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

[blue screen]

I don't know how much we really know about the whole U2 process of making albums (or any other band for that matter). It's all speculation and makes for a great thread.

Having said that, we shouldn't doubt these guys at all, and always think that whatever they do is the correct thing to do, even if the end result isn't always spot on. I mean, we are talking about a band, hell, a rock band that's been together for over thirty years, have sold over 140 million albums, won more grammys than any other band in history, has been the best live band ever, and if you have listened to every album, all the way through several times, you can hear all the different, incredible sounds that they have come up with; they're clearly doing something right. Who are we to judge them? I don't know of anyone else on this forum who has a resume like that.

We all have our opinions and a are very passionate about this band, because they are very passionate about their music, and we can of course say if we like something or not, but we are not always right, and that's the funny thing about the Usenet comments on The Fly.

It takes a lot of balls to come up with such a different sounding album like Achtung Baby, already having The Joshua Tree under their belts and being the biggest rock band in the world, and releasing The Fly as their lead single. And that is exactly what I miss the most about the band..that attitude that coolness, of starting of a rock show with 8 songs from an album that was radically different than their previous stuff.

I guess age has a lot to do with it, those fearless 30 year olds ain't coming back. I've been a fan since 1980, and I don't think you can blame the "safe" songs on NLOTH on Lillywhite. That's the guy behind War, but maybe age has gotten to him to, and that's OK. I don't think it's U2's place anymore to come up with something different every album...they've pretty much have covered the whole rock spectrum and then some. I think, from now on, it's just about trying to record great songs, groundbreaking or not. We expect too much of them, because they have given us many reasons to expect a lot of from them, and that's why I love this band.

Of course there are songs some us will and will not like, or maybe think that the album isn't a big departure in sound, and that's fine we are all entitled to our opinions and most of the time it makes for great conversation. But the reality is, how many bands pushing fifty can still release rock music like NLOTH? They are still trying to do some great things, and that's what counts the most, that they still believe they can bring something to fire up the slow death of rock (IMO), and not be ashamed or afraid of the criticism.

I remember the first time I heard The Fly (and to this day I still believe it has one of the best guitar solos in the history of rock), and it was a great shock, as was the rest of the album.

Yes, for me the last few albums haven't been nearly as exciting, but they are still much better than what other rock bands release. And if at nearly fifty they can still make songs like NLOTH, Magnificent, Breathe, Unknown Caller, and heck even Boots, that's just astonishing.

Nothing they do in the future (who knows maybe Songs of Ascent will prove me wrong), will have the same effect as the transition from JT/RH to AB/Zooropa, but I'll take NLOTH over any other album out right now.

 

[lazarus]

Having said that, we shouldn't doubt these guys at all, and always think that whatever they do is the correct thing to do, even if the end result isn't always spot on. I mean, we are talking about a band, hell, a rock band that's been together for over thirty years, have sold over 140 million albums, won more grammys than any other band in history, has been the best live band ever, and if you have listened to every album, all the way through several times, you can hear all the different, incredible sounds that they have come up with; they're clearly doing something right. Who are we to judge them? I don't know of anyone else on this forum who has a resume like that.

Could you sound like more of a sycophant? I don't give a shit what they've put out in the past. The interview betrays a feeling of compromise. Whether you want to believe that compromise is the right thing or not is your own opinion, but personally I think it's a bunch of crap. And by your rationale, now I have to have an illustrious music career of my own to make any kind of critical evaluation of the music? BULLSHIT.

Nobody's perfect, and the notion that we shouldn't second guess ANYTHING the band does because every choice is RIGHT is absolutely laughable. I find it rather sad that someone as old as you are would bow down with such acquiescence to anyone. Haven't you lived long enough to notice that we are all human, with our own frailties?

With age comes wisdom, but with it also comes the reluctance to dive into things head first, which often brings about great things creatively. As much as the band seems willing to explore new territory, they are spending an unnecessary amount of time looking over their shoulders at the up and coming bands, and being way too calculating in trying to ensure that they have some kind of hip accessibility.

 

[blue screen]

Could you sound like more of a sycophant? I don't give a shit what they've put out in the past. The interview betrays a feeling of compromise. Whether you want to believe that compromise is the right thing or not is your own opinion, but personally I think it's a bunch of crap. And by your rationale, now I have to have an illustrious music career of my own to make any kind of critical evaluation of the music? BULLSHIT.

Nobody's perfect, and the notion that we shouldn't second guess ANYTHING the band does because every choice is RIGHT is absolutely laughable. I find it rather sad that someone as old as you are would bow down with such acquiescence to anyone. Haven't you lived long enough to notice that we are all human, with our own frailties?

With age comes wisdom, but with it also comes the reluctance to dive into things head first, which often brings about great things creatively. As much as the band seems willing to explore new territory, they are spending an unnecessary amount of time looking over their shoulders at the up and coming bands, and being way too calculating in trying to ensure that they have some kind of hip accessibility.

Again, as I said your opinion is as valuable and worthy as mine and of everyone on the forum...I'm just saying that THEY are the ones making the decisions and have been right more often than not. I'm NOT saying that nobody can give their opinion or second guess them BECAUSE nobody here has their resume, just trying to make a point that we are not, never have been and probably will never be in their shoes, so who the hell knows why they do the things they do?

And whoever you are, I'm sure that you are more than capable of stating a valid argument other than BULLSHIT. Think about it, we are all in this forum first and foremost because we are fans of the same band, so I don't think it's necessary to just dismiss a comment with BULLSHIT, but hey, again if that's your opinion, great...I stated mine you've stated yours, fair enough

And I think their past work is something to consider, because if they had done 12 different album versions of BOY, I doubt U2 would still be around, it's because of their past work that we believe they can bring something new to music with every album.

Your last comment is exactly what I'm talking about, NOBODY knows for sure if the want hip accessibility or if they truly believe this is groundbreaking stuff, or whatever....what we do know is they try their hardest every time, whether we like the result or not...they could have gone the Stones route YEARS ago, and rake in the money. I'm a fan of the band not a "sycophant" (no need for insults either, I don't think I'm insulting anybody, just saying what's on my mind), and a I don't care if they sell a billion copies or one, not anymore, I used to care...all I know is that being a fan of the band is great because you just know there will be something interesting and worthwhile to listen to when they release a record, again, be it groundbreaking or not.

 

[lazarus]

You said "who are we to judge them? I don't know of anyone else on this forum who has a resume like that." Do you know what you're implying by that statement?

They've been right more often than not. Okay, I'll agree with that, in the grand scheme of things. So what? This decade they've made more questionable decisions than in the past. That makes me reticent to give them the benefit of the doubt.

"We shouldn't doubt these guys at all, and always think whatever they do is the correct thing to do, even if the end result isn't always spot on." If you can't see the fallacy in that statement, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[blue screen]

You said "who are we to judge them? I don't know of anyone else on this forum who has a resume like that." Do you know what you're implying by that statement?

They've been right more often than not. Okay, I'll agree with that, in the grand scheme of things. So what? This decade they've made more questionable decisions than in the past. That makes me reticent to give them the benefit of the doubt.

"We shouldn't doubt these guys at all, and always think whatever they do is the correct thing to do, even if the end result isn't always spot on." If you can't see the fallacy in that statement, I don't know what to tell you.

Well, I guess in your case it's just easier to bash them and think that it's very questionable the decisions they have made based on the 20 million albums they've sold this decade alone, and two hugely successful tours, one of which is the second highest grossing tour of all time...do YOU see the irony in your statement?

 

[catlhere]

They've been right more often than not. Okay, I'll agree with that, in the grand scheme of things. So what? This decade they've made more questionable decisions than in the past. That makes me reticent to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The whole reasoning for this type of statement though is one's own perception that what the band is doing since 2000 is wrong, simply because you don't like it as much. Which is what the person was trying to say, I believe. That U2 makes music THEY want to make, not Brian Eno. So the whole butthurt whining he did about Winter being left off is just his own frustration with the band not following his vision, it doesn't make him right or wrong. Obviously if he, or any fan, feels that U2 is ignoring a good thing, then just don't produce/buy the album, or go produce/buy one from a band that shares that mindset. There's no use trying to wrongly state that one particular way of making music is the correct way in order to scold the band.

 

[lazarus]

There's no use trying to wrongly state that one particular way of making music is the correct way in order to scold the band.

Who said that? And I don't dislike what they've done this decade, I just don't agree with some of their choices.

The original poster admitted that the results aren't always spot on. All I'm doing is questioning the sanity and logic of never doubting someone and always thinking they're correct, even when you know they sometimes aren't. What the fuck does that mean? The whole statement is a contradiction.

 

[BVS]

As a matter of fact, U2 wasn't so single-obsessed in the past -

I mean The Fly was an indie rock single back in 91 -

Your whole post is filled with revisionist history, but these two lines stand out like sore thumbs, they are completely false. The only album that didn't overtly care about singles was Zooropa, and that's because they didn't have to... even though they did have Stay.

The Fly was not an "indie rock" single, it was on alternative and college stations, but the term "indie" wasn't even really used back then.

U2 has always cared, please people, do not kid yourselves, you sound foolish doing so.

 

[blue screen]

Who said that? And I don't dislike what they've done this decade, I just don't agree with some of their choices.

The original poster admitted that the results aren't always spot on. All I'm doing is questioning the sanity and logic of never doubting someone and always thinking they're correct, even when you know they sometimes aren't. What the fuck does that mean? The whole statement is a contradiction.

It just means to trust U2, even if after a few years you think it wasn't the best decision...like I said, they are in charge and they decide ultimately what gets released, and ultimately, by their track record it's safe to say (I think) that they have been spot on most of the time. Nobody knows the future, or can say beforehand whether or not a decision will be right or wrong, only time will tell...so nobody is in their shoes or their heads to know what really goes on...all we can do is trust them and their decisions based on whatever reasons they may have, and I'm happy to say I'm glad I do, because ultimately it just comes down whether we like the music, the shows or not; and that's fine if you do or don't, but it's difficult to assume that anybody here could do a better job at it than them.

BTW, this all comes from the Eno/Winter thing and from the usenet posts I read regarding the first impressions of The Fly...very funny how many people thought The Fly was a terrible first single and yet everything worked out brilliantly for them. Just a matter of opinion and it's cool to disagree, and that's exactly the purpose of this or any other forum, to express your opinions and respect others, even if you don't agree, because it's wonderful to see things from many angles...but again, insults, and bashing are totally uncalled for, especially if none are directed towards you...it's nothing personal.

 

[blue screen]

Your whole post is filled with revisionist history, but these two lines stand out like sore thumbs, they are completely false. The only album that didn't overtly care about singles was Zooropa, and that's because they didn't have to... even though they did have Stay.

The Fly was not an "indie rock" single, it was on alternative and college stations, but the term "indie" wasn't even really used back then.

U2 has always cared, please people, do not kid yourselves, you sound foolish doing so.

I agree with you 100%, and that's why so many on this forum care..because U2's has cared, maybe for different reasons, maybe The Fly was never intended to be a number one song, but just to get out on the radio this "new U2 sound", but I agree that they have always been very careful, for whatever reasons, what they release as singles...they've never been shy about wanting to be the biggest, from the day one

 

[Diemen]

Having said that, we shouldn't doubt these guys at all, and always think that whatever they do is the correct thing to do, even if the end result isn't always spot on.

Hold. On. Just. A. Second.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should just assume that whatever they do is the correct thing to do??


Wow.

Just...


Wow.


And I say this as someone who really loves the new album and is excited for the direction they seem to be headed.

 

[lazarus]

I was beginning to think I was the only sane person.

And BVS, while it would be foolish to think that U2 ever took their eyes off the radio/charts/mainstream, I don't think something like The Fly was specifically constructed to be a hit single. And in the case of One, that song came out of nowhere according to the band. Did they look at the finished Achtung Baby and choose their singles carefully? You bet they did. But on this album they left off certain songs so they could make room for more accessible ones, and worked on those over and over again until they felt they had the right product. That doesn't sound like the same way of thinking.

Also, if we're going to go by track record, Brian Eno has a much longer (and diverse) history of success than U2 does. He invigorated/overhauled the careers of not only U2, but Talking Heads, David Bowie, James, and now Coldplay. That doesn't even take into account his own solo career and work with Roxy Music.

So if it comes to a war of ideas between U2 and Eno, forgive me for siding with him, as he's proven to be much more infallible.

 

[ultraviolet7]

I guess age has a lot to do with it, those fearless 30 year olds ain't coming back. I've been a fan since 1980, and I don't think you can blame the "safe" songs on NLOTH on Lillywhite. That's the guy behind War, but maybe age has gotten to him to, and that's OK. I don't think it's U2's place anymore to come up with something different every album...they've pretty much have covered the whole rock spectrum and then some. I think, from now on, it's just about trying to record great songs, groundbreaking or not. We expect too much of them, because they have given us many reasons to expect a lot of from them, and that's why I love this band.

Age may be a valid point and it is reasonable not to expect people to do what they did when they were 30, but it is also true that the age factor becomes irrelevant when you come to think of innovative artists like David Bowie or Peter Gabriel who are in their late 50s/60s. I don't know if it's U2's place anymore to come up with something different every album, what I do know is that that is what they have been doing for the most part of the past 30 years, so it is not unreasonable to expect it.

However, in my experience to expect in general leads to letdown and truly artists should be allowed to freely come up with what they feel they should at a given point and then it is our prerogative as public to say yea or nay. The problem arises when artists start to become too much influenced by what the public expects from them and try to fulfill expectations or try to do what they think the public wants to hear. That is when art starts to become stale.

U2 has been an uncompromising band during many years - a true "punk band" like Bono and Edge like to define it. I've had the impression that in the last few years the band traded non-compromise for relevance. Proof is their abrupt veer from the Pop experience, which if pushed further would have probably put them into a cult band niche, to the blatantly mainstream style they embraced as from ATYCLB, which instead made them the most popular band in the the world. The infamous statement about not wanting to make "two crap albums in a row" as almost apologising for Pop, the reworking of the Pop tracks for the 90/00 compilation, the choice of songs on the compilation itself are more than indicative of this. I'm not questioning their decision - it's theirs and only theirs - I can only say that the two last albums were very good by today's rock standards but to say the least, unexciting coming from a band that in the previous 20 years had done nothing but push their own limits. It was not only the awesome music, but that attitude that made them the truly great band they became.

Re Lillywhite - OK it was the band that called him in, but producers are there for a reason which includes arranging songs and making decisions on the feel, the sound, etc. The 00s sounding songs were indeed produced by him, so it's not unreasonable to say that he had something to do with the final result, especially when the said songs stand, for diverse reasons, apart from the rest. The fact that he produced War is irrelevant at this point: he helped to define U2's sound back then and they parted ways with him right after that album. I respect his past work, I simply don't like what he is doing for U2 now.

 

[blue screen]

Hold. On. Just. A. Second.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should just assume that whatever they do is the correct thing to do??


Wow.

Just...


Wow.


And I say this as someone who really loves the new album and is excited for the direction they seem to be headed.

Well. once again and for the last time, we should assume that whatever it is they do at a certain time, is exactly what THEY thought should have been done, under their own circumstances which we know NOTHING about.

It would seem kind of ridiculous to think that after a certain age, any important decision anyone makes, to that person, isn't the correct way.
I don't know anybody who would go ahead and do something thinking that it's the wrong thing to do.

All we do here is play Monday morning quarterback...but the reality is, we don't know what goes on in their heads or their reasoning for doing things, so I'd rather guess that whatever decision they make, it's based on what they think is right and not some whim...that's all I'm saying...whether after the decision has been made and us, the fans, state our opinion, well that's just too easy to do after the consequences are there for everyone to judge.

It can't be easy being in their place and all they have to go through, sure they screw up every once in a while, but I'm sure they weren't thinking they were going to screw up.

Lighten up a bit, again, it's just the music that counts, if you like it fine , if not fine, until they release (if they ever, highly doubtful) the tracks to each song, and you can mix them however you think is best for you, we are stuck with what we got, which, IMO, is pretty damn amazing.

So yeah I believe in them as artists, and the decisions they make which affect how their art is perceived by others, I believe those decisions come from the best intentions, whether or not they work, that's something else entirely, and something nobody can foresee.

 

[BVS]

I was beginning to think I was the only sane person.

And BVS, while it would be foolish to think that U2 ever took their eyes off the radio/charts/mainstream, I don't think something like The Fly was specifically constructed to be a hit single. And in the case of One, that song came out of nowhere according to the band. Did they look at the finished Achtung Baby and choose their singles carefully? You bet they did. But on this album they left off certain songs so they could make room for more accessible ones, and worked on those over and over again until they felt they had the right product. That doesn't sound like the same way of thinking.

Also, if we're going to go by track record, Brian Eno has a much longer (and diverse) history of success than U2 does. He invigorated/overhauled the careers of not only U2, but Talking Heads, David Bowie, James, and now Coldplay. That doesn't even take into account his own solo career and work with Roxy Music.

So if it comes to a war of ideas between U2 and Eno, forgive me for siding with him, as he's proven to be much more infallible.

No, I agree The Fly wasn't an obvious hit, but neither were many of their first singles except BD. There's a reason MW was released almost the same time of the album...

But we also know that U2 has left off some more accessible songs in their past as well. Did knowing they were going to release another quick follow up help mold their thinking this time around? We really don't know...

Eno is amazing but he isn't the end all be all, he's made some shit music, he's also hated some of U2's most loved songs, and loved some of their most hated, so honestly I don't side with anyone. We have what we have and pretending we have more to go by is kind of pointless at this stage...

 

[ultraviolet7]

Your whole post is filled with revisionist history,

And so?

but these two lines stand out like sore thumbs, they are completely false. The only album that didn't overtly care about singles was Zooropa, and that's because they didn't have to... even though they did have Stay.

I am aware that every band "cares" about singles and relevance, what I'm trying to say is that in the past the band seemed to be more concerned with putting out albums, which of course included singles material in sync with the album concept itself. In the last few years the band seems to have detracted importance from the albums, being mainly concerned with putting out mass appealing singles, the connection of which to the albums in question doesn't seem to be so relevant.

The Fly was not an "indie rock" single, it was on alternative and college stations, but the term "indie" wasn't even really used back then.

And your point is?
Today's indie equals the term alternative of that time. The only reason I used the term is because it was on the original article and thought would help to put the point across more easily.

U2 has always cared, please people, do not kid yourselves, you sound foolish doing so.

Condescendence is uncalled for.

 

[blue screen]

Age may be a valid point and it is reasonable not to expect people to do what they did when they were 30, but it is also true that the age factor becomes irrelevant when you come to think of innovative artists like David Bowie or Peter Gabriel who are in their late 50s/60s. I don't know if it's U2's place anymore to come up with something different every album, what I do know is that that is what they have been doing for the most part of the past 30 years, so it is not unreasonable to expect it.

However, in my experience to expect in general leads to letdown and truly artists should be allowed to freely come up with what they feel they should at a given point and then it is our prerogative as public to say yea or nay. The problem arises when artists start to become too much influenced by what the public expects from them and try to fulfill expectations or try to do what they think the public wants to hear. That is when art starts to become stale.

U2 has been an uncompromising band during many years - a true "punk band" like Bono and Edge like to define it. I've had the impression that in the last few years the band traded non-compromise for relevance. Proof is their abrupt veer from the Pop experience, which if pushed further would have probably put them into a cult band niche, to the blatantly mainstream style they embraced as from ATYCLB, which instead made them the most popular band in the the world. The infamous statement about not wanting to make "two crap albums in a row" as almost apologising for Pop, the reworking of the Pop tracks for the 90/00 compilation, the choice of songs on the compilation itself are more than indicative of this. I'm not questioning their decision - it's theirs and only theirs - I can only say that the two last albums were very good by today's rock standards but to say the least, unexciting coming from a band that in the previous 20 years had done nothing but push their own limits. It was not only the awesome music, but that attitude that made them the truly great band they became.

Re Lillywhite - OK it was the band that called him in, but producers are there for a reason which includes arranging songs and making decisions on the feel, the sound, etc. The 00s sounding songs were indeed produced by him, so it's not unreasonable to say that he had something to do with the final result, especially when the said songs stand, for diverse reasons, apart from the rest. The fact that he produced War is irrelevant at this point: he helped to define U2's sound back then and they parted ways with him right after that album. I respect his past work, I simply don't like what he is doing for U2 now.

I agree with you on pretty much everything, however regarding Lillywhite, I just had to say something because he's being bashed around so much. The fact that he did some amazing work with the band is something I don't think should be forgotten. Yeah, maybe he's not the best choice right now, but he was with them at the beginning and produced some songs we still love today, and that's got to mean something...that's all I really wanted to say about that.

 

[ultraviolet7]

And BVS, while it would be foolish to think that U2 ever took their eyes off the radio/charts/mainstream, I don't think something like The Fly was specifically constructed to be a hit single. And in the case of One, that song came out of nowhere according to the band. Did they look at the finished Achtung Baby and choose their singles carefully? You bet they did. But on this album they left off certain songs so they could make room for more accessible ones, and worked on those over and over again until they felt they had the right product. That doesn't sound like the same way of thinking.

Exactly

 

[lazarus]

It would seem kind of ridiculous to think that after a certain age, any important decision anyone makes, to that person, isn't the correct way.
I don't know anybody who would go ahead and do something thinking that it's the wrong thing to do.

All we do here is play Monday morning quarterback...but the reality is, we don't know what goes on in their heads or their reasoning for doing things, so I'd rather guess that whatever decision they make, it's based on what they think is right and not some whim...that's all I'm saying...whether after the decision has been made and us, the fans, state our opinion, well that's just too easy to do after the consequences are there for everyone to judge.

It can't be easy being in their place and all they have to go through, sure they screw up every once in a while, but I'm sure they weren't thinking they were going to screw up.

No one is saying that EVERY decision by an older person/artist is the wrong one. I don't know where you got that from.

And the thing is, we DO know what they were thinking this time around, because the interviews and articles we've read have let us in on the process! They said themselves they felt they needed more mainstream/accessible songs, and pushed aside other ones and the conceptual nature of the original album to do that.

Now whether or not you think that was a correct decision is subjective. But you can't say "we don't know what they were thinking". They were thinking of the market, and thinking compromise. And I think Eno's points are valid. Whatever you may think of the quality of Winter (and we know that it wasn't finished), it fits a hell of a lot better on that album tonally and sonically than Crazy Tonight or Stand Up Comedy does.

 

[U2DMfan]

Well. once again and for the last time, we should assume that whatever it is they do at a certain time, is exactly what THEY thought should have been done, under their own circumstances which we know NOTHING about.

It would seem kind of ridiculous to think that after a certain age, any important decision anyone makes, to that person, isn't the correct way.
I don't know anybody who would go ahead and do something thinking that it's the wrong thing to do.

All we do here is play Monday morning quarterback...but the reality is, we don't know what goes on in their heads or their reasoning for doing things, so I'd rather guess that whatever decision they make, it's based on what they think is right and not some whim...

Not everyone is unable to use logical, deductive reasoning.

Making music for consumers is actually nothing but guesswork.

Bono wouldn't assume himself infallible, yet it seems like you do.

 

[BVS]

I am aware that every band "cares" about singles and relevance, what I'm trying to say is that in the past the band seemed to be more concerned with putting out albums, which of course included singles material in sync with the album concept itself. In the last few years the band seems to have detracted importance from the albums, being mainly concerned with putting out mass appealing singles, the connection of which to the albums in question doesn't seem to be so relevant.

My point is we're(when I say we I mean certain types of fans) project their own ideas of relevance onto the band. The album wasn't of importance in the 50's, and honestly if it is today is up in the air, the industry is different.

We may easily go back to the days of singles. Or it may be EPs, who knows...

I can understand the anxiety of a band like U2 on the brink of new technology and changes in the industry.

 

[blue screen]

No one is saying that EVERY decision by an older person/artist is the wrong one. I don't know where you got that from.

And the thing is, we DO know what they were thinking this time around, because the interviews and articles we've read have let us in on the process! They said themselves they felt they needed more mainstream/accessible songs, and pushed aside other ones and the conceptual nature of the original album to do that.

Now whether or not you think that was a correct decision is subjective. But you can't say "we don't know what they were thinking". They were thinking of the market, and thinking compromise. And I think Eno's points are valid. Whatever you may think of the quality of Winter (and we know that it wasn't finished), it fits a hell of a lot better on that album tonally and sonically than Crazy Tonight or Stand Up Comedy does.

Again, it's your opinion and a very valid one...and yes there is more info out now, but, I still don't think we know everything that goes on in their decision making process..they can say whatever they want to the press, and I'm sure they are sincere at it, but this is the album they wanted to release with those songs, in that order and only time and the tour will say whether or not they failed or succeeded...all I'm saying is they are the ones holding the cards, and they bet on their best hand, even if that means that some fans may not agree with it...I mean we could go on and on about this...how Bono accepting the Grammy for Zooropa saying they would continue to fuck up the mainstream and how 15 years later, they just have seemed to embrace it more than fuck it up, but that's my opinion...we have a very good album out now by a band we love, and you know the tour is going to be great (even though nobody has seen a show yet and there's some crab bashing going on), so let's just enjoy it..and if you like Winter that much, then I assume you have it and can listen to it all you want...ultimately music, I think is a very personal experience, and you can at least say that Winter, which isn't on the album, was at least recorded, and it's there for you

 

[blue screen]

Not everyone is unable to use logical, deductive reasoning.

Making music for consumers is actually nothing but guesswork.

Bono wouldn't assume himself infallible, yet it seems like you do.

Man, who said anything about being infallible?

Everyone at one point or another has made a decision thinking it was the right thing to do, only to find out AFTER that it was a mistake. Again, I'm just assuming that when decision making time comes, they, like most people, do what they think is right...you only know if it is actually right or wrong when dealing with the consequences.

 

[U2DMfan]

blue screen, your first quote was absolutely of that nature, you later clarified it further while I hadn't seen the other responses, I see what you are saying now in context but it's still weak.

I don't know if there was a mistake in song selection, I haven't even heard Winter yet (although hopefully I will shortly) but you are presuming my inability for deductive reasoning when you say "we don't know" when clearly any chimp with a brain can put two and two together and formulate a good speculative idea. There is a bevy of material on the band in the studio over the years, I'm guessing I've read almost all of it (whatever I know is available).

I don't know what their exact process is but I have a pretty good idea after all these years, yet you are assuming my ignorance on your behalf.

I don't claim to have some empirical opinion, my objection is to your statement that we couldn't know and therefore should just "trust" them. I won't inject myself as an authority on the subject, but don't claim because you don't know something, that I can't formulate ideas about it.

Maybe I'm wrong with my speculation (whatever it may be) but I am certainly not going to defer an opinion because the band tried not to make a mistake.

 

[blue screen]

blue screen, your first quote was absolutely of that nature, you later clarified it further while I hadn't seen the other responses, I see what you are saying now in context but it's still weak.

I don't know if there was a mistake in song selection, I haven't even heard Winter yet (although hopefully I will shortly) but you are presuming my inability for deductive reasoning when you say "we don't know" when clearly any chimp with a brain can put two and two together and formulate a good speculative idea. There is a bevy of material on the band in the studio over the years, I'm guessing I've read almost all of it (whatever I know is available).

I don't know what their exact process is but I have a pretty good idea after all these years, yet you are assuming my ignorance on your behalf.

I don't claim to have some empirical opinion, my objection is to your statement that we couldn't know and therefore should just "trust" them. I won't inject myself as an authority on the subject, but don't claim because you don't know something, that I can't formulate ideas about it.

Maybe I'm wrong with my speculation (whatever it may be) but I am certainly not going to defer an opinion because the band tried not to make a mistake.

And I'm not saying you should....just as you think you have enough info to formulate and state something that you think is true, doesn't make it so...and the same goes for me...none of us were there when they chose what songs to put on the album or for heard their reasons for doing so...I'm not saying that what I think is true, it's just one opinion that means nothing to anybody but me, and that's the way it should be...

And, PLEASE don't say that I'm assuming you're ignorant, if you felt in any way that I was implying that, I'm truly sorry...

It's getting very difficult in this forum to have good discussions on topics without people getting insulted or feeling they've been insulted, and I don't like that..I respect everyone's opinion..it's great when it's very different than mine, because you can see things from another perspective.

I just merely think that I don't know enough about the subject we've been discussing to come to any conclusion, and therefore, I just trust that this band that I have admired for so long, does what they think is best, even if the outcome is not the desired one..that's all...I wish I could be in the room when they're mixing and deciding what goes on the album or what gets dropped, or how they come up with the concepts for the tour, etc...

 

[U2DMfan]

And so?
In the last few years the band seems to have detracted importance from the albums, being mainly concerned with putting out mass appealing singles, the connection of which to the albums in question doesn't seem to be so relevant.

I just think they had more confidence, really.

They felt like they could dictate what the 'hit' was and when the insecurity set in at the end of the 90's, they decided they needed to make a more concerted effort to craft the singles. Now that said, I don't think Boots has any more craft than Discotheque, they were designed to be about the same thing but anyone who thinks either of those songs is in the same league as The Fly or Numb or maybe even WOWY (in context) is fooling themselves. Actually with the video and the current music of the day, Discotheque was quite ballsy, regardless of the revisionist history on this forum sometimes.

Let's face it, we are talking about 4 men who are near 50, who come out of the late 70's punk era and sowed their roots in the 80's. Their mindset is of a different time, and while they have been progressive in many aspects of the music biz, they still hold on to the classic release models and promotions and enjoy the comfort of that huge burdensome label.

They like the feel of their old shoes and their tried and true methods and the way bands from those eras made hits was to hone in and craft them. U2 started in that era as an alternative to that thinking, and while they may have always been hugely ambitious, they weren't always alleviating risks for relevance. They had built-in relevance of being young and culturally setting marks, rather than trying to find their footing back in the game.

I've argued for years around here about risks, and all I ever wanted for them was to take some risks again, fail or not. I think NLOTH has some risks, which is why I embrace every negative review I see. There was nothing, at all, risky about their last album.

 

[catlhere]

I think ATYCLB was a very connected and flowing album. Why are people lumping it with the jack-of-all-trades style that HTDAAB has?

 

[ozeeko]

What I got from U2 after digesting many books written about the band, is that they didn't want hit songs in the traditional sense. In "Into The Heart" there's a story about "Treasure" which everyone at Island Records thought should've been made into a hit. The band didn't want that. They wouldn't sell a song to the radio unless it was representative of their entire package. They didn't want a one-off hit single for the sake of having one. When they recorded "One", it wasn't with the intention of having a hit, it was a song that just came together all of a sudden and linked the band back together. I hate it when people point to "One" like it's the pure example of U2 writing something that the masses will sing together, because it didn't happen like that. It was a song that saved them, saved them from breaking up. And if you have any depth at all you will see that the lyrics aren't the stuff that pop songs are made of, it's a song about a bitter break up, it's a song about a very dark relationship.

Everyone that i agree with on this thread seems to agree on one thing, that the songs we dislike are the ones that sound like U2 are going thru the motions, trying to cultivate a hit based on some post-2000's obligation to have a catchy hit single. This started with "Sweetest Thing" on the Greatest Hits album, a song that was left off the JT, not because it wasn't good enough, but because it didn't represent the band, for they weren't a normal pop band. In the 2000's they became that, a pop band, and it is the norm these days to provide optimistic sounding pop hits.

I beg you to find one optimistic pop song that U2 recorded during the 80's and 90's that tells us to "shout it out, walk out into the streets, stand up for our love" etc. etc.

You won't. But where you might get close is where you find yourself being optimistic because of the FEELING the music gives you, and not because of what BONO himself is preaching to you.

 

[blue screen]

I just think they had more confidence, really.

They felt like they could dictate what the 'hit' was and when the insecurity set in at the end of the 90's, they decided they needed to make a more concerted effort to craft the singles. Now that said, I don't think Boots has any more craft than Discotheque, they were designed to be about the same thing but anyone who thinks either of those songs is in the same league as The Fly or Numb or maybe even WOWY (in context) is fooling themselves. Actually with the video and the current music of the day, Discotheque was quite ballsy, regardless of the revisionist history on this forum sometimes.

Let's face it, we are talking about 4 men who are near 50, who come out of the late 70's punk era and sowed their roots in the 80's. Their mindset is of a different time, and while they have been progressive in many aspects of the music biz, they still hold on to the classic release models and promotions and enjoy the comfort of that huge burdensome label.

They like the feel of their old shoes and their tried and true methods and the way bands from those eras made hits was to hone in and craft them. U2 started in that era as an alternative to that thinking, and while they may have always been hugely ambitious, they weren't always alleviating risks for relevance. They had built-in relevance of being young and culturally setting marks, rather than trying to find their footing back in the game.

I've argued for years around here about risks, and all I ever wanted for them was to take some risks again, fail or not. I think NLOTH has some risks, which is why I embrace every negative review I see. There was nothing, at all, risky about their last album.

Hey we agree on something!!!

Except, Discotheque, which I think is a great song, not in the league of the others you mentioned, but better than Boots, much better...and I agree that it took some balls to release that song, at that time in their careers with THAT video, and I think in general people went for it..it is the last Top 10 song has had in the States, and it sold so well, it went gold...maybe Pop didn't sell as well in the US because there were no more songs like Discotheque (I'm kidding about that, BTW).

 

[U2DMfan]

It's getting very difficult in this forum to have good discussions on topics without people getting insulted or feeling they've been insulted, and I don't like that..I respect everyone's opinion..it's great when it's very different than mine, because you can see things from another perspective.

I just merely think that I don't know enough about the subject we've been discussing to come to any conclusion, and therefore, I just trust that this band that I have admired for so long, does what they think is best, even if the outcome is not the desired one..that's all...I wish I could be in the room when they're mixing and deciding what goes on the album or what gets dropped, or how they come up with the concepts for the tour, etc...

It's all cool, blue screen. I wasn't offended by what you said, at all, I was just making a point about projections and perceptions.

U2 wouldn't do something assuming it's a mistake but to just "trust" that they wouldn't...I think you're getting the point now, no use in belaboring it.