What you make of 'War'?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It's probably true that War sounds a bit dated, sonically-speaking, today (as does October), but then again what records from late '82 to early '83 can you think of that don't sound a hundred times more dated than it??
220px-Do_You_Really_Want_To_Hurt_Me.jpg
220px-A_broken_frame.jpg
220px-MadonnaTheFirstAlbum1983AlbumCover.jpg
two albums and a single? huh?

i love early 80s music so while yes i think it sounds dated, for me it's not an insult. but for me, war's a very odd album. every song i either love or hate. i don't rate it very highly since there's a couple songs on it i just flat won't listen to, but it also has some favourites of mine on it, such as seconds and drowning man. so if i were to rate each song on, say, a scale of 1-5 and add the total, i might get a higher total for war than october, but i'd rank october over war.
 
so while yes i think it sounds dated, for me it's not an insult.
Nor for me. I quite like the idea of old music sounding dated, actually. The complication over whether music should sound dated or not tends to arise only with select artists like U2, whose very old music (by pop standards, that is) is still popular, sells in catalog, and is still played by those same band members to large crowds, today.
 
Nor for me. I quite like the idea of old music sounding dated, actually. The complication over whether music should sound dated or not tends to arise only with select artists like U2, whose very old music (by pop standards, that is) is still popular, sells in catalog, and is still played by those same band members to large crowds, today.

Respectfully, this argument doesn't make sense to me. Artists like The Beatles, The Stones, Michael Jackson and so on have very old music that's still popular and sells in catalog...I don't see any complications in their music sounding dated. Someone purchasing a 30 year old album does so with the expectation that the music derives from a different era. I've never heard anyone say to me "War blows because it sounds like the early Eighties".
 
I think War's a great album. I've grown fond of early eighties U2 lately, and War is surely their finest moment of that period.

Red Light is not one of my favourites, though. The vocal intro is horrendous imo. And, even though I'm a trumpet player myself, I don't think much of the trumpet part in Red Light. The jazzy solo seems strangely out of place in a post-punk rock song.
 
I think War is a great album, and I like that period of the band.

'Two Hearts Beat As One' and 'Drowning Man' seem to be somewhat unheralded tracks that are rather great.

I guess I'll always like this album since it was maybe the second U2 album I got into (after Joshua Tree), but I think it holds up well -- especially compared to most bands' work from 1982-83. There's a kind of visceral energy to it that was smoothed over a bit on UF, and toned down a bit on TJT. I'm not often in the mood to listen to it, but I always enjoy it.

Discuss.

0010a463_medium.jpeg

peterr.jpg

(Interesting blogged interviews here with Peter Rowan: Peter Rowen: Media)


Fantastic album. Have you ever heard of the track "Be There" which did not make the album?
 
I love War. It's actually one of my favorite U2 albums although the rest of this board doesn't feel the same way I do about it. Refugee, Drowning Man, Like A Song, Seconds... So much good stuff and no filler in my opinion. I would die to hear War cover to cover live.
 
Probably my third favorite of theirs after AB and JT. I actually like The Refugee and I don't understand the hate for Red Light, although it definitely is the album's weakest.
 
Respectfully, this argument doesn't make sense to me. Artists like The Beatles, The Stones, Michael Jackson and so on have very old music that's still popular and sells in catalog...I don't see any complications in their music sounding dated. Someone purchasing a 30 year old album does so with the expectation that the music derives from a different era. I've never heard anyone say to me "War blows because it sounds like the early Eighties".
I think you missed my point, or I expressed it poorly. I agree with you completely, in fact.

What I'm saying (or trying to) is this: when someone buys a Frank Sinatra record from the 1940s, or a Jackson Five record from 1971, nobody expects it to sound contemporary. In fact, they'd be disappointed if it did. They WANT it to sound dated, if anything, as that's part of its period charm.

However, I think (some) fans -- not me, particularly -- feel different when it comes to the rare artists like U2, who have been at the forefront of the rock/music scene for three decades. Because U2 are still a contemporary group, we tend to react more strongly to something of theirs that sounds a bit dated, or purely of its time, in a way that we don't with Sinatra or The Jackson Five.

In other words, if U2 had broken up in 1989, probably no one today would be complaining that War sounds dated, just as we don't with The Undertones or The Alarm. But since U2 are still going strong and we have contemporary records of theirs to enjoy, then it becomes easier to criticize an LP like War for sounding a bit dated (the more so when other old LPs like Unforgettable Fire or Joshua Tree don't sound very dated).


This of course raises an interesting issue that I've never thought of until this thread -- is there actually something artistically less valid about a musical recording that sounds more "dated" than another?
 
I think you missed my point, or I expressed it poorly. I agree with you completely, in fact.

What I'm saying (or trying to) is this: when someone buys a Frank Sinatra record from the 1940s, or a Jackson Five record from 1971, nobody expects it to sound contemporary. In fact, they'd be disappointed if it did. They WANT it to sound dated, if anything, as that's part of its period charm.

However, I think (some) fans -- not me, particularly -- feel different when it comes to the rare artists like U2, who have been at the forefront of the rock/music scene for three decades. Because U2 are still a contemporary group, we tend to react more strongly to something of theirs that sounds a bit dated, or purely of its time, in a way that we don't with Sinatra or The Jackson Five.

In other words, if U2 had broken up in 1989, probably no one today would be complaining that War sounds dated, just as we don't with The Undertones or The Alarm. But since U2 are still going strong and we have contemporary records of theirs to enjoy, then it becomes easier to criticize an LP like War for sounding a bit dated (the more so when other old LPs like Unforgettable Fire or Joshua Tree don't sound very dated).


This of course raises an interesting issue that I've never thought of until this thread -- is there actually something artistically less valid about a musical recording that sounds more "dated" than another?

I understand what your saying, but I think the average person listening to War for the first time, today, would never pick up on the fact that it was recorded nearly 30 years ago. With the Edge's fantastic guitar effects especially on a song like New Years Day, it gives it a modern or even futuristic sound.
 
I disagree. If anyone picked up War now, they'd find it to be recorded by a completley different band than the U2 they're used to. 00's U2 is very different. Most notably Bono's voice sounds totally different. And their style has changed too. More effects, more background instruments and vocals, more atmosphere.

That's why War is dated for me. That doesn't mean it's not a good album.
 
I think the average person listening to War for the first time, today, would never pick up on the fact that it was recorded nearly 30 years ago.

Seriously? Songs like Red Light, The Refugee, Like A Song... and Seconds are practically screaming: "hey, look at us! We're early eighties songs!"

Not even the most naïve listener could mistake those for contemporary rock songs.
 
Whether War sounds dated or not, it was definitely a 'watershed' album, as mentioned before, and is the first album where U2 found its 'voice'.

I remember being in high school during that time and hearing something that was very different than the Classic Rock I was used to hearing on the 'Rock' station that was popular back then. They sounded fresh, different and strange all at the same time. I was really sucked in by their sound.

I remember that in 1981-83 U2 was a quirky rock band that was more-or-less categorized as "Christian Rock" and War broke them free of that tag, pushed them out of college radio and introduced them to the masses. SBS and NYD were huge, but SBS actually became more popular with the release of UABRS. The two big videos on MTV were NYD and Two Hearts, SBS didn't have a video until after the UABRS video came out.

Musically it may sound a bit '80's' but it's still heads and tails more refreshing to listen to War than Seven and the Ragged Tiger, The Crossing, or Pyromania. U2's music was out of step with the times in the 1980's, whereas since Pop, U2 has tried too hard to fit in. I love the aggressive guitar lines, and the martial drumming of War. Bono screams and shrieks a little too much, but he was trying to reach the audience, and I admire that in his vocal delivery for this album.

Overall War is one of the top 3 albums U2 has ever recorded...in terms of importance.
 
I remember that in 1981-83 U2 was a quirky rock band that was more-or-less categorized as "Christian Rock" and War broke them free of that tag, pushed them out of college radio and introduced them to the masses. SBS and NYD were huge, but SBS actually became more popular with the release of UABRS. The two big videos on MTV were NYD and Two Hearts, SBS didn't have a video until after the UABRS video came out.

While it's true that War was a lot more succesful than the previous two albums, you're underestimating U2's pre-1983 fame. Actually, airplay on US commercial radio began as early as 1980 with "A Day Without Me" and by the time Boy was released in the US, record store supplies often couldn't meet demand.
 
While it's true that War was a lot more succesful than the previous two albums, you're underestimating U2's pre-1983 fame. Actually, airplay on US commercial radio began as early as 1980 with "A Day Without Me" and by the time Boy was released in the US, record store supplies often couldn't meet demand.
I've never heard this (the last statement). Any source for that? Seems a bit unlikely, given that the album failed to make the top 50.

War being "a lot more successful" is almost an underestimation in itself, I think, particularly in the United States. October wouldn't have registered with anyone except the college crowd, and only with small portions of that. War, by contrast, hit #12 on the pop chart, which is like being #1 in the UK for a month by sales equivalent. Rolling Stone named U2 top live band of the year, etc. This was way, way off the radar of the band's success in 1980-1981.
 
While it's true that War was a lot more succesful than the previous two albums, you're underestimating U2's pre-1983 fame. Actually, airplay on US commercial radio began as early as 1980 with "A Day Without Me" and by the time Boy was released in the US, record store supplies often couldn't meet demand.

From 1980 - 1983 I RARELY heard U2 on the radio, and before 1983 I wouldn't have been able to identify one of their songs if it came on the radio. And I listened to the radio ALL the time.

War was the album that made them in the US. Boy and October were kinda like the first few R.E.M. albums, underground and popular with a certain (college) crowd, but nowhere on radio...at least not with any sort of regularity.

I will agree that some East Coast radio stations played U2 somewhat, but I lived on the West Coast, and they were RARELY played on the mainstream radio stations...thank God for War!! :applaud:
 
War and JT suffer the same problem, unstoppably brilliant side A, but then side b is good, but not great, but a few clunkers.
Red Light and Surrender do nothing for me. I like Two Hearts, but have to be in a certain mood.
Drowning Man has long been a favorite for many decades, glad to see the love for this one.

"I want to be an Airborne Ranger! I want to live the life of danger!"
 
It's in Carter Alan's book "Outside is America".
I see, thanks. This book has a good rep (despite Alan being a disc jockey), so maybe there's a bit of truth in his claim. Still, whether or not a few stores here or there sold out of copies, I don't think it made any big difference -- U2 in the US in 1980-82 would be a very small (forgettable) fire.
 
By the way, good call with Murmur (above). I kind of feel like that LP is the exception to every rule, though. Good grief, if you were a guitar-music fan in the USA in the early 80s, what was there to listen to??
 
Back
Top Bottom