All signs point to a classic U2 album

[mgokelly]

The beach clips weren't that good IMO. Quality was shite so I really don't know how someone can have an opinion on the songs in the beach clips without hearing the real deal. To put it simply a good album obviously comes down to great lyrics and catchy tunes which were missing on HTDAAB (except maybe Vertigo). I'm hoping Bono goes off lyrically on this album and am really hoping the songs are addictive in that you really struggle to get the tunes out of your head. The band IMO are also under pressure to produce the goods, so its now or never.

And......I'm looking forward to jamming a few songs on the guitar which I haven't done since AB/Zooropa days

I agree the quality of the clips was crap, but it gives a glimpse of what the recard might sound like (From what I could make out on the clips they sounded very encouraging IMO).

 

[BoyOnTheHorizon]

I believe that the decision to dump Rubin in favour of Lanois & Eno is one of the smartest decisons U2 have made in the 21st century. What this tells me is that they have learned something from the mistakes that made HTDAAB one of the most dissapointing albums in U2's history. Despite the accolades, the critics overwhelmingly positive responses and the initial fan response, U2 have conceded that the album had its faults. We have heard from Bono that it wasn't cohesive enough but we all know that isn't the only aspect which renders the album almost useless. The production is a HUGE fault, the loud compression & mixing, the double-track, octave shift vocals and the layered guitar tracks which fall into a giant digital abyss.

Rick Rubin would have only furthered this style of loud 21st century production. His work lately has been bordering on offensive. Listen to Weezer's 'Make Believe' or Chilli Peppers 'Stadium Arcadium' for examples of this heavily compressed, dynamically deficent production values. We all know Eno & Lanois get it, they not only get 'it', they get U2. They get that you can get so much more out of a pop song than simply putting a guitar in left channel, vox down the centre, compression etc etc. The greatest thing about achtung Baby is the ambient structures that the songs build apon. I strongly believe if the dynamic duo helmed Pop it would have been the masterpeice it threatened to be.

Hearing that U2 are getting restless and are after something different, I am greatly satisfied that Eno & Lanois are there to reign them in and let them go when it's the right time. I'm not sure what the general consensus of Coldplay's 'Viva La Vida' was but as far as production goes, I feel that Eno is at the top of his game. Coldplay are of course not in the same league as U2, but the sound of the album is perfect, warm and subtle when it has to be and harsh when it has to be.

Mark my words, 2009 is indeed the new 1991. This album will be the classic we all want.

Sorry but ...

One thing is having big hopes for the new album and expect it to be a good one. But until now we have no clue if NLOH will be the "classic we all want". We didn't here any finished song yet. Not one complete verse of any of the new songs... so it's premature to assume the position this album will be in their portfolio. Best thing to do is wait...

 

[Marko]

Zooropa is most definitely very original and out there and was ahead of its time when released in the early 90's.

I'm very wary to what the band say about NLOTH. I remember reading that The Edge and Bono think that HTDAAB is there best album thus far so I really take there opinions with a grain of salt.

I agree with original poster who said that in terms of overall music landscape it was nowhere near original...

Zooropa was ahead of time for mainstream, but overall not at all.
I'm listening a lot of different stuff in last 10 years, and to be honest I don't even expect U2 to be really original and to redefine todays music.
Go and listen to all 3 LP's from TV On The radio, to Pande Bear, Animal Collective, Beatless (sp?), Liars, Burial, Lotus, Portishead and many others and you will see that U2 are not so innovative and have never been.
I'm not saying that you have to like all mentioned bands, or that they are all perfect and great, but in terms of innovation they are much better than U2.

What U2 does good is redefine their own music, and they can be good when they are going against the most popular trend in mainstream. But they still stay mainstream. For us POP was great and brave, but there was absolutely nothing new there... you could find similar music and name direct influences on every step. They didn't invent electronics in rock music, they just brought in Howie B to put some loops ans samples in together with some beats. But groundbreaking in the big picture of music in world...come on...

 

[BoyOnTheHorizon]

I agree with original poster who said that in terms of overall music landscape it was nowhere near original...

