Someday U2 will have a new album. Today is not that day. discuss.

[LemonMirrorSky]

Why do you value these grammy's so fucking much that they dictate what you should like or dislike?

Sorry but I don't give a fig about awards shows and their prizes. I pick my music by listening to whether I like it or not. Not by checking if the mainstream mass likes it.

Well said.

 

[The Slow Loris]

I think you said exactly that, and you just did again just in reversed manner.

You're saying that because it won a grammy, it must be good? Because it was nominated, even?

Why do you value these grammy's so fucking much that they dictate what you should like or dislike?


Sorry but I don't give a fig about awards shows and their prizes. I pick my music by listening to whether I like it or not. Not by checking if the mainstream mass likes it.

First, why all the sarcasm and the hate? Second, why must you insist on throwing out blanket statements like, "If it won a Grammy, it must be good?" You are putting words in my mouth. Once again, there's a lot of middle ground between "It must be good" and "terrible". My original point was an album cannot be TERRIBLE if it sweeps the Grammys. There is obviously some merit to an album if it does that. And like it or not, U2 had every right to be proud of themselves that night when Atomic Bomb kicked everyone's collective butt. Does that mean you have to like the album? Of course not! I don't think anyone ever said that.

And for the record, I don't usually watch award shows. But when I do, U2 is performing and are up for 8 Grammys. Please don't assume without any evidence whatsoever.

 

[U2girl]

I can certain themes in the sound that are similar- buzzy guitar tone, super catchy hook, simple structure and a really repetitive chorus; they're basically ultra-pop songs with some guitar grit. The shameless simplicity makes them really accessible on a first listen. I think that Vertigo may be the best of the bunch in terms of being absolutely irresistible- it demands to be liked and it will be liked.

While the songs are not "the same" exactly, they were all intended to be really, really catchy radio hits. Maybe Boots missed the mark partly because of the more complicated lyrics. (Lord knows it's hard to argue that Elevation's lyrics are actually "better". Boots is just harder to listen to.) Maybe it missed because Bono's voice is heading downward rather than up on the chorus and it doesn't propel you with it.

It's pretty obvious Boots is of the same cloth : bass line imitating the riff, vocal delivery, power chords in the chorus...except Vertigo got there first and did it better. Baffling to see a band with otherwise stellar lead single track record tank so much...

 

[U2girl]

Didn't Larry mention about releasing before the end of the year, & then release again (ie 2 projects). Rather than 'butchering' the DM sessions, could this latest 'in the studio' be amounted to that.

There's also Iovine's Beats internet music service thing that's trying to get off the ground. Could U2 be linked into this in an attempt to curb piracy of their new album? Which also leads onto keeping things under wraps to again, reduce possible piracy.

I think we need a Dangermouse Afro icon!

Double album ?

 

[Galeongirl]

First, why all the sarcasm and the hate? Second, why must you insist on throwing out blanket statements like, "If it won a Grammy, it must be good?" You are putting words in my mouth. Once again, there's a lot of middle ground between "It must be good" and "terrible". My original point was an album cannot be TERRIBLE if it sweeps the Grammys. There is obviously some merit to an album if it does that. And like it or not, U2 had every right to be proud of themselves that night when Atomic Bomb kicked everyone's collective butt. Does that mean you have to like the album? Of course not! I don't think anyone ever said that.

And for the record, I don't usually watch award shows. But when I do, U2 is performing and are up for 8 Grammys. Please don't assume without any evidence whatsoever.

What sarcasm?


Sorry but if someone truly has no connection and dislikes every song in it, an album can be terrible. Whether or not it has won a grammy is not even in question. It's completely irrelevant. It does not put ANY merit to an album if it wins a Grammy.

 

[YBORCITY]

AAAhhhhhhh. Gotta love Interland. Just because someone likes POP more than ATYLB doesn't make them "bad", "ill-advised", "right", "wrong" it's just their opinion nothing more nothing less. One person Grammy's might make them think it's a great album whilst someone else might look at that as a negative.

Since there is NOTHING that anyone can do or say to make me like GOYB because in my mind it just sucks, it smacks of desperation and it reminds me of a Band trying to be something they are not.... and the arguement that it is so much better live to me is a joke, it's an emberassment of a song..... but guess what? thats just my opinion and it's prolly not in line with everyone else's opinion of that song... it doesn't make me right or wrong... it's just my .02 cents..... in the grand scheme of things it REALLY doesn't matter one iota.

 

[last unicorn]

Sorry but if someone truly has no connection and dislikes every song in it, an album can be terrible.

Yes, because someone subjectively dislikes an album, it makes the album objectively terrible.

 

[Galeongirl]

I never said it made it objectively terrible.

It makes it terrible to them.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I don't usually watch award shows. But when I do, U2 is performing and are up for 8 Grammys.

This needs a most interesting man in the world meme...

 

[kingofsorrow]

At least there are Muse, Soundgarden and Depeche Mode in between

never really liked soundgarden and was kinda disapointed with the new DM. Muse really didn't really grab me this time around either.
i think it's time for another anthem as only U2 can do it.
i had to give up on the cure. i guess i can spend the next few months re-exploring the older u2 albums. i need to show R&H show much needed attention

 

[kingofsorrow]

they give out grammy's? i thought those went away in the 90's.

 

[mikal]

never really liked soundgarden and was kinda disapointed with the new DM. Muse really didn't really grab me this time around either.
i think it's time for another anthem as only U2 can do it.
i had to give up on the cure. i guess i can spend the next few months re-exploring the older u2 albums. i need to show R&H show much needed attention

Yeah, I'm more interested in Arcade Fire and Pearl Jam in Q4. Overall though, 2013 has been such an amazing year for music.

 

[lemonfly]

Aren't the Grammys and the BRITS more about schmoozing and nob polishing these days? I haven't watched the ceremonies for years, probably never will again. Bomb won a truckload? Good for Bomb, good for U2. Should music fans care? Not at all.

 

[jeevey]

You know what I mean. People deferring to the band's opinion on their own music as if there is any authority to it. Sure, if they're explaining how they wrote something, then there is absolute authority. But in terms of quality (of a song or album or tour, etc.), it's irrelevant what they think. Just like it's irrelevant what U2 thinks about the Grammys. But I've seen for years fans use U2's own words to criticize POP as if that carries any special significance beyond U2's own personal desires. It doesn't change the music on the record if Bono wants to call it a "failure" or something of the sort. And yet invariably fans around here will use those comments as a fallacious appeal to authority.

I'm traditional enough to be interested in what U2 thinks about their own work. It doesn't define the work for me but it does influence how I look at it. For instance Pop did not do what they wanted it to, and Bomb did. Neither album is perfect but I do like to look at the work through the lens of their intentions. It's helpful to me to say, "Well, I can see what they were trying to do with this" even though it may not influence if I like it. Hell, a lot of things are good that I don't like, but I don't have to say they are bad.

I think this is especially important when thinking about what U2 may do next. When we fail to consider what U2 wants out of their own work we put a lot of unreasonable expectations on them; that they make an experimental album, or that they make the music THEY want without an reference to pleasing fans or critics or being a market success. Those are things U2 does not care to do and have no intention of doing. It's silly to criticize them for being what they are: performance artists. They are not pure musicians. The main goal is not the sound of the music but how the audience responds. They want to connect with every audience. That's why they started playing shows before they could even play songs and that's why they have never, ever said "fuck you all, you just don't get us." Whenever they fail to connect they take it as a correction-- they really, really want to make the audience respond to them. That's their measure of success. And I find that a useful tool to use when looking at their music, along of course with "Do I like this?"

 

[The Slow Loris]

I'm traditional enough to be interested in what U2 thinks about their own work. It doesn't define the work for me but it does influence how I look at it. For instance Pop did not do what they wanted it to, and Bomb did. Neither album is perfect but I do like to look at the work through the lens of their intentions. It's helpful to me to say, "Well, I can see what they were trying to do with this" even though it may not influence if I like it. Hell, a lot of things are good that I don't like, but I don't have to say they are bad.

I think this is especially important when thinking about what U2 may do next. When we fail to consider what U2 wants out of their own work we put a lot of unreasonable expectations on them; that they make an experimental album, or that they make the music THEY want without an reference to pleasing fans or critics or being a market success. Those are things U2 does not care to do and have no intention of doing. It's silly to criticize them for being what they are: performance artists. They are not pure musicians. The main goal is not the sound of the music but how the audience responds. They want to connect with every audience. That's why they started playing shows before they could even play songs and that's why they have never, ever said "fuck you all, you just don't get us." Whenever they fail to connect they take it as a correction-- they really, really want to make the audience respond to them. That's their measure of success. And I find that a useful tool to use when looking at their music, along of course with "Do I like this?"

Great post. I totally agree with you about U2 as performing artists, not just musicians. That definitely is a huge influence in how they come up with albums.

 

[brooklynmike]

I'm traditional enough to be interested in what U2 thinks about their own work. It doesn't define the work for me but it does influence how I look at it. For instance Pop did not do what they wanted it to, and Bomb did. Neither album is perfect but I do like to look at the work through the lens of their intentions. It's helpful to me to say, "Well, I can see what they were trying to do with this" even though it may not influence if I like it. Hell, a lot of things are good that I don't like, but I don't have to say they are bad.

I think this is especially important when thinking about what U2 may do next. When we fail to consider what U2 wants out of their own work we put a lot of unreasonable expectations on them; that they make an experimental album, or that they make the music THEY want without an reference to pleasing fans or critics or being a market success. Those are things U2 does not care to do and have no intention of doing. It's silly to criticize them for being what they are: performance artists. They are not pure musicians. The main goal is not the sound of the music but how the audience responds. They want to connect with every audience. That's why they started playing shows before they could even play songs and that's why they have never, ever said "fuck you all, you just don't get us." Whenever they fail to connect they take it as a correction-- they really, really want to make the audience respond to them. That's their measure of success. And I find that a useful tool to use when looking at their music, along of course with "Do I like this?"

Great post.

 

[the scuv]

Can anyone help confirm a 'rumour' (damn things) I've just heard.

Apparently Sam O'Sullivan has mentioned that Larry & Bono aren't seeing eye to eye over the new material in a fairly big-ish way.

In anyone can help deny/confirm would be great

 

[stigman]

Can anyone help confirm a 'rumour' (damn things) I've just heard.

Apparently Sam O'Sullivan has mentioned that Larry & Bono aren't seeing eye to eye over the new material in a fairly big-ish way.

In anyone can help deny/confirm would be great

Sure larry didn't like achtung baby either

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

I'm traditional enough to be interested in what U2 thinks about their own work. It doesn't define the work for me but it does influence how I look at it. For instance Pop did not do what they wanted it to, and Bomb did. Neither album is perfect but I do like to look at the work through the lens of their intentions. It's helpful to me to say, "Well, I can see what they were trying to do with this" even though it may not influence if I like it. Hell, a lot of things are good that I don't like, but I don't have to say they are bad.

I think this is especially important when thinking about what U2 may do next. When we fail to consider what U2 wants out of their own work we put a lot of unreasonable expectations on them; that they make an experimental album, or that they make the music THEY want without an reference to pleasing fans or critics or being a market success. Those are things U2 does not care to do and have no intention of doing. It's silly to criticize them for being what they are: performance artists. They are not pure musicians. The main goal is not the sound of the music but how the audience responds. They want to connect with every audience. That's why they started playing shows before they could even play songs and that's why they have never, ever said "fuck you all, you just don't get us." Whenever they fail to connect they take it as a correction-- they really, really want to make the audience respond to them. That's their measure of success. And I find that a useful tool to use when looking at their music, along of course with "Do I like this?"

U2 is the enemy of art.

 

[last unicorn]

I never said it made it objectively terrible.

It makes it terrible to them.

That's true. But it still doesn't mean the Academy can't give Grammys to U2 if its members believe they have deserved them, even if many others outside the Academy don't agree.

 

[last unicorn]

Can anyone help confirm a 'rumour' (damn things) I've just heard.

Apparently Sam O'Sullivan has mentioned that Larry & Bono aren't seeing eye to eye over the new material in a fairly big-ish way.

In anyone can help deny/confirm would be great

Now that's really surprising and shocking news.




Not.

 

[the scuv]

Well, the way I'm interpreting this is that Larry (& I'm guessing the others) are 'up' for the new new material & Bono is not. Which 'could' in-turn be a reason for the delay/new studio sessions.

 

[jeevey]

That would be rather a shock if Larry was up for the material and Bono was not. Historically it's been the other way round. Scuv, where did your rumor come from? Can you post a link?

I seem to recall one of them saying "If U2 ever splits up, it will not be over artistic differences. It will be over who left the cap off the toothpaste." So I'll wring my hand a bit over the delay but I'll also trust them to work it out in time.

 

[jeevey]

U2 is the enemy of art.

No, they're just not working in the medium you think they are. We are the art. The music is the tool, the product is us.

 

[Diemen]

No, they're just not working in the medium you think they are. We are the art. The music is the tool, the product is us.

The product is us? I agree with your previous post about them not just being musicians, but this doesn't make any sense.

 

[LadySpinHead]

Conflict within the band has often led to really good things, as long as they eventually work it out, which they always have.
Given all of the different musical tastes and personalities within the band, it actually surprises me when they DO agree on material.

 

[mama cass]

hoping to see a few black eyes then!

my bets are on the drummer

 

[beachball]

No, they're just not working in the medium you think they are. We are the art. The music is the tool, the product is us.

I agree with your posts. And to them art is not just expressing, but communication of hearts. If we don't receive it, they haven't connected and will try harder next time.

And it was Larry who made the toothpaste comment.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That's it... band is breaking up. See you in 2020 for the reunion tour.

 

[Galeongirl]

That's true. But it still doesn't mean the Academy can't give Grammys to U2 if its members believe they have deserved them, even if many others outside the Academy don't agree.

Eh what? What does that have to do with anything I said? the Grammy's can do whatever the hell they want, I just don't put any value to it like some people here apparently do.