, we could never have the discussion on here in the past debating this issue since the forum was filled with people that went crazy for SOI. It helps that the average Interferencer outside of this thread literally listens to no more than three new albums in a given year. I imagine anything new from an artist you love would feel heaven sent.

Thanks for making the rest of us who don't like The Best Thing look bad.

 

[iron yuppie]

Did you complete a study to determine that people st "The Other Place"' only listen to 3 albums per year? If so, I wasn't part of it.

I mean, I think this is common sense based on the reactions and assessments people tend to have in that forum. When you have people saying they listened to a 15 second clip of The Black Out 20+ times, it's a safe assumption they don't have a lot of other active musical interests. I don't mean that as a criticism: how people consume music is none of my damn business or anyone else's. But it does mean that perspectives on what is "fresh," "experimental," "relevant," or whatever are going to be limited.

 

[mikal]

I mean, I think this is common sense based on the reactions and assessments people tend to have in that forum. When you have people saying they listened to a 15 second clip of The Black Out 20+ times, it's a safe assumption they don't have a lot of other active musical interests. I don't mean that as a criticism: how people consume music is none of my damn business or anyone else's. But it does mean that perspectives on what is "fresh," "experimental," "relevant," or whatever are going to be limited.

I post in there, listened to the Blackout clip several times, and have listened to a shitload of albums this year.