Zooropa was ahead of time for mainstream, but overall not at all.
I'm listening a lot of different stuff in last 10 years, and to be honest I don't even expect U2 to be really original and to redefine todays music.
Go and listen to all 3 LP's from TV On The radio, to Pande Bear, Animal Collective, Beatless (sp?), Liars, Burial, Lotus, Portishead and many others and you will see that U2 are not so innovative and have never been.
I'm not saying that you have to like all mentioned bands, or that they are all perfect and great, but in terms of innovation they are much better than U2.

What U2 does good is redefine their own music, and they can be good when they are going against the most popular trend in mainstream. But they still stay mainstream. For us POP was great and brave, but there was absolutely nothing new there... you could find similar music and name direct influences on every step. They didn't invent electronics in rock music, they just brought in Howie B to put some loops ans samples in together with some beats. But groundbreaking in the big picture of music in world...come on...

I believe is quite the oposite... The groundbraking sound was launched in AB. Surely there has been others bands who introduced industrial/eletronic rock as a new kind of sound of the classical rock, but U2 was the biggest band in the world and possibly the biggest act too. So the influence was much bigger than people usually give credit.
I think JT was groundbreaking in a era of over-the-top-Mtv-rock music. And AB after it, influencing many bands like Pumpkins, Radiohead and even Axl Rose. And by the 2000's almost every hot new band cites U2 as one of their biggest influences.

 

[Marko]

I believe is quite the oposite... The groundbraking sound was launched in AB. Surely there has been others bands who introduced industrial/eletronic rock as a new kind of sound of the classical rock, but U2 was the biggest band in the world and possibly the biggest act too. So the influence was much bigger than people usually give credit.
I think JT was groundbreaking in a era of over-the-top-Mtv-rock music. And AB after it, influencing many bands like Pumpkins, Radiohead and even Axl Rose. And by the 2000 almost every hot new band cites U2 as one of their biggest influences.

you are basically saying the same thing as me. They are first big band to do some new thing in music. But they are not first overall, they didn't invent it really, they just applied it

And I'm not questioning influence, that has nothing to to with experimenting and being innovative....

With U2, what we are not seeing, and we are seeing with some other big music names as Beatles, Floyd, Zeppelin, Bowie etc, are things like "rewriting music history", "reinventing how music or albums are made" etc. We have bands and artists who redefine the music scene, the way the music is made, the way the songs are written etc, but I think that this can not be applied to U2. Even not for AB, Zooropa or Pop

 

[quiv]

My point is, they are starting to become one. Pop music is based on musical convention and easily packaged lyrics. If U2 continues to simplify their lyrics and keep it just one grade level above most other pop music then it's not very good. I know some people like their last few albums, but I've never heard anyone make the argument that it compares to their earlier stuff. Where is the reward in continuing to simplify your lyrics? Is that considered evolving?

Pop music done right is a beautiful thing.

I'll take HTDAAB over anything else that gets pop station airplay.

That said, UF is my favorite album. I like their experimental side more than anything.

You may not like HTDAAB, and the production/mastering could be better, but it's still exceptional in the arena it's competing in.

U2 has done many things and has appeal to many people for different reasons over the years. You can't please everyone all the time, but nothing they have done borders on "sucks:

(except Playboy Mansion - LOL)

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

Pop music done right is a beautiful thing.

I'll take HTDAAB over anything else that gets pop station airplay.

That said, UF is my favorite album. I like their experimental side more than anything.

You may not like HTDAAB, and the production/mastering could be better, but it's still exceptional in the arena it's competing in.

U2 has done many things and has appeal to many people for different reasons over the years. You can't please everyone all the time, but nothing they have done borders on "sucks:

(except Playboy Mansion - LOL)

I agree with you 100% if you change playboy mansion with Grace and Mercy

 

[bram]

Great original and subsequent posts WaltDisney I think you're pretty much right on, and I share your cautious optimism about the new album.

For everyone trying to claim status as the most musically pretentious, let me just say that if innovation is what you hold up the highest, then you're barking up the wrong tree with U2. U2 has impacted the musical landscape by doing what they do best (anthemic, emotive tunes), and while innovation within their own framework has been important, they don't worship the idea of originality for originality's sake. But they do make some good fucking music.

 

[purpleoscar]

I think people are nitpicking ATYCLB and HTDAAB. They are not the best albums U2 ever did (though HTDAAB is #3 for me) and Larry felt there was something missing, but I don't know of much competition out there to really oust U2. HTDAAB sold 7 million records and cleaned up at the Grammys. ATYCLB sold 7 million records and got plenty of grammys. Most bands would kill for a trackrecord like that even in 2 decades let alone 1.

The public were tired of "experimental" U2 after POP hence the 2.3 million sales. I love POP but I think it's only as good as ATYCLB overall. U2 really made a come back and now there are many more people looking forward to U2's next record. If the U2 album is as good as critics are already saying it is there will be large sales even in a recession. If they are targeting a younger generation and do so successfully I don't see how they can't succeed again and maybe surpass HTDAAB's success.

How many bands can keep that success into their 40's and 50's?

I wonder what messageboards are saying in regards to the Rollingstones and their recent albums. They must be bitching even more.

 

[bram]

I think people are nitpicking ATYCLB and HTDAAB. They are not the best albums U2 ever did (though HTDAAB is #3 for me) and Larry felt there was something missing, but I don't know of much competition out there to really oust U2. HTDAAB sold 7 million records and cleaned up at the Grammys. ATYCLB sold 7 million records and got plenty of grammys. Most bands would kill for a trackrecord like that even in 2 decades let alone 1.

The public were tired of "experimental" U2 after POP hence the 2.3 million sales. I love POP but I think it's only as good as ATYCLB overall. U2 really made a come back and now there are many more people looking forward to U2's next record. If the U2 album is as good as critics are already saying it is there will be large sales even in a recession. If they are targeting a younger generation and do so successfully I don't see how they can't succeed again and maybe surpass HTDAAB's success.

How many bands can keep that success into their 40's and 50's?

I wonder what messageboards are saying in regards to the Rollingstones and their recent albums. They must be bitching even more.

Record sales and public (read: non-superfan) impressions are pretty unrelated to the criticisms being voiced here.

 

[purpleoscar]

Record sales and public (read: non-superfan) impressions are pretty unrelated to the criticisms being voiced here.

I'm pretty sure the band discounts these criticisms because public impressions are what keep them viable as an act. This past decade was a very successful one for an aging act and the new found popularity has allowed for this next album to really catch fire with anticipation, especially if it has 11 songs and they are all great. In fact if there are 8 - 10 great songs on this record it will still be a big hit. That would be 3 acclaimed albums in one decade. That's bloody awesome!

 

[bram]

I'm pretty sure the band discounts these criticisms because public impressions are what keep them viable as an act. This past decade was a very successful one for an aging act and the new found popularity has allowed for this next album to really catch fire with anticipation, especially if it has 11 songs and they are all great. In fact if there are 8 - 10 great songs on this record it will still be a big hit. That would be 3 acclaimed albums in one decade. That's bloody awesome!

The band may not care, but the discussion was about the musical successes or failures of the albums--based on criteria that does not include (or only in a very minor way) the commercial aspects of the records. Otherwise, any conversation about ATYCLB and HTDAAB weaknesses would be hijacked by the numbers that "prove" that these are great records.

The original poster even starts out with the commercial histories: that they sold a lot, won grammies, etc, etc.

 

[Marko]

Great original and subsequent posts WaltDisney I think you're pretty much right on, and I share your cautious optimism about the new album.

For everyone trying to claim status as the most musically pretentious, let me just say that if innovation is what you hold up the highest, then you're barking up the wrong tree with U2. U2 has impacted the musical landscape by doing what they do best (anthemic, emotive tunes), and while innovation within their own framework has been important, they don't worship the idea of originality for originality's sake. But they do make some good fucking music.

look, nobody is saying that they are not good, that they don't make great music. Sometimes real masterpieces like JT and AB. There are a lot of bands who are influential and great in every sense of the word without being innovative and experimental.
What I'm saying is that we shouldn't hold them as someone who are discovering new things and who are bringing new types of music, bexouse they are not. Bruce is not innovative which doesn't mean that he is not great.
And I already said - if someone is innovative and experimenta doesn't mean that they are great, but let us not mix apples and oranges here.

Influential doesn't equal new and innovative.

 

[bram]

look, nobody is saying that they are not good, that they don't make great music. Sometimes real masterpieces like JT and AB. There are a lot of bands who are influential and great in every sense of the word without being innovative and experimental.
What I'm saying is that we shouldn't hold them as someone who are discovering new things and who are bringing new types of music, bexouse they are not. Bruce is not innovative which doesn't mean that he is not great.
And I already said - if someone is innovative and experimenta doesn't mean that they are great, but let us not mix apples and oranges here.

Influential doesn't equal new and innovative.

I completely agree, and I think that was the gist of my post.

 

[jasonlee]

Behind and Atomic Bomb are memorable albums with some really great songs. For me, I'm not treating this as a contest or a sporting event, where one album has to "beat" another.

 

[purpleoscar]

The band may not care, but the discussion was about the musical successes or failures of the albums--based on criteria that does not include (or only in a very minor way) the commercial aspects of the records. Otherwise, any conversation about ATYCLB and HTDAAB weaknesses would be hijacked by the numbers that "prove" that these are great records.

I'm not really trying to "prove" they are great records. I'm saying that they were influential enough to provide the audience anticipating the new record. There is such a thing as build up and there is a build up to this record that the last 2 records helped to provide whether 20 years from now they will be considered great or not. War and The Unforgettable Fire created interest that setup up The Joshua Tree very nicely.

Over time there will be a conflating of career bests for all artists and U2 has so many good and great records. JT and AB are the two currently that are considered a magnum opus. If the next album is as good as those and as influential then those three are likely to be considered the great ones simply because you can't pick everything in a 4 decade career (after the new contract ends). This is of course assuming that the new record is better than the last one. I'm certainly in a hopeful mood after listening to the unfinished songs from the beach clips. There's at least 4 good singles there.

 

[innocent_eyes]

ATYCLB is a classic imo.

I agree. Everysong has its merits and the album as a whole, through sound, theme, and execution deliver.

I also have the version with Ground Beneath her feet on it. I love that song, it fits, and the album is solid. I don't get how people gush over passengers and zooropa, and diss the ambient brilliance of Grace. That's just a great tune, not every track has to be a rocker. It reminds me of the brilliant First Time, Your Blue Room, North and South of the River, Slug and Stateless. Same type of track.

And I love Wild Honey. Catchy, fun pop tune with pretty meaningful lyrics when you get into them. And a killer bridge, the element of a song that U2 have the ability to elevate the emotion of a track. No one writes better bridges than U2.

And ATYCLB>>>HTDAAB

 

[bram]

I'm not really trying to "prove" they are great records. I'm saying that they were influential enough to provide the audience anticipating the new record. There is such a thing as build up and there is a build up to this record that the last 2 records helped to provide whether 20 years from now they will be considered great or not. War and The Unforgettable Fire created interest that setup up The Joshua Tree very nicely.

Over time there will be a conflating of career bests for all artists and U2 has so many good and great records. JT and AB are the two currently that are considered a magnum opus. If the next album is as good as those and as influential then those three are likely to be considered the great ones simply because you can't pick everything in a 4 decade career (after the new contract ends). This is of course assuming that the new record is better than the last one. I'm certainly in a hopeful mood after listening to the unfinished songs from the beach clips. There's at least 4 good singles there.

Oh, ok I see what you're saying. The last 2 records put U2 in a place now where they have a much larger audience that they can unleash this record upon. Right on.

 

[MMP]

Why does every thread about the new album ends as a pointless discussion about HTDAAB and ATYCLB?

 

[bram]

Why does every thread about the new album ends as a pointless discussion about HTDAAB and ATYCLB?

It wasn't pointless at all. And it didn't end.

 

[MMP]

It's kinda pointless cause each one has a different opinion and sometime everyone will get tired and the thread dies.

 

[bram]

I think the Rolling Stone article killed it

 

[MMP]

Probably

 

[PowerSurge]

I agree with original poster who said that in terms of overall music landscape it was nowhere near original...

Zooropa was ahead of time for mainstream, but overall not at all.
I'm listening a lot of different stuff in last 10 years, and to be honest I don't even expect U2 to be really original and to redefine todays music.
Go and listen to all 3 LP's from TV On The radio, to Pande Bear, Animal Collective, Beatless (sp?), Liars, Burial, Lotus, Portishead and many others and you will see that U2 are not so innovative and have never been.
I'm not saying that you have to like all mentioned bands, or that they are all perfect and great, but in terms of innovation they are much better than U2.

What U2 does good is redefine their own music, and they can be good when they are going against the most popular trend in mainstream. But they still stay mainstream. For us POP was great and brave, but there was absolutely nothing new there... you could find similar music and name direct influences on every step. They didn't invent electronics in rock music, they just brought in Howie B to put some loops ans samples in together with some beats. But groundbreaking in the big picture of music in world...come on...

Yeah, I hear this argument all of the time. So and so band is so much better than U2. The "Flying Monkeys" or "the Purple Nuns" or "whatever odd sounding band name you want to fill in" are a million times better than U2. Well, I like to see any of those bands have a successful career spanning 3 decades earning accolades from all sorts of music groups, artists, industry moguls, and most of all die hard legions of fans.

Yah...maybe the word "innovative" is a bad choice. How about "consistent"? Maybe thats a good word. Or any other word or phrase that describes what a small minority of all of the rock bands in history (including U2) have been able to do.

Not trying to sound harsh. But a bunch of no-name lightweight bands can put out one or two GREAT albums...lets see them put out 10-12 then maybe we can talk about "apples to apples" comparison with a heavyweight band like U2, Stones, Led Zeppelin or the Beatles.

 

[BGD75]

Yeah, I hear this argument all of the time. So and so band is so much better than U2. The "Flying Monkeys" or "the Purple Nuns" or "whatever odd sounding band name you want to fill in" are a million times better than U2. Well, I like to see any of those bands have a successful career spanning 3 decades earning accolades from all sorts of music groups, artists, industry moguls, and most of all die hard legions of fans.

Yah...maybe the word "innovative" is a bad choice. How about "consistent"? Maybe thats a good word. Or any other word or phrase that describes what a small minority of all of the rock bands in history (including U2) have been able to do.

Not trying to sound harsh. But a bunch of no-name lightweight bands can put out one or two GREAT albums...lets see them put out 10-12 then maybe we can talk about "apples to apples" comparison with a heavyweight band like U2, Stones, Led Zeppelin or the Beatles.

Thank you - finally someone seems to get it. I love it when every now-and-then these new great talents show up, blow up the charts, take all the awards of the year and then they are never to be heard from again....

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I sincerely love you Walt Disney. You’re bang on with Rick Rubin, I’m really glad he was dumped. You can’t argue with his resume, but of late he is absolutely Public Enemy # 1 when it comes to this awful, compressed LOUD production trend. You think Vertigo was bad, imagine it with him in control.

Also, there are or were plenty of people around here who think HTDAAB is to U2’s catalogue as a rotting carcass is to an otherwise nice sunny day, but a lot (most) have since left the building. I’m sure as this album gets closer they’ll start sniffing around again.

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

HTDAAB is to U2’s catalogue as a rotting carcass is to an otherwise nice sunny day, but a lot (most) have since left the building.

C'mon, even if you don't like – don't you think this is a bit exaggerated? But to return to the "all signs point to a classic U2 album" topic: First listen, then judge ...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

C'mon, even if you don't like – don't you think this is a bit exaggerated?

Honestly, no. With time I've only hated it more. I think it's a total embarrassment of an album, as one made by U2. I am surprised it is received so well by so many in here. I am genuinelly daily amazed that someone can come in here with a straight face and compare Vertigo to The Fly, or City of Blinding Lights to Where the Streets Have No Name. Genuinely staggering to me.

 

[stealthboy]

Honestly, no. With time I've only hated it more. I think it's a total embarrassment of an album, as one made by U2. I am surprised it is received so well by so many in here. I am genuinelly daily amazed that someone can come in here with a straight face and compare Vertigo to The Fly, or City of Blinding Lights to Where the Streets Have No Name. Genuinely staggering to me.

If most people here find it a great album (and so do a lot of others as it sold 7 mil copies and won a few Grammy's), maybe it's just *you*. ;-)

 

[bram]

If everyone could stop with this wise advise: "listen first, then judge", that would be really awesome. All we can do right now is speculate, so that is all we are going to do.