LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
kenny_a said:
Bono hasn't been "with it" since he had a mullet, and look how that turned out for everyone.
The "3 crap records and your out" rule
- Thread starter gman
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Bono hasn't been "with it" since he had a mullet, and look how that turned out for everyone.
Mostly...the lead single was a bad choice. Honestly...has there been a weaker lead single for U2 ? Even Eno's "genious" idea with opening the gates with MOS might have gotten a better reaction.
Thus NLOTH didn't really get a chance the way HTDAAB and ATYCLB did due to great lead singles. NLOTH proved *just* having very good music isn't enough if you can't interest the people in it, and U2 wants it all. It doesn't have to be about being cool, or charging the charts. Just have that one song that peaks through the mainstream. Perhaps now more than ever, in the time of downloads and crumbling album sales.
As for 2 crap albums in a row...it hasn't happened yet.
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I feel that HTDAAB was simply about writing good songs. The style was not the point. From a song writing perspective they did explore some new ground, but from a technical or sonic perspective it was re-hash. It was a substance over style album. The opposite of, say, Passengers.
NLOTH did both to a degree, but it was still more a matter of exploration of substance rather than exploration of style. It makes for an artistically compelling album, but it allowed them to make mistakes, like sully the beautiful Unknown Caller with an opening guitar sound straight out of Walk On.
DevilsShoes
War Child
Just regarding the issue that good songs aren't enough anymore:
I have mixed feelings about this. I tend to think that great songs find a way to make an impact, whether they're released as singles or not.
The Beatles are a good example of this, it's incredible how many of their album tracks have entered public consciousness: Dear Prudence, Day In The Life, Tomorrow Never Knows, I'm Only Sleeping, the list is endless.
U2 tried to bring MOS to a much wider audience at Glastonbury but I'm not sure it really worked. The problem is with the song itself, which can be a bit of a grind and, dare I say it, somewhat maudlin, especially on the chorus.
It's certainly earnest and heartfelt but I can't ever see it truly entering public consciousness, in my humble opinion of course.
I have mixed feelings about this. I tend to think that great songs find a way to make an impact, whether they're released as singles or not.
The Beatles are a good example of this, it's incredible how many of their album tracks have entered public consciousness: Dear Prudence, Day In The Life, Tomorrow Never Knows, I'm Only Sleeping, the list is endless.
U2 tried to bring MOS to a much wider audience at Glastonbury but I'm not sure it really worked. The problem is with the song itself, which can be a bit of a grind and, dare I say it, somewhat maudlin, especially on the chorus.
It's certainly earnest and heartfelt but I can't ever see it truly entering public consciousness, in my humble opinion of course.
DevilsShoes
War Child
Yes, I think Bono's decision to take on other characters for lyrical inspiration was a great idea and one of things which made NLOTH far more compelling than Bomb. I tend to find much of the songwriting of that album very derivative indeed.
In the 80's Bono's lyrics could be extremely repetitive which we can chalk down to inexperience, but in the 90's he became way more sophisticated. As a songwriter I think he was at his peak during those years. The 2000's have been slightly blander on the whole, until NLOTH anyway.
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I'm not going to agree with any criticism of Moment of Surrender. I think it's the band at their very finest. Did it not go over well at Glastonbury? Well, if that's so, I'll blame the crowd and not the song. Sometimes the majority are wrong. Sometimes you don't see the most beautiful things the first time you look. I expect that this song will be very famous in 10-20 years. I also expect it to stay in the live setlist next tour.
The Panther
Refugee
In my opinion, the main reason NLOTH failed to meet the band's commercial expectations is simply that it isn't very good. It's an average album by an exceptional band.
Although the two albums are quite dissimilar in "style", I think HTDAAB and NLOTH have one major thing in common, which I think is to the detriment of both -- they both sound over-worked, over-labored, and over crafted.
I know a lot of U2 superfans are of the opinion that ATYCLB was a hugely calculated attempt to re-connect with a large audience... and yes, it probably was. However, whether you like the record or not, the sound of that album (and some of its excellent outtakes and B-sides) is, to me, much more "organic" than the finished songs of the last two records.
As two random examples, I find the composition of both "Original of the Species" and "Breathe" to be a bit awkward. They each sound like they are the results of two or three different songs being stitched together. You never get this feeling listening to the early U2 records in the early 80s, simply because they had a few weeks to record them! And we all know the stories about HTDAAB and NLOTH being stopped, delayed, re-recorded, etc.
Although I haven't paid much attention the new songs U2 has been playing live, I think the fact that they're playing songs live first instead of (over-)crafting them in the studio is a really good idea. I always say the best way for rock bands to function is to demo songs-in-progress live, and then re-work them that way, in front of an audience. Then, when they go into the studio, the band is already confident and knows what it wants to do with the song. They also know if the song is "immediate" or not, because they've seen a live audience's reaction.
Although the two albums are quite dissimilar in "style", I think HTDAAB and NLOTH have one major thing in common, which I think is to the detriment of both -- they both sound over-worked, over-labored, and over crafted.
I know a lot of U2 superfans are of the opinion that ATYCLB was a hugely calculated attempt to re-connect with a large audience... and yes, it probably was. However, whether you like the record or not, the sound of that album (and some of its excellent outtakes and B-sides) is, to me, much more "organic" than the finished songs of the last two records.
As two random examples, I find the composition of both "Original of the Species" and "Breathe" to be a bit awkward. They each sound like they are the results of two or three different songs being stitched together. You never get this feeling listening to the early U2 records in the early 80s, simply because they had a few weeks to record them! And we all know the stories about HTDAAB and NLOTH being stopped, delayed, re-recorded, etc.
Although I haven't paid much attention the new songs U2 has been playing live, I think the fact that they're playing songs live first instead of (over-)crafting them in the studio is a really good idea. I always say the best way for rock bands to function is to demo songs-in-progress live, and then re-work them that way, in front of an audience. Then, when they go into the studio, the band is already confident and knows what it wants to do with the song. They also know if the song is "immediate" or not, because they've seen a live audience's reaction.
The Panther
Refugee
I think this is a quite a perceptive comment, and it speaks to U2's endless desire to connect with a mass audience. So, there's obviously a constant tension between the band's (usually Bono's?) wide-eyed ambitions for new and exciting material and their simultaneous need to shift units and be the world's biggest group.
They do seem to have better results -- at least, commercially -- when they either go all-out "connect with a large audience" (HTDAAB) or all-out "let's-push-the-envelope" (Achtung and Zooropa). Where they seem to somehow "fail" is when they 2nd-guess themselves and compromise. I think this partly explains the mainstream's indifference to Pop and NLOTH.
Although I personally don't connect with much of NLOTH (and, for the first time, it has a couple of songs that I absolutely hate), I think it would have been more of a success for them if they'd taken the arty, moody, wintry vibe of it and gone the whole-hog with it, instead of throwing in cheesy conventional-sounding tracks like "Crazy Tonight" and "Stand Up Comedy". That way, even if the record hadn't hit the mainstream, at least they'd have pleased more fans, earned more critical respect, and they wouldn't now be taking another 20 years to produce "the next album".
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
The thing is - you and I aren't the only two people who think this. A lot of people do. Expect it to become better known, probably one day it will be the only song from this album that most people know!
No. He's talking about quality. Commercial flops didn't come until NLOTH. And any and all Pop commercial aches were healed with ATYCLB success.
And HTDAAB wasn't rejected because it wasn't mainstream enough. U2 by U2 tells us what happened. NLOTH certainly is not a mainstream album. Working with Danger Mouse isn't a commercial move.
cobl04
45:33
You have an extraordinary amount of faith in U2, niceman
Reality music show like AI is a perfect gateway to a younger audience. And even that was a Spiderman promotion. By B&E, not full U2.
The industry changed. Radio or MTV won't play old rock bands. So you have to get around it. Like the Ipod idea.
DevilsShoes
War Child
I guess time will tell Niceman.
I'd definitely go along with you on this. Some of the post 2000 stuff can sound a bit bolted together, as if U2 are trying to write the approved script. I'm not really sure you could level the same charge at anything throughout the 80's and 90's, especially the singles, which seem to emerge as 'one whole piece.'
Whether you like Pride, NYD, Desire, WOWY, One, The Fly or even Discotheque as songs, they all appear very organic and true to their own spirit.
For me, the ATYCLB singles are the last real example of this, no matter how contrived the thinking behind them is. GOYB is probably the worst offender of the 'bolted together' single, and songs like OOTS or Breathe feel a bit unwieldly to me, especially the latter which has that 'pulled in two different directions' vibe.
Deadlines never really seemed to a problem for the band from JT through Zooropa, at least not in terms of musical quality. I remember Larry saying that before the release of AB the band were still questioning the material but deadlines had been set and the tour booked so they had no choice but to go with what they had. Thank heavens they did, can you imagine the group pushing the release of AB back and back and endlessly reworking it? Would we have ended up with the classic we know and love? Having a cut-off date focuses the band’s mindset and invests the whole process with some immediacy. Sadly, the Pop experience has left its scars and I doubt we’ll ever see U2 return to that approach.
gvox
Ghost of Love
The rule should be: 3 crap songs and youre cut from the project ie any producer who would let 3 crap songs on an album gets fired
SUCk, Crazy Tonight, and a close tie between GOYB and Being Bor(ing)
NLOTH would have been fine if MOS, in single edit format, was the leadoff single. Followed by Magnificent or Breathe.
Oh, and muzzle that fifth band member.
SUCk, Crazy Tonight, and a close tie between GOYB and Being Bor(ing)
NLOTH would have been fine if MOS, in single edit format, was the leadoff single. Followed by Magnificent or Breathe.
Oh, and muzzle that fifth band member.
Burlington77
Acrobat
Who is the 5th member?
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Adam's willy. 
Or Paul McGuinness.. depending on your point of view.
Or Paul McGuinness.. depending on your point of view.
Burlington77
Acrobat
Of course! duh I totally forgot.
I remember Adam saying from an old VHS Achtung docu movie I have, talking about the choosing of the album title, Achtung Baby:
"...there was a brief moment when it might have been called Adam....but that depended on the photography ....... There might have been a much bigger 5th member on the sleeve
"
Ahhh that good old Achtung VHS documentary - I think I watched it so much the tape broke LOL
I remember Adam saying from an old VHS Achtung docu movie I have, talking about the choosing of the album title, Achtung Baby:
"...there was a brief moment when it might have been called Adam....but that depended on the photography ....... There might have been a much bigger 5th member on the sleeve
"Ahhh that good old Achtung VHS documentary - I think I watched it so much the tape broke LOL
gvox
Ghost of Love
Believe me when I say...that muzzling Adam is the last thing this band need...maybe thats the.....aw, nevermind...
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
U2 used to know the difference between unsuccessful artistically and unsuccessful commercially; I don't think it has known that difference for a very long time.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
Muldfeld said:
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about
Joey788
Refugee
I can see MOS becoming something like UTEOTW or In A Little While, a non-single that the band loves and remains part of their setlist. Whatever misgivings they had about NLOTH, it seems that they have the utmost love and confidence for that song. GOYB was at Glastonbury because it's the obligatory "new album" single. MOS was there because the band knows it's an excellent song.
I kinda disagree with this. If you look at the albums Danger Mouse has produced, most of them were massive. Gorillaz's Demon Days, The Black Keys' Brothers, Gnarls Barkley, Broken Bells. These were all both commercial and critical successes. It is a commercially right move for U2, but a creatively right one as well. If anyone can bring back sales + critical praise for the band, it's Danger Mouse.
Vlad n U 2
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 28,386
Muldy's posts are a mystery to everyone.
cobl04
45:33
What was the most recent concert you attended? Did you go all Vik on bitches for singing along?
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Grabbing the hottest producer going was certainly a calculated move. Even just the hype about the pairing was working incredibly well in their favour (for Danger Mouse, not so much).
I think going back to Eno/Lanois/Lillywhite would be a safe, calculated move. They used the trusted producer after first trying Chris Thomas on Bomb and Rubin (which sounds like the man for the job if they really want critical acclaim above all else) on early NLOTH sessions.
Going with someone brand new for them, outside of rock unlike all of their past producers, beyond age 50 after a (relative) flop of an album and a (definite) flop of singles ? They have plenty to lose with a complete new producer...
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Yeah, but they can always 'Chris Thomas' him too. Pretty clear they did or do need a new direction, thus a new producer and partner. Not *that* much of a leap in the dark to go with the hottest and most in demand one going, and one who does half the hype (especially to a certain lost demographic) on just having his name attached to the project. It's a bold move, not a safe one, but it surely is/was a very calculated one at the same time.
Also, Rubin =/= Thomas, if you were drawing a direct comparison there. Very, very, very different scenarios.
Also, Rubin =/= Thomas, if you were drawing a direct comparison there. Very, very, very different scenarios.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
And also on DM, while it's not a safe decision, it is a sensible one. He's not 'from' rock, but he has worked with bands, enough to know he can (and does it very well). He's also a good choice in terms of where U2 should and would likely want to pitch themselves at this stage. "It's (definitely/clearly) U2, but not as you know it." ie, he wouldn't change their sound, but how their sound sounds (if you know what I mean).
And he's a highly collaborative producer, which is exactly what U2 need. He would be wholly immersed in the full creative process from start to finish, in a very similar way to Eno/Lanois. And in some ways, likely very similar. Could see him doing very Eno-ish things, like creating his own samples for the band to launch off. What would be interesting there would be that his would likely be rhythm based, Eno's seemed to always be more melody/moody. But - good news - surely far more focused than Eno. I bet they're not having massive esoteric debates about every single thing they do. So while it is still a leap, it's not entirely out of their comfort zone. Not like Rubin, with his 'write the songs first' approach, and then his apparent limited "I'll just make it sound great" creative input, mostly only a little bit of surface level structural/arrangement type advice.
And he's a highly collaborative producer, which is exactly what U2 need. He would be wholly immersed in the full creative process from start to finish, in a very similar way to Eno/Lanois. And in some ways, likely very similar. Could see him doing very Eno-ish things, like creating his own samples for the band to launch off. What would be interesting there would be that his would likely be rhythm based, Eno's seemed to always be more melody/moody. But - good news - surely far more focused than Eno. I bet they're not having massive esoteric debates about every single thing they do. So while it is still a leap, it's not entirely out of their comfort zone. Not like Rubin, with his 'write the songs first' approach, and then his apparent limited "I'll just make it sound great" creative input, mostly only a little bit of surface level structural/arrangement type advice.
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Exactly, or a Bullet the Blue Sky.
Similar threads
- Sticky
