gweeps
War Child
North Star seems to be the one with the most substance.
Which of the two new songs do you prefer?
- Thread starter U2girl
- 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.
Both songs are great.
North Star seems more polished than Glastonbury but the later makes you want to rock.
considering that Glastonbury has more than one chorus according to the rehearsals. i think they picked the better of the 2 i heard for the performance.
For a flowering rose i would bend my knee.
North Star seems more polished than Glastonbury but the later makes you want to rock.
considering that Glastonbury has more than one chorus according to the rehearsals. i think they picked the better of the 2 i heard for the performance.
For a flowering rose i would bend my knee.
ozeeko
Refugee
I'm pretty sure most have stated their reasons for not liking a song.
Exactly. Relax.
No one has put across any opinion like it was gospel.
Awesome. You can like and dislike any song you want here. It's a free forum.
Whaaaaaat? Now this was uncalled for....
An Cat Gav
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Not knees again??!! Even that wont put me off! Top tune.
super fly guy
New Yorker
On reflection i might have been a bit harsh,but i had been drinking as i had been at the football during the day!
Joey788
Refugee
Personally, I think it's a little too soon to start making grand statements like "U2 is finished" or "This is a terrible direction." The songs aren't officially recorded or completed yet. U2's just letting us see them beforehand, a pretty cool move that many here have been asking to happen for years.
Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the tracks at all. Personally, I like the intro and Glastonbury a lot. North Star has potential but I think it'll sound more complete once it's properly recorded.
Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the tracks at all. Personally, I like the intro and Glastonbury a lot. North Star has potential but I think it'll sound more complete once it's properly recorded.
popacrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
further, on the setlist it said North Star (acoustic) which leads me to believe that the studio version has much more to it.
North Star has a some hooks but after about 6 or 7 listens, I don't seem to be hearing what others hear. Needs work. Love the verse, but not the chorus. The bridge is awkward. It has some potential, though. I don't hear a single. I see it as a "in a little while" type live fan fave, but no real impact.. That could change with studio polish.
I'm absolutely in love with Glastonbury. I grew up with friends who listened to the Stones and Led Zepellen. Never liked 'em much myself, but this reminds me so much of that brand of rock and roll. It's so different than U2's typical style, I think that's why I love it so much. It deserves some real attention in the studio, though. I hear a LITTLE bit of All Because of You in this, which I HATED, so I'm hoping they do this right on record. I can already tell it's going to be a tour-de-force live. Big song. Definite hit single on the "alternative" charts.
I'm absolutely in love with Glastonbury. I grew up with friends who listened to the Stones and Led Zepellen. Never liked 'em much myself, but this reminds me so much of that brand of rock and roll. It's so different than U2's typical style, I think that's why I love it so much. It deserves some real attention in the studio, though. I hear a LITTLE bit of All Because of You in this, which I HATED, so I'm hoping they do this right on record. I can already tell it's going to be a tour-de-force live. Big song. Definite hit single on the "alternative" charts.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Inner El Guapo
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 609
I haven't posted in a long time but hey, new music!!
I can't say which I prefer, neither of them are much to get excited about yet, one way or another.
I will say that it's probably a good thing that they'll take at least a year or two to get this album out. Or to get the supposed 4 projects (certainly 3 of them, Spidey excepted) into one.
Why? Because U2 are more concerned with being relevant than being anything else.
And it's 2010 folks, this current rash of 60's melodic pop meets the musical dynamics of the mid 80's is going to die really soon.
This inevitable change in the music landscape is coming...it happened in the early 80's with post-punk and new wave. It was great, then it got saturated and bad. In the early 90's there was several forms of alternative rock, which would spin off the unbearably bad pop-punk, nu-metal and post-grunge of the late 90's. This gave way to an excellent birth of garage rock/indie in the first part of the decade. By now, it's like everything else that preceded it. Largely crap (there are always exceptions to this generic view). The late 70's, late 80's, late 90's and right now we are at the nadir of the creative wave in the mainstream.
Things will shift again. Distortion pedals will come back into play. Something will morph with something else and some young 20 somethings right now are looking back to try and evoke something else. Sort of like in the early 90's when those bands influenced by 60's/70's rock, metal and punk would form what would become so called "grunge" and industrial, funk-metal and an assortment of other genres.
Two things are working in U2's favor. While this rebirth of melodic nostalgia is in it's wake, and will bubble up soon (likely in 2011), U2 haven't really catered to it...that much. They are doing unhip shit like riff rockers when the cool kids are doing precisely what U2 used to do to rebel against the riff rockers of their day. So #1, the pop culture backlash against this early 60's pop meets 80's synth clean guitar delay 80's regurgitation will most likely not take U2 with it. This is how they survived the 80's. By being an alternative to fucking Poison and White Snake and all that shit but also Duran Duran and the like. At least they are still trying to do their own thing.
The same thing that is happening to U2 now happened in the late 80's.
Massively popular and massively uncool to the underground crowd who saw Rattle and Hum and said "what the fuck?". But at the very least, they stood their ground.
What gave birth to Achtung was the influence around them, Madchester, dance-grooves, (actual) shoegaze and all that. This is #2, I think if U2 are in the studio as the new crop of great inspiration bubbles up (and eventually infects the mainstream as it always does) then U2 can use that influence to be ballsy enough to shoot for that relevance.
It's either that or more of the same, which only has one destination. 'Stones territory'.
I can't say which I prefer, neither of them are much to get excited about yet, one way or another.
I will say that it's probably a good thing that they'll take at least a year or two to get this album out. Or to get the supposed 4 projects (certainly 3 of them, Spidey excepted) into one.
Why? Because U2 are more concerned with being relevant than being anything else.
And it's 2010 folks, this current rash of 60's melodic pop meets the musical dynamics of the mid 80's is going to die really soon.
This inevitable change in the music landscape is coming...it happened in the early 80's with post-punk and new wave. It was great, then it got saturated and bad. In the early 90's there was several forms of alternative rock, which would spin off the unbearably bad pop-punk, nu-metal and post-grunge of the late 90's. This gave way to an excellent birth of garage rock/indie in the first part of the decade. By now, it's like everything else that preceded it. Largely crap (there are always exceptions to this generic view). The late 70's, late 80's, late 90's and right now we are at the nadir of the creative wave in the mainstream.
Things will shift again. Distortion pedals will come back into play. Something will morph with something else and some young 20 somethings right now are looking back to try and evoke something else. Sort of like in the early 90's when those bands influenced by 60's/70's rock, metal and punk would form what would become so called "grunge" and industrial, funk-metal and an assortment of other genres.
Two things are working in U2's favor. While this rebirth of melodic nostalgia is in it's wake, and will bubble up soon (likely in 2011), U2 haven't really catered to it...that much. They are doing unhip shit like riff rockers when the cool kids are doing precisely what U2 used to do to rebel against the riff rockers of their day. So #1, the pop culture backlash against this early 60's pop meets 80's synth clean guitar delay 80's regurgitation will most likely not take U2 with it. This is how they survived the 80's. By being an alternative to fucking Poison and White Snake and all that shit but also Duran Duran and the like. At least they are still trying to do their own thing.
The same thing that is happening to U2 now happened in the late 80's.
Massively popular and massively uncool to the underground crowd who saw Rattle and Hum and said "what the fuck?". But at the very least, they stood their ground.
What gave birth to Achtung was the influence around them, Madchester, dance-grooves, (actual) shoegaze and all that. This is #2, I think if U2 are in the studio as the new crop of great inspiration bubbles up (and eventually infects the mainstream as it always does) then U2 can use that influence to be ballsy enough to shoot for that relevance.
It's either that or more