What's all this about a "U2 sound"?

[Muldfeld]

I know that U2 have tended to sound like themselves during this decade, but the defining quality of U2 in the '80s and when I got into it in the early '90s was the indefinable -- that you never knew what the next album would bring. When Achtung Baby came out, The Fly could not have been predicted from Rattle and Hum or any previous album; same with even Mysterious Ways. It was so different!

I imagine the same was felt upon hearing "The Unforgettable Fire" or even "The Joshua Tree" even if the latter had atmospheric guitar work that had its origins in the former.

The point is that all this this talk of "it sounds like a U2 song" is really a new thing for the band and -- I'd argue -- a mark of decline, though hopefully not inevitable. The failure of HTDAAB was not in trying to mimic elements of Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree but in trying to imitate song structures -- the build up of "City of Blinding" was similar to a Coldplay version of "Streets" or "All Because of You" had reminders of "Even Better Than..."; "Crumbs" had elements of "Walk On" and the entirety of HTDAAB had elements found throughout "Electrical Storm".

My essential point is that U2 doesn't have to sound like U2, and I wonder why all these critics reviewing the new album think it's a defining trait when it hasn't been for the majority of this formerly and hopefully once again amazing band.

Thoughts?

 

[65980]

Well, to some extent every band necessarily has a "sound." That is, if your voice sounds like Bono, or your guitar tone like Edge's (which is very distinctive), then it's fair to say you sound like U2. The problem for bands who stay around for decades without hitting the nostalgia supper-club circuit -- for bands like U2 -- is that in order to keep from being an oldies act, they have to change and grow . . . without changing so much that they lose their mainstream audience. The main reason Pop failed to ignite the masses on the level of Joshua Tree, Achtung or ATYCLB is that it didn't sound as much like U2 -- the band used a lot of producers and window-dressing to change their sound.

I concur that U2 have consciously changed their sound every so often, but they are still the same 4 guys playing the same core instruments, whether it's 17-year-olds singing "Life On a Distant Planet" or 48-year-olds singing "Window in the Skies". They have to sound like themselves . . . just like any band.

 

[Aardvark747]

YouTube - Bill Bailey U2

 

[Muldfeld]

Well, to some extent every band necessarily has a "sound." That is, if your voice sounds like Bono, or your guitar tone like Edge's (which is very distinctive), then it's fair to say you sound like U2. The problem for bands who stay around for decades without hitting the nostalgia supper-club circuit -- for bands like U2 -- is that in order to keep from being an oldies act, they have to change and grow . . . without changing so much that they lose their mainstream audience. The main reason Pop failed to ignite the masses on the level of Joshua Tree, Achtung or ATYCLB is that it didn't sound as much like U2 -- the band used a lot of producers and window-dressing to change their sound.

I concur that U2 have consciously changed their sound every so often, but they are still the same 4 guys playing the same core instruments, whether it's 17-year-olds singing "Life On a Distant Planet" or 48-year-olds singing "Window in the Skies". They have to sound like themselves . . . just like any band.

I'd argue the basic problem with Pop were the melodies. I really tried hard to like that album, but the only songs I really liked were Mofo, Do You Feel Loved and elements of Please that were, in a way, improved on the single version; I also liked the percussion on Miami. Everything else wasn't that great, I thought, and Staring at the Sun felt like an Achtung Baby out-take that was always a bit too simple to me; still very good, but not great.

The thing is that, voice aside, Achtung Baby's guitar work sounded incredibly different from every album before. Same with Joshua Tree and comparing its guitar work with War. U2's music sounded remarkably different on every album.

The Edge only started to fall back on sounding repetitive with most songs on ATYCLB and HTDAAB. I'd argue Stuck in a Moment and perhaps In a Little While sounded very different. In any case, The Edge doesn't have to use that echo-laden guitar sound that he first used on Bad; he could but he doesn't have to and didn't on Achtung Baby.

I really hope U2 not only has expanded its sound but, most importantly, alters its song structures and comes up with great melodies. A tall order, but U2 can do it.

 

[Muldfeld]

YouTube - Bill Bailey U2

Yeah, that guitar work is only representative of the mid-'80s (Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, Rattle and Hum) and new millennium (ATYCLB and HTDAAB), not anything on Achtung Baby or even Pop or the 3 first albums. Even the '80s albums don't have exclusively that sound, except on the singles or songs like Red Hill Mining Town, In God's Country, Heartland, Bad, etc. "Exit" or "Bullet the Blue Sky" don't sound anything like it.

That's just it. U2 has gotten used to becoming self-referential; the Windows in the Skies video is a perfect example of that. Also, in this decade, it focussed on very simple, obvious melodies, but that wasn't a defining characteristic of U2 for most of its history.

 

[ShipOfFools]

U2 have evolved over the years, but have a certain 'sound' that's on all their albums. Even Zooropa and Pop had that sound, as different as they were to what U2 typically do.

 

[Muldfeld]

U2 have evolved over the years, but have a certain 'sound' that's on all their albums. Even Zooropa and Pop had that sound, as different as they were to what U2 typically do.

You really find that? Other than the voice, I can find no real connection between Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. Perhaps on some compositional level of analysis, but my sense is that critics are referring to more overt similarities between, say, the echo delay pedal guitar effect on Pride and Streets and maybe Yahweh, you know? But that self-conscious U2 sound familiarity is largely a product of this decade and an attempt at commercial safety. Otherwise, I don't really think U2 has a sound, but I'm not that musically trained or anything, so maybe you notice something I don't.

 

[thelaj]

that video is awesome...

 

[digitize]

U2 have evolved over the years, but have a certain 'sound' that's on all their albums. Even Zooropa and Pop had that sound, as different as they were to what U2 typically do.

Agreed. Edge maintains a minimalistic, ambient guitar style throughout the albums, just with different textures creating very diverse yet remarkably similar sounds.

 

[zwervers2]

YouTube - Bill Bailey U2

He has a point. The funny thing is that Edge technically is an incredbily shitty guitarist for such a big band. He is/was (last couple of records a bit less) so good at creating hooks/ catchy riffs combined with athmosphere that in that area he is absolutely one of the best guitarist ever and completely suited for the music U2 makes. He can not create anything else and if he put his mind to it he could not play faster or different. Not because he doenst want, he just isnt capable. He relies on efects and how to play wih them only but this is just how he plays and it has given U2 everything they have got right now.

Love the man, allways will and my God, that jacket during the Obama rehearsels .

 

[digitize]

The video is funny. But Edge doesn't need to hit a gazillion notes per second. He creates an atmosphere with a few notes that most guitarists who do hit a gazillion notes per second could never recreate. The man is a genius.

 

[LPU2]

The video isn't far off, but what he doesn't acknowledge is that while most guitarists use technology (delay, effects) to treat or enhance an existing sound, Edge uses it as part of the actual song. The delayed sound becomes a note on the measure. Trust me, most accomplished guitarists are slackjawed by what Edge does.

Edge is a Miles Davis type player. Miles once said, "the difference between an average musician and a good musician is that a good musician can play whatever he thinks. The difference between a good musician and a great one is WHAT he thinks."

I can't think of a better way to describe why Edge is one of the great all-time guitar players.

 

[zwervers2]

The video isn't far off, but what he doesn't acknowledge is that while most guitarists use technology (delay, effects) to treat or enhance an existing sound, Edge uses it as part of the actual song. The delayed sound becomes a note on the measure. Trust me, most accomplished guitarists are slackjawed by what Edge does.

Edge is a Miles Davis type player. Miles once said, "the difference between an average musician and a good musician is that a good musician can play whatever he thinks. The difference between a good musician and a great one is WHAT he thinks."

I can't think of a better way to describe why Edge is one of the great all-time guitar players.

Great post

 

[rihannsu]

There's an entire dissertation written about what defines "the U2 sound" and the most interesting thing I found is that it is more about Larry and Adam than most would think.

Title page for ETD etd-04122008-130601

Maybe this will explain to you why U2 still sounds like U2 even when they explore new sounds. I believe that this is also the explaination of why you will hear people say that all U2 songs sound alike when we know that they obviously don't. People who say that probably subconsciously recognize the common elements and label those as "U2 sound" so they make silly statements like that. I would be willing to bet that if you took someone who made that comment and played Pride back to back with Lemon their head would explode.

Dana

 

[BVS]

You would have to be deaf to not know U2 has a sound.

 

[Muldfeld]

There's an entire dissertation written about what defines "the U2 sound" and the most interesting thing I found is that it is more about Larry and Adam than most would think.

Title page for ETD etd-04122008-130601

Maybe this will explain to you why U2 still sounds like U2 even when they explore new sounds. I believe that this is also the explaination of why you will hear people say that all U2 songs sound alike when we know that they obviously don't. People who say that probably subconsciously recognize the common elements and label those as "U2 sound" so they make silly statements like that. I would be willing to bet that if you took someone who made that comment and played Pride back to back with Lemon their head would explode.

Dana

See? You know what I mean, although I take what others are saying about space between the notes, but The Fly had none of that. I was thinking people are often referring to that guitar amp setting common to most of the new millennium songs and the mid- to late-'80s.

What is "EDT", so I can find the article on-line?

 

[Chief43]

As referred to earlier, which I agree with, the 'U2 Sound' has more to do with the rythmic elements than the melody and harmony. Adam can constantly be recognised with his accentuated or walking bass lines which give any U2 song a familiarity or recognisable trait.
Besides Edge's aesthetics which have been discussed rigorously, Bono's phrasing is also a trademark which can be distinguished from other bands.
This does not mean it has to be the same but it just means that you can find common elements in different works of the band. And yes people's heads do explode when they hear Lemon!

 

[digitize]

See? You know what I mean, although I take what others are saying about space between the notes, but The Fly had none of that. I was thinking people are often referring to that guitar amp setting common to most of the new millennium songs and the mid- to late-'80s.

What is "EDT", so I can find the article on-line?

Title page for ETD etd-04122008-130601

 

[rihannsu]

Title page for ETD etd-04122008-130601

Thanks for fixing that. I hadn't noticed that the link didn't post correctly.


Dana

 

[bonoz]

U2 has its sound. It's more blatant in some songs than others. But deep down it's U2. All of it.

 

[65980]

The Bill Bailey thing is kind of stupid, I think. Yeah, if you wanna play the "I Will Follow" riff, it's not going to impress any musos, but I notice he didn't pick the solo to "The Fly" or the riffage of "Ultraviolet". In fact, if you strip U2 down to a pure acoustic performance, they still sound rather great.

What makes Edge great is not technical ability, obviously, but rather his songwriting (#1) combined with his imagination for producing the sounds he wants (#2).

I mean, if you compare The Edge and Eric Clapton, you have two great musicians at opposite ends of the white-guy-as-guitar-hero spectrum. Clapton is all about the blues and instrumental showiness, and he's great. Edge is all about songwriting and soundscapes, and he's great.

I maintain that if any fairly talentless singer was starting a band, s/he would be much better off getting Edge as guitar player than Clapton. Why? Because Edge is capable of creating big hits consistently; Clapton is not. While instrumental virtuosity has its important place, at the end of the day it's great songs that make a band great, and Edge is better at that.

 

[MadForIt]

Bands have a U2 sound - they try and copy their formular
Colplay, The Killers, Kings of Leon, Snow Patrol to name a few

And here is the only Oasis song in their entire back catalogue where I think they are trying to be u2 - the guitar sounds too U2ish - i can see some U2 influence in the song but cant pin point an exact u2 track - definitley 80's U2

I wouldnt say its a rip off
Andy Bell wrote it
Keep the Dream Alive

YouTube - Oasis Keep The Dream Alive

 

[MMP]

U2 has a sound...

the sound of greatness.

An with it comes boots... sexy boots.

 

[bonoz]

He has a point. The funny thing is that Edge technically is an incredbily shitty guitarist for such a big band. He is/was (last couple of records a bit less) so good at creating hooks/ catchy riffs combined with athmosphere that in that area he is absolutely one of the best guitarist ever and completely suited for the music U2 makes. He can not create anything else and if he put his mind to it he could not play faster or different. Not because he doenst want, he just isnt capable. He relies on efects and how to play wih them only but this is just how he plays and it has given U2 everything they have got right now.

Love the man, allways will and my God, that jacket during the Obama rehearsels .

Disagree with your post but agree with you on that jacket. Would love to have one like that. Probably cost him several thousand bucks.

 

[Muldfeld]

Title page for ETD etd-04122008-130601

Thanks. Wow. Is this yours?

 

[Phantom Dreamer]

Saw this at another forum...

For the life of me, I cannot remember the name of this band, even though I had the cassette at one point.

They were quite obscure, but had a totally U2 sound. They had one somewhat big single that I loved.

All I can remember is the lryics: "Those...were the days." and "Wheels...turn and spin." I'm pretty sure the chorus is the name of the song.

Whenever I try to remember this, my mind clicks on the song "Away" by The Bolshoi, which is not the song I'm thinking of--although it kind of sounds like that.

I THINK they were American, and I think the name of the band was two words...

It was a band called Smash Palace.

 

[david]

Smash Palace is what I call my bedroom....


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Smash Palace is what I call my bedroom....


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Hiyoooo

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

You dug up a 7 year-old thread for this?

 

[Hewson]

This thread needs a belt