All signs point to a classic U2 album

[WaltDisney]

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.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Well I hope your theory proves to be correct...

It could well be a classic.

 

[lancerla]

All signs being... they went with Eno and Lanois? Nobody else has heard it! Are we calling ATYCLB a "classic" album? I'll be happy if it's as good as Bomb.

 

[WaltDisney]

All signs being... they went with Eno and Lanois? Nobody else has heard it! Are we calling ATYCLB a "classic" album? I'll be happy if it's as good as Bomb.

ATYCLB is most certainly not a classic album, nor was it supposed to be. It was an album designed to get U2 back on the map, which it did. Bomb was a confused mess, - still trying to please the masses who lapped up ATYCLB and at the same time trying to delve into somewhat new territory. Without Eno or Lanois there to help it was just that, a bomb. Eno is responsible for much more than I think we all realise. Even little things like the ambient flourishes throughout 'Beautiful Day' lift that song to a whole new level.

The other sign I wanted to point out was the Lanois and Eno will be given writing credits which means they can steer the songs away from mediocrity and into a different realm. U2 are out to make a classic, you can see it, this isn't just another pre-tour exercise, this is the big time.

 

[RedRocksU2]

.....HTDAAB one of the most dissapointing albums in U2's history.

you truly believe this?

 

[MMP]

^Agree. No way in hell HTDAAB was disappointing. It's not innovative but that's different and far from being disappointing. IMO

 

[RedRocksU2]

It's just absurd.

 

[RedRocksU2]

oh wait.......

 

[Vlad n U 2]

HTDAAB was very good, I also say that ATYCLB is better. NO U2 album is bad.

 

[WaltDisney]

Ok, well, I believe that Bomb is a bad album. The first few songs are ok, when I say ok I mean songs that U2 did almost 20 years ago and almost 20 times better. The production stinks, the lyrics are so earnest I almost want to puke a little inside.

Don't get me wrong, I love U2. But Bomb was just the worst thing they've ever done IMO..

 

[RedRocksU2]

Htdaab>atyclb imo

 

[MMP]

HTDAAB was very good, I also say that ATYCLB is better. NO U2 album is bad.

Exactly. Except on the ATYCLB part

 

[Elk's Club]

I have two questions I will be looking at when listening to the new album....

1.) Are the lyrics of excellent quality? In their last few albums I noticed hallmarks of U2 in all the songs, but the trend the band has with lyrics is that they continue to simplify their lyrics. In the late 80s and early 90s they only resembled the Beatles in sound influence because their lyrics were very complex. Though the song has problems, there is no way you can package a song like "So Cruel" into the classic pop song mold. It's beautiful how the music is guided by the sway of the lyrics. As the years go on the band is becoming to be the pop band mold they once defied. The lyrics are becoming packaged and simple enough to resemble it. Bono is the most literary, but more members of the band are becoming bigger parts of song writing. That may or may not be good in my eyes. HTDAAB had a lot of big themes and is considered the marriage album compared to Achtung Baby being the divorce album, but it doesn't have the lyrical depth of Achtung. The texture isn't there to make it the rightful follow up.

2.) Will U2 experiment with new sounds and structures in most of the songs? The welcome charm of Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby is how both albums not only brought new sounds to the U2 oevure, but elicited those sounds with great variety over the entire album. Each song had its own uniqueness but still flowed well together. The last two 2 albums have a few songs that take the necessary risks, but many songs just remind listeners of older U2 albums. I felt they were falling back too much on what they already knew. U2 already knows how to take new sounds and make more out of them than a cheap David Bowie experiment, but U2 needs to be more dedicated to challenging themselves through out the entire album.

 

[RedRocksU2]

WD, you must be an alter.

 

[vaz02]

ATYCLB is a classic imo.

 

[RedRocksU2]

Thank you vaz.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

ATYCLB is a classic imo.

U2 are not a bloody pop band whoever said that.

 

[SecretFly]

Ok, well, I believe that Bomb is a bad album. The first few songs are ok, when I say ok I mean songs that U2 did almost 20 years ago and almost 20 times better. The production stinks, the lyrics are so earnest I almost want to puke a little inside.

Don't get me wrong, I love U2. But Bomb was just the worst thing they've ever done IMO..

I agree. I went to a wedding last night and of course I was talking about U2 at the table. Everyone I spoke to agreed with me that HTDAAB is a very poor album. They weren't die hard U2 fans like me but they did like U2 and like me were very disappointed in their last album. IMO its definitely one of their weakest albums but hey you can't expect a band to put out classic albums every time. Heres to hoping NLOTH will be up there with JT and AB.

 

[Elk's Club]

U2 are not a bloody pop band whoever said that.

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?

 

[WaltDisney]

I have two questions I will be looking at when listening to the new album....

1.) Are the lyrics of excellent quality? In their last few albums I noticed hallmarks of U2 in all the songs, but the trend the band has with lyrics is that they continue to simplify their lyrics. In the late 80s and early 90s they only resembled the Beatles in sound influence because their lyrics were very complex. Though the song has problems, there is no way you can package a song like "So Cruel" into the classic pop song mold. It's beautiful how the music is guided by the sway of the lyrics. As the years go on the band is becoming to be the pop band mold they once defied. The lyrics are becoming packaged and simple enough to resemble it. Bono is the most literary, but more members of the band are becoming bigger parts of song writing. That may or may not be good in my eyes. HTDAAB had a lot of big themes and is considered the marriage album compared to Achtung Baby being the divorce album, but it doesn't have the lyrical depth of Achtung. The texture isn't there to make it the rightful follow up.

2.) Will U2 experiment with new sounds and structures in most of the songs? The welcome charm of Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby is how both albums not only brought new sounds to the U2 oevure, but elicited those sounds with great variety over the entire album. Each song had its own uniqueness but still flowed well together. The last two 2 albums have a few songs that take the necessary risks, but many songs just remind listeners of older U2 albums. I felt they were falling back too much on what they already knew. U2 already knows how to take new sounds and make more out of them than a cheap David Bowie experiment, but U2 needs to be more dedicated to challenging themselves through out the entire album.

You are so spot on it hurts. The lyrics on Bomb are so frustratingly simple and lightweight. It at times feels like Bono is trying desperately to come up with the latest bumper sticker slogan like 'Make Poverty History'. We all know what sort of magnificent insight he is capable of. The guys have underestimated their audience, we don't need to be spoonfed..

 

[RedRocksU2]

you expect their music to stay the same after 20+ years?

 

[last unicorn]

ATYCLB IS a classic U2 album for me.

AB is only a classic in retrospective.

Depends what you mean with "classic"? Classic U2 sound or a album that will be a classic when we look back in 10 years. I don't think we can call NLOTH a classic or non-classic when it is released, time will tell.

 

[Elk's Club]

you expect their music to stay the same after 20+ years?

What a bad leading question...Of course not. I don't want duplicates of their better albums and I'm glad U2 at least hasn't done that, but after Pop, I think U2 stalled their interest in musical exploration.

I heard at one point ATYCLB was influenced by Beatles' Rubber Soul and was meant to be a collection of songs. OK, but why make that album so late into the game? Is there much reward in doing so? It's like if the Beatles started with making Abbey Road and Sgt. Peppers and after 20 years finally developed enough to make something as simplistic as Rubber Soul. People may like the album for what it is, but those earlier works built up some idea of expectation. Rubber Soul isn't cutting it at that point.

 

[RedRocksU2]

another alter

 

[Vlad n U 2]

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?

Yeah I understand, the songwriting in HTDAAB was ordinary compared to their best like say UF, JT, R+H, AB, Z, Pop.

 

[Elk's Club]

another alter

What's an alter?

 

[RedRocksU2]

nevermind

 

[burningedge101]

I agree that Bomb is not very good and is worse than ATYCLB. On Bomb, I like Vertigo (though it's played out, it's a rocking song) and COBL and that's it. The rest of it sounds like bad, adult pop rock. There's no real ROCK edge to it.

 

[Elk's Club]

nevermind

Thanks for the smugness.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Well, this album will be a change in musical direction.