This should have been the album after Pop

[allbecauseofu2]

was listening to a show from popmart earlier today. Popmart was like the sequel to your fav movie that didn't feature some characters from the first movie. At first it felt like zoo tv but minus the surprise and awe and the groundbreaking atmosphere. But after a while i have found the charm in it. And please into streets is great, almost as good as RTST into streets. Part of it is the the first half 90's had alot of bands cut from the same cloth. (nirvana,pearl jam ,stp,alice in chains etc). and u2 was the band from the 80's that found a place among them. Maybe because that world was just the right time to do a AB. The second half of the 90's was kinda, scattered empty,devoid of anything worth the time.. u2 didn't fit as much now. I think pop is better then NLOTH by a decent margin . Plus the end of popmart is a very crucial point in u2. The band was uncertain. I think they remember what being u2 was all about. The return of 40 toward the end was the bono saying its time to dream it up again or whatever without saying those words. Pop was still a respectable hit and the tour a success on paper. It just took em half way through to get the show firing on all cylinders. The journey from the start of and to the end of the popmart tour is a fascinating one. This is what separates u2 from rem who never recovered their early 90's success. (in the us anyway).

 

[donkeytimes]

I think the last few posts on this thread have been pretty accurate.

- To my ears, SoA (if indeed that is what it will be called and will be released) needs to contain the elements that steer U2 away from the Vertigo part 3, the creeper shoes if we can be so lucky, Walk On versions 5,6,7,8,9. It would be nice if SUC and Crazy Tonight's could go away, or at least be more agressive and have better lyrical content.

- U2 are always going to have a tune in their back pocket like COBL, Beautiful Day, Magnificent, etc. I think they should realize these are the songs they should always include on a typical U2 record as they tend to be a cross over success. It is the bread and butter, safe on the ears. Again, they DO NOT need Vertigo's and Get On Your Boots.

- For me, I can't for the life of me, I am being serious here: why can't U2 really try and do something artistic again. Set up with Lanois in an open room in an interesting location again, and really work the craft. They were going down this path with No Line, those middle 3 songs screwed us. I think U2 could get away with a deep cuts sort of record, tunes like Bad, even Heartland, or a "So Cruel"...emotive, passion, songs that are warm for the cold nights -- locked in just right, etc. Radio isn't needed anymore for this sort of release.

And it doesn't mean they can't go back to a more universal formula. Hell, I think it would be cool if U2 did the relase low key, with little press - and go in knowing this is an art project. I think it would be great if they did a documentary on it too, a la the footage used in Lanois movie. TO ME that was SUPER interesting.

If I were U2, I would want to do something arty and interesting for the sake of showing up some of "pitchfork.com" crowd and hipster crowd - take back the post-punk crown for a spell, remind the kids that they can still be masters. I think it would work and sound amazing. Then again, I liked songs like White as Snow, and the mood of Cedars etc.

 

[Niceman]

I think the last few posts on this thread have been pretty accurate.

- To my ears, SoA (if indeed that is what it will be called and will be released) needs to contain the elements that steer U2 away from the Vertigo part 3, the creeper shoes if we can be so lucky, Walk On versions 5,6,7,8,9. It would be nice if SUC and Crazy Tonight's could go away, or at least be more agressive and have better lyrical content.

- U2 are always going to have a tune in their back pocket like COBL, Beautiful Day, Magnificent, etc. I think they should realize these are the songs they should always include on a typical U2 record as they tend to be a cross over success. It is the bread and butter, safe on the ears. Again, they DO NOT need Vertigo's and Get On Your Boots.

- For me, I can't for the life of me, I am being serious here: why can't U2 really try and do something artistic again. Set up with Lanois in an open room in an interesting location again, and really work the craft. They were going down this path with No Line, those middle 3 songs screwed us. I think U2 could get away with a deep cuts sort of record, tunes like Bad, Heartland, So Cruel...emotive, passion, songs that are warm for the cold nights, etc. Radio isn't needed anymore for this sort of release.

And it doesn't mean they can't go back to a more universal formula. Hell, I think it would be cool if U2 did the relase low key, with little press - and go in knowing this is an art project. I think it would be great if they did a documentary on it too, a la the footage used in Lanois movie. TO ME that was SUPER interesting.

If I were U2, I would want to do something arty and interesting for the sake of showing up some of "pitchfork.com" crowd and hipster crowd - take back the post-punk thrown a bit, remind the kids that they can still be masters. I think it would work and sound amazing. Then again, I liked songs like White as Snow, etc.

Larry wouldn't agree to play on that record. He hated Passengers.

 

[Snowlock]

It would be nice if SUC and Crazy Tonight's could go away, or at least be more agressive and have better lyrical content.

I agree with the second part of this, but not the first. Both CT and SUC are lacking, no doubt. But I'd rather see them improved than disappear.

Again, they DO NOT need Vertigo's and Get On Your Boots.

I know they're similar; but they strike me as coming from different places. Vertigo was "punk rock from Venus". When it came out, it really was, imo. It just got overplayed and commercialized quickly due to the iPod commercials. So I do respect Vertigo. GOYB, though, I agree. This was an attempt to rehash Vert's success, 3 of 4 band members agree it was a misstep (at least releasing it as a first single) so hopefully we won't see its like again.

why can't U2 really try and do something artistic again.

That died with Zoo TV, I think. My theory is they embraced being rock stars on that tour. At first, with tongue firmly in cheek. But later on, I think they dropped that part of it. They embraced being commercial stars, they were on top, and wanted to stay there. They didn't and fell. Then they fought to get back on top again. I think their fear of falling from grace again will prevent them from really doing something artistic, like TUF or JT or AB. That earnestness, that post punk anti establishment outlook, its been gone for a long time.

If I were U2, I would want to do something arty and interesting for the sake of showing up some of "pitchfork.com" crowd and hipster crowd - take back the post-punk crown for a spell, remind the kids that they can still be masters. I think it would work and sound amazing.

I don't think they ever wanted it. With ATYCLB and HTDAAB they were auditioning to be the biggest band in the world, not the artiest or coolest. They're currently driving around the US with a fleet of 175 trucks and a carbon footprint big enough to get to Mars with.

What I think could get U2 back to this is something the media isn't reporting on yet.. That the 360 tour is about three more dropped NLOTH songs from a Greatest Hits tour a la Van Halen or Journey. That may make them try artistic again... Or it may make them shelve SoA entirely and put out "All The Bombs You Can't Dismantle" or some such.

Then again, I liked songs like White as Snow, and the mood of Cedars etc.

Like I said early, not me, personally. I hope they don't go so far down that road. But I do agree in I hoping the next releases are more artistic and edgy.

 

[65980]

I think what we saw with ATYCLB and HTDAAB era-U2 is the band successfully (more or less) balancing their musical progression/artistic needs with their overwhelming desire to be 'big' commercially and to connect with younger fans.

However, with NLOTH, in my opinion they failed to maintain that balance. The tracks like 'Stand up Comedy' and 'Boots' seem not to belong on the album, and the whole thing comes off as a bit overly calculated. I think they failed to strike that balance that they clearly crave -- as evidenced by the failure of the album's singles to resonate with radio stations/listeners/buyers. I think, today, if they went back to re-sequence that album again, they would probably drop the meat-and-potatoes U2-by-numbers songs and just focus on the more ambitious/arty stuff.

I don't know if this will be the trend for the future -- obviously, there will be a point (I suppose) at which U2 will no longer be able to connect with young fans. I don't know many teens who get excited about bands whose members are all over 50. Although it's kind of unfortunate, it may be this failure to reach the younger audience that actually improves their music (for those of us who already like them), because they won't feel any need to compromise their goals anymore. If that makes any sense.

 

[gvox]

because they won't feel any need to compromise their goals anymore. If that makes any sense.

I don't agree that they've written any of the poorer songs out of any 'need to compromise their goals' (besides, what goals are those again, exactly?). I'd tend to believe that they just wrote a crappy song, period.

 

[Zoocoustic]

ATYCLB was the album needed after Pop. I loved Pop. But most didn't. U2 were washed-up has-beens after Pop. They were a joke. I didn't think that was fair, but that's the way it was. ATYCLB sealed their legacy.

NLOTH is to me a great album, but the general public doesn't like it. I think this is primarily because there wasn't a big radio-friendly hit on it. Without that, this album would unfortunately probably have sealed U2's fate to the depths of obscurity, even though I like it better than ATYCLB.

I'm not happy with the U2 of the 2000's, compared to the U2 of the 80's and 90's, but ATYCLB (and especially BD) did HUGE things for this bands career and legacy.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

sometimes people think no other band did stuff to sell records. rem has tried to sell records in the us the past 10 years. it just didn't work. If you criticize u2 for doing it, attack other artists for attempting it. Just cause a album did not sell dosn't mean it was not intended to. start getting that in your head, to the people that think u2 invented this new idea of putting music out so it will sell. Stop acting like u2 was putting out 15 min prog fusion jams during the 80's and 90's and then sold out in the 00's. pride is as commercial as BD. u2 used dance influences in the 90';s. dance is a commercial form of music. So i mean, what is everyone trying to get at? when were u2 this noncommercial, underground, unlistenable rock band? I don;t want AB part 2 or TJT part 2.

 

[65980]

I don't agree that they've written any of the poorer songs out of any 'need to compromise their goals' (besides, what goals are those again, exactly?). I'd tend to believe that they just wrote a crappy song, period.

Well, we're all talking out of our asses here because we're not at the band-meetings or in the studio with them. But I think it's indisputable that, to exist at U2's level, for as long as they've been there, the band has to try hard to have hits and appeal to a broad range of listeners. Which is fine. And I'm not saying that trying to be big = bad. Obviously, a lot of their more commercial or conventional-sounding songs are amongst their best ("Pride", "Beautiful Day", for example). What I am saying is that each time U2 sequences an album or goes in to work on tracks for a record, they have to think about the sales potential. They know that 10 million people might or might not buy their album, and that hundreds of staff-jobs depend on their being "big". Thus, if the day comes -- not sure if it has yet -- when U2 no longer care about being "big" and sort-of give up on trying to reach younger-generation fans, I suspect the curveball-songs like "Stand Up Comedy" on an otherwise fairly arty album will go out the window.

Of course, it's entirely possible that they may spend their senior-citizen years trying to match the pop chart success of The Monkees ... but I doubt it.

 

[Snowlock]

I always try to look at the old U2 songs (Wowy, streets, pride, SBS) historically. Were they pop songs? I don't think so. Thinking back to Pride, there was nothing out there that had that guitar in it before. Nothing even similar that I can think of. (Maybe some of the post punkers from the early 80's were doing similar, but never heard them). So even though now people would hardly consider Pride artistic or edgy, I do. Same with Streets; especially With or Without You.

 

[donkeytimes]

Hey all - Lots of great discussion here, and I tend to see all sides after reading through the posts.

No question U2 wasn't trying to be prog' rock back in 80's and 90's. But the music certainly had a depth, a bite and a certain zeal. It had a sound, and the hits came with a delicate mix of sonic explosion mixed with catchy hooks.

As U2 got to the 00's after Pop it seemed like they were indeed comfortable with staying on top, appealing to all people. I agree, being big doesn't equal a bad thing.

When I say, why not U2 do an arty album again, I mean it from the stance: Whatever they do from now on is always going to garner some attention, they will always be relevant on a level. They do not need to try and hit home runs everytime with SuC or Crazy Tonight's.

The potential for hits will always be there for U2, they can't not write hooks. When U2 gets arty, they still draw in the listener with calming tones, things you want to hear. I am not saying this is going to turn into a Passengers part II, or Frank Zappa effort. Please...

For example, Kingdom is what I would call a fairly arty piece, but it is catchy. Its very different, in the Talking Heads sort of way. I like it. Why not explore more of this? (which they clearly have in the studio.) I just think U2 can still be regal, and maintain some clout even while still having the big band in the world label. I know they cashed in the indie/post-punk thing a long time ago, but I think it would a great challenge for them to make a true masterpiece that even the "music-loving indie side of the house" could even say, "wow...this is a pretty serious effort."

The Danny Lanois tune, "I love you" is a great tune, a pop song, but its dark, and soulful. U2 could bang out lots of song like this, and all would be 10 times better than the safe versions of SuC on No line.

I would love to see how some of these song decisions are made. I swear Danny and Eno prob. were laughing at SuC.

 

[mikal]

Hey all - Lots of great discussion here, and I tend to see all sides after reading through the posts.

No question U2 wasn't trying to be prog' rock back in 80's and 90's. But the music certainly had a depth, a bite and a certain zeal. It had a sound, and the hits came with a delicate mix of sonic explosion mixed with catchy hooks.

As U2 got to the 00's after Pop it seemed like they were indeed comfortable with staying on top, appealing to all people. I agree, being big doesn't equal a bad thing.

When I say, why not U2 do an arty album again, I mean it from the stance: Whatever the do now from now on is always going to garner some attention, they will always be relevant on a level. They do not need to try and hit home runs everytime with SuC or Crazy Tonight's.

If they just thought about it more, and didn't worry so much the hits will still come, they can't not write hooks. When U2 gets arty, they still draw in the listener with calming tones, things you want to hear. I am not saying this is going to turn into a Passengers part II, or Frank Zappa effort. Please...

For example, Kingdom is what I would call a fairly arty piece. Its very different, in the Talking Heads sort of way. I like it. Why not explore more of this? (which they clearly have in the studio.) I just think U2 can still be regal, and maintain some clout even while still having the big band in the world label.

The Danny Lanois tune, "I love you" is a great tune, a pop song, but its dark, and soulful. U2 could bang out lots of song like this, and all would be 10 times better than the safe versions of SuC on No line.

I would love to see how some of these song decisions are made. I swear Danny and Eno prob. were laughing at SuC.

these thoughts are pretty much what i'm hoping SOA will be.

 

[Blue Room]

Yes
You can keep the One Step Closers, White As Snow's and Cedars. There are other bands that do this and does it better.

What you ask do we really need more of, no one does better. They sound cliche now and forced and easy, but U2 is the source of the cliche. Sounds like you're sick of U2 and want them to be someone else. I just want them to be them.

If SoA is more "meditative" than "soaring" it'll instantly go to the bottom of the stack for me. I like experimentation; so bring on Winter, Kingdom and more NLOTH's (title track) and Fez:BB's. But please don't give me a bunch of boring songs to smoke weed to; I gotta listen to this stuff in my car and at work too.

Except I do like "One Step Closer". Otherwise I agree 100%

 

[Blue Room]

I always try to look at the old U2 songs (Wowy, streets, pride, SBS) historically. Were they pop songs? I don't think so. Thinking back to Pride, there was nothing out there that had that guitar in it before. Nothing even similar that I can think of. (Maybe some of the post punkers from the early 80's were doing similar, but never heard them). So even though now people would hardly consider Pride artistic or edgy, I do. Same with Streets; especially With or Without You.

Exactly, The Joshua Tree was like nothing out at the time. U2 were considered sort of progressive and alternative then and that music was as well. JT helped bring that type of music into the mainstream. Hell, up until JT broke they were considered sort of a cult following type of band mainly off their live reputation.

 

[gvox]

There is also the distinct possibility that they are pretty much like any other great band: they write everything from brilliant amazing songs to horrible songs, and pick the ones they think will fly and it's in the final selection of what songs to go to pressing where the sales considerations start to matter. Sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss. At their origin, however, the songs are personal and written for/from their own selves, not what they think the public wants or with the outright intention of hitting a home run. I think NLOTH is a great example of them writing just whatever the hell came naturally and they believed in it, rightly or wrongly <-in terms of chart success or whatever. Wait - all their albums are like this lol. But just because some of the songs they might have felt were slam dunks don't necessarily fly, I don't think this is going to cause them to veer off in any more or less of an 'arty' direction, nor do I think it will cause them to try even harder to be more pop-relevant. There's not much difference in the 'intent' of a song like SUC than a song like Wild Honey, Red Light or Refugee, really. They're just goofy songs that the band believed in at the time, imo.

I'd much rather they just write whatever they feel no matter how ridiculous hardcore fans feel it sounds than "try" to write with an intent to be more relevant or more artsy or whatever.

 

[Snowlock]

However, with NLOTH, in my opinion they failed to maintain that balance. The tracks like 'Stand up Comedy' and 'Boots' seem not to belong on the album, and the whole thing comes off as a bit overly calculated.

NLOTH is more cohesive, it's less calculated, I think. MOS recorded in one take? But I think the band chickened out at the end and the middle three (and the terrible choice for a lead off single) were the result. Since the first time I've heard it, I've wondered what the demo's of SUC and Crazy sound like.

I'm also praying to hear SUC live. And there's probably a single version that would turn that song around. When U2 rocks, they do it well (Like a Song, The Fly, E-Storm) but it's such a polished song, it sounds like it was put together from unrelated pieces with ProTools. It being rawer (if that's even a word) would maybe bring out its energy. Also should've left "comedy" out of the title.

Pretty much the same with Crazy. The album verison is too tame, the live version too out there for me. I'd like to see them play it straight, but faster, and without the backing tracks.

GOYB? Trash. It should've been sold to a chick flick soundtrack (sans the Let Me In The Sound part which should've been saved for a song that deserved it). They should've completed Winter and put it on the album in place of GOYB with rawer cuts of Crazy and SUC that are more spaced out.

Singles: NLOTH (Title Track) - That would've been one hell of an intro and whether it did well or not (aka the Fly) and would've set the tone. Then SUC and MOS simultaneously (like Walk On/Stuck) then Breathe. Magnificient's pretty much the ideal fifth single; just good enough to mine one more tune out of before the album goes away.

 

[donkeytimes]

I hear what you are saying GVOX.

For No Line it seems like U2 had a theme brewing, cut it off in the middle for the "Beatles" pop, and then went back to the theme to finish off the record. Yes, I think they did this cause they wanted to do this, and thought it was right and interesting to pose some pop songs mixed in with songs closer tied together tunes in the first and latter portion of the record. Fine. It didn't flow for me.

...I am pretty sure Lanois and Eno weren't thrilled by the SuC and Crazy Tonight tunes. They didn't have much to do with them anyway.

U2 have already said that they would like a radio hit for the next go around, so that just states U2 are aware and are writing with the intent for hits (mind you - not every song.)

So again, my call is instead of just trying to get a hit, why not try a new challenge of doing an album that really appeals to the art/indie side of the house, doesn't have to unaccessible music. It will still sound like U2, and my contention is, if the tunes are that good - the hits will follow as a direct correlation.

 

[donkeytimes]

I am in full agreement about Stand Up Snowlock

- It sounds like a pro tools hack job, way to polished, shit, it might even been an Apple Garage Band job... I recall the studio video's a year ago and some of the tracking sounded much darker, and rocking. I guess you could say they had a more Achtung Baby appeal. What happened to these versions? They obvs. opted for a more watered down version.

U2 played it way to safe and did chicken out.

The lyrics are just a waste of thought, just horrible.

Winter could have been developed into something interesting in comparison, it had a real feel to it. The entire tune needed work, but it sounded like something that would have fit this record quite well. Shame it wasn't flushed out in time.

 

[Snowlock]

I wonder, if SUC had been saved for/as the inevitable Best of 2000-2010 bonus track if it would've gotten more love.

 

[gvox]

I feel that the following songs are definitely not radio-geared per se, and although I hate the terms, far more indie/artsy direction than we might give them credit for:

Breathe
Magnificent
No Line On the Horizon (altho this sounds very AB/Flyish)
Moment of Surrender
Unknown Caller
White as Snow
Cedars
Fez-Being Born (although this sounds like classic U2 by the numbers, but without any real direction)

That's 8 songs, none of which sound anything like what's on radio right now.

The biggest disappointment of the album to me is not finishing Winter which would have almost certainly relegated Fez to it's deserved b-side spot.

And if you consider that even though songs like Boots, Crazy and SUC sound like they'd like to be on radio, they don't really sound like much else that is on radio either.

So all in all, it's a pretty out there album imo, and I think a fairly risky one. Maybe 2 or 3 of the songs make it seem like a calculated risk, but...one more thing...I think just as a concept it takes alot of balls for some pushing-50 30 years in the biz rockers to come at the music listening public asserting they can still rock out with songs like GOYB, SUC, Breathe, NLOTH etc...not that I like the first two, but in terms of where they are in their lives/careers? It's a huger risk than anybody else their age is taking, just by virtue of the fact that they could quite well be (and are being?) laughed at for attempting it, if you see what I mean.

 

[donkeytimes]

Yes, its the GYOB, SuC and Crazy which blow the album up - but you are right, the band did create some wonderful music save the versions of the middle songs that were put on the final record.

Winter would have been nice. I do enjoy Fez, wouldn't want that to be missed. I enjoy vocals in Fez - its right in U2's wheelhouse.

Let me add this thought: Maybe its the public talk that the band would like a "hit" tune that bothers me ever so slightly. I understand they want success, but I thought they wanted a tight record too. Sometimes something has to give for the sake of the finished product. Sometimes you can achieve both, sometimes it may simply not happen despite the best efforts. They were pressing with trying to conjour up a hit with this batch of tunes.

 

[subnet]

the songs play well on sirius satellite radio though, especially MoS

i've heard that song be played several times while shopping at a local Lowe's

 

[BVS]

I like Boots and Crazy, I don't think Boots fits as well as Crazy but I still like them both...

 

[gvox]

I didn't like Crazy at first, but when I shed my 'i'm pretty sure I hate pop' snob sensibility and just listened to it a few times, I found it infectious and enjoyable.

 

[donkeytimes]

In this order for me, better to worse:

1. Crazy (I echo what gvox said) 2. GYOB, potential - just something is missing. The Let me in the Sound part is solid though. 3. SuC, just needs to be re-done. A groove is there, just need to cut the white funk pronto, and new lyrics.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

I gave NLOTH 7 out of 10. no more no less. some reviewers gave it 5 stars. I mean, no way am i on with board that. its no masterpiece. i just think its solid. and some songs are better live. like MOS and GOYB. lyrically its just so-so overall. its no ghost of tom joad. But i also don't try to make things that they are not. GOYB is silly absurd lyrics. but thats what its supposed to be. Take it for what it is.

 

[U2girl]

Boots fits the album more than Crazy or SUC, but it's the weakest link because it wanted to be Vertigo part II and failed.

 

[nielsgov]

Boots fits the album more than Crazy or SUC, but it's the weakest link because it wanted to be Vertigo part II and failed.

I agree it fits better thematically but I think it's much better than Crazy, SUC and also Vertigo. The riff is just better.

 

[Irvine511]

Boots fits the album more than Crazy or SUC, but it's the weakest link because it wanted to be Vertigo part II and failed.

exactly. it became Discotheque, Part 2.

kiss of death.

still, GOYB rules live.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Can anyone name a great song of theirs that took a lot of work over a very long period of time and/or can anyone name a very bad song of theirs that came together very quickly?

It just seems like the great U2 songs always come with 'lightning strike in the studio' type stories, while all of these very bland SUC type songs are always laboured over and reworked many times for months or even years.

I think they need to trust their instincts again on what they may or may not be concluding is single or lead track worthy. Some of these songs likely started off brilliant, but had all of that washed out as they tried to squeeze as much as they could of what they perceive as being necessary parts for a hit into them.

Like taking the apparently quick arrival of MoS and then spending six months chopping three minutes off it, then adding big soaring strings, then getting Bono to change his lyrics so they are more direct and easier to remember (or harder to forget) and then getting him to tone down the singing because it might be too confrontational on the way to work, then realising that without that style of singing the verse melody isn't all that strong, so make the chorus a verse and write a new chorus... and so on... and then you have something likely complete rubbish.