New Album Discussion: Worthwhile, Informative, And Not Even Slightly Grating

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
In 1984 Eno had the foresight to just say "that's a wrap" after rambling Bono created Elvis Presley & America. Genius. Thankfully the band had the guts to go with him. And Eno allowed the band to create stuff like Boomerang & Love Comes Tumbling.

In 1993 the band James trusted Eno to release a bunch of demos called Wah Wah. Genius.

If Eno could create that spark again - and U2 have the guts to release unpolished gems, we could have one hell of an album! Sadly the band lacks confidence in themselves and tries too hard for a hit single. Forget it. Many of the best (and critically acclaimed) albums work as a complete album, not as 3 singles and 7 filler tracks. We don't want GaGa or Pitbull. We want U2.

what, exactly, has u2 done in the past, or what quotes or behavior would lead you to believe that anything u2 would put out in the future would sound anything like gaga or pitbull?
 
In 1984 Eno had the foresight to just say "that's a wrap" after rambling Bono created Elvis Presley & America. Genius. Thankfully the band had the guts to go with him. And Eno allowed the band to create stuff like Boomerang & Love Comes Tumbling.

In 1993 the band James trusted Eno to release a bunch of demos called Wah Wah. Genius.

If Eno could create that spark again - and U2 have the guts to release unpolished gems, we could have one hell of an album! Sadly the band lacks confidence in themselves and tries too hard for a hit single. Forget it. Many of the best (and critically acclaimed) albums work as a complete album, not as 3 singles and 7 filler tracks. We don't want GaGa or Pitbull. We want U2.

6 words for you:

WHERE THE STREETS HAVE NO NAME.
 
Wasnt Eno's favourite song Stuck In A Moment? The man is not perfect people...

Its like this whole Danger Mouse thing, people are clinging to the idea of it being some incredible quantum shift in their music when no one has the slightest fucking clue what any of the songs that were created sound like - if there were any.
 
The Streets/Eno thing is a pure anomaly.
He was frustrated that the band couldn't switch from the 3/4 intro into 4/4 after a thousand takes. It's hard to blame him, personally.

However, his organ intro practically makes the whole fucking song. So to use that song as 'evidence against' him is a little more than humorous to me.

The bottom line is, if Eno isn't writing with them, they end up vanilla.
 
Coldplay's new album seems primed to ensure it's at least another half-decade before they can think about being U2-big again.

Good news, right? Biggest Band in the World was always going to be theirs till retirement, but Most Relevant Band in the World is U2's for the taking back/revitalizing, and they can take another 1-2 years if they need it. All it takes is another Beautiful Day, and they're covered till retirement.

:up:
 
Biggest Band in the World was always going to be theirs till retirement, but Most Relevant Band in the World is U2's for the taking back/revitalizing, and they can take another 1-2 years if they need it. All it takes is another Beautiful Day, and they're covered till retirement.

:up:

"Most Relevant Band In The World"

Honestly, I'm very curious as to what you mean by that..."Most Relevant Band in the World"...and how that is something you can possibly evaluate or examine enough to make it certain. This word "relevant" seems to be thrown around way too often here. What the fuck does it mean? Influence? Historical standing? Record sales? Media coverage? TV appearances? Critical success? Public image? Strength of material?

Do bands get "relevancy" points whenever they play a great gig? A relevancy point magically flies off of a guitarist's fret board whenever he hits a particularly poignant chord? The singer gets an automatic PLUS TEN relevancy boost when he delivers on SNL or Letterman? Or does he get the boost when a different successful band mentions him? How are you determining this?
 
"Relevant" is one of those over parasite words like "innovative" and "credible" that clutter discussions of music like some bothersome pebbles. I've no idea what the heck people mean when they call this or that band "relevant". Relevant to whom, exactly?
 
Do bands get "relevancy" points whenever they play a great gig? A relevancy point magically flies off of a guitarist's fret board whenever he hits a particularly poignant chord? The singer gets an automatic PLUS TEN relevancy boost when he delivers on SNL or Letterman? Or does he get the boost when a different successful band mentions him? How are you determining this?


I frequently have the same questions in my head when people make the relevancy comment. Relevancy is, well, relevant to each person differently. Does "most relevant" therefore mean the largest number of people who can relate to it? I think it's just way too subjective a term.

I can hear someone saying 'record sales' but even that...I dunno...cause there is plenty of music I'd deem irrelevant to my life that sells a heck of alot.

Quite a subjective measure, "relevant"..
 
The Streets/Eno thing is a pure anomaly.
He was frustrated that the band couldn't switch from the 3/4 intro into 4/4 after a thousand takes. It's hard to blame him, personally.

However, his organ intro practically makes the whole fucking song. So to use that song as 'evidence against' him is a little more than humorous to me.

The bottom line is, if Eno isn't writing with them, they end up vanilla.

You can pretty much hear the basis for the intro to Streets in An Ending (Ascent);

An Ending (Ascent) 'HD' - YouTube

...and of course there's this;

harold budd - AGAINST THE SKY - YouTube

so yes, just not Paradise, Teary Waterfalls and autotuned Rihanna collabs...
 
"Most Relevant Band In The World"

Honestly, I'm very curious as to what you mean by that..."Most Relevant Band in the World"...and how that is something you can possibly evaluate or examine enough to make it certain. This word "relevant" seems to be thrown around way too often here. What the fuck does it mean? Influence? Historical standing? Record sales? Media coverage? TV appearances? Critical success? Public image? Strength of material?

Do bands get "relevancy" points whenever they play a great gig? A relevancy point magically flies off of a guitarist's fret board whenever he hits a particularly poignant chord? The singer gets an automatic PLUS TEN relevancy boost when he delivers on SNL or Letterman? Or does he get the boost when a different successful band mentions him? How are you determining this?

I was following Bono's recent comment in making a distinction between being able to draw big crowds and being relevant. I'm not sure exactly how I'd define it. I think chart success and the generation of a new fanbase would probably be two major, though neither definitive, indicators. I think being an active influence on the sounds and attitudes of popular music might be another. I also believe that it is with respect to relevance that U2 consider Pop a failure... maybe it was a good album, but it failed because it didn't much change the kinds of music people listened to in the late 90s. k

I think your rhetorical questioning of relevancy could just as easily be asked about what it means to say anybody is the biggest band in the world -- but I think U2 certainly is, nevertheless.
 
We'll never know how well or poorly Moment of Surrender would have done as the lead single, especially since it wasn't released as a single at all.

But like Philsfan said, it'd have done just as well if not better than Boots. Certainly couldn't have been worse. Whether it'd have been a raging success or not, I don't know, and that's all speculation. I doubt it'd have been a huge radio hit, but it'd likely have drawn more people to buy No Line than Boots did.
 
But like Philsfan said, it'd have done just as well if not better than Boots. Certainly couldn't have been worse. Whether it'd have been a raging success or not, I don't know, and that's all speculation. I doubt it'd have been a huge radio hit, but it'd likely have drawn more people to buy No Line than Boots did.

Absolutely true. Considering the fact that U2 hadn't released anything significant since 2004 would've made it actually quite fitting to put it as the first single. It's different from anything they made in the last 10 years at least, and Bono's raw vocal performance would really catch people off-guard. It's also considered to be a very good song by critics, so U2 getting all these great single reviews before the album coming out would've been great for the album's performance and how it was percieved by the masses.

I've heard a lot of people saying that the entire album sucks by simply pointing at Boots. If they had chosen MoS as the first single people might still have disliked the album, but at least they would have to give the whole album a chance before saying it sucks. It's easy to say with hindsight that they should've done this and that, but listening to Boots today I hear no hit single qualities at all. Perhaps 4th single material, but not more than that. :down:
 
Eno's desire to have U2 re-record Streets was entirely valid. He felt they were wasting their time, and maybe they were. The end result was good, but it just as easily could have turned out to just as good if they'd started from scratch. It's not like it's a particularly brilliant recording or anything. Anyway, what band can't navigate a simple time change? It's pathetic.

He's not always right, of course, and I've lost quite a bit of respect for him as a result of his terrible work with Coldplay, but U2 should listen to him more because more often than not he makes brilliant decisions. He's one of the most important musicians of the last 60 years, and U2 would probably be the first to admit that he is largely responsible for them becoming the band they did. Prior to Eno, they were a very good, somewhat generic new wave band of Joy Division obsessives. Just look at the records they made with him and with out him. One band is great, the other is pretty good with some great moments and some terrible moments.

They should never work without him. Maybe they should let him pick what tracks get on the albums too.
 
Why does everyone worship at the throne of Eno? Lanois has had much more of a tangible songwriting influence on them, and produced much of AB without Eno. Eno helped them to branch out and include more ambience and electronic tones, he is the the inventor of every successful era for U2.

What they need to do is trust their own instincts again, before returning to work with their old songwriting buddies, and not defer to the whims of producers beyond telling them to stop reworking things once they're strong. I'm all for Danger Mouse doing the production, but let's let the band write what they want, what they need is someone to convince them to release their original ideas rather than trying to be safe and include something for U2 fans of every era.
 
What they need to do is trust their own instincts again, before returning to work with their old songwriting buddies, and not defer to the whims of producers beyond telling them to stop reworking things once they're strong. I'm all for Danger Mouse doing the production, but let's let the band write what they want, what they need is someone to convince them to release their original ideas rather than trying to be safe and include something for U2 fans of every era.

:up:
 
I'm all for Danger Mouse doing the production, but let's let the band write what they want, what they need is someone to convince them to release their original ideas rather than trying to be safe and include something for U2 fans of every era.
This. They were all so excited about making music with new influences, stuff like Soon - and then that barely showed on the album. Disappointing to say the least.
 
tumbleweedimage.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom