Corbie Hill's open letter to DM

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Vlad n U 2 said:
We've already had a thread on this asshole a while ago.
Click to expand...

Actually I think a large majority of Interference would like this article, given that it says:

"So I’m thinking if you can bring back the U2 that recorded Pop, you’ll do the whole world a favor."

Don't we all want 90s U2 back?
 
He only got one thing partly right in that article. He likes Pop. Everything else he said was complete shit. It's like he completely changed his opinion when writing the second half of that crap. U2 is everything that is right for the industry.
 
Vlad n U 2 said:
We've already had a thread on this asshole a while ago.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a discussion in the "album news" thread, not an actual thread. I could be wrong, though.

Anyway, this article is stupid, but the illustration is awesome (and my avatar!)
 
oddly it sounds like he has a point when he said they ran away scared from their potential. I certainly wouldn't put it like THAT but you can see why he might say it when you consider the three albums that followed (i adore ATYCLB and really like NLOTH for the record...)

he's not right in 99% of what he's saying but he raises a pretty interesting point :hmm:
 
but then again U2 in their 50s going on a tour like Popmart again in outfits like that and stuff...would just BEG for people to deride them. on bended knees! :wink:
 
Tin hat on here, but I agree with the point of the article. OK, so there's some of the usual sensationalistic comments you see in this type of article (U2 being everything that's wrong with the industry), but as for the general thrust of it, I agree wholeheartedly.
 
I half agree. U2 needs to start reaching into deeper places. NLOTH had some of those fantastic moment but the record was bogged down by half of the songs not really fitting with the mood of the other half. One half was some of the greatest stuff U2 has written and the other half was OK/ bordering on cheesy. If there was more consistency to the album, it would have been a classic.

Herein lies the problem- during POP, U2 was dark, intense, unpredictable. During ATYCLB and HTDAAB, U2 had about 5 fantastic songs, but both albums were bogged down by so many average and predictable songs to contrast the great ones. What makes Achtung and Joshua great albums is how cohesive, connected, and consistent they are. Even if you have great songs, the all have to make a complete whole that FEELS right- this is the problem since PoP. I am not going to say every song on PoP is amazing, (80% of the album is) but 100% of the album had a cohesive dark FEEL to it that connected everything. U2 needs to stop trying to be overly inspirational because it can come off as cheesey, and they need to stop trying to be so relevant, and go back to creating emotions through music, not popularity through music. If their albums are great, they will gain more notoriety. And if they are not relevantly popular or mainstream anymore, who cares as long as they are creating good music?!

So in a way, I understand Corbie's statement, but I have a lot more hope in U2 than he does. When U2 is good, they are the best. They just need to go back to making albums with a cohesive feel, that is consistently innovative and amazing. They have done it before and with part of NLOTH I have hope that they can do it again.
 
zooropop40 said:
I half agree. U2 needs to start reaching into deeper places. NLOTH had some of those fantastic moment but the record was bogged down by half of the songs not really fitting with the mood of the other half.
Click to expand...

Half? I think NLOTH really just lacked 2 songs. Stand Up Comedy should have been taken behind the shed and been shot dead to never see the light of day, add two songs to make a 12 song(Winter and ???) album tweak the tracklisting a little and you have a strong album.
 
The best version of that album would probably involve three or four changes, but the best version for them (taking in live considerations, and a correct - to a degree - reading of some of what is sort of expected of or needed from them) would only take one or two + a slight tracklist shift.

The Linear version of Winter gets some shit here, but with a little bit of work, its a very good bridge song.
 
BVS said:
Half? I think NLOTH really just lacked 2 songs. Stand Up Comedy should have been taken behind the shed and been shot dead to never see the light of day, add two songs to make a 12 song(Winter and ???) album tweak the tracklisting a little and you have a strong album.
Click to expand...

I feel the same about "A Man and a Woman" as you do about SUC. And I'd say the same about "Trip through Your Wires" or "Trying to Throw..", but I know many others love those songs. Music - so subjective...

IMO, there were only two "pop" songs on NLOTH. GOYB, which was U2's attempt to try to recreate "Vertigo" (which is arguably the song's greatest weakness) and "Crazy". However, the remix of "Crazy" that U2 does in concert is fantastic and shows that U2 are willing to take big chances (after all, name another rock band that performs a dance remix version of their own song).

If U2 can keep up with songs like "Fast Cars", "Love and Peace" (even if you aren't a fan of the lyrics, the music is great), "Moment of Surrender", NLOTH and some of the more brilliant slow songs, like "Winter" (and NOT "Crumbs"), then I'd think they'd come darn close to the perfect album (for U2).

Of course, fans disagree and as a result, nothing will truly be perfect. While some here hate that U2 shied away from "Pop", many 80's U2 fans hated that album and only returned with ATYCLB.

I think one reason is accessibility - which is one of U2's biggest strengths. "Pop" deviated too much by being too personal, too dark and not having enough catchy tunes. Plus, "Pop" was not cohesive - first three songs were techno, then some classic U2, then some experimental U2, etc. It bounced all over, IMO. Some love this aspect of the album, but this is why I feel U2's "perfect" album will not be a return to "Pop". However, if U2 keep the "spirit of Pop" in this new album, it will be enough.

As for the article - yeah, perhaps U2 played it a bit "safe", but that's relative. In an era of boybands and pop music, U2 release ATYCLB, which featured many classic rock songs. And U2 being safe is sounding like U2, which is rather unique. U2 always stood out as having a different sound. Plus, why attack just U2? Bon Jovi, INXS, Springsteen, McCartney, Aerosmith, etc., have made careers out of keeping their own unique style and sound - this is what their fans love and what keeps their music selling. So what's really wrong with U2 sounding like U2? Sometimes I think we do push too much.
 
doctorwho said:
And U2 being safe is sounding like U2, which is rather unique. U2 always stood out as having a different sound. Plus, why attack just U2? Bon Jovi, INXS, Springsteen, McCartney, Aerosmith, etc., have made careers out of keeping their own unique style and sound - this is what their fans love and what keeps their music selling. So what's really wrong with U2 sounding like U2? Sometimes I think we do push too much.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with this. I don't think U2 needs to reinvent themselves or make an "experimental" album, I just want them to make a good album. If they do that I couldn't care less if it sounds a lot like U2 or if it's something completely new.
 
doctorwho said:
And U2 being safe is sounding like U2, which is rather unique. U2 always stood out as having a different sound. Plus, why attack just U2? Bon Jovi, INXS, Springsteen, McCartney, Aerosmith, etc., have made careers out of keeping their own unique style and sound - this is what their fans love and what keeps their music selling. So what's really wrong with U2 sounding like U2? Sometimes I think we do push too much.
Click to expand...

That's why I am merely a fan of some of those bands, as opposed to being a batshit crazy uber FAN of U2. Those others, I can listen to in small doses, because their 'same-yness' gets to be too much. I appreciate U2's versatility and musical exploration they've done. I never get sick of them, I just listen to a different album, and it's a whole new sound.
 
nielsgov said:
I totally agree with this. I don't think U2 needs to reinvent themselves or make an "experimental" album, I just want them to make a good album. If they do that I couldn't care less if it sounds a lot like U2 or if it's something completely new.
Click to expand...


Interference has a long list of overused and improperly used words and among the top two have to be "experimental" and "cliche". :lol:

U2 can infuse 50's pop with a hip hop drumbeat like on IALW but it's not experimental unless it sounds like Zooropa. It's treated like a genre rather than the true definition of the word.
 
BVS said:
Interference has a long list of overused and improperly used words and among the top two have to be "experimental" and "cliche".
Click to expand...

I would like to add "classic" to this. And pose a couple of questions - when have U2 not been 'experimental', and when exactly is this famed 'classic' period?
 
BVS said:
Interference has a long list of overused and improperly used words and among the top two have to be "experimental" and "cliche". :lol:

U2 can infuse 50's pop with a hip hop drumbeat like on IALW but it's not experimental unless it sounds like Zooropa. It's treated like a genre rather than the true definition of the word.
Click to expand...
Agreed...even though I've been as guilty as anyone of doing this. :reject:
 
if Interference had a crap-o-filter we'd have a total of 27 posts in the entire place
 
I too, am guilty of mixing up the meaning of experimental :reject:
Here's hoping u2's next album is just good, regardless of genre
 
I don't know who this guy is, but generally speaking, I agree with him.

I fell in love with the U2 that took big risks (which both did and did not pay off at times). The U2 that (at least it seemed) could care less whether or not they had a radio hit.

U2 since Pop have still been a great band and you can't ignore the classics they've created in their third decade. Beautiful Day comes to mind.

But generally speaking the U2 of the 00's is a band trying too hard to be radio-friendly, or playing it too safe, or whatever you want to call it. This can be seen not only in their music but also in how ridiculously long it takes them to put out an album, where most of the time the outtakes are better than what made the final cut.

I too am very hopeful that Danger Mouse can somehow get U2 to take some major risks. They've already proven themselves and secured their legacy. They're not going to ever fit in with today's Top 40 radio and have a mega-hit. They might as well just go for it. They have nothing to lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
333
Views
10K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
N
  • Locked
NBA 2022-23 Thread
46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
45K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
A
The little stranger chapter 13
Replies
0
Views
566
annj
A
A
the little stranger chapter 2
Replies
0
Views
526
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom