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

[Slapnutz]

I'm 28. Been a since '94. Have all their albums, most of their singles (stopped collecting them when I grew out of my 'fanatic' phase in 2001), every U2 book there is, and attend shows regularly with Leeds '97 and Manchester first night '01 being the pick of the bunch). I know my U2 shit.

 

[Dalton]

I'm 28. Been a since '94. Have all their albums, most of their singles (stopped collecting them when I grew out of my 'fanatic' phase in 2001), every U2 book there is, and attend shows regularly with Leeds '97 and Manchester first night '01 being the pick of the bunch). I know my U2 shit.

Woah. We get it. Again, I wasn't trying to disqualify your opinion. I was simply trying to gauge if my reaction to the new songs is different because I've been listening to the band through so many 'transitions'.

 

[Slapnutz]

I was just about send you my urine sample.

 

[Dalton]

I was just about send you my urine sample.

 

[Salome]

CT, SUC and Breathe are the 3 token U2 savior tracks that i was referring to, the ones that seem to be forced into something tailor made for the pop kids.

wow, i definitely should listen to the radio / pop music more often if this is what they're force-feeding pop kids nowadays

 

[bram]

Bono's comments make me hurt.

I love the band, I love the man, but the comments in this article are seriously damaging to me as a fan of a band who I believed still "had it" leading up to this album. I also believe, unfortunately, they go a long ways toward giving some of us detractors credibility.

I'm not truly speaking ill of the album; I think its good not great. I think it could have been better if it had an actual balance of sonics and songwriting. Bono speaks of achieving this balance, but what I think he doesn't understand is that his version of rock and roll in this decade tips the balance into a territory where balance cannot be achieved. See, I agree with him - write perfect pop tunes and then layer the perfect arrangements of sounds. But I want more atmosphere and more subtlety in the songwriting.

If you think NLOTH is the perfect balance, then I'm glad. But consider Bowie's Low - and I'm not talking the split halves. The first half strikes me as the perfect balance between perfect pop and perfect innovation - interesting pop songs with interesting structures and arrangements that happened to include two hit singles in "Sound and Vision" (a song which is far from a typical single - 1 and 1/2 minute intro followed by an essentially chorusless minute and then song ends) and the far more typical "Be My Wife". The sounds are fresh, the songs are subdued yet divinely, perversely catchy. I think this is truly the proper balance, and since I do, I'd have to say that Bono is way off. Achtung is filled with pop songs, but it achieves this balance. NLOTH is filled with pop songs, but is safe in sound and lacking in songwriting compared to Achtung or Low. I believe it is lacking in songwriting because the band, judging by Bono's comments, is misunderstanding words like "progressive" and their heads are thus in the wrong place, which affects their songwriting, overcooking "hits" instead of freely writing great pieces of music, having confidence that they would just become hits on their own. I think his mind is skewered; I think they're making the exact music they want to make, but I still think that they will gain a different perspective which will return them to glory.

If NLOTH was made up entirely of Crazy Tonight and Stand Up Comedy, I think you'd have a point. Every time you bring up the new album, it sounds like you are only referencing these 2 songs. Otherwise, I really don't see how Achtung Baby is any more innovative or adventurous than NLOTH. And that is not at all a knock on Achtung Baby.

 

[revolver]

I'm 28 as well. I have all their albums and about 20 singles and Kiwi and whatnot. I recently bought the reissues and gave away my old copies because I was so excited about the new album coming out. And I even bought the super box for 67 dollars off Amazon.com and a regular copy as well after I already knew what I thought of the album...so yeah, I'm a big fan. I just feel put off by the music not living up to pre-release hype, I have certain ideas about the band and where they're at in life and how they're thinking and how that thinking affects the music - in fact, I was hyping the band as essentially the only one in control of their own destiny, that if they truly want to make a great, non-formulaic record all they had to do was have their head in the right place. Judging by the comments he's made I'd have to say for sure that his head's not in the right place.

But, yeah, big fan, a completist, even. Just a bit disappointed.

 

[LemonMelon]

CT, SUC and Breathe are the 3 token U2 savior tracks that i was referring to, the ones that seem to be forced into something tailor made for the pop kids.

If you're going to mention Breathe, might as well toss in Magnificent as well. They're both U2 songs that sound like U2, after all.

 

[revolver]

If NLOTH was made up entirely of Crazy Tonight and Stand Up Comedy, I think you'd have a point. Every time you bring up the new album, it sounds like you are only referencing these 2 songs. Otherwise, I really don't see how Achtung Baby is any more innovative or adventurous than NLOTH. And that is not at all a knock on Achtung Baby.

You may be right about that. I think they throw off the balance of the entire album.

However, I will say that I think NLOTH contains 1/10 the invention of Achtung Baby. And the reason I say this is because of the sonics behind the songs. I don't think anything on NLOTH (except maybe Cedars of Lebanon), including Fez-Being Born, is up there with Zoo Station, The Fly, even Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses in terms of atmosphere and, especially, texture. If you'll counter by saying that NLOTH does contain just as much sonic invention, I will counter with a completely personal statement: that NLOTH doesn't sound as modern as Achtung does 18 years later. Could be just me, but that's my feeling.

To sum up, I feel there are too many evidences of old sounds on NLOTH for it to be as innovative as Achtung Baby, and I feel that it lacks the amazing, deep, raw yet popping textures of Achtung's greatest tracks.

 

[revolver]

If you're going to mention Breathe, might as well toss in Magnificent as well. They're both U2 songs that sound like U2, after all.

I think Ozeeko and I are on the same page in thinking that Breathe sounds like a bigger, dumber, crunchier rock song whereas Magnificent sounds a bit more restrained and modern. They do both sound like U2 and you could even say that Breathe is the more unique song in their canon due to Bono's verses and the cello or whatever, but in the end I think Magnificent is more 80s U2 while Breathe is more 2000s. So then Magnificent doesn't get grouped in with our unholy trio. However, I will say that Breathe has grown on me immensely and that the chorus stays lodged in my brain.

 

[bram]

You may be right about that. I think they throw off the balance of the entire album.

However, I will say that I think NLOTH contains 1/10 the invention of Achtung Baby. And the reason I say this is because of the sonics behind the songs. I don't think anything on NLOTH (except maybe Cedars of Lebanon), including Fez-Being Born, is up there with Zoo Station, The Fly, even Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses in terms of atmosphere and, especially, texture. If you'll counter by saying that NLOTH does contain just as much sonic invention, I will counter with a completely personal statement: that NLOTH doesn't sound as modern as Achtung does 18 years later. Could be just me, but that's my feeling.

To sum up, I feel there are too many evidences of old sounds on NLOTH for it to be as innovative as Achtung Baby, and I feel that it lacks the amazing, deep, raw yet popping textures of Achtung's greatest tracks.

Yeah--I think there we'd have to just agree to disagree. All of Achtung's songs are pretty conventional in structure (if not texture and sonics). NLOTH has a wider range of styles and song structures. Achtung Baby doesn't really have any more sonic guitar variation throughout than NLOTH does (only when compared to other U2 albums). The only U2 albums that are less conventional than NLOTH, in my opinion, are Zooropa, Pop (arguably), and Passengers.

 

[Irvine511]

i think it's clear, though, that no matter how you actually feel about the so-called "middle three" or about U2's focus on songwriting post-2000, it's difficult to ascribe nefarious motives to Bono and the band. the mindless, baseless psychoanalysis of the band's need to be "big" or "loved" or whatever else we want to assume is going through Bono's head have no actual basis in either the material produced or in the information we've been given about the recording process.

the band believes in a lean, mean pop single. they think it's absolutely a part of their art. you can like it or not, but to say that they only put CT on the album -- or even put out the last two albums -- was to be "loved" is simply wrong.

 

[revolver]

Yeah--I think there we'd have to just agree to disagree. All of Achtung's songs are pretty conventional in structure (if not texture and sonics). NLOTH has a wider range of styles and song structures. Achtung Baby doesn't really have any more sonic guitar variation throughout than NLOTH does (only when compared to other U2 albums). The only U2 albums that are less conventional than NLOTH, in my opinion, are Zooropa, Pop (arguably), and Passengers.

I can pretty much agree with all of this. Achtung may not have any more variation, but I think it has more exciting variations, not to mention better sounds.

I agree about the structure thing, but I was never doubting that. Mainly, I can see NLOTH being an adventurous work, but not as adventurous as Achtung, not as complete a change. And I thought that's what we were getting. They made an adventurous album that still seems undercooked to me, even with a couple of the songs being overcooked. I think they undercut the experimentation by releasing songs that are less than stellar, and I think the less than stellarness of some of the songs results from undercutting the experimentation; if you think the songs are stellar, then the album will probably seem just as unconventional/great as Achtung Baby. So maybe Bono is right - it's all about the songs!

 

[lazarus]

I was just about send you my urine sample.

Funny, Dalton usually pays hookers for that.

 

[LemonMelon]

I think Ozeeko and I are on the same page in thinking that Breathe sounds like a bigger, dumber, crunchier rock song whereas Magnificent sounds a bit more restrained and modern. They do both sound like U2 and you could even say that Breathe is the more unique song in their canon due to Bono's verses and the cello or whatever, but in the end I think Magnificent is more 80s U2 while Breathe is more 2000s. So then Magnificent doesn't get grouped in with our unholy trio. However, I will say that Breathe has grown on me immensely and that the chorus stays lodged in my brain.

I don't buy it. Outside of the intro (although Breathe has an equally interesting and ear-catching intro, if not more so), Magnificent is superbly-crafted, grade A '00s U2, right down to the cloying platitudes that you know are cloying platitudes but sound so good that you couldn't care less. It ain't a throwback. It's just an excellent take on a modern sound. Regardless, I prefer Breathe. It's a towering, breathless (lozl) adrenaline rush of a song that takes everything good about the past two albums and makes them sound vibrant, alive, and positively joyous. According to Muldfeld, such a thing does not constitute art, but it sounds good enough to me.

In any case, my overarching point is that these two songs are among the best anthems the band has penned in quite some time and do not belong in the company of CT and Stand Up Comedy, the former a great tune bogged down in its own cheap Hallmark-isms, and the latter a mess structurally.

 

[lazarus]

I can pretty much agree with all of this. Achtung may not have any more variation, but I think it has more exciting variations, not to mention better sounds.

I agree about the structure thing, but I was never doubting that. Mainly, I can see NLOTH being an adventurous work, but not as adventurous as Achtung, not as complete a change. And I thought that's what we were getting. They made an adventurous album that still seems undercooked to me, even with a couple of the songs being overcooked. I think they undercut the experimentation by releasing songs that are less than stellar, and I think the less than stellarness of some of the songs results from undercutting the experimentation; if you think the songs are stellar, then the album will probably seem just as unconventional/great as Achtung Baby. So maybe Bono is right - it's all about the songs!

I'm only going to quote the most recent post in this back and forth, but I think you've both made very good points.

I probably agree with Revolver a bit more, especially the line about AB sounding much more "modern", and I feel like if No Line had come out in 2000 it would certainly be less impressive in terms of its "innovation". When put up against the last two, yeah it seems like a breath of fresh air

Obviouslythe band went to the edge of digestible music (some would say over the edge) and back in the 90's, so it's going to be hard for them to do anything really eye-opening at this point.

And I think the points about No Line being undercooked are valid, especially when you hear stuff like Corbijn saying he missed some of the more Middle Eastern elements that were present in earlier versions of the songs.

 

[mikal]

wow, i definitely should listen to the radio / pop music more often if this is what they're force-feeding pop kids nowadays

my thoughts too. i was forced into listening to our pop radio in town the other day, and i laughed at the thought of GOYB fitting in with all the other crap.

 

[BVS]

However, I will say that I think NLOTH contains 1/10 the invention of Achtung Baby.

Then I think you probably have a pretty weak definition of "invention". AB dove into new sounds, but structure wise and lyrically for a good part they were U2 songs.

This album didn't find many new sounds, but structurally and lyrically they went into places they've never done.

I think too many on this board equate "invention" to electronic sounds.

 

[lazarus]

Well you certainly can't criticize AB for that. I think the overhaul of their sound was drastic enough; there needed to be some foothold for the listener, no?

And I do think that lyrically it WAS different because Bono wasn't writing in vague platitudes as much any more, and turned his gaze inward, not just on the nature of love and its decay, but on the plight of the artist on stuff like The Fly, Acrobat, and in a less direct sense, Zoo Station.

The structural changes began on Zooropa, when the adventurous fans were prepared for them.

 

[BVS]

Well you certainly can't criticize AB for that. I think the overhaul of their sound was drastic enough; there needed to be some foothold for the listener, no?

I'm not criticizing the album as much as the revisionist history that some of the fans come up with...

And I do think that lyrically it WAS different because Bono wasn't writing in vague platitudes as much any more, and turned his gaze inward, not just on the nature of love and its decay, but on the plight of the artist on stuff like The Fly, Acrobat, and in a less direct sense, Zoo Station.

I think was about 50/50.

The structural changes began on Zooropa, when the adventurous fans were prepared for them.

Well this is kind of my point. Every departure that U2 makes has some familiar footing like you said, so it's not like diving into ice water...

I think part of this may be calculated and part of it is just natural evolving...

 

[lazarus]

I'm not criticizing the album as much as the revisionist history that some of the fans come up with...

Revisionist history? I was there, and I was pretty shocked at the time. The music journalists were, too.

And you still see the lyrics as being a mixture of old and new. I see a directness even in the "love songs" that just wasn't there before.

 

[standrums]

Man....What's with all with this lack of love? We all know (to use a well worn cliche) that U2 are a "live" band. I have always been an avid collector of U2 live bootlegs - this is what made me a mad fan in the first place. I've always thought that all of U2's recorded studio work has fallen short of their live presence.
This is no different this time.
All I can say is this album has really connected with me personally and I cannot wait to see and hear the live renditions from this piece of work.
I can guarantee that I am going to look back on this period really fondly after witnessing the live experience and related live dvd's etc. And I think many of us will do too.
I feel a spirit in this record that has been lacking from the band since pre-1987 - it's a spiritual, uncynical piece that yearns for joy - and succeeds in that mandate!
Take this album on it's own merits, forget the past. This is one hell of a great album that history is going to look very kindly upon.
When we add a little dose of nostalgia (in say five year's time for example) when listening to this album again in the future, I am certain that that little warm feeling we experience on hearing greatness will be present. It's another positive addition to their impeccable arsenal.
This album captures their essence better than a lot of their previous work as it's recorded in a much more visceral way.
I cannot understand why people can't hear and feel the spirit in this album, not to mention it's great melodies and craftmanship. This album reminds me why I became a fan of the band in the first place.

 

[standrums]

soz...double post

 

[revolver]

Then I think you probably have a pretty weak definition of "invention". AB dove into new sounds, but structure wise and lyrically for a good part they were U2 songs.

This album didn't find many new sounds, but structurally and lyrically they went into places they've never done.

I think too many on this board equate "invention" to electronic sounds.

I see your point, but most of the album's detractors agree with my statements; that the experimentation is half-baked to non-existent. They wrote some songs and they're not exactly cookie-cutter - and I recognize the invention taking place on NLOTH in Bono's lyrics, song structures - but I still don't think this makes it experimental - at least not by U2's standards set by albums like Achtung Baby or Zooropa, or those of today's experimentalists, from Animal Collective to TV on the Radio to Scott Walker. NLOTH sounds more experimental compared to ATYCLB and especially HTDAAB, but not compared to others today, or to Achtung Baby, which as Lazarus said, was a shocking change. I don't think I'm provoking revisionist history.

 

[BVS]

Revisionist history? I was there, and I was pretty shocked at the time. The music journalists were, too.

And you still see the lyrics as being a mixture of old and new. I see a directness even in the "love songs" that just wasn't there before.

I was there too, but I see A LOT of revisionist history in here about this album all the time. A lot of the same sell out arguments were made then that are being made today, etc etc...

I think UTEOTW could have fit easily into some of the darker moods of JT.

Love is Blindness lyrically speaking came from the R&H times.

Wild Horses would have fit nice next to AIWIY...

 

[BVS]

and I recognize the invention taking place on NLOTH in Bono's lyrics, song structures - but I still don't think this makes it experimental - at least not by U2's standards

Well I think this is where people get bogged down by bad definitions.

Just recently a poster in here said, we know what experimentation sounds like for U2. It has effects on the vocals, it's electronic driven, etc...

It was the most generic definition I've ever heard. He was just trying to describe U2 90's. The problem is it wouldn't be experimental anymore. Just like Radiohead are approaching their wall right now.

Musically speaking the definition of experimental is trying something they never have before. That's it.

And I can't really think of anything that has the driving rhythm and wordy verses like NLOTH, the structure of MOS, this many slow ballads, the third person lyrics, the quick paced verses of Breathe, the weird subject matter of UC...

 

[revolver]

And also I'd just like to say that I don't equate experimentation or invention with "electronic" sounds necessarily, but I do primarily equate it with "sound" itself. Just so you know where I am coming from.

 

[revolver]

Well I think this is where people get bogged down by bad definitions.

Just recently a poster in here said, we know what experimentation sounds like for U2. It has effects on the vocals, it's electronic driven, etc...

It was the most generic definition I've ever heard. He was just trying to describe U2 90's. The problem is it wouldn't be experimental anymore. Just like Radiohead are approaching their wall right now.

Musically speaking the definition of experimental is trying something they never have before. That's it.

And I can't really think of anything that has the driving rhythm and wordy verses like NLOTH, the structure of MOS, this many slow ballads, the third person lyrics, the quick paced verses of Breathe, the weird subject matter of UC...

Fine and good. I still don't think the experimentation on NLOTH is anything to write home about. I recognize it by your definition - or perhaps, the definition - but I'm not about to reward the band with kind words on this messageboard for such lackluster invention. It invents - on a scale of 1 to 10 to measure its invention compared against all other bands making music in music's history I'd give it a 4. This, I think, is something else you have to take into consideration, not just whether its inventive for the band or not, but how inventive it is across the whole spectrum.

And perhaps this is not something to get into, but Radiohead, since OK Computer and especially with Kid A, are on another level in which they may not be experimenting within themselves, but are still a step ahead of every other "mainstream" bands' curve, which for me, by my definition, still makes even In Rainbows experimental.

 

[corcovadosong]

Then I think you probably have a pretty weak definition of "invention". AB dove into new sounds, but structure wise and lyrically for a good part they were U2 songs.

This album didn't find many new sounds, but structurally and lyrically they went into places they've never done.

I think too many on this board equate "invention" to electronic sounds.

I agree completely on the electronic sounds part. In terms of things that haven't necessarily been "done" before, Unknown Caller is forcing in a lot of stuff that ESPECIALLY in the realm of epic arena rock hasn't been done before.

Yeah, they could have had a thumping jungle beat behind "Force quit and move to trash" and it would have been mimetic. But they've got birds and french horns and possibly the first time I'd feel comfortable saying "Edge is on FIREEEEE!!!!!!!!!!111!!" haha.

There are a couple of songs on here - UC, Fez-BB, COL, etc - that will stand up with some of the more adventurous stuff in U2's catalogue, without a doubt. Some songs that are genuinely growers, as opposed to listening to CT a thousand times and starting to like it. Fez is pulling back layers as we speak. I still don't like, in terms of the album format, the middle poppy bit, because it comprimises the vision of the album. I won't make the case that CT isn't a good song, because it is - it's well written, catchy, etc.

Eno has a vision on the album, a vision that would have worked better in the album format. Winter, if finished, would have been beautiful and fit right in. The band has a stadium tour with a giant million dollar claw-spider. Only fair for the band to side with the claw-spider.

COL appeals to the same bits of me that love Miami, that love Ultraviolet, that love Zooropa (the song). Did the band sabatoge the album? yeah. but let's wait and see what happens. Looks like even though HTDAAB worked like gang-busters in terms of sales and hype and tours and singles, they still put art and theme and mood first on this album. Maybe this "songs of ascent" thing will be the intense, moody art-rock masterpiece they've certainly got in them.

 

[corcovadosong]

And perhaps this is not something to get into, but Radiohead, since OK Computer and especially with Kid A, are on another level in which they may not be experimenting within themselves, but are still a step ahead of every other "mainstream" bands' curve, which for me, by my definition, still makes even In Rainbows experimental.

The only fair thing to compare U2 to is themselves, in terms of experimentation. U2 is reacting to things that radiohead isn't, and visa versa. U2 does experimental in the terms of experimental mainstream, experimental universality. Radiohead isn't that, and that doesn't mean that they aren't universal or incredible. they are. But that's not what they're reacting to. They're reacting to Asa Breed and dubstep and Madlib and Messien. Things that U2 isn't.

"Faust Arp" may not sound like the most experimental thing in the world, but if you listen to reference points, like "Cell Song" by Nick Drake, you see where the reaction comes from and why it's exemplary.

I'd love it if U2 was reacting to more of the fringe of music. But they're back in a literal "fucking up the mainstream" mode. In the sense that they're putting stuff like Fez, COL, etc, on an album that people are buying on the strength of Vertigo, on the strength of a big name top 40 band. NOLTH will be remembered as one of U2's more experimental albums. it's not completely, and it's certainly not a 10 on the experimental scale. but I'd say that NOLTH, MOS, UC, GOYB, F-BB, and COL are some of their more consciously innovative stuff. So, it's a 6/10, 6/11. not a 4.