All signs point to a classic U2 album

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
ps333 said:
Your comment is great and all but in no way relevant to my comment.

Its not about "surprises" vs. "expectations". Its about an artist being real to themselves and their music. a.k.a not trying to be something they are not.
Click to expand...


But it is.... relevant

U2 at it's core has evolved musically but not changed. They have also shown a level of artistry in what they do. That's their appeal to me.

Painters have styles and so do musicians in the same regard.

In my view if you are a fan you want to see where an artist or musician that you like takes what they have. If they were lazy that would be one thing. They are clearly not that. That put as much or more effort into what they do as they always have.

As far as being true to ones-self; How can you possibly make that statement without knowing them?

I am sure they aren't spending 2+ years in a studio working on something they don't believe in.

Let me ask you something:

What are your expectations(?), because clearly you think they have copped out in the past. Better yet: What exactly are they doing that deviates from their true selves?

I assume you do not want a band who rewrites the same song so where have they lost it.

I enjoy your posts and would love to know your view.
 
quiv said:
But it is.... relevant

U2 at it's core has evolved musically but not changed. They have also shown a level of artistry in what they do. That's their appeal to me.

Painters have styles and so do musicians in the same regard.

In my view if you are a fan you want to see where an artist or musician that you like takes what they have. If they were lazy that would be one thing. They are clearly not that. That put as much or more effort into what they do as they always have.

As far as being true to ones-self; How can you possibly make that statement without knowing them?

I am sure they aren't spending 2+ years in a studio working on something they don't believe in.

Let me ask you something:

What are your expectations(?), because clearly you think they have copped out in the past. Better yet: What exactly are they doing that deviates from their true selves?

I assume you do not want a band who rewrites the same song so where have they lost it.

I enjoy your posts and would love to know your view.
Click to expand...

I don't think they've "copped out" per say. They have written various styles of songs throughout their career and have changed their sounds over and over again. Not all of their songs worked for me. Some of them are just down right off in a different direction and others were novel experiments that just didn't work. I can name a few: Red Light is one that pops into my head immediately. AMAAW is another. There are others too.

Now You make a great reference of a painter in your post. A famous painter can paint hundreds of paintings over the course of their careers. Picasso (my favorite of all time) is well know for his vastly different styles of painting. His quote was "It took me my whole life to learn how to paint like a child" (one of my favorite quotes ever) His styles evolved and his mode of expressing his subjects and the metaphors and symbolism he used grew and grew. His famous painting Guernica (one of my favs) is so out there and different from anything from his "blue period" for example.

Did I know him "personally" of course not...never got the chance to meet the man...but from studying his vast library of work I can tell what styles/techniques were true to him and which ones were more of an experiment.

Whats my point? That when I delved deeper, and found some of his lesser know stuff, other paintings and sketches I came across a lot of shitty stuff to be honest. Stuff that he experimented with and really didn't develop much further because it probably wasn't panning out or necessarily where he wanted to go with his work, but still important in his evolution towards where his paintings ended up. Not everything that an artist does is genius. Thats why they don't necessarily exhibit all of it. Sometimes though some of those "sketches" or "little experiments" makes it out into the public and sometimes they flop. Haven't you seen a Picasso somewhere and thought to yourself "this isn't really good, but hey its Picasso" Well, I have.

Did he "believe" in what he was doing? Of course he did. You generally ALWAYS believe in what your doing when you paint or make music or whatever. Hell, I've put my whole heart and soul into paintings and illustrations only to exhibit them and get a luke warm response. Trust me, it cuts you down and humbles you. Sometimes when you believe too much in what you're doing it can blind you from your work and not let you be "true to yourself" I learned that the hard way...but I digress. :wink:

Thats my point with U2. I love the majority of their work and ever changing sounds. But not all of them strike a chord for me and not all of them seem "true to them" Some of their songs sound forced and like they are trying to create a song that just isn't part of their style....and it fails for me.

AMAAW is one of those songs.

Now did I need to type 1000 words to get that point across? Nope...but you happened to catch me at the right time. :wink:
 
ps333 said:
Yeah, I hear this argument all of the time. So and so band is so much better than U2. The "Flying Monkeys" or "the Purple Nuns" or "whatever odd sounding band name you want to fill in" are a million times better than U2. Well, I like to see any of those bands have a successful career spanning 3 decades earning accolades from all sorts of music groups, artists, industry moguls, and most of all die hard legions of fans.

Yah...maybe the word "innovative" is a bad choice. How about "consistent"? Maybe thats a good word. Or any other word or phrase that describes what a small minority of all of the rock bands in history (including U2) have been able to do.

Not trying to sound harsh. But a bunch of no-name lightweight bands can put out one or two GREAT albums...lets see them put out 10-12 then maybe we can talk about "apples to apples" comparison with a heavyweight band like U2, Stones, Led Zeppelin or the Beatles.
Click to expand...


