Every album since Zooropa have a weird, shitty, pointless song. Its time for a change

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

BoyOnTheHorizon

Refugee
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
1,110
Location
Brazil
As title says:

Zooropa - Daddys gonna pay for your crashed car
Pop - Miami
ATYCLB - New York
HTDAAB - Yaweh
No Line - Cedars of Lebanon

Those songs (sorry i dont want to ofend anyone) simply dont belong anywere. They are not tuneful(Cedars), some are anoying(Miami) or just boring(New York), and sometimes even pretentious(Daddys). And what about that tittle?(Yaweh????)
But to me they all have one thing in common: They add nothing to their respective albums, in some cases weakens them.
My pertinent and eternal question: Why? just Why the heck include them on those albums???
I hope for some change of trend and finally after all those years to get a more cohesive colecttion of songs on the upcoming album...
 
As title says:

Zooropa - Daddys gonna pay for your crashed car
Pop - Miami
ATYCLB - New York
HTDAAB - Yaweh
No Line - Cedars of Lebanon

Those songs (sorry i dont want to ofend anyone) simply dont belong anywere. They are not tuneful(Cedars), some are anoying(Miami) or just boring(New York), and sometimes even pretentious(Daddys). And what about that tittle?(Yaweh????)
But to me they all have one thing in common: They add nothing to their respective albums, in some cases weakens them.
My pertinent and eternal question: Why? just Why the heck include them on those albums???
I hope for some change of trend and finally after all those years to get a more cohesive colecttion of songs on the upcoming album...

He must be taking the piss. Those are ALL outstanding songs.
 
New York and Cedars are both very, very good songs. This is just a poor thread.
 
As title says:
Why? just Why the heck include them on those albums???

Because the band liked them? Because they're neither shitty* nor pointless?

I mean, opinions, etc etc etc. But come on now.








I don't particularly care for New York, but that's kind of beside the point.
 
This thread should be retitled:

Every Album Since Zooropa Has a Song I Don't Like. Time For a Change!
 
Daddy's Gonna Pay - not shitty, not pointless
Miami - not pointless
New York - neither particularly weird nor shitty
Yahweh - not weird in the slightest
Cedars - not shitty, not pointless

I certainly hope your question isn't "eternal." I wouldn't want to have to relive this thread again and again.
 
Last edited:
daddy's gonna pay for your crashed car and cedars of lebanon in particular have a hell of a lot of meaning lyrically. musical content can be entirely subjective, but come on. i was just thinking of the former song yesterday and how great it is. musically yeah, i love it. to me the song's about the narrator going through life, fucking up, but there's always someone there (daddy) to help him through his many crises (crashed cars). you can take daddy to be a religious figure, a friend, whatever. but i don't think it's pretentious to write a song like that, but that's just my opinion. i'll always have a strong attachment to that song in particular, and i only wish i could write about any problems in my life that well.

i don't like yahweh (least favourite u2 song ever) or new york, but that's just me. but the thing is, every album has a song i'd identify as a weak song or a least favourite song. i wouldn't call them a weird, shitty, pointless song though. but hey, if you think all their albums before zooropa were perfect and contained only strong tracks, awesome. these days, with music being mostly digitised, you can stick the album on your ipod, make a playlist, and take out the "weird, shitty, pointless" songs and pretend they don't exist. at the very least, you can just skip them every time they come on. you better believe i have songs like that for some bands i like.
 
I'm not really sure if "pointless/non-cohesive" and "sh*tty" are one in the same here. The thing is that everyone's opinion is going to be different on what those exact songs are. Plus, it's not like the band released nothing but diamonds before that, you know?

In terms of cohesive efforts, there was just a thread on here about how Pride didn't "fit" on TUF, so there's that. I also can't really see how any of those songs you mentioned don't really fit on their albums. I'm not the biggest fan of Cedars, for example, but I'm willing to concede that the vibe of it fits with some of the other songs on that album. Same with the others.
 
CoL is one of my favorites on NLOTH. All the others are also fine by me. I don't get it, could you explain?
 
If you're going to make a thread about each album since Zooropa having weird, shitty, and pointless songs, at least choose the weird, shitty, and pointless songs.

Seriously, Cedars shitty rather than Stand Up Comedy?
 
You could probably make the argument that Cedars has more of a "point" than any song on that record. And what does "pointless" mean in terms of a rock song anyway? A song's point is to be a song.

In any event, Cedars is not "shitty". This point is non-debatable.

Sent via owl
 
No Line has three weird, shitty, pointless songs. But Cedars isn't one of them.
 
Bono doesn't even sing on Cedars...

My point is that almost every song on every album before AB are in some way enjoyable. At least for the oldest fans.
None of cited the songs were played in any Tour besides their respective "album tour". This must mean something.
I am not trying to cause any dispute here, but in the last few years, us, fans, have became much more condescending with the band. Everything they throw at us we try very hard to enjoy. It happened to me.
I tried to like boots, I pretended to be a nice tune with punch. I once compared The first time with One. Not anymore.
Ask pre 90 fans, almost all of them will tell you this songs suck. Ask non diehard fans, they will just ignore this songs.
Sorry but I am just trying to be realistic...
 
Back
Top Bottom