U2's second chance

[mikal]

Whoever was in charge of U2’s image for NLOTH and the promotion should be fired. Remember Bono with the eyeliner and talk of taking on characters for the tour. It seemed U2 wanted to do something different but backed out resorting to the general U2 image/promotion of this decade. Pictures of the band members (see ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and NLOTH), and seen everywhere on TV (Letterman (which was cool), Good Morning America, BBC). Even the last few videos for U2 have been similar. U2 are doing the same poses for GOYB & Vertigo. Crazy Tonight was a welcome to the U2 video formula. Then the release of the 2nd single went totally unnoticed.

The general audience just might be tired of "seeing" U2 the same way every 3-4 years.

Its like U2 had the music for change but didn’t want to take the risk of being too different from the last few albums. I know this is kind of minor but these are thing the general public look at.

i have a friend who generally despises U2, but was really interested in the Bono guyliner image. he really wanted to see if Bono had the guts to go all in on it. most of me is glad Bono didn't, but at the same time, i think it would have been fun if he did go all in with the character.

 

[bram]

Whoever was in charge of U2’s image for NLOTH and the promotion should be fired. Remember Bono with the eyeliner and talk of taking on characters for the tour. It seemed U2 wanted to do something different but backed out resorting to the general U2 image/promotion of this decade. Pictures of the band members (see ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and NLOTH), and seen everywhere on TV (Letterman (which was cool), Good Morning America, BBC). Even the last few videos for U2 have been similar. U2 are doing the same poses for GOYB & Vertigo. Crazy Tonight was a welcome to the U2 video formula. Then the release of the 2nd single went totally unnoticed.

The general audience just might be tired of "seeing" U2 the same way every 3-4 years.

Its like U2 had the music for change but didn’t want to take the risk of being too different from the last few albums. I know this is kind of minor but these are thing the general public look at.

Good point. There was nothing outside of the music itself that said 'We're back and this is something new--we are moving forward.' It's like their promotion picked up right where it left off--literally. As in, here's Get On Your Boots: our fifteenth single (too lazy to count right now) since Beautiful Day...and we're promoting it as such.

U2 wouldn't be U2 if they had released AB and continued touring, acting, and promoting like they did in the JT/Lovetown era. In the past they've done a good job of letting the music move them into a new place in terms of the image they're showing the world. That sense of shifting image has mattered and likely will continue to do so.

I know the eyeliner was controversial, but at least there was some idea of moving beyond the 2000s image initially.

And thanks, Mikal. That's exactly the type of post I was talking about earlier--the kind that adds nothing to the discussion and simply tries to put an end to it by attacking straw men. This forum is littered with that same post endlessly and artlessly rephrased. If you're not into the conversation, move on. If you don't have an opinion about what you'd like to see U2 do, move on. I happen to think this thread's the most interesting and thoughtful that I've happened upon in some time.

 

[zoopop]

Its frustrating on what U2 could have done with NLOTH. A few simples ideas:

-Release a new track to download on U2.com (MOS or NLOTH, something fresh) on New Years Day.

-Just put out the album. Things were very tight lipped all the till January and by releasing the album with no hype or promotion it would have maybe created a new way for bands to release albums. I'm sure the band knew it would have leaked anyway. Leak it yourself.

-I remember Adam saying they considered playing the entire album on youtube. Now that would have been epic and very fresh. Example, U2 could have promoted U2 Live On Youtube March 1st. Band comes on plays the entire NLOTH album, from beginning to end. After the concert NLOTH is released worldwide via U2.com, itunes, etc.

 

[phommel]

I completely agree. My criticisms of NLOTH are very minor, even compared with those of my very favorite U2 albums. The main problem I have with NLOTH is something that isn't even related to the music--it's the way in which the album has perceived by the world and, most importantly, by the band. This is what concerns me. What they think the problems with the album are and what I think they are quite different. They wanted the hit...and I wanted them to leave off some of the more striving-for-hit sounds.

You say it right. but I don't have a problem in the way the album has perceived by the world. But indeed, as you say, by the band. That concerns me too. The same happened (ok, in a lesser extent and for different reasons) with POP. To me, NLOTH comes very close to JT/AB. UC and SUC prevent the album being equal to those (that's only my opinion).
The band always has been very sensitive, too sensitive, on how the general public received their albums. They want too much to stay the biggest band and that everyone likes them. In a creative way, they are back on track with NLOTH in imo...let's hope they keep on going in that direction

In the end, I think I'd like U2 to be willing to take a big risk. Rather than keeping the progressions minimal and heading into a trend of diminishing returns in almost every respect, I'd to see them remain as artistically adventurous as possible. Even if it doesn't work out in terms of popularity, I actually think it's their only chance to improve their legacy over and above what they've already achieved. And if they fall into a Rolling Stones pattern, I for one will feel like they're doing damage to their brand.

Agreed, but that's exactly what they did with NLOTH. I have the feeling it maybe reduced their popularity, but it did improve their legacy


But for me U2 does not have to take that big risk. I liked what they did with NLOTH. It's so much better than the more straightforward HTDAAB. , Less straightforward

 

[Niceman]

"u2 should do this"
"u2 should do that"

It all boils down to what the real message is. "U2 should do what I want them to do." Everyone thinks they know what's best for them. The only thing U2 should do is... crazy idea... what THEY want to do. They don't owe me anything. And when that stops being interesting to me, I'll move on. Reading some of the posts around this site day in and day out, it seems like there are people who have reached that point, but for whatever reason, can't come to grips with it. Probably because U2 have been a part of their life for so long, they don't want to admit that the music that was once a perfect fit for them, is no longer a perfect fit.

You know, usually I hate posts like this, but at the moment I agree with you. The worst thing that U2 could do right now is listen to Interference. They should just go and have fun. Maybe we'll end up with some cool tunes at the end of it. This over-analyzing and the bitter and nasty remarks that have been flying back and forth on this news-starved board have gotten out of hand. U2 should release an album of songs they like. PERIOD.

But they should do it this year........

 

[mikal]

You know, usually I hate posts like this, but at the moment I agree with you. The worst thing that U2 could do right now is listen to Interference. They should just go and have fun. Maybe we'll end up with some cool tunes at the end of it. This over-analyzing and the bitter and nasty remarks that have been flying back and forth on this news-starved board have gotten out of hand. U2 should release an album of songs they like. PERIOD.

But they should do it this year........

with all do respect though, this thread has been an intelligent and enlightening discussion. the only bitter and nasty remarks are from people that can't handle reading a little constructive criticism.

no one is asking U2 to listen to us. we're just having an intelligent discussion about the current state of the band. i'm starting to wonder if bram, ozeeko, and myself should just have our own private chat.

 

[namkcuR]

with all do respect though, this thread has been an intelligent and enlightening discussion. the only bitter and nasty remarks are from people that can't handle reading a little constructive criticism.

no one is asking U2 to listen to us. we're just having an intelligent discussion about the current state of the band. i'm starting to wonder if bram, ozeeko, and myself should just have our own private chat.

No one is saying U2 should listen to us or that the music they choose to make should reflect anyone's desires but their own. The great fear is that what they want, above writing and recording great songs and a great album, is that big single, and that they will compromise on other things in order to achieve that goal. That's the fear, but I don't necessarily think it's all that warranted right now. If they were that single-hungry, Fez-Being Born, White As Snow, and Cedars Of Lebanon(as well as Moment Of Surrender, but that's not as far away from single-land as the previously mentioned songs) never would have sniffed an album. If they were that single-hungry, we would've gotten another Bomb, rather than a much more atmospheric, diverse, and interesting record with a few Bomb-esque tracks thrown in.

The fear has been re-ignited, however, by the commerical disappointment(by U2 standards, and by few other standards) of NLOTH and the fact that we haven't heard anything yet about SOA. And the reality is we're all just nervous because of what happened after Pop. Are they that insecure that 'only' going platinum 2x or 3x or whatever it is is going to push them away from releasing that 'pilgrimage' album of slower, atmospheric songs? I hope not.

P.S. I probably would've been more active in this discussion the past couple days, but I had jury duty yesterday and today.

 

[Niceman]

with all do respect though, this thread has been an intelligent and enlightening discussion. the only bitter and nasty remarks are from people that can't handle reading a little constructive criticism.

no one is asking U2 to listen to us. we're just having an intelligent discussion about the current state of the band. i'm starting to wonder if bram, ozeeko, and myself should just have our own private chat.

My comments were probably about the board in general more than this thread specifically. Lately I'm afraid to post anything because everyone is so ill tempered and attack over the tiniest little things.....

 

[BVS]

Even the last few videos for U2 have been similar. U2 are doing the same poses for GOYB & Vertigo. Crazy Tonight was a welcome to the U2 video formula. Then the release of the 2nd single went totally unnoticed.

I have to really disagree with this...

GOYB was probably one of the best video they've done since AB, Magnificent was eh(it had potential, and you must be talking about the live CT video because the other was anything but formula... of course most live videos are formulaic.

 

[phommel]

No one is saying U2 should listen to us or that the music they choose to make should reflect anyone's desires but their own. The great fear is that what they want, above writing and recording great songs and a great album, is that big single, and that they will compromise on other things in order to achieve that goal.

That's exactly the fear I have

That's the fear, but I don't necessarily think it's all that warranted right now. If they were that single-hungry, Fez-Being Born, White As Snow, and Cedars Of Lebanon(as well as Moment Of Surrender, but that's not as far away from single-land as the previously mentioned songs) never would have sniffed an album.

And that is exactly why NLOTH became a great album I think. They were making music for the sake of it. They did not have the word "hit single" in their mind when making that album. And when the album came it was very clear there would not be a lot of radio friendly songs on it.

If they were that single-hungry, we would've gotten another Bomb, rather than a much more atmospheric, diverse, and interesting record with a few Bomb-esque tracks thrown in.

Well opposed to NLOTH, HTDAAB is a collection of songs. NLOTH is really an almost coherent album. The concept of HTDAAB gives more room for radio friendly hit singles.

The fear has been re-ignited, however, by the commerical disappointment(by U2 standards, and by few other standards) of NLOTH and the fact that we haven't heard anything yet about SOA. And the reality is we're all just nervous because of what happened after Pop. Are they that insecure that 'only' going platinum 2x or 3x or whatever it is is going to push them away from releasing that 'pilgrimage' album of slower, atmospheric songs? I hope not.

I agree and hope with you. Time will tell. Really curious what they will do. They 'must' do smth with the start of the 2010 tour...

 

[doctorwho]

with all do respect though, this thread has been an intelligent and enlightening discussion. the only bitter and nasty remarks are from people that can't handle reading a little constructive criticism.

no one is asking U2 to listen to us. we're just having an intelligent discussion about the current state of the band. i'm starting to wonder if bram, ozeeko, and myself should just have our own private chat.

I agree - on all counts. The more we get Mikal to go private, the better.

But I also feel the posts are constructive. And my comments in this thread have often started with comments like, "if U2 *care* about the big hit single, then...". In other words, they may not care. And even if they did, it's always tough to guess what will succeed and what won't. There have been tons of movies and songs that one would have predicted to be successful but were not and vice versa. People are fickle - so the best is to do art for one's self. Nothing wrong with making a song or movie more accessible, but be proud of the work. So if I have any advice for U2, just be proud of the work you have done and be proud of any work you release in the future. If you don't have that pride, it will show.

 

[doctorwho]

I have to really disagree with this...

GOYB was probably one of the best video they've done since AB, Magnificent was eh(it had potential, and you must be talking about the live CT video because the other was anything but formula... of course most live videos are formulaic.

Also, I disagree with "Crazy" being U2 "normal video" mode. I thought the first video released was the cartoon video and that was fantastic! So both GOYB and "Crazy" had great fresh videos.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

They may have had a big single in mind. lol. it just didn't work. GOYB is so inferior to the live version its not even funny. If only they could have captured that in the studio.

 

[Popmartijn]

The fear has been re-ignited, however, by the commerical disappointment(by U2 standards, and by few other standards) of NLOTH and the fact that we haven't heard anything yet about SOA. And the reality is we're all just nervous because of what happened after Pop. Are they that insecure that 'only' going platinum 2x or 3x or whatever it is is going to push them away from releasing that 'pilgrimage' album of slower, atmospheric songs? I hope not.

I think that much of that nervousness here on this forum is based on an analogy that might not be true. I've read a couple of times that people fear U2 going for the most common denominator after the relative commercial disappointment of NLOTH. And then they bring up Pop. But I think these two albums (and specifically, U2's perceived reaction to their commercial lack of success) can't be compared.

From all what I've read, U2 is still happy with how NLOTH turned out to be artistically. They still stand by that album. Yes, they wanted it to be a bigger commercial success, but they still feel they made a great album (see also the original Associated Press article where they first talked about their disappointment with its lack of commercial success U2, world's biggest band, adapts to changing times at The Insider ).

On the other hand, U2 has never been satisfied with how Pop turned out to be. They feel they had deconstructed the typical U2 sound as far as they could and that they were on their way back to get the songs in shape and then they had to release the album before they were done. So I think U2 were never that unsettled about Pop's lack of commercial success, but by how they felt about it artistically (and how it was received by fans and critics).

So no, I don't think they're insecure and think they need to rethink their approach. Rather, they feel they can do what they want and release what they think will be the best album. Be it of meditative songs of pilgrimage or of whatever songs they've come up the last couple of months.

 

[phommel]

I think that much of that nervousness here on this forum is based on an analogy that might not be true. I've read a couple of times that people fear U2 going for the most common denominator after the relative commercial disappointment of NLOTH. And then they bring up Pop. But I think these two albums (and specifically, U2's perceived reaction to their commercial lack of success) can't be compared.

From all what I've read, U2 is still happy with how NLOTH turned out to be artistically. They still stand by that album. Yes, they wanted it to be a bigger commercial success, but they still feel they made a great album (see also the original Associated Press article where they first talked about their disappointment with its lack of commercial success U2, world's biggest band, adapts to changing times at The Insider ).

On the other hand, U2 has never been satisfied with how Pop turned out to be. They feel they had deconstructed the typical U2 sound as far as they could and that they were on their way back to get the songs in shape and then they had to release the album before they were done. So I think U2 were never that unsettled about Pop's lack of commercial success, but by how they felt about it artistically (and how it was received by fans and critics).

I agree partly with your analysis. There is indeed a difference between the perception of POP and NLOTH. But I think for both albums they were disappointed in the relative lack of commercial success. And that this was the first step that made them conclude they were also disappointed artistically (for POP). Their disappointment in POP got stronger and stronger over time. Initially they did not brake down it so much. Gradually, more and more negative comments on POP came. Look at the follow up tours. On Elevation they still played Gone, Please, Wake Up dead man, Discotheque. Vertigo got 2 times(?) Discotheque and 360 0 POP songs. My feeling is that this had to do smth with this lack of commercial/radio success. I don't understand this unsatisfaction. POP has some very very great tunes (with great lyrics), that turned out to be true live killers. I don't believe they can be that disappoined with POP.

Indeed, they are much more confident on NLOTH. And they have all reason for that. But let's hope that in two tours from now we still hear those tunes.

 

[bram]

I think that much of that nervousness here on this forum is based on an analogy that might not be true. I've read a couple of times that people fear U2 going for the most common denominator after the relative commercial disappointment of NLOTH. And then they bring up Pop. But I think these two albums (and specifically, U2's perceived reaction to their commercial lack of success) can't be compared.

From all what I've read, U2 is still happy with how NLOTH turned out to be artistically. They still stand by that album. Yes, they wanted it to be a bigger commercial success, but they still feel they made a great album (see also the original Associated Press article where they first talked about their disappointment with its lack of commercial success U2, world's biggest band, adapts to changing times at The Insider ).

On the other hand, U2 has never been satisfied with how Pop turned out to be. They feel they had deconstructed the typical U2 sound as far as they could and that they were on their way back to get the songs in shape and then they had to release the album before they were done. So I think U2 were never that unsettled about Pop's lack of commercial success, but by how they felt about it artistically (and how it was received by fans and critics).

So no, I don't think they're insecure and think they need to rethink their approach. Rather, they feel they can do what they want and release what they think will be the best album. Be it of meditative songs of pilgrimage or of whatever songs they've come up the last couple of months.

Great post and I agree that the band is mostly satisfied with NLOTH artistically. Perhaps more so than the other two albums of the decade. Still, I think it's very likely that some of the band members, given how NLOTH turned out on the commercial front in spite of CT and SUC, probably wished they had, if anything, stuck closer to the original formula for NLOTH. And along with Edge, who seems least concerned with any perceived commercial weakness based on his being the only member of the band who still doesn't regret releasing GOYB as the first single, I'm betting Larry is actually one of them. Remember his comment back before NLOTH's release in either RS or Q when he said that the album originally was this esoteric, out-there thing...and then it became 'something else'? U2 is aware (if for no other reason than Brian Eno probably reminded them every single day for the last month in the studio) that they got a little skittish and ended up reaching out a little more for radio/00s U2 sound than NLOTH was originally intended for (again, think of Lanois' 'another departure like AB' quote). I don't agree that Lanois was full of shit with this quote like many others here believe, I just think that with something as small as a 2 song substitution (say, CT and SUC for Winter and Kingdom or EBW), the album suddenly has a slight resemblance to HTDAAB that would have been almost entirely eliminated without the substitution I mention above. There'd have been almost no connection between the albums.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's probably a contingent within the U2 camp (and probably within each individual member) that thinks they'd have been better off doing what many of us here would have liked to see--stick to an even stronger departure from HTDAAB/00s U2. But then there's the other side that would like to see another BD or Vertigo. I think the band's genuinely conflicted about going with SOA or going with new 'happy' hit-possible songs. We will see who/what wins out here, but I'm looking forward to reading (in the updated U2 by U2) about this time period in another decade or so. I bet there are quite a few passionate debates going on.

 

[bram]

As an addendum, and despite the fact that there are people here who really don't care what I think, I'd actually prefer the band go all out with a Window in the Skies type of happy Beatlesque pop album than to try and make a Frankenstein's monster of that plus the less commercial-sounding songs from the NLOTH sessions. Keep them separate, keep them safe. It'd be very cool to have two very different sounding albums released back-to-back.

 

[phommel]

As an addendum, and despite the fact that there are people here who really don't care what I think, I'd actually prefer the band go all out with a Window in the Skies type of happy Beatlesque pop album than to try and make a Frankenstein's monster of that plus the less commercial-sounding songs from the NLOTH sessions. Keep them separate, keep them safe. It'd be very cool to have two very different sounding albums released back-to-back.

I fully agree on this!! keep them seperate. No compromised albums. Better an album full of WITS songs or an album with those meditative songs, than a mixture of both.

Like you said, if SUC and CT were left out and changed with Kingdom, etc, it would have been that perfect coherent album, that it almost is.

 

[U2387]

Great post and I agree that the band is mostly satisfied with NLOTH artistically. Perhaps more so than the other two albums of the decade. Still, I think it's very likely that some of the band members, given how NLOTH turned out on the commercial front in spite of CT and SUC, probably wished they had, if anything, stuck closer to the original formula for NLOTH. And along with Edge, who seems least concerned with any perceived commercial weakness based on his being the only member of the band who still doesn't regret releasing GOYB as the first single, I'm betting Larry is actually one of them. Remember his comment back before NLOTH's release in either RS or Q when he said that the album originally was this esoteric, out-there thing...and then it became 'something else'? U2 is aware (if for no other reason than Brian Eno probably reminded them every single day for the last month in the studio) that they got a little skittish and ended up reaching out a little more for radio/00s U2 sound than NLOTH was originally intended for (again, think of Lanois' 'another departure like AB' quote). I don't agree that Lanois was full of shit with this quote like many others here believe, I just think that with something as small as a 2 song substitution (say, CT and SUC for Winter and Kingdom or EBW), the album suddenly has a slight resemblance to HTDAAB that would have been almost entirely eliminated without the substitution I mention above. There'd have been almost no connection between the albums.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's probably a contingent within the U2 camp (and probably within each individual member) that thinks they'd have been better off doing what many of us here would have liked to see--stick to an even stronger departure from HTDAAB/00s U2. But then there's the other side that would like to see another BD or Vertigo. I think the band's genuinely conflicted about going with SOA or going with new 'happy' hit-possible songs. We will see who/what wins out here, but I'm looking forward to reading (in the updated U2 by U2) about this time period in another decade or so. I bet there are quite a few passionate debates going on.

I agree with most of what you say here.

I truly think that there is some passionate debate within the U2 camp, and some contemplation of what might have been had they stuck with what we heard from Lanois and the descriptions we were given at the beginning.\

While CT and SUC were certainly a move toward what U2 thought would be safer for radio, I don't see how these songs in any way resemble anything from HTDAAB. Nor do I see how the inclusion of these songs made the album more bomb like. While Larry is 100% right, it did become "something else" and is not as "out there" as we originally thought, you can't listen to Bomb and Horizon back to back and call it anything but a major departure. Song structure, lyrics, atmosphere, mood, etc. Even the more U2 sounding Magnificent, Breathe and CT parts have some new twists that we have never really heard before from them.

That is to say nothing about songs like NLOTH, Fez, WAS, Cedars and Moment of Surrender, which could not be any further from HTDAAB.

 

[U2387]

As an addendum, and despite the fact that there are people here who really don't care what I think, I'd actually prefer the band go all out with a Window in the Skies type of happy Beatlesque pop album than to try and make a Frankenstein's monster of that plus the less commercial-sounding songs from the NLOTH sessions. Keep them separate, keep them safe. It'd be very cool to have two very different sounding albums released back-to-back.

Agree.

No need to try and mash together what clearly does not fit just so that some meditative, commercially risky stuff can piggy back on a couple blatant pop hits.

U2 albums are definitely best when they have either a running theme or atmosphere-War, UF, JT, AB, NLOTH.

While I would not mind another WITS type single or album track, I don't think they should go for this sound on a whole album. To me, and to many people here and elsewhere, WITS kind of splits the difference between ATYCLB and Bomb and calls that success. Maybe it will get a few hits, but will it hold up like JT, AB and War have?

Simply my opinion here, but I think if U2 is going to blatantly look back to a sound they did in the past, then I think it should be War and JT. The radio friendly 00s material is often attacked as bland and not particularly inspired, while War and JT had huge hits that have never been attacked here as mediocre, dumbed down playing to the masses. Why not go back to something that was both massive and massively good? I am not saying re write these albums, but instead of the overly compressed rock sound on Bomb, why not the raw rock sound of war? Instead of "moles digging in holes" and "the top of a new born baby's head" and "intellectual tortoise," why not get in the kind of songwriting mood that produced IGC, OTH and RHMT? Want to write a great, fun poppy tune? How about Trip Through Your Wires?

Again, not copy, but get back in this same mindset. Maybe a listen or 2 to War, UF, JT before they hit the studio again.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

if they were going to try something entirely new, i don't want them to listen to thier own records. outside of my idea of a tradtional irish music/rock hybrid, i don;t where else they would go.

 

[U2387]

if they were going to try something entirely new, i don't want them to listen to thier own records. outside of my idea of a tradtional irish music/rock hybrid, i don;t where else they would go.

Well, obviously. I was talking about what Bram brought up about revisiting WITS type songs, not something entirely new. My point was from a quality standpoint, and most would agree with me, if U2 are going to look to the past for inspiration, they should look at the albums I mentioned as opposed to the midpoint between ATYCLB and Bomb.

I do like your traditional Irish music/rock hybrid, however. I could see that direction being interesting-almost like the Waterboys or the Dropkick Murphys.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

yea. not as edgy as dropkick murphys, but a little rock edge, with a black 47, and the dubliners. This would require alot of outside instrumentation and backing vocals. I would also think edge needs to come with new guitar sounds. Perhaps a new clean tone,no echo, as well as something harder edged like his HMTMKMKM tone. Would be difficult to perform live. The closest they have come to this is the common ground remix of tomormo.

 

[Screwtape2]

No need to try and mash together what clearly does not fit just so that some meditative, commercially risky stuff can piggy back on a couple blatant pop hits.

U2 albums are definitely best when they have either a running theme or atmosphere-War, UF, JT, AB, NLOTH.

The mashing of hits with 2/3 of a great album hurt NLOTH more than anything else in my opinion. Isn't the point of an album single to give the music world a glimpse of an album? If a single isn't like the rest of the album hasn't it become the opposite of that? Based on polls here, the majority think that NLOTH is the band's best album of the decade. You couldn't tell that based simply on Boots and Crazy Tonight. The singles from all the albums you listed were snapshots of the album. They captured those periods of the band. Could you say that Boots or Crazy Tonight truly captured this album? I can't.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

yea, when i was at my show, it seemed not alot of people were into the new songs. And its like, the album has sold a million copys, thiers over 80,000 fans here, and its like it was kinda a lukewarm reponse to everything. But thiers 80,000 people here. Albums selling well. What kinda band is this? lol

 

[Salome]

I think the inclusion of Stand Up Comedy and Crazy Tonight was to broaden the album thematically and moodwise
I don't think it was a commercial move at all - Stand Up wasn't even a single

of course I could be wrong
but at this point there are no reasons to believe I'm more wrong than others here
and I probably transfer my feelings about the album on the way I view the album & band as much as you do

which is why the discussion in here is at the end quite fruitless as it is based on opinions as much as we like to pretend these are facts

 

[bram]

While CT and SUC were certainly a move toward what U2 thought would be safer for radio, I don't see how these songs in any way resemble anything from HTDAAB.

Hmm, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Crazy Tonight, to me, sounds like the ultimate summation of pre-NLOTH 2000s U2 (and HTDAAB in particular). It's like a happier version of Original of the Species. SUC sound perhaps less Bomb-ish, but (to me) the song sounds like a loose mix of ideas from Love and Peace, ABOY, and Big Girls are Best. This isn't to say they aren't good songs, but I'll probably never be convinced they should have been included over, say, Kingdom and Winter.

which is why the discussion in here is at the end quite fruitless as it is based on opinions as much as we like to pretend these are facts

It's only fruitless if you were hoping to get facts out of it. The only thing that we have to offer on these boards are opinions (except for the rare cases when someone has a scoop).

Also, while I agree SUC and CT broaden the album moodwise, I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. I don't need playful lyrical Bono (particularly the 2000s incarnation) on every album. They don't need an Elevation each and every go-around. Between NLOTH, Magnificent, WAS and back to Breathe, there's already a lot of breadth here. I actually like CT after the utter depression/redemption of UC, but SUC just doesn't work for me in terms of mood.

 

[BVS]

Hmm, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Crazy Tonight, to me, sounds like the ultimate summation of pre-NLOTH 2000s U2 (and HTDAAB in particular). It's like a happier version of Original of the Species. SUC sound perhaps less Bomb-ish, but (to me) the song sounds like a loose mix of ideas from Love and Peace, ABOY, and Big Girls are Best. This isn't to say they aren't good songs, but I'll probably never be convinced they should have been included over, say, Kingdom and Winter.

which is why the discussion in here is at the end quite fruitless as it is based on opinions as much as we like to pretend these are facts

It's only fruitless if you were hoping to get facts out of it. The only thing that we have to offer on these boards are opinions (except for the rare cases when someone has a scoop).

Very true... the opinion part. I for one think the opposite, I think SUC is very Bomb-ish but in a bad way, and I think CT sounds very fresh. I don't know why this song gets so much shit in here, to me it sounds like U2 putting their spin on 60's pop and it has a slightly clever lyric. The only downfall of the song is the poorly delivered falsetto.

 

[Niceman]

90% of what I see posted on this board these days is "I wish they hadn't put SUC, GOYB, and IGCIIDGCT on NLOTH because they ruined the flow of the album." It's repeated over and over and passes for a new thought each time.

I respectfully disagree. An album is not meant to have only one sound. An album is meant to be made up of more than one act. Consider, for just a moment, that these three songs actually do belong on the album, that they are a part of the journey. Their sound is not homogenous with UC and MOS, but do they have to be to belong on the same album? Yes, the middle act is jarring. It is different than acts one and three which seem to have much more in common with one another, but does that mean that it doesn't belong? I'm not sure that the apparently consensus opinion on this is as sound as you all seem to think.

"Album" has never meant: "The songs all sound alike" or even "Are cut from the same cloth."

Now, those of you who happen to be unfortunate enough to simply not LIKE SUC. That's up to you. But it does not follow that that means the song didn't belong there. The lyrics constantly reference the themes of the album. (Maybe more than any other song on the album!) It isn't tacked on. It's all about lines (on the horizon?)

"I've got to stand up"
"The wire is stretched inbetween our two towers"
"Stop helping God across the road..."
"Out from under your beds"
"Like a small child crossing an eight lane highway on a voyage of discovery."
"Napolean is in high heals."
"Small men with big ideas."
"Stand up for your love."
"Stand up and sit down for your love."

It's all up and down and back and forth. Sorry, but Stand Up Comedy is at the heart of this album and belonged on it!

Yes, in the middle of a more mellow and silver album, they make what feels like a left turn into a more "pop" and red place. But I don't think this is as haphazard or sloppy as most of you apparently do....

 

[bram]

Solid post, and I actually agree with many of your thoughts on what constitutes an album, but in a vague, general way--not in this specific instance.

Stand Up Comedy is at the heart of this album and belonged on it

I appreciate your close reading analysis of SUC's lyrics, but I can't say that I find anything compelling about 'lines' or 'up and down and back and forth'. I think you can approach any U2 song (or any song) in a similar manner and achieve similar, vague results. So I have to say that I still fail to see how this song--musically, lyrically, or 'moodily'--fits into NLOTH.

I think you're right to suggest that the majority of us don't simply dismiss these middle 3 songs. But I do think that a majority of us have some minor quibble with at least some part of this section. My issue rests mostly with SUC, and I actually think that snipping this song or replacing it with Winter or Kingdom would have made a big, positive difference for so small a change.

To tie this all back to the next album(s), I think that songs like SUC and CT would be fine for what we've heard and heard about the Rubin material (and also about the new 'happy' songs they're working on). But I think I'd rather not have a SUC or Elevation-type 'fun' song on SOA. Think about UF (or even AB) for a minute. Would a SUC work there? An Elevation? I think those two albums are the best achievements in overall 'mood' of any U2 albums. And I think that's very much related to the fact that neither has this type of rocking, reach-the-sky, lyrically-playful U2 song.