It took a while for me to answer to your post :)

Where exactly am I saying that these bands are good, great or better than U2? I stating that being innovative doesn't automatically mean good. But it seems to me that you are not being careful while reading other people posts :)

"consistent" - yeah I would probably agree with you on that, but I was arguing about calling U2 original, groundbreaking and innovative in music in global and not only in mainstream..

cheers
 
Am I the only one who thinks Stateless is just "okay"?

Seems like everyone's always bringing it up like its some little musical moment of genius. Its just "meh" for me...I felt the Ground Beneath Her Feet was a billion times better.
 
ps333 said:
Am I the only one who thinks Stateless is just "okay"?

Seems like everyone's always bringing it up like its some little musical moment of genius. Its just "meh" for me...I felt the Ground Beneath Her Feet was a billion times better.
Click to expand...

One of those songs that Bonos voice just takes over.
 
ps333 said:
Am I the only one who thinks Stateless is just "okay"?

Seems like everyone's always bringing it up like its some little musical moment of genius. Its just "meh" for me...I felt the Ground Beneath Her Feet was a billion times better.
Click to expand...

No, I think the same.
 
ps333 said:
Am I the only one who thinks Stateless is just "okay"?

Seems like everyone's always bringing it up like its some little musical moment of genius. Its just "meh" for me...I felt the Ground Beneath Her Feet was a billion times better.
Click to expand...

I know this is totally the wrong thread to discuss this, but I really like Stateless, whereas I love The Ground Beneath Her Feet.
 
^ its such a sad situation. He saved his borthers life, only to possibly end his own. He was a great character in the game, and by all accounts a really decent guy. With what slim hope we have left, let's just hope he is ok :up:
 
dan_smee said:
^ its such a sad situation. He saved his borthers life, only to possibly end his own. He was a great character in the game, and by all accounts a really decent guy. With what slim hope we have left, let's just hope he is ok :up:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a shame. It shows just how lethal the West Auckland beaches are. It's obvious how well regarded he was within the club. I haven't yet been able to bring myself to watch the media conference the club had yesterday.
 
quiv said:
But it is.... relevant

U2 at it's core has evolved musically but not changed. They have also shown a level of artistry in what they do. That's their appeal to me.

Painters have styles and so do musicians in the same regard.

In my view if you are a fan you want to see where an artist or musician that you like takes what they have. If they were lazy that would be one thing. They are clearly not that. That put as much or more effort into what they do as they always have.

As far as being true to ones-self; How can you possibly make that statement without knowing them?

I am sure they aren't spending 2+ years in a studio working on something they don't believe in.

Let me ask you something:

What are your expectations(?), because clearly you think they have copped out in the past. Better yet: What exactly are they doing that deviates from their true selves?

I assume you do not want a band who rewrites the same song so where have they lost it.

I enjoy your posts and would love to know your view.
Click to expand...

I think you've described exactly what is wrong with HTDAAB. Many of the songs on that album sound very similar to older songs except not as good. A band can work on something for a long time and believe in it but in hindsight, it is possible to recognise faults. Big bands like U2 have to be careful that they don't become parodies of themselves by trying to capture some former glory that has long since faded. Take Radiohead for example, it looked like the wheels might be falling off after 'Hail to the Theif' simply because it came dangerously close to sounding like Radiohead doing what Radiohead are supposed to do as opposed to what they want to do. 'In Rainows' quickly changed that and did something completely different.

I want artists to keep pushing themselves forward into new territories. There is nothing worse than an artist who feels content with their past achievements and decides to coast along in a nice little niche that they've found. I want artists to be like Tom Waits, the guy is getting old but he's still a maverick, he's still pushing himself and people respect him for it, me included.

One thing that must lifr, as I have said before, is Bono's lyrics. Lines like 'what you've got they can't steal it, no they can't even feel it' - 'Freedom has a scent, like the top of a new born babies head' - 'Always pain before a child is born' are just plain bad. They are dressed up as some sort of quasi 21st century lennonesque philosophies but they are just too Bono-ish, to U2 -ish and too earnest to actually men anything significant. I remember watching the HTDAAB doco I got with my CD and listening to Bono talk about the freedom baby head scent line and just thinking, Man, it;s not that profound, it actually sounds like it should be on a baby commercial or something. What happened to cannabalisitc artists and theiving poets?

I don't mind a postive outlook, but preferably with lines that don't make me cringe and picture Bono in a world vision commercial and a gawky hat. I love the guy, but he needs to lift it. Edge needs to try a few different things and the other two need to help them do it.

I still feel that U2 can some up the state of the times in a way that is definitive and communicative to a mass audience, without sounding like b-grade john lennons.
 
WaltDisney said:
I think you've described exactly what is wrong with HTDAAB. Many of the songs on that album sound very similar to older songs except not as good. A band can work on something for a long time and believe in it but in hindsight, it is possible to recognise faults. Big bands like U2 have to be careful that they don't become parodies of themselves by trying to capture some former glory that has long since faded. Take Radiohead for example, it looked like the wheels might be falling off after 'Hail to the Theif' simply because it came dangerously close to sounding like Radiohead doing what Radiohead are supposed to do as opposed to what they want to do. 'In Rainows' quickly changed that and did something completely different.

I want artists to keep pushing themselves forward into new territories. There is nothing worse than an artist who feels content with their past achievements and decides to coast along in a nice little niche that they've found. I want artists to be like Tom Waits, the guy is getting old but he's still a maverick, he's still pushing himself and people respect him for it, me included.

One thing that must lifr, as I have said before, is Bono's lyrics. Lines like 'what you've got they can't steal it, no they can't even feel it' - 'Freedom has a scent, like the top of a new born babies head' - 'Always pain before a child is born' are just plain bad. They are dressed up as some sort of quasi 21st century lennonesque philosophies but they are just too Bono-ish, to U2 -ish and too earnest to actually men anything significant. I remember watching the HTDAAB doco I got with my CD and listening to Bono talk about the freedom baby head scent line and just thinking, Man, it;s not that profound, it actually sounds like it should be on a baby commercial or something. What happened to cannabalisitc artists and theiving poets?

I don't mind a postive outlook, but preferably with lines that don't make me cringe and picture Bono in a world vision commercial and a gawky hat. I love the guy, but he needs to lift it. Edge needs to try a few different things and the other two need to help them do it.

I still feel that U2 can some up the state of the times in a way that is definitive and communicative to a mass audience, without sounding like b-grade john lennons.
Click to expand...

lyrics and lyrical appreciation is subjective. Don't start labelling things bad. Label them as bad in your opinion.

Also, I don't think they are bad, they are reflective of the stage of life bono is in. He has kids, he understands the grown-up world.

Your argument falls down too because In Rainbows is crap :wink:
 
ha ha, well in your opinion it is crap don't you mean. Strange.

I understand that you people enjoy HTDAAB, and that's fine. I just think it's U2 lite, like diet U2 or something, all the pretty bits without the bloodlust.
 
WaltDisney said:
So are you serious when you say that none of those lines make you feel a little ill?

I dont mind love, kneel, faith or prey but just in the right context.
Click to expand...

no they dont. Just because lyrics arent obscure, or abstract doesnt mean they're not good. You can't pidgeon-hole a band with a career like u2's and say one style of lyric is way better than the other ebcause of these things. The lyrics are one thing that make this album special to me. It makes it much more personal. These sort of lines arent the lines you hear on AB, and for good reason. You feel like Bono isnt trying TOO hard to make it this prose, but just being open and direct. No flowers, no pretty ribbons, just the facts.
 
dan_smee said:
no they dont. Just because lyrics arent obscure, or abstract doesnt mean they're not good. You can't pidgeon-hole a band with a career like u2's and say one style of lyric is way better than the other ebcause of these things. The lyrics are one thing that make this album special to me. It makes it much more personal. These sort of lines arent the lines you hear on AB, and for good reason. You feel like Bono isnt trying TOO hard to make it this prose, but just being open and direct. No flowers, no pretty ribbons, just the facts.
Click to expand...

I get thay, John Lennon is a perfect example of someone doing that well. Bono is too bumper stickerish to make it sound profound. People get sick of his preachiness, thats why the Fly and lyrics with a better.
 
WaltDisney said:
I get thay, John Lennon is a perfect example of someone doing that well. Bono is too bumper stickerish to make it sound profound. People get sick of his preachiness, thats why the Fly and lyrics with a better.
Click to expand...

its only preachy because you are referencing Bono's past lyrics, and his other life to draw conclusions.

And Lennon is a great example "all we are saying is give peace a chance". That sounds like the most throwaway, cheesy line, but fuck, its epic! Mind Games is full of them.

In the end, I respect that people can have a difference of taste, but insulting someones character or talent for simply changing style (and doing it better than anyone here would mind you) is just plain silly
 
A classic..?

There's no way to know a classic until it becomes one.

It has a lot more to do with what's going on in the world around it than just Eno and Lanois.

However - I do remember when the latest U2 album was WAR and how I felt about it and I was right - It is a classic...

Turn that sh&t on! Just Skip SBS and NYD

Refugee.. like a song.. Drowning Man!:drool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Looking for the best storyteller of U2 - Garage to Stadius
Replies
0
Views
191
Dave A
D
Digital Spy 2
I am back
Replies
2
Views
288
Digital Spy 2
Digital Spy 2
Achtung_Bebe
IO: It's been a while...
Replies
2
Views
850
mikal
mikal
H
Setlist Issue
Replies
3
Views
500
lazarus
lazarus
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom