HTDAAB Evolution

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

Dr. Lemonseed

The Fly
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
192
Location
NC, USA
Transitioning from our "experimental/progressive" thread:

So, yes, HTDAAB is not experimental. My question is, which songs are progressions for U2? At first, I liked SYCMIOYO and COBL. These seem to me the "most U2."

Now, I really like AMAAW and OOTS. They are the newest sound of U2, and seem the most organic to me. The edge of their sound.

I know we've done a Bomb appreciation thread before, so instead I wanted to talk about which songs seem to take U2 forward. More than any for me, I think AMAAW is a gem.

Maybe the best way to describe the difference is, which songs seem "forced" U2? I think Verigo, Miracle Drug, COBL are fairly self-conscious U2. Those that seem natural are the best, I think. A little age on the album has made me appreciate these natural sounding ones more.
 
Fast Cars is probably the most progressive of all the songs from this era and I think it's a shame it wasn't on all copies of HTDAAB. A Man And A Woman is a progression too, and Love And Peace Or Else definitely isn't the sound of a band being lazy and stuck in a rut.

I'd say COBL is progressive, but not in the typical sense. It's classic U2, moving forward. It's showing that classic, epic U2 isn't stuck in the JT days and that it's looking to the future.

And I can see exactly where this thread is going to go. More post-Pop U2 bashing. :sigh:
 
For progression Love and Peace stands out. A driving future bluesy sound mixed with the serious beef and the completely different kind of 'atmosphere' that they learned to achieve with the use of electronica through the 90's, particularly on the bottom end experiments of Pop. Its the track that really stands out as something that doesn't quite sound anything like any other U2 recording, but yet clearly is a progression of what has come before. One of the reasons why it's my clear high point of the album.

There are other songs that point to development - development in playing or writing - but not creative progression or sonic progression. And then yes, there are some songs on there - Sometimes, COBL, Miracle Drug, Yahweh - that had you been woken from a coma that you had been in since the late 80's you would probably only acknowledge a tighter, crisper sound, some excitement from having missed 15+ years of production and technological advances, but otherwise you would assume that U2 had essentially continued releasing the same albums over and over to this point. In other words, no hint that they had really progressed at all past the expected betterness at their base craft that comes from a further 15+ years of practice and experience.

So yes, in regards to true progression and evolution, I only hear it in that one track.
 
Just on A Man & A Woman, I've noticed that a lot of people in here claim it as experimental or a new direction/sound so I'm expecting to get shot down royally for suggesting that I don't think it is really either at all, so I'll explain myself a bit further... U2 are brilliant musicians, and also, obviously, massive musical fans with tastes that between the differences in the 4 of them and spanning their 25 years in the game cover a massive, massive range. To jump to something with a slightly different influence or sound like A Man & A Woman to me is not so much a progression or really a difficult thing for them to do, it's more about talent and development. There are a number of songs in U2's catalogue that do that, kinda stand out and although making sense in regards to overall themes or influence over a whole album, are still individually a pretty unique one off. One way of explaining that argument is to look at songs like Angel of Harlem, or In a Little While & Wild Honey recently. Another way is to suggest that I think through their pure talent alone, mixed with their own more private influences etc, I'd bet that if we were able to throw out a musical challenge to U2 and told them that we want to hear a full on reggae song from them within a week, they'd be able to pull it off to a pretty decent degree with relative ease. That doesn't make it necessarily a progression or a signal of an evolutionary step to something else at all, just every now and then they can pull off something fairly original for them in vibe or sound or influence. They may not have had the skill or development to write A Man & A Woman a decade ago, but they might well have. There's nothing in that song to suggest that it's the result of the evolutionary progression that has taken place over the 25 years, but plenty to suggest there's a significant talent and development that has taken place over the last 25 years. Does that make sense? It's not new ground in the true sense, just an out of character feel and in a tiny, tiny way, genre of song. That's not a slight against the song at all. This is a record made to be a pop record, employing the tricks of the pop trade at every chance and of those pop songs on there, I like A Man & A Woman for it's breeziness and ease. It's a pop song in the true good sense, in the traditional sense, not in the calculated production line sense that many or most of those songs give off a strong smell of. It is the anti-Vertigo on that album for me. If Vertigo is a mass produced, slick, metallic pop song, A Man & A Woman is the naturally grown organic pop song. For that it gets a thumbs up from me.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
I'd bet that if we were able to throw out a musical challenge to U2 and told them that we want to hear a full on reggae song from them within a week, they'd be able to pull it off to a pretty decent degree with relative ease.

They've already done this. The Johnny Cash Tribute Concert version of "Don't Take Your Guns To Town" from 1999. It's cracking.
 
Well, well, I'll have to check that out. I've always thought Adam secretly just wants to move to Jamaica and take up a weekly gig in the house reggae band of a bar on the beach. But you see my point, right?
 
Earnie Shavers said:
But you see my point, right?

Not really. You're saying the song needs to inspire and entire collection of songs to be new for them? Otherwise it's just and interlude? I guess I relate to that, in that songs from Pop and Zooropa that I find most impressive, are the most classic U2 sounding songs. Gone. Zooropa. Stay. SATS.

You must have an idea in you're head as to what type of progression would make you happy. What would it be? And remember, this is a band of 45 yr olds with 25 years of history.
 
The progression that makes me happy is when it sounds like U2 have their foot on the accelerator. The vehicle is moving forward. Sometimes the foot is to the floor , sometimes it's just cruising, but it's going forward. As for 45 year olds after 25 years, I don't really see why that must steer them in a certain direction. It's certainly a factor in many ways, but that doesn't for example mean that they MUST simplify or become less experimental or whatever. Thats rubbish. It could of course happen, and may well be what has naturaly happened, but it's certainly not a rule by any means. Age alone is no reason for them to not continue to push the essense and spirit of U2 forward. I don't think creative inspiration tires. I think other needs and wants may though.

But, there are different levels of progression and different definitions. Sure, on many songs there are minor progressions. New sounds. New feel. New structure. New way of playing. Some we can hear and some I bet we don't even know about eg, what sounds simple and easy and not much of a change to us may have been a real challenge for Adam to get into, learn, work around and perfect and in that is his own progression, maybe what he would think of Song X as his most major progression from Album A to B and we may never know about that and just assume it was Song Y, which he'd pass off as a 'nothing' in terms of personal progression and evolution. I'm sure as a band as a whole their list of "Top 10 Experimental/Progressive Songs" would differ greatly to ours for that very reason.

Yes, a song like A Man & A Woman is progressive or experimental or new ground or whatever - minor in most ways, but progressive, new, yes.. I'm not saying it needs to inspire a whole collection of songs to be new to them. But I am talking about a larger picture progression in this thread. I mean there would be varying degrees of progression in different ways on every single song, but then there are the overall progressive umbrellas that tend to stretch over a whole album, and they aren't the minor progressions or new sounds or styles or structures from song to song, but the things that are driving the whole bands 'capital P' Progression. Not the lower case progression that simply makes Mofo sound quite different, new, unique to anything else they've done in many ways, not the least of which the other songs on that album, but the large scale progression that makes Mofo a logical and natural song on the road that has already stopped off and learned on the way and been intrigued further by some things and not others and has branched off from there in some ways but not others and then from something like Sunday Bloody Sunday to something like Bullet The Blue Sky to something like Zoo Station to something like Daddy's Gonna Pay and even Lemon or Numb to something like Bottoms (the Passengers b-side) to Mofo there is a progression in a larger sense happening there, and it's not as simple as what I describe there, as at each stage it is also taking in other U2 songs and songs and sounds and influences that are well and truly way outside U2, Chemical Brothers "Block Rockin' Beats" for Mofo as an obvious example. I'm not saying Mofo is those songs mixed in a blender at all, I'm saying it's an emerging personality that results in Mofo and that developing, progressing, emerging personality to me is what is rearing it's head again in a newer different way in something like Love and Peace or Else. Each time it's looking backwards into what it already knows, and forwards into something it's trying to understand and express. By the way, I'm not trying to say that that is the definitive line there for Mofo, just trying to give an example of what is the greater overall U2 progression versus what is the minor progression that also occurs all over the place from album to album and song to song.

The examples you name in Stay, Staring At The Sun etc are also good to use. The 'classic' U2 pop song written all over each of them, each definitely fitting under that umbrella of sound and feel and experiment that each of their accompanying albums has embraced. A Man And A Woman is that as well. Each of those three also displays a progression in that they sound nothing like any of the other 'classic' U2 pop songs that came previous, not just sonicaly but also in structure and in that each band member often displays in those songs a technical progression not heard before. They're not the songs that display where U2's greater progression is coming from or going, but great songs to display where it is at. Like test driving something over a familiar turf to get a decent but simplified taste of where in a few areas some of that progression is at. Promenade to With or Without You to All I Want Is You to One to Stay to Staring At The Sun to In A Little While to A Man And A Woman. There aren't ridiculously drastic differences there in that they are all fairly simple, catchy pop singles, but progression all through them certainly.

And I guess it's somewhere in between the two that you get a real feel for what is U2's overall progression. Man And A Woman in one sense is as all those pop songs from each album are - not a great place to hear where U2's creative front line is at that moment in time, but a great place to get a little taste of where they are at on the very, very, very surface of sound and feel. In another sense A Man And A Woman is quite a different little song in it's own right. I'm not denying that, nor am I saying I don't like it. I do like it. Quite a bit. But there are points in many of their songs that are progression, they are new in almost every way, but they aren't in themselves in the line of U2's greater 'capital P' Progressive path. They are just simply a fresh sound and progressive in that sense, while taking on board the sound and feel of what else is going on their on those albums.

Does that make sense?

As for what else I listen to.... all over the place. Really all over the place. Hard to say what is to my liking, I can't narrow it down at all really. My favourites are the things that are interesting, challenging etc. Last weekend I went on a bit of a shopping spree at the new local discount cd store, and bought;

Eels - Blinking Lights...
Ryan Adams - Cold Roses
Interpol - Turn on...
Cinematic Orchestra - Every Day
Turin Brakes - The Optimist
RJD2 - Since We Last Spoke

And that's not really an overall reflection of my tastes at all.
 
I view progression more on a song-writing sense. Has the band moved into an area they've not played with before? And really, that's it. I think progression as the goal is far to easy to lay up as the holy grail and say "hey, we were trying something different, that means it's great." No. All that means is it's different than what you did before. See Radiohead as the perfect example of a band who forgot what a good song was, and instead threw all their chips on progress, and put out 2 worthless records (Kid A and Amnesiac) in the name of progress. Yes, it's progress, it's also crap songs. The artist's head firmly up their own ass. And U2 bordered on it with Passengers.

I was hoping maybe you were a Neil Young or David Bowie fan. Both artists have moved in wildy varying directions of songwriting and style during their careers, yet neither has a problem returning to their core sound.

And my reference to U2's age was not a limiter on their ability, merely an attempt to make you recognise ALL that they have done. Honestly, name a song style or genre, and they've played it.
 
MrBrau1 said:
See Radiohead as the perfect example of a band who forgot what a good song was, and instead threw all their chips on progress, and put out 2 worthless records (Kid A and Amnesiac) in the name of progress. Yes, it's progress, it's also crap songs. The artist's head firmly up their own ass. And U2 bordered on it with Passengers.

Great songs on Kid A:
Everything in Its Right Place
The National Anthem
How to Disappear Completely
Treefingers
Optimistic
Idioteque
Morning Bell
Motion Picture Soundtrack

Good songs on Kid A:
In Limbo

Okay songs on Kid A:
Kid A


Great songs on HTDAAB:
[]

Good songs on HTDAAB:
Sometimes You Can't Make it On Your Own
One Step Closer

Okay songs on HTDAAB:
Love and Peace or Else
Miracle Drug
City of Blinding Lights

Non-music on HTDAAB:
the rest, whatever the fuck their names are
 
bread n' whine said:

Great songs on Kid A:
Everything in Its Right Place
The National Anthem
How to Disappear Completely
Treefingers
Optimistic
Idioteque
Morning Bell
Motion Picture Soundtrack

Good songs on Kid A:
In Limbo

Okay songs on Kid A:
Kid A

I've tried again to get into this record. Spun that record 2 times this week. They're all unlistenable gobbledygook. Yet it gets praise because it "experimental." Compared to the previous record, where sonic boundaries were pushed with really good songwriting to hang it on, it looks even worse.
 
bread n' whine said:


Great songs on Kid A:
Everything in Its Right Place
The National Anthem
How to Disappear Completely
Treefingers
Optimistic
Idioteque
Morning Bell
Motion Picture Soundtrack

Good songs on Kid A:
In Limbo

Okay songs on Kid A:
Kid A

I'm gonna have to agree.. anyone who says Radiohead didn't have good songs on Kid A or Amnesiac need to get their ears rinsed/Head Checked/Stereo Fixed.

I never heard of OK computer (AMAZING album) before I started listening to Kid A.

I would have to put in Limbo with the greats though, I love that tune.
 
MrBrau1 said:
See Radiohead as the perfect example of a band who forgot what a good song was, and instead threw all their chips on progress, and put out 2 worthless records (Kid A and Amnesiac) in the name of progress. Yes, it's progress, it's also crap songs. The artist's head firmly up their own ass. And U2 bordered on it with Passengers.

:ohmy: On Passengers it doesn't sound like U2 are skirting the borders of sef-indulgence....they've jumped right in and are up to their knees in it.
Out of curiousity Mr Brau1, do you really think that Passengers is a more accessible record than Kid A (which at least has a scattering of half decent tunes)?
 
corner said:
Out of curiousity Mr Brau1, do you really think that Passengers is a more accessible record than Kid A (which at least has a scattering of half decent tunes)?

Portions of it are. Miss Sarajevo is a great song. Though it's the most "U2" sounding song on the record(shame on them.) I just hate the type of music that Kid A and Passengers are. I have 0% interest in it, and think it's shit. After listening to Kid A 2x this week, it was heaven to listen to a 55 yr old Muddy Water record.
 
MrBrau1 said:


Portions of it are. Miss Sarajevo is a great song. Though it's the most "U2" sounding song on the record(shame on them.) I just hate the type of music that Kid A and Passengers are. I have 0% interest in it, and think it's shit. After listening to Kid A 2x this week, it was heaven to listen to a 55 yr old Muddy Water record.

Kid A needs more listens than that.. a good many more to appreciate it.

For some reason, though, Optimistic was what grabbed me by the balls.. after that it took time to LOVE the rest.

Perhaps you could try Amnesiac and work your way backward. more accessible songs like Knives Out, I Might be Wrong, You and Whose Army? might be a more comfortable bridge.
 
Passengers isn't a U2 record, but it has two good U2 songs on it, Your Blue Room and Miss Sarajevo. Neither of them are GREAT U2 songs, but they're pretty good. The rest of passengers on the other hand make me ashamed of being a Brian Eno fan. How anyone can like that album is a mystery to me. It's trash. Pure and simple.
 
Mr. MIKEphisto said:


Kid A needs more listens than that.. a good many more to appreciate it.

For some reason, though, Optimistic was what grabbed me by the balls.. after that it took time to LOVE the rest.

Perhaps you could try Amnesiac and work your way backward. more accessible songs like Knives Out, I Might be Wrong, You and Whose Army? might be a more comfortable bridge.

Oh, I've been trying to "get" that record for 5 years. Listened to it in 2000 when it came out. Had a roomie spent 2002-2003 trying to convince me it was brilliant. And last week I copied it from my brother to see if my view changed. I've given that record more than it's fair shake.
 
MrBrau1 said:


Oh, I've been trying to "get" that record for 5 years. Listened to it in 2000 when it came out. Had a roomie spent 2002-2003 trying to convince me it was brilliant. And last week I copied it from my brother to see if my view changed. I've given that record more than it's fair shake.

I see. It's funny how some people find it "Hard" to listen to, but others (like myself) get taken away to somewhere else whenever it's cranking out of of the ol' ipod! Some of the best bus trips ever :)

BTW.. Your Blue Room ROCKs!
 
News flash: rating music is very subjective.

I did not like Kid A when it came out, but it was in my discman for a few weeks to the point where I started enjoying it. I can easily see how someone might not like it.
 
IMO of course, I only find one song in HTDAAB that I hate: All Because of You. Looks like a crappy music made in 10 minutes even if some of the lyrics are cool.

All because of you.
AaAAAaAAaAaAAaAAAaAAaall because of you. Lame.

My favs are One Step Closer and Yahweh. I also like Crumbs, Sometimes and City of Blinding Lights.

Love and Peace isn't one of my favs but it's the most "cool" and progressive song IMO. Live is a high point.

The others, I like them but they aren't very important for me. Vertigo is a hit single. It's made to be a hit single like Elevation. Period.

Miracle Drug has a cool melody and some good lines but it's too predictable even if has some beauty.

A man and a woman is simply indefferent to me.

I'd like to have seen Mercy on HTDAAB instead of All Because of You.
 
Radiohead forgot to write good songs since Ok Computer, I agree with Mr. Brau.

I can understand , appreciate complex music, I love Richard Wagner operas, I love Yes Relayer, Bjork Medulla, music sometimes labeled "hard listening", by many people.

To me Kid -A , Amnesiac, are only pretentious music, very boring music, and not great or good songs at all.

For me , HTDAAB is a solid , great U2 rock album.

Kid-A,Amnesiac ,are a bunch of sound textures and treatments, going nowhere, not real songs, not rock.

Any Floyd or Yes album piss over these messy albums any sunny day.
 
come on, I do think Yes gets unfairly attacked for being prog wank (parts of "Gates of Delirium" = gorgeous), but are you seriously suggesting Tales from Topographic Oceans has better SONGS than Kid A? That record doesn't have "songs" at all. And neither does Passengers, mostly.

Look, I'm a RH fan, but I have no problem with people who arent, or who call them pretentious, or who are bored by them. What I don't get is your implication that suddenly Radiohead stopped writing songs at all, or started making a new "type of music" as an act of rebellion. That is simply a lie. You can believe their music started to suck without resorting to that-- don't do it, it just makes you look like a musical philistine who listened to Kid A once and then went back to the Kid Rock.

Don't assume that whatever was going through U2's mind when they made Passengers was the same thing influencing Kid A. I think Passengers was supposed to be a bit of a joke-- not that it's not good music, but the fake film soundtracks, the fake band, it was U2 cooling off after a long tour/album cycle and having fun without expecting everyone to have to take it seriously. Where is the market for a record like that? It's not self-serious avant garde music fans as they would dismiss it as a U2 side project, and it's not rock fans. It's U2 hardcores. They intentionally limited their audience not by the style of music they made but by presenting it the way they did-- so of course one would expect U2 fans to think that whenever a rock band does something that doesn't fit in the confines of pop radio, it's equally just a one-off, fun side project. But Radiohead did not go for the fake band name or call in an outsider to cowrite, which should tell you they considered Kid A every bit as much a Radiohead album as the previous ones.

Lyrically, I actually find Kid A closer to The Bends than to OK Computer. It's dealing with politics a lot, but in a more personal way. OKC is a very cold album, easy to be in awe of, but hard to actually like. The characters are all constructs battling against the system. Kid A returns to more personal territory. I guess if you like your music dumb and dont listen to lyrics, you couldnt give a rats ass. But still musically, there are songs with a beating heart on Kid A. So, maybe you find even the beautiful melody of Everything in its Right Place unlistenable because of the keyboard sound or the vocals, but "Morning Bell" builds up. Maybe you don't like ambient instrumentals no matter how pretty, but what about "Optimistic"? How is it more pretentious than say "Airbag"? Maybe you don't like the title track, well to be honest I don't really either, I think it's a copout as track 2 and both the only place they are intentionally trying to put off listeners (unnecessary vocoder effect) and just the weakest song. I mean the lyrics are okay, though very dogmatic and impersonal in getting across their political point, but the music is simply a rehash of Aphex Twin's "Flim." The rest of the album is not at all, "Radiohead goes electronic," it's a mix of many diverse influences few of which happen to be big in the pop charts, but that . So take your "Kid A" and ignore it, but there's no way you can make me believe "How to Disappear Completely" isn't just as much of a transcendent ballad as "Fake Plastic Trees." The lyrics arent as good. But if you were actually listening to the lyrics, "Idioteque" would have sold you on Kid A being a brilliant album.

Floyd's Wish You Were Here is one of the wankiest messiest "albums" I've ever heard. The lack of ideas after Dark Side is so obvious. Way more than on Amnesiac vis a vis Kid A. Floyd were virtuosos at stringing it all together, but it's still uninspired crap except for one song.

Is anyone with me in suggesting that Joshua Tree and Unforgettable Fire could be subject to most of the same "pretentious" criticisms people level at Kid A and Passengers? JT/UF are atmospheric albums. That's what they're based on. The hooks are decent at best, even in the most classic songs. And the lyrics arent anything special in either case, with a couple of exceptions. You simply prefer the more instant, smooth atmosphere of The Joshua Tree. That's okay. But it's not a record of "songs" or "rock n roll" either. U2 just gets away with letting people think it is because they've since recorded songs and rock n' roll, and they're so fucking big people will write whatever they want to hear.

Those two U2 albums are great, amazing. But musically they are great for the same reasons as Kid A is great, not different ones. You can like them and think Kid A is shit, but you cant think Kid A is shit for the reasons that first guy suggested, because that just makes no sense-- they are the reasons The Joshua Tree is great.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I forgot to notice, you think HTDAAB is great.

So you really have no taste and it was not worth arguing. g'bye
 
Personal Attacks are not only not tolerated on Interference, but they only lose you any respect anyone here might have had for you. It's rude, tasteless, and against policy here.
 
bread n' whine said:
Oh, I forgot to notice, you think HTDAAB is great.

So you really have no taste and it was not worth arguing. g'bye

When you said the above I was thinking 'What a complete idiot.' :mad:

However, thankfully, I spent some time reading your previous post. :) When you stated that the Joshua Tree was not a record of songs, it appears that not only are you an idiot, but totally full of pish (as we say in Scotland.)

g'bye
 
bread n' whine said:
Oh, I forgot to notice, you think HTDAAB is great.

So you really have no taste and it was not worth arguing. g'bye

:rolleyes:
 
bread n' whine said:
Oh, I forgot to notice, you think HTDAAB is great.

So you really have no taste and it was not worth arguing. g'bye

Not the most mature thing to do:tsk:
 
bread n' whine said:
Oh, I forgot to notice, you think HTDAAB is great.

So you really have no taste and it was not worth arguing. g'bye

The IQ level in this thread just went down significantly.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom