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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm not sure NLOTH has some risks, perhaps it does regarding newly gained audience, but then it is definitely not a groundbreaking or innovative album.

I honestly don't know how anyone listening to this album can say that...

I really can't...

7 1/2 minute ballad without a typical U2 crescendo. Several slow songs. Quick wordy phrased melodies like NLOTH. Lots of subtle melodies. A future gospel sound in some songs.

:doh:
 
I honestly don't know how anyone listening to this album can say that...

I really can't...

7 1/2 minute ballad without a typical U2 crescendo. Several slow songs. Quick wordy phrased melodies like NLOTH. Lots of subtle melodies. A future gospel sound in some songs.

:doh:

Yeah, but where's the electronic noodling?
 
I honestly don't know how anyone listening to this album can say that...

I really can't...

7 1/2 minute ballad without a typical U2 crescendo. Several slow songs. Quick wordy phrased melodies like NLOTH. Lots of subtle melodies. A future gospel sound in some songs.

:doh:

I haven't found anything in the album that surprised me to the point of considering it innovative. And it's not about electronic sounds. Sorry.
 
^^^ Very well said.

And I still don't understand the people suggesting we don't know what goes on behind closed doors. Apparently the interviews with Lanois, Eno, and the band members talking about the process are just some kind of smokescreen to hide the truth.

You're just not going to drop it are you?

I have my opinion you have yours that in itself should be enough.
Insinuating that you DO know what goes on behind closed doors because of some lame interviews which are only done to promote a product and convey an image, could be just as arrogant and condescending as me proclaiming that we DON'T know what goes on, unless you are best friends with the guys or family or whatever...I still believe that not everything that gets spoken in the media is the truth..it's just a medium to get a message across..politicians, rock stars, actors, writers all do it.

Fed up with this crap...I had my say you had yours..let's leave it at that
 
well sticking to the title thread I would say that Winter (from my hearing of Linear) is a decent B-Side at best _ so the band probably got it right on this Q Mike
 
You're just not going to drop it are you?

I have my opinion you have yours that in itself should be enough.
Insinuating that you DO know what goes on behind closed doors because of some lame interviews which are only done to promote a product and convey an image, could be just as arrogant and condescending as me proclaiming that we DON'T know what goes on, unless you are best friends with the guys or family or whatever...I still believe that not everything that gets spoken in the media is the truth..it's just a medium to get a message across..politicians, rock stars, actors, writers all do it.

Fed up with this crap...I had my say you had yours..let's leave it at that

It's not opinion! This is taking facts per the words from the artists themselves. And how is talking about having to come up with more accessible songs to complete the album "lame" or simply "promoting product"? This isn't some bullshit talk show interview for the masses I'm talking about. This is in-depth behind-the-scenes information about their artistic process.

Of course not everything in the media is true. But the band discussing their own compromises fall into the category of being candid, not senstational, and it certainly doesn't make them look better. How you think this is exaggeration or a smokescreen baffles me.
 
But his point when he talks about that is that people often don't listen to the lyrics. What people are responding to in picking One as a optimistic song is the music along with the sentiment express in the chorus. The "get to carry each other" vibe. What Bono loathes is songs that have not depth at all. His songs, even the ones you think might be "hippy schtick" all have a depth or even a dark side to them but you have to look for it. BD is about a person who has LOST everything (not a happy moment) but he focuses on the Beautiful Day in order to not get "stuck in a moment" (sorry, couldn't resist that). It's all about perspective as he says in "Conversations". The cure for depression is a change in perspective. BD shows that in action.

Dana

I wasn't talking about BD. I think the lyrics to BD are brilliant. I never had a problem with that song. I get the depth. I'm moved by the sweeping optimistic music, and further moved by the tragedy the character in the lyrics is going thru.

What i meant about "One"- A casual listener who doesn't dwell on the lyrics probably assumes that song is a "we are the world" savior song, one love one life "let's get together and feel alright"(bob marley quote, sorry). What i like about "One" is that there's real pain going on in that song, it's a bitter sounding song. Today's U2 hits are like what the casual "One" listener would think U2 lyrics ought to be like. The only difference is, this time Bono is intentionally writing these "we are the world" lyrics, it's not a misunderstanding, it's clearly his message. For examples, look at CT, SUC, OOTS, WITS, Breathe... it's like selfmotivational speaking.

If this is just where Bono is at these days, then fine...it's just not my bag. I like MOS Bono, i like COL Bono, i like the Bono when he's letting me in on something HE'S going thru, not telling ME how i'm supposed to feel.
 
I agree. ATYCLB has a pretty consistent sound and flow to it. As an album it really goes together. HTDAAB is a rather eclectic collection of songs of varying styles. To me, NLOTH is in the same category as HTDAAB, just not to the same degree. In other words there are fewer styles but they're still pretty disparate, compared to such albums at ATYCLB or AB. Zooropa and HTDAAB (of the U2 albums) are probably the most varied, though UF is up there as well.

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?
 
And your post has a serious philosophical question in my mind - is it possible to look past the formatting of a post and judge the content?

This post has raised a serious philosophical question in my mind: can you really ask other posters to 'be serious' while over using the CAPS LOCK, ellipses and exclamation points? Discuss.
 
And your post has a serious philosophical question in my mind - is it possible to look past the formatting of a post and judge the content?

You shouldn't have to. Utilizing proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation is not that great of a challenge.
 
...and yet there I was, talking about the risks of those lead singles, and in your effort to always revise history, so that U2 has always been the exact same, you conveniently look over this huge piece of context.

Of course they've spent a lot of time on a lot of different songs but what I would like, is that for once, you not be disingenuous in your efforts to re-write things. They recorded The entirety of The Joshua Tree in about 6 months. They spent about 15 weeks on Zooropa. Achtung, properly, for all it's ebbs and flows, took about 15 months.

The delay for NLOTH was as fucking long as it took to record all of TJT and according to reports, they spent most of that time working on a couple of songs, probably singles. The delay for HTDAAB was nearly as long as it took to record the whole of Achtung. Their consensus greatest albums came about a hell of a lot easier, why do you think this is?

Are they getting worse at producing ideas? Of course not.

So is this the same thing across the board? And what is the difference between the two? Whatever the difference is, the fact that there is a difference is something that some people continue to ignore.

Without the need to hone Crazy Tonight, Stand Up Comedy, and the other songs mentioned (I can't recall specifically the others) into the streamlined risk-free perfect pop songs (whatever descriptives you want to use) then there would be no need for a delay.

I am not speaking to the quality of the songs or that one method is even preferable, the only point is that there is a difference. I am making the distinction that some of you continue to ignore, I gave a perfect example with the lead singles and you ignored it.

OK, let's try this way:

What's so risky about Discotheque when the single biggest trend in music in the early/mid 90's was techno and dance music ? When in fact that entire decade was all about soaking up the electronica filled environment in the 90s?

And what's so "safe" about a 40 year old band making old school straightfoward songwriting pop music in a completely changed music landscape 3 years later, when everything is dominated by hip hop and rap and your competition is half your age ? At 45 ? And now, at almost 50 ?

Why do albums post Zooropa take longer ? A) Bono's activism. B) Less inspiration.

As for revising history:

Sessions for JT actually started in 86 but they had to delay it because of Conspiracy of hope tour.

Adam mentioned White as Snow in particular was written in those last sessions. Not your typical pop safe song.
 
that hasn't happened to me since Zooropa
even Passengers was mostly work we already knew from Eno

I suppose one could scrutinize Zooropa to the point where the album is no longer innovative. Stay? Babyface? The First Time? A lot of these could be read as "traditional" U2.
 
Adam mentioned White as Snow in particular was written in those last sessions. Not your typical pop safe song.

Yeah but I think U2 are just hopping in the current traditional hymn bandwagon that's sweeping the music industry. These guys will do anything to appeal to the 'kids'.
 
If I remember correctly, they spent months trying to perfect Discotheque. If we want to talk about the trend of delays and struggles with the album process, it definitely started with Pop, not HTDAAB. I believe the time between Zooropa and Pop was the largest before NLOTH and HTDAAB (ignoring Passengers).

I think the reason they spend so much time is because they believe one "crap" album and they're done. They probably feel like the they can't survive another Pop debacle in the U.S. And at their age, they have good reason to feel that way.


OK, let's try this way:

What's so risky about Discotheque when the single biggest trend in music in the early/mid 90's was techno and dance music ? When in fact that entire decade was all about soaking up the electronica filled environment in the 90s?

And what's so "safe" about a 40 year old band making old school straightfoward songwriting pop music in a completely changed music landscape 3 years later, when everything is dominated by hip hop and rap and your competition is half your age ? At 45 ? And now, at almost 50 ?

Why do albums post Zooropa take longer ? A) Bono's activism. B) Less inspiration.

As for revising history:

Sessions for JT actually started in 86 but they had to delay it because of Conspiracy of hope tour.

Adam mentioned White as Snow in particular was written in those last sessions. Not your typical pop safe song.
 
I think the reason they spend so much time is because they believe one "crap" album and they're done. They probably feel like the they can't survive another Pop debacle in the U.S. And at their age, they have good reason to feel that way.

I think also that they spend too much time on overthinking the song arrangements and track listing. I'm not convinced it's all down to "we don't want to be crap" (face it, at 30 years of career you can't always get good albums) or "we don't want another Pop" (Eno said back in 98 sessions that they're making joy filled music, and they started scaling back their sound as early as Popmart soundchecks).

I do agree they put too much emphasis on the US charts and all the promo work with the last 2 albums. They made the comeback with ATYCLB, so they could relax now. I am curious to see what Boots may or may not do for NLOTH in America.
 
On a board like this, you can't always assume that everyone's first, best written language is English. I'm not saying that's the case here, as I don't know this poster, but often there posts by folks from other countries for whom English is a second or third language.

You shouldn't have to. Utilizing proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation is not that great of a challenge.
 
Have you listened to the whole album? :huh:

So can you tell me where U2 has sounded like NLOTH, MOS, or UC before?

I appreciate your efforts in trying to convince us; at least you're naming actual instances, and I can see where you're coming from.

However, as a man who values quite a bit of experimental music, I can't say I find any of these tracks all that innovative, save for maybe Unknown Caller because of the music matching the concept, but even then I think they undercut the risk by, quite honestly and despite the chanted vocals and french horn (or whatever it is) making it sound just as much like classic U2 as Crazy Tonight.

On the title track I hear a band totally refreshed; I guess you can say its a band innovating, but I don't think its enough of a leap for us to be using the words "innovate" or "experiment."

MOS is a gospel song, and its different for U2, but once again I wouldn't say its especially innovative. A classic song perhaps, a beautiful song with a great groove, not quite like anything else U2 has done, crisp and refreshing, but by my definition of the word and lofty standards for the band, not especially innovative. I've acknowledged that the song takes slight risks, and is somewhat unique in the band's canon, but I still can't use the word "innovative." "Inventive," perhaps, is more like it.

Take that other Brian Eno produced album from last year - no, not Coldplay's Viva la Vida, but David Byrne/Eno's follow-up to My Life in the Bush of Ghosts. I wouldn't call that album innovative, even though I think its a better album than NLOTH as well as a far riskier one with far more invention and even, in "Strange Overtones", a better single, which is similar to "Moment of Surrender" in the grooves and lulling, chantlike nature of the chorus. But I'm not calling that innovative even though I think its better and fresher, so I can't possibly call MOS innovative, even if its more of a stetch for U2. I judge the band on what they could be doing, and this is based on them still having a shot at being the world's greatest rock and roll band, so I must judge them against what all others are doing. Just because U2 hasn't done it, doesn't make it innovative; if they made an all out hip-hop album that sounded just like 50 Cent's last one to the last drop, that wouldn't make it innovative in the grand scheme of things, it would just make it different for the band. Of course, we all know if they made a hip-hop album it would probably not sound anything like that and would actually be innovative. Point is, with NLOTH they haven't moved far enough from their comfort zone for me to call it innovative.

For NLOTH-the album the best I can say and have said is "at least they're trying." But I don't think it added up to anything worth talking about like its experimental or innovative. Perhaps its because the album doesn't truly gel for me - too many styles without a unifying link. Cedars, to me, remains the freshest track on the album, and one that I'd definitely label "inventive," though still not "innovative."
 
I appreciate your efforts in trying to convince us; at least you're naming actual instances, and I can see where you're coming from.

However, as a man who values quite a bit of experimental music, I can't say I find any of these tracks all that innovative, save for maybe Unknown Caller because of the music matching the concept, but even then I think they undercut the risk by, quite honestly and despite the chanted vocals and french horn (or whatever it is) making it sound just as much like classic U2 as Crazy Tonight.

On the title track I hear a band totally refreshed; I guess you can say its a band innovating, but I don't think its enough of a leap for us to be using the words "innovate" or "experiment."

MOS is a gospel song, and its different for U2, but once again I wouldn't say its especially innovative. A classic song perhaps, a beautiful song with a great groove, not quite like anything else U2 has done, crisp and refreshing, but by my definition of the word and lofty standards for the band, not especially innovative. I've acknowledged that the song takes slight risks, and is somewhat unique in the band's canon, but I still can't use the word "innovative." "Inventive," perhaps, is more like it.

Take that other Brian Eno produced album from last year - no, not Coldplay's Viva la Vida, but David Byrne/Eno's follow-up to My Life in the Bush of Ghosts. I wouldn't call that album innovative, even though I think its a better album than NLOTH as well as a far riskier one with far more invention and even, in "Strange Overtones", a better single, which is similar to "Moment of Surrender" in the grooves and lulling, chantlike nature of the chorus. But I'm not calling that innovative even though I think its better and fresher, so I can't possibly call MOS innovative, even if its more of a stetch for U2. I judge the band on what they could be doing, and this is based on them still having a shot at being the world's greatest rock and roll band, so I must judge them against what all others are doing. Just because U2 hasn't done it, doesn't make it innovative; if they made an all out hip-hop album that sounded just like 50 Cent's last one to the last drop, that wouldn't make it innovative in the grand scheme of things, it would just make it different for the band. Of course, we all know if they made a hip-hop album it would probably not sound anything like that and would actually be innovative. Point is, with NLOTH they haven't moved far enough from their comfort zone for me to call it innovative.

For NLOTH-the album the best I can say and have said is "at least they're trying." But I don't think it added up to anything worth talking about like its experimental or innovative. Perhaps its because the album doesn't truly gel for me - too many styles without a unifying link. Cedars, to me, remains the freshest track on the album, and one that I'd definitely label "inventive," though still not "innovative."

Overall, I think you have a problem with defintions.

You acknowledge the band hasn't done some of these things before but then say you can't use the word "experiment", um by definition if the band hasn't done it before it's an experiment.

Now of course that doen't mean "innovative", I think that's a word that get thrown around too much. I haven't heard anything truly innovative in music for a long time, maybe Kid A was the last time.

No one is going to be innovative with every album, hell if you're lucky enough you can do it once in your career, but you can push yourself and do something new to the band, and this is exactly what much of this album does.
 
Overall, I think you have a problem with defintions.

You acknowledge the band hasn't done some of these things before but then say you can't use the word "experiment", um by definition if the band hasn't done it before it's an experiment.

Now of course that doen't mean "innovative", I think that's a word that get thrown around too much. I haven't heard anything truly innovative in music for a long time, maybe Kid A was the last time.

No one is going to be innovative with every album, hell if you're lucky enough you can do it once in your career, but you can push yourself and do something new to the band, and this is exactly what much of this album does.

Thing is, "experimental" music is a thing in and of itself. Virtually no U2 album would ever be considered experimental compared to, say, Nurse with Wound. Maybe my definitions stem from the wide array of experimental music in my collection. Maybe you have the same exact collection and you're just being a bit more lenient and kind. Either way, I would say that NLOTH is one of the least experimental "experimental" albums of all time. U2 tries some stuff; the result is too close to home for me to consider experimental. So perhaps they experiment, but the album itself is hardly experimental.
 
Thing is, "experimental" music is a thing in and of itself.

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't buy into this at all.

Experimental is not a genre. To me a musician experiments when they do something outside their comfort zone or norm, nothing more nothing less. If U2 recorded a Polka album it would be experimenting for they've never done so before, it wouldn't be innovative because Polka had been done before, but it would be experimenting for U2.

Radiohead did something pretty innovative with Kid A. They've expanded and perfected that sound with the albums that followed it up, but they haven't experimented all that much since then or done anything innovative. They've found their sound and have been writing great tunes within that sound. In order for Radiohead to experiment again it would have to not sound like the last four albums.
 
Back
Top Bottom