Excerpt from the new RS article, "U2: Hymns For the Future" about "Winter" vs Singles

[phillyfan26]

You know, you've been targeting me snarkily since The 4400 thread and I think it's highly unprofessional that you maintain your mod status. You consistently object to things I say but never converse with me with any respect. You even mocked a review I wrote but never actually bothered to read it. I'm really sick of your general disposition. There's a way to disagree without being disagreeable; rhiannsu is a perfect example of a fair debater. It's not as obvious with you as it is others like U2Bonovoxsuperstar or dalton, but more subtle with you, but you know what I mean.

Case in point:

Why are you isolating/quoting me, when I was referring to the poster before me who said it best.

Anyway, I never said any such thing. I love music that conveys joy like some of The Cure's stuff. Pride is another great U2 song, but their "up" movement this last decade has sucked, and is manifested in Bono's phony action stances.

'Cause as long as you're making redundant, overwrought, asinine posts that make you sound like a know-it-all, while at the same time based off nothing other than your own intuitions based off one three and a half minute song from a fifty three minute album, you're just a pest to everyone.

I had to really edit this to make it appropriate for posting.

 

[Dalton]

You know, you've been targeting me snarkily since The 4400 thread and I think it's highly unprofessional that you maintain your mod status. You consistently object to things I say but never converse with me with any respect. You even mocked a review I wrote but never actually bothered to read it. I'm really sick of your general disposition. There's a way to disagree without being disagreeable; rhiannsu is a perfect example of a fair debater. It's not as obvious with you as it is others like U2Bonovoxsuperstar or dalton, but more subtle with you, but you know what I mean.

Case in point:

Why are you isolating/quoting me, when I was referring to the poster before me who said it best.

Anyway, I never said any such thing. I love music that conveys joy like some of The Cure's stuff. Pride is another great U2 song, but their "up" movement this last decade has sucked, and is manifested in Bono's phony action stances.

Push.The.Button.

 

[Dalton]

Oh, I should add that I haven't heard the album yet

Hey hefty, why have you not heard the album yet? Ask your brother to lend you the money.

 

[RademR]

great article...really frustrating!

WINTER has REALLY grown on me...Eno admits it needed a little work; I think reworked with a few different lyrics it would be amazing. Take off SUC and put in WINTER,...

I bet the original version of SUC was a lot better.

I already have this record up there near the top of their catalog, but if a couple more of these experimental songs made it....

 

[last unicorn]

Well, U2 were right to discard Winter, it wouldn't have fit on the album and everything on NLOTH is better than Winter. Eno can complain as much as he wants, Winter sounds like a mixture of Viva la Vida and a kitsch Christmas song. I like it in parts, but it doesn't sound finished or like a coherent song.

And I truly believe that they weren't going for radio friendly stuff with NLOTH. If they were, we'd gotten a different album.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

winter blows. i'd rather listen to mercy, and i think mercy is dog shit.

"it's hot as hell, but we're like butter on toast" ??

really? that makes "freedom has a scent like the top of a new born's baby head" sound like shakespeare.

 

[Salome]

Those Achtung singles were catchy as all hell, but good lord they were like a lightning bolt on the radio. That might be hard to see if you are looking at it only in hindsight, but that really was the case.

I don't know
back in 1992 The KLF etc had some big hits
I don't remember people falling of their chairs when U2 was played

I also don't get why this forum tends to judge the quality of U2's 90s output by comparing it to what was in the singles charts back then and comparing the 00s output by comparing it to album X by favourite 'alternative' band of the moment

 

[Salome]

winter blows. i'd rather listen to mercy, and i think mercy is dog shit.

"it's hot as hell, but we're like butter on toast" ??

really? that makes "freedom has a scent like the top of a new born's baby head" sound like shakespeare.

yes, but if they would change the lyrics and re-record it with a completely different arrangement it will become a classic (read: personal favourite for some) I tell you

A CLASSIC

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

yes, but if they would change the lyrics and re-record it with a completely different arrangement it will become a classic (read: personal favourite for some) I tell you

A CLASSIC

my bad

 

[Dalton]

Well I haven't listened to the song yet, but I think it's pretty clear that U2 made a HUGE mistake by not putting this song on the album. I just don't understand why they are afraid to take risks on their albums. It's clear to anyone with ears that this is the sonic ground U2 should be moving towards. Instead they are moving towards songs like SUC (which I haven't yet heard, but it is pretty clear is a bad song).

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Oh, I should add that I haven't heard the album yet; only GOYB

Oh, I should add that I haven't heard the album yet; only GOYB

Oh, I should add that I haven't heard the album yet; only GOYB

Oh, I should add that I haven't heard the album yet; only GOYB

I think I'm going to keep posting this over and over again..

 

[mikal]

i haven't heard Achtung Baby yet, but i like it more than NLOTH.

 

[sick puppy]

This sums up U2's old ethic at 2:38: "We might lose some of the pop kids, but we don't need them."
YouTube - U2 - Zoo TV - Opening Night (1992)

It really was one of the best ZOOTV quotes of the time. Or it would have been if he'd really really meant it lol.

That response came from a question, not about the Achtung Baby album itself, but about the ZOOTV setlist and the absence of some of the older songs from it. Bono was obviously getting a little bit annoyed about things and that's why he fucked off sharpish without trying to explain his comment.

Oh yeah, and they relented a bit and actually did put New Years Day and Sunday Bloody Sunday back in the setllist later in the tour.


And I'm definitely up for mugging Brian Eno for that laptop .

 

[santiago]

I don't know
back in 1992 The KLF etc had some big hits
I don't remember people falling of their chairs when U2 was played

I also don't get why this forum tends to judge the quality of U2's 90s output by comparing it to what was in the singles charts back then and comparing the 00s output by comparing it to album X by favourite 'alternative' band of the moment

The KLF were a clever postmodern chart experiment, but in terms of sound, they were pretty standard stuff, IMHO.

But I think you are right about comparisons, one can talk about AB being great without necessarily having to say band "x" from the 90s was crap.

 

[ozeeko]

So MULDFELD:

Listen, I agree mostly with what you have to say, but you really should get around to hearing the new album.

For one thing, it'l improve your credibility on this forum, not that i care, but others will.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

no, I still wont care

 

[bcrt2000]

This is depressing to read, knowing that there's a less overcooked version of Stand Up Comedy somewhere (I can't see how it could be worse than what we got), and that Bono's still on this 45 bullshit. We get it, you did this with the last two albums, give it a fucking rest. The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby didn't focus on hit songs--guess what, each album had a handful of successful singles! Focus on the fucking MUSIC, not on the audience.

Remember that Eno was the guy who wanted to trash Where the Streets Had No Name.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

people keep saying this and even Eno himself has said that he just wanted to start it again - not get rid of it completely...

If anything, Eno's opinions should be judged on his "Stuck In A Moment will be a huge hit" comment...

 

[MooMoo!]

I wish they'd just make a record without caring about what others think about it.

 

[BVS]

There's a way to disagree without being disagreeable; rhiannsu is a perfect example of a fair debater. It's not as obvious with you as it is others like U2Bonovoxsuperstar or dalton, but more subtle with you, but you know what I mean.

The day you stop telling us how you know the motivation behind what people say or do, judge people based on speculations YOU make, rewrite history, or just flat out lie... The day you stop doing that and actually try and converse with people you might find that people want to actually engage in conversation with you, until then no one will take you seriously.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Hey hefty, why have you not heard the album yet? Ask your brother to lend you the money.

This made me laugh

 

[Irvine511]

U2 held the belief even early on that one great song would save you years of trying to build a following. They had that in "I Will Follow," which was the song that really built interest in them early-on (in the US at least). They have always worked hardest at the songs they believe will break them. There was a fair amount of tension surrounding the creation of "I Will Follow" -- Bono imagined the guitar sound one way and Edge wouldn't/couldn't reproduce it until Bono did it himself. "Pride" was the song that broke them even bigger, and that was another labor of love -- they recorded and re-recorded the song both at Slane Castle and at Windmill Lane. It was the one they believed in, but it also took a lot of work. (Ironically, "Bad" was probably the song that did even better for them, but I think that was strictly because of the Live Aid associations.)

yes, absolutely.

everyone forgets that U2's career began with "I Will Follow" -- and Edge has talked extensively about how artists, no matter how "pure," need to have at least one song that's going to get people's attention or else they're going to wallow and die in obscurity.

people like to compliment themselves for liking the less single-minded material on any album, and this applies to any artist -- but you would never have known that album or artist existed had you not heard that single and decided to learn more about the album and artist.

i also guarantee you that if "Discotheque" had been, well, a better song, and if SATS had been finished, then Pop would have done better, and the album would be more highly regarded than it is now, where it's considered their biggest dud since October.

singles matter. they will always matter. saying that they just threw WOWY at the radio for the hell of it is totally revisionist. wasn't it Gavin who told McGuinness that it was a "dead cert #1 hit"? and that's why they released it instead of whatever other song was planned to be the first single off TJT? i can think of few more universally beloved songs than WOWY -- it was freaking used on a Friends episode. it's as mainstream as anything out there. why? because it's GOOD. it builds up to a perfect, orgasmic climax and then rides that wave for a few euphoric seconds, before pulling back and releasing perhaps the most simple but beautiful guitar line they've ever composed. that, too, is a recipe for a hit song. it's not by-the-numbers, but it is incredibly EFFECTIVE. it wasn't released as a single because it would somehow alter the culture. it was released because there was a sense it just might work. likewise, "the fly" wasn't released to mess with the culture, it was sent to mess with your perceptions of U2, it was intended to draw attention to itself. and then it would have been followed up by the infectious pop of MW and the grandeur of "One."

don't forget, "One" was always intended as the miracle song of AB, the one song that they knew was so indestructible that no matter if AB had been an abject (commercial) failure, they'd still have that song. they had big plans for it, from the very beginning.

 

[Slapnutz]

I'm pretty sure there were songs on TJT and AB that the band made in hopes of them being well-received possible hits, let's not go overboard here. U2 have always cared about being popular, acclaimed, and relevant, there's nothing new or wrong with that either.

I once interviewed Mark Wallis who worked as an engineer on The Joshua Tree, and contrary to popular belief he says there was never any talk about hit singles - it was always about mood and texture. In fact everyone thought the album was going to be a flop it was so out of sync with what was going on back then.

 

[BVS]

I once interviewed Mark Wallis who worked as an engineer on The Joshua Tree, and contrary to popular belief he says there was never any talk about hit singles - it was always about mood and texture. In fact everyone thought the album was going to be a flop it was so out of sync with what was going on back then.

Given everything I've seen or read about these sessions, I don't buy this for one minute...

 

[Slapnutz]

Given everything I've seen or read about these sessions, I don't buy this for one minute...

That's okay. I'll survive. But that's exactly what Wallis said and he was there right until the final day when they were experimenting with the running order on various cassette tapes and seeing who could come up with the most cohesive. Kirsty MacColl won.

 

[BEAL]

This whole thread is just one big booo hooo

If you don't like what U2 did, then just move on. It's that simple. It's crazy to think that we all know what Bono or Edge, or even Eno really thinks.....even if they say it in an interview.

It's pretty obvious. Eno doenst like rock songs, U2 is a rock band. There is going to be some tension. From stuff I've read, it really sounds like Adam and Eno didn't really see eye to eye on anything until this album.

U2 is making the music THEY FREAKING WANT TO MAKE!!!! I know that sounds cliche, but it's true. If they want to make hit singles, then that's their thing. If they want to make moody, slow songs that the general public won't buy....then so be it.

Here's the fact, U2 has made GREAT music for over 30 years without compromising who they are to each other. No other band can say that.

 

[BVS]

That's okay. I'll survive. But that's exactly what Wallis said and he was there right until the final day when they were experimenting with the running order on various cassette tapes and seeing who could come up with the most cohesive. Kirsty MacColl won.

I'm not calling you a liar or anything, I've just seen enough evidence to the contrary. Maybe that was Wallis' perception but I've never seen anything that showed that U2 or "everyone" thought it would completely flop.

 

[Irvine511]

i think Al Qaeda should have targeted Bono and not the innocent liberal Brian Eno.

 

[doctorwho]

I think it's about degrees. Achtung Baby's "Mysterious Ways" and "Even Better Than The Real Thing" might have been attempts at a hit singles, but they were so different from everything on the airwaves. They were still great pieces of music and not obnoxious at all. They could have been so much more mainstream and lame to appeal to a wider demographic, but the art was able to survive the vetting process of the charts. The Fly didn't, but it's not at all a lesser song. My fear is that, while old U2 understood this, the new U2 doesn't.

What's "ironic" (and perhaps the ultimate irony) is that AB had those very catchy singles, with big hooks - meaning those songs would drag the "pop kids" in. So while Bono's stating how they may lose some, those songs brought them in.

Your argument is that those AB tracks didn't sound like anything on the radio at the time. I accept that argument and concur. The same was true for "War" and JT.

Fast forward to 1997 - "Pop" had a few tracks similar to Prodigy and Chemical Bros. Could that have hurt the album? And one of the big singles sounded like a George Harrison song. Could that have hurt?

Come 2000, ATYCLB is released and while U2 claimed this was their attempt at making an album full of singles, once again, it sounded like nothing out there at the time. I was actually worried that "Beautiful Day" would never catch on because it was so different. Back then, Spears and N'Sync and other pop groups ruled the charts. U2 stood out.

In 2004, I recall an article where the Edge's daughter stated that nothing on HTDAAB sounded like what was on the radio. This is Edge's daughter - a girl/young lady "hip" with the new music.

So in both cases, U2 were able to repeat what they did with "War", JT and AB - they created hit songs that didn't sound like anything out there.

Now, in 2009, we have so many U2 copycats, it's almost hard to tell when U2 releases a new album! I've heard songs by Fallout Boy, The Killers, Kings of Leon, Snow Patrol, Franz Ferdinand, Coldplay and several others that could have easily been a U2 song.

As a result, I'm almost worried that U2 sounding like U2 might suddenly be a bad thing - they won't stand out, even though it's their own sound!

Nonetheless, when I heard NLOTH, nothing leapt out as a "big hit". There was no "gotcha" single. And I think that is what's keeping U2 fresh.

Yes, they want hits - but they aren't trying so hard to get a hit that they are sacrificing their sound or the quality of the music.

You may not like all the songs on NLOTH, and that's fine. I don't like all the songs on any U2 album, and that includes NLOTH as much as it does JT and AB. But to my ears, U2 have once again found a sound that's different from what's out there (well, as much as it can be given the number of bands emulating U2's style).

In other words, U2 do work on the hits - but they don't sacrifice who they are to get that hit.

 

[doctorwho]

I wish they'd just make a record without caring about what others think about it.

They did - it was called "Original Soundtracks 1". No one bought it. Even Larry didn't like it.

So...