Get Out of Your Own Way

[Jarvio]

My only issue is the stupid and embarrassing things they keep putting in their songs, an issue that was only prominent since Vertigo IMO (and Miami as an isolated case, but all of Miami sucks for me anyway).

All this talk of Some Days lyrics is not the same as what I mean. The whole song is like that.

I feel frustrated because I know U2 are still capable. I think they've still got it. Which is different from the arguments of those who say they haven't got it anymore. But U2's decisions are what frustrate me. They end up ruining their own songs. GOOYOW with the preach at the end, The Blackout with the rhyming names. Things like these really don't need to be there.

I know I could edit GOOYOW myself to snip off the last 30 seconds or so, but the fact that I'd have to do that just because U2 decided to put something truly stupid in their song... People may like it, but I don't, and people should be allowed to voice their opinions on here without getting snapped at constantly.

This band still have it, GOOYOW is a good song but it's ruined by the preach, Blackout is a good song but the rhyming names pisses me off. Things like that!

Furthermore, they make great songs that don't even make albums, which further frustrates me! I know it's all opinion, but adding The Crystal Ballroom and Lucifer's Hands to SOI wouldn't have harmed anything, and for me would have brought the album up loads.

Yes I may 'obsess', but that's ok, or should be. I'm quite analytical with certain things, actually have OCD and aspergers diagnoses too, as fans we should be allowed to question U2's decisions.

And for the record, I am not one of these "old U2 is amazing and new U2 sucks" people - in my case, all throughout their career, I have liked U2 songs here and there - chunks from each album, but things on each album I don't like. October never did it for me, War is half and half, TUF is half and half for me. I don't really like Zooropa, and Pop has some good stuff but also some real flaws. I love ATYCLB except the last 2 tracks, and for the most part I like Bomb. I love AB, not crazy about Zoo Station or The Fly though (they're ok). TJT is probably the only album where I like every track on it. NLOTH is full of weird and questionable cringeworthy stuff for me, although oddly I like Crazy Tonight. SOI didn't have much embarrassment on, but was mostly meh for me.

So my point is, we all come from different walks of life and different tastes that nobody else can predict.

My favourite U2 song has always been Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, a song that is largely ignored by the band. Frustrating.

 

[patternshirt170]

good point, I remember people talking about hating U2 in 1994 and wishing they would go back to the UABRS era -- that they had balls then, and now it's all wussy songs like Mysterious Ways. it's *always* a feature of any band with any sort of longevity.

and it's important to note that we were all younger in 1994. i was a teenager, and music never quite hits you the way it does when you're 16 or 17 -- and we heard those songs with less developed brains and raging hormones and wild emotions, and lyrics like "7/11" don't offend the way "ATM machine" does 15 years later, not because one lyric is better/worse than the other, but because WE are different and WE have changed.

all that said, while GOO sounds vastly better now that i have my good headphones, what i find embarrassing isn't the lyrics, but the ("children, children, future, future") let's-hold-hands chorus, and it doesn't seem to go anywhere interesting at all. lots of pretty background but this one doesn't work for me.

my big picture thought at this stage: Bono is at his best when he's writing about himself and longing for a piece of him that is missing, and longing for something better. it's just not as engaging when he's trying to pass on advice (some rare exceptions would be Stuck and OOTS, because he sounds so *invested* in Hutchence/teenagers with eating disorders, whereas a song like MD feels too detached to be memorable). this is why TBT > GOO, for me, because TBT is about Bono and GOO is about his sons or something.

and i'm on my 3-4th listen of GOO, with good headphones, and it does get more interesting each time.

Hah.. well I feel ancient at 26yo in 1994 Btw I read this a lot, was this a North American/US thing the (excuse the pun) desire to see U2 regress back to 1983 and have Bono climb PA stacks with his flag again and record Boy/War esque music for the next decade? I don't recall it so vocal in the UK, most people I know kinda liked the new direction of AB and the three associated records that followed. I did read some articles suggesting that the US fanbase (albeit not monolithic) didn't quite get the ZOO TV concept and their whole six year "hey everything we are doing just now is ironic okay" phase that ended with POPMART, hence why we get the sorta reset in 2000.

Btw I pay little attention to the two absolute camps at this time; the "man what utter dogshit" vs "OMG best song since.." But I am seriously underwhelmed with "the SOE story so far", that is all.

 

[Irvine511]

Hah.. well I feel ancient at 26yo in 1994 Btw I read this a lot, was this a North American/US thing the (excuse the pun) desire to see U2 regress back to 1983 and have Bono climb PA stacks with his flag again and record Boy/War esque music for the next decade? I don't recall it so vocal in the UK, most people I know kinda liked the new direction of AB and the three associated records that followed. I did read some articles suggesting that the US fanbase (albeit not monolithic) didn't quite get the ZOO TV concept and their whole six year "hey everything we are doing just now is ironic okay" phase that ended with POPMART, hence why we get the sorta reset in 2000.

oh, generally speaking, Zoo TV went over like gangbusters here -- i was too young to see it, but i had friends with older brothers and sisters who saw it, and i remember the buzz being about how they sold out the Hartford Civic Center in like 8 minutes or something. AB was huge, it was a complete and total success across the US. but with any massive shift like that you're going to lose some fans for whom the reason they liked the band in the first places has been replaced with something else.

it's just that there were then and always will be people who will be like "they were so much better before X" or "you should have seen them when Y" or "they were so much better before 1976." a lot of it is oneupsmanship, and a lot of it is an attempt to spell out your own unique, superior taste for all to see -- i think the posters who do that are pretty transparent about their competitiveness.

as for Pop and PopMart, no, those did not go over so well here -- i think one of the grunge hangovers from the early 1990s was an obsession with "authenticity" in rock, and while U2 skillfully glided through that in 92/93, Zooropa may have been a step too far into electronica for many (i remember friends being puzzled at the Lemon video, and many finding it simply boring), and while KMKM was a big hit and a welcome return of guitars, the Pop album and tour were half-baked. there was something not thought through about it, and, while i like the album and defended it to death in 1997, it is nowhere near the complete thought that AB/ZooTV/Zooropa were. i see why fans like it, because it's interesting, and there are cool sounds, but if you aren't invested in the U2 thing the way people around here are, it's just not that emotionally engaging, in addition to being visually and sonically confusing, leading to it's perceived failure in what has always been a *very* crowded mediascape.

 

[BVS]

again, can you not understand the difference between PEOPLE COMPLAINED and PEOPLE WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED

No, please explain. This semantic seems very important to you. :facepalm:

 

[BVS]

maybe because questionable rhymes in an amusing song aren't as much of a crime as fucking rhyming names in a serious song? also you're saying that people WOULD HAVE complained about they lyrics for Stay

90s U2 is a bar for greatness, and it's not just me: pretty much everyone is into U2 because of the 80s and 90s greatness. They weren't perfect, but were never as embarrassing as they are now, and there's a huge difference between questionable and dumb as fuck

This is COMPLETELY false. Revisionist history, that’s what we’ve been trying to explain to you.

 

[Hollow Island]

of course not everyone loved 90s U2 but it's pretty obvious that 90s U2 was liked a hell of a lot more than 00s U2

back to Get Out:

I actually really, really like the song....except for the motherfucking wet fart sighs! They totally ruin. The last chorus, when they dispense with it, is good. It's a well written and performed song, probably one of their best recent songs...except for all the wet farts, which...well you can't overlook a wet fart, right? Not that I've had one since I was a child, to be clear, but goddamn do I remember a couple of them!

also, the outro is great: the guitars are wonderful and sound like Michael Rother (someone else pointed out the Neu! similarity; I'd missed that), but Kendrick ruins it. That spoken word bit is awful. I wonder if Lamar wrote it because it sure sounds like Bono trying to be clever.

This song is so frustrating because it could have easily been excellent.

 

[Irvine511]

i remember buying a PopMart ticket off a lady who was done with U2 in 1997 -- she said she loved the Joshua Tree deeply, but was lukewarm on the Zoo era and Pop was pretty much the end. but she was happy to sell the ticket to someone younger and thought it was good of the band to appeal to kids like myself. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ChurchBay]

I hate when people bring up that 'A boy' lyric - U2 are an Irish band and that's just an Irish turn of phrase.

Struggle to understand how 'a boy' came to be so offensive to some ears when you rightly point out that it is an Irish turn of phrase, a fact that I thought was well distributed on these boards.

 

[Hollow Island]

This is COMPLETELY false. Revisionist history, that’s what we’ve been trying to explain to you.

you haven't been explaining shit, and it's not false or revisionist. you also act like I wasn't there, and I was

also if you think that 90s (and 80s) U2 isn't the bar for greatness, the work they'll be remembered for and the reason that most people are into the band then you're insane or arguing for the sake of arguing, as usual

 

[Hollow Island]

No, please explain. This semantic seems very important to you. :facepalm:

you think the difference between fact and speculation is semantics?

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I thought the chorus was the most contemporary pop sounding bit of the song.

 

[BVS]

you haven't been explaining shit, and it's not false or revisionist. you also act like I wasn't there, and I was

also if you think that 90s (and 80s) U2 isn't the bar for greatness, the work they'll be remembered for and the reason that most people are into the band then you're insane or arguing for the sake of arguing, as usual

It’s not that hard, I’m not sure what you’re getting so hung up on.

I was there, I heard all the detractors. The list I gave about Zooropa were real ongoing conversations I had. The point is simple, if we were having these conversations in real life then it’s not a big leap in logic to believe those conversations would happen on Interference if it existed then. HI, you’re a smart guy, I’m really not sure why you’re going down this line.

 

[Haywa1979]

It’s not that hard, I’m not sure what you’re getting so hung up on.

I was there, I heard all the detractors. The list I gave about Zooropa were real ongoing conversations I had. The point is simple, if we were having these conversations in real life then it’s not a big leap in logic to believe those conversations would happen on Interference if it existed then. HI, you’re a smart guy, I’m really not sure why you’re going down this line.

I hate to point this out to Hollow Island, but from the outside he is losing this argument badly.

 

[Gilead12]

Does anyone else hear a very "Mercy"-ish delay in the second half of the second verse?

I'm sure it's just a coincidentally similar classic Edge delay sound, but I would admire the song significantly more were this a deliberate "Mercy" troll.

 

[Zoomerang96]

I hate to point this out to Hollow Island, but from the outside he is losing this argument badly.

no disrespect to the two belligerents in said scuffle, but i think it's worth pointing out that you're perhaps poorly placed to adjudicate whether an argument has been won since you've only been seen on the losing side since you decided to grace us with your presence.

 

[Raid]

Everytime I see the title of this song I automatically think of Fleetwood Mac's "Go your own way" and just change up the lyrics.

You can get out of your own way
(get out of your own way)
You can call it
Another lonely day (just another lonely day)
You can get out of your own way
Get out of your own way

Trust me, it's better this way.

Lol

 

[Bean_Counter]

All this Fleetwood Mac talk. At first listen the song it did seem like I'd heard it before.
I asked one of my daughters if she had heard it before and what she thought... She said yes, the AAHHH's in the chorus sounds reminiscent of the Taylor Swift song, 'Wildest Dreams'. Upon listening to that song, it is eerily similar. So the guys succeeded to sound like pop radio, I guess.

I don't dislike the SOE songs so far, I am liking them better than the final product on SOI. My daughter still referred to all of the new songs as 'Dad Rock' (again) though... Uggh!!

 

[Haywa1979]

My only issue is the stupid and embarrassing things they keep putting in their songs, an issue that was only prominent since Vertigo IMO (and Miami as an isolated case, but all of Miami sucks for me anyway).

All this talk of Some Days lyrics is not the same as what I mean. The whole song is like that.

I feel frustrated because I know U2 are still capable. I think they've still got it. Which is different from the arguments of those who say they haven't got it anymore. But U2's decisions are what frustrate me. They end up ruining their own songs. GOOYOW with the preach at the end, The Blackout with the rhyming names. Things like these really don't need to be there.

I know I could edit GOOYOW myself to snip off the last 30 seconds or so, but the fact that I'd have to do that just because U2 decided to put something truly stupid in their song... People may like it, but I don't, and people should be allowed to voice their opinions on here without getting snapped at constantly.

This band still have it, GOOYOW is a good song but it's ruined by the preach, Blackout is a good song but the rhyming names pisses me off. Things like that!

Furthermore, they make great songs that don't even make albums, which further frustrates me! I know it's all opinion, but adding The Crystal Ballroom and Lucifer's Hands to SOI wouldn't have harmed anything, and for me would have brought the album up loads.

Yes I may 'obsess', but that's ok, or should be. I'm quite analytical with certain things, actually have OCD and aspergers diagnoses too, as fans we should be allowed to question U2's decisions.

And for the record, I am not one of these "old U2 is amazing and new U2 sucks" people - in my case, all throughout their career, I have liked U2 songs here and there - chunks from each album, but things on each album I don't like. October never did it for me, War is half and half, TUF is half and half for me. I don't really like Zooropa, and Pop has some good stuff but also some real flaws. I love ATYCLB except the last 2 tracks, and for the most part I like Bomb. I love AB, not crazy about Zoo Station or The Fly though (they're ok). TJT is probably the only album where I like every track on it. NLOTH is full of weird and questionable cringeworthy stuff for me, although oddly I like Crazy Tonight. SOI didn't have much embarrassment on, but was mostly meh for me.

So my point is, we all come from different walks of life and different tastes that nobody else can predict.

My favourite U2 song has always been Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, a song that is largely ignored by the band. Frustrating.

I understand not liking the rhyming names in The Blackout (I don't like it, either), but does it really ruin the song for you? I guess everyone is different, but in the end in seems pretty minor in the context of a 4 minute song, and I've been able to move beyond it pretty quickly.

For the record, there are PLENTY of 80s U2 lyrics that I absolutely hate, but it seems like people look those lyrics with some seriously rose-tinted glasses.

 

[trevgreg]

I understand not liking the rhyming names in The Blackout (I don't like it, either), but does it really ruin the song for you? I guess everyone is different, but in the end in seems pretty minor in the context of a 4 minute song, and I've been able to move beyond it pretty quickly.

I don't even think about the whole names thing until I read about it on here, honestly.

 

[redhill]

My daughter still referred to all of the new songs as 'Dad Rock' (again) though... Uggh!!

Well, technically they're all dads who rock so...

;]

 

[Nick66]

speculating about how people would have reacted to old, great stuff that has stood the test of time as a way of minimizing criticism of current work is foolish.

Of course it's foolish.

Most reasonable people understand this.

 

[Scorpionac]

I'm hearing a repeat of Invisible in the verses here... Weird song. The whole thing has a lightweight, gentle pop sheen that doesn't really fit the lyrics, which aren't relatable or catchy. I don't see this being a hit, even though it sounds like one, mainly due to the lyrics.

Probably won't revisit this song more than a handful of times, and even then just for curiosity's sake. Unlike say TBT, which has just gotten better and better in my eyes. Love that song.

 

[BVS]

Of course it's foolish.



Most reasonable people understand this.

We also cannot apply logic and speculate that we’d be talking about Jurassic Park in Lemonade Stand or Nirvana’s In Utero in Bang and Clatter if Interference were around back then. That would just be silly. Just because these conversations were happening in real life doesn’t mean they’d be happening on the internet. I want to personally thank the two of you and your superior intellects for pointing out this mistake.

 

[Nick66]

I haven't followed your (latest) spat on here closely BVS (it's admittedly hard to keep up, there are so many), but as I understand it, Hollow Island is saying that it's foolish to minimise criticism of what U2 is doing now by pointing out what people said then.

Just because some people may have abandoned U2 and didn't like the direction they took with Achtung Baby (and there was some of that, but I think it's been exaggerated a bit...anyway they gained more fans than they lost) doesn't mean that criticism of SOI/SOE is any less credible.

The obvious reason for this is that there is a serious difference in quality between what they were doing then and now...I don't think even the most ardent I+E era defenders would suggest otherwise. No matter that there were some disgruntled fans who couldn't accept change, AB was still a massive hit both commercially and critically...U2 was the most popular, well respected band on the planet at the time. At least one of them.

How many people think that's the case today? How many here really think any of these songs are going to become classics that are beloved in 20 years. Anyone?

So yes, I think there's a good case to be made that the criticism of what they're doing now is more legitimate than it was in 1992. Now if your argument is that, with the internet, there would be just as much bitching about what they did then as now...that I suppose I can agree with. The internet amps everything up. The difference is I think there would be a LOT more AB defenders (who actually had great music to back up their opinions) than there are I+E defenders.

But yeah, the internet would blow the whole thing up, no doubt.

I want to personally thank the two of you and your superior intellects for pointing out this mistake.

 

[Airseven]

The criticism in the early 90s pertained to change not quality. Zoo era had high quality songs that didn't sit well with long time fans because they didn't endorse the traditional, beloved U2 sound. However, they were great songs that appealed to new and even broader fanbase. The criticism today pertains to quality not change, in fact we've had the same music since 2000. More particularly, the criticism today pertains to uninspired song writing.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The criticism in the early 90s pertained to change not quality. Zoo era had high quality songs that didn't sit well with long time fans because they didn't endorse the traditional, beloved U2 sound. However, they were great songs with appealed to an entirely new and even broader fanbase. The criticism today pertains to quality not change, in fact we've had the same music since 2000. More particularly, the criticism today pertains to uninspired song writing.

I mean... it's not as if they changed it to something else they loved.

They didn't like the change kinda means they weren't a fan of the material, thus its quality. They sorta go hand in hand.

 

[Airseven]

I mean... it's not as if they changed it to something else they loved.

They didn't like the change kinda means they weren't a fan of the material, thus its quality. They sorta go hand in hand.

I guess my point is that Zoo songs were generally praised and recent albums are generally dismissed. Based on critical and commercial success, Zoo songs were objectively of a higher quality despite the fact they cut against the grain and offended some fans.

 

[Nick66]

The criticism in the early 90s pertained to change not quality. Zoo era had high quality songs that didn't sit well with long time fans because they didn't endorse the traditional, beloved U2 sound. However, they were great songs that appealed to new and even broader fanbase. The criticism today pertains to quality not change, in fact we've had the same music since 2000. More particularly, the criticism today pertains to uninspired song writing.

Really good point, and one I wish I'd made!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I guess my point is that Zoo songs were generally praised and recent albums are generally dismissed. Based on critical and commercial success, Zoo songs were objectively of a higher quality despite the fact they cut against the grain and shook some fans.

Dismissed? Innocence had 200 million listeners and a 5 star Rolling Stone review!

 

[BVS]

I haven't followed your (latest) spat on here closely BVS (it's admittedly hard to keep up, there are so many), but as I understand it, Hollow Island is saying that it's foolish to minimise criticism of what U2 is doing now by pointing out what people said then.



Just because some people may have abandoned U2 and didn't like the direction they took with Achtung Baby (and there was some of that, but I think it's been exaggerated a bit...anyway they gained more fans than they lost) doesn't mean that criticism of SOI/SOE is any less credible.



The obvious reason for this is that there is a serious difference in quality between what they were doing then and now...I don't think even the most ardent I+E era defenders would suggest otherwise. No matter that there were some disgruntled fans who couldn't accept change, AB was still a massive hit both commercially and critically...U2 was the most popular, well respected band on the planet at the time. At least one of them.



How many people think that's the case today? How many here really think any of these songs are going to become classics that are beloved in 20 years. Anyone?



So yes, I think there's a good case to be made that the criticism of what they're doing now is more legitimate than it was in 1992. Now if your argument is that, with the internet, there would be just as much bitching about what they did then as now...that I suppose I can agree with. The internet amps everything up. The difference is I think there would be a LOT more AB defenders (who actually had great music to back up their opinions) than there are I+E defenders.



But yeah, the internet would blow the whole thing up, no doubt.

Hollow added the “minimize criticism” bit. Cosmo was just adding perspective. Hollow was arguing that we couldn’t speculate that people would criticize Zooropa, period. We couldn’t speculate that some would have issues with some of the lyrics, that some would criticize the production of DD, or that some found Numb embarrassing. We can’t speculate any of that. It happened, but we can’t speculate it would happen on the internet. Yes, it was a well informed argument that you had to back up in order to put your little jab in

But you finally got it in your last paragraph.