U2 Reflect on Troubled 'Innocence' Release: 'These Songs Have Staying Power''
- Thread starter pepokiss
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
gvox
Ghost of Love
Absolutely. Although I (rather un-technically) call it a "pre-chorus" as opposed to a "semi-chorus" because to me it leads into what comes next.
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
gvox
Ghost of Love
Absolutely. Although I (rather un-technically) call it a "pre-chorus" as opposed to a "semi-chorus" because to me it leads into what comes next.
ETA:
Actually, some corrections if I may
"See the stone set..." - 1st Verse
"With or without you, with or without you" - I see this as still part of 1st Verse.
"Through the storm we reach..." - 2nd Verse
"And you give" - Pre-chorus
"With or with you, with or without you....i can't live...etc" - 1st Full length chorus
"And you give" - Bridge 1 / Pre-chorus
"My hands are tied" - 3rd Verse
"And you give" - Pre-chorus
"With or without you...etc" - 2nd full length chorus
"Oooooooo" Vocal solo - arguably a bridge?
"With or Without you...etc" - 3rd full length chorus
Guitar solo outro
When you see it in that sense, it actually does follow a fairly standard verse/pre/chorus/verse/pre/chorus/bridge/chorus format. How anyone ever thought this wasn't a pretty typical song from a structure standpoint is beyond me. The subject matter and how much of an anti-typical love song ballad is what sets it apart, imo.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
How odd. Who said WOWY had no chorus "at all" (to use your words). Certainly Danny Lanois never said that. It's been asserted that WOWY didn't have a "traditional" or "proper" chorus by following the "usual verse-chorus-bridge-verse-chorus" song pattern, but all of that is indisputably true.
It's pretty sad that the Lanois hater crowd is reduced to straw men in accusing people of saying "stupid things" they never said and/or calling Lanois "fucking nuts."
(sigh)
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Straw men? You've created a whole "hater crowd" out of thin air because they don't take his quote ultra-literal like you... talk about sad.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Where did I take his quote "ultra-literally"? I just posted the quote...I made no comment on it, literally or otherwise. Another straw man.
And, LOL...yeah...saying Lanois doesn't know WTF he's talking about or is "fucking nuts" or that all his work sounds like Running to Stand Still rewrites or that his recent work with the band is "predictable and boring" and that he's responsible for U2's "weak tracks" and he's "held them back" and that you can't hear his influence on Achtung Baby (all of which have been said the past few days) is really just showing the love.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Where did I take his quote "ultra-literally"? I just posted the quote...I made no comment on it, literally or otherwise. Another straw man.
And, LOL...yeah...saying Lanois doesn't know WTF he's talking about or is "fucking nuts" or that all his work sounds like Running to Stand Still rewrites or that you can't hear his influence on Achtung Baby (all of which have been said the past few days) is really just showing the love.
No one said Lanois is "fucking nuts", you're twisting as usual because Dave was not talking about Lanois quote.
And as far as RTSS rewrite and can't hear him on AB, you're talking about one troll, ignore him.
There is no "hater" crowd, period.
ozeeko
Refugee
I think WOWY's very long bridge (or middle 8, whatever) makes the song seem a lot more unconventional than it really is. Take away that bridge, add a 3rd verse instead, that song becomes very very traditional.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I didn't say Dave called Lanois "fucking nuts".
I think you might want to go back and check the record. The discussion was whether WOWY had a chorus...I (naively, as it turns out) thought that a quote from the producer of the record might be pertinent to the conversation. I didn't characterise Danny's quote as saying WOWY does or doesn't have chorus. I merely said that as the producer his thoughts are somewhat authoritive on the subject. That caused a couple people to read into what they wanted into it and proceed to melt down (because they thought it differed from whatever they'd already decided about the song). I don't think I ever said "Danny Lanois claims that WOWY has no chorus at all"...though I certainly believe it doesn't have "traditional" chorus such as you'd find in a typical pop song.
Well, of course. Then it's a different song...a more traditional song, as you point out. But that's not how the song is.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Well I only saw one "fucking nuts", and I couldn't care enough to go back and look. The point is there is no 'hate Daniel club' in here, quit trying to create another imaginary subdivision amongst us.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
ozeeko
Refugee
Yea, I never said it was traditional sounding in its finished state. Aside from the bridge, though, everything is pretty straightfoward. It's not like it jumps from verse to chorus to bridge to chorus to verse to some other bridge, etc. It's all rather simple - Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus....but the long long bridge creates the illusion that the song isn't. On paper, it's traditional, but it doesn't "sound" that way.
trevgreg
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Yeah, I know. I was just more or less summarizing the viewpoint of the other side there. Probably a bit redundant, but whatever.
I wouldn't doubt you there. Some bands, even with 'jams' to the same songs they do every night, do at least something different every time in the process.
Interesting story though: I was actually driving to work this morning shortly after I replied to your original post, and the DJs on a morning show started talking about concerts and how one of them was going to the Rush one with his son (yes, I know Interference). He went on about how their drummer was great and how he was going to introduce his son to some songs of theirs before going so he was familiar with them when they played him. The other co-host then mentioned how she went to Pearl Jam last year, took time off to go there early, and came out only think "meh" when she saw them. Apparently, she wasn't too familiar with their material outside of the popular stuff and couldn't get into the show too much as a result. I'm paraphrasing here, but she went as far as to say, "I would think that they would play at least 'Jeremy.'"
So yeah, there was the flip side of the coin there...
gvox
Ghost of Love
gvox
Ghost of Love
I took a look back and failed to see where anyone actually said that Daniel Lanois was actually fucking nuts, so there's that.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
She probably saw one of the shows last year where they played either No Code or Yield in its entirety, tremendous shows for die hards, maybe less so for casual fans.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
I have absolutely zero hate for Daniel Lanois. There's no conspiracy here. On the contrary, he's an artist who has helped U2 and other bands create some of the most beautiful music I've ever heard. I can't speak for his solo stuff because I haven't heard it, but my opinion is far from "Lanois hater". I'm a fan of a large amount of his production work and completely ambivalent about his personal music or him as a human.
I think he is completely and utterly wrong on this, but people are allowed to be wrong in their interpretations of things.
You don't need to create conspiracy where none exists. That's how we ended up with fucking nutjobs (and yeah I have no issue calling these people crazy) like 9/11 truthers and the people who insist Obama was born in the jungle in Kenya and is secretly living out the plot to the first season of Homeland.
Disagreeing with Lanois doesn't make me a hater. We can consider him to be wrong about something and not give a flying fuck about anything else to do with him or take any of that into consideration. I can disagree with someone who shows up on this forum saying Sunday Bloody Sunday is really about Ali's uterus, think they're completely and horribly wrong, and it doesn't mean I hate them. I don't know why you would think so. Things in this world are not strictly binary.
I think he is completely and utterly wrong on this, but people are allowed to be wrong in their interpretations of things.
You don't need to create conspiracy where none exists. That's how we ended up with fucking nutjobs (and yeah I have no issue calling these people crazy) like 9/11 truthers and the people who insist Obama was born in the jungle in Kenya and is secretly living out the plot to the first season of Homeland.
Disagreeing with Lanois doesn't make me a hater. We can consider him to be wrong about something and not give a flying fuck about anything else to do with him or take any of that into consideration. I can disagree with someone who shows up on this forum saying Sunday Bloody Sunday is really about Ali's uterus, think they're completely and horribly wrong, and it doesn't mean I hate them. I don't know why you would think so. Things in this world are not strictly binary.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I don't think you're a Lanois hater. As far as I can see, there are only two members of the Lanois hater club on here, and you're not one of them.
Cheers,
Nick
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
2 = crowd
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
When you see it in that sense, it actually does follow a fairly standard verse/pre/chorus/verse/pre/chorus/bridge/chorus format. How anyone ever thought this wasn't a pretty typical song from a structure standpoint is beyond me. The subject matter and how much of an anti-typical love song ballad is what sets it apart, imo.
Standard would be one bridge, chord changes, and in most cases no pre-choruses at all. There isn't anything very standard about WOWY. Same 4 chords, subtle changes and dramatic build. Very much typical 20th century U2 and fairly unique. Trying to force-fit that song into some formula only to prove that Lanois/Nick are wrong is dubious at best.
Said another way, take the vocals completely out and describe the sections of the song. If you need the vocals/lyrics to discern the different parts of the song, you might be describing it accurately, but you are definitely not describing something that is a typical formulaic song.
Also telling that the lyrical portion of the song is needed to break it down into segments (which is fine) but then you say the only thing that "sets it apart" is the subject matter, which, last I checked, is included in the lyrics.
There is also the first use of the Infinite guitar which sets it apart as well.
Does it have a chorus? Yeah. I think it does. But this reasoning is flimsy.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Nick agrees with you, but just to be clear, Nick never said WOWY doesn't have any chorus at all. Nick just posted what Danny Lanois had to say about the song, without comment. For the record, all Nick said about the subject (and what Nick thinks Danny is saying about it) is that the song doesn't have the kind of "traditional" (for lack of a better word) chorus of the type you hear in your typical pop song, and that the song as a whole isn't structured the way your typical (or to use your word, "standard") pop song is.
gvox
Ghost of Love
You agree that the song has a chorus, so it's all good.
But by the strictest definition you outlined above, I just ran a few pop songs thru my head quick and for some reason Katy Perry Fireworks was first.
And it has pre-choruses
CosmoKramer
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,325
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Of course. We can also all agree it has a chorus...no one here, or Danny Lanois, ever said otherwise.
gvox
Ghost of Love
Sent from my ass crack
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U2 Live From Sphere - Final Show SiriusXM stream
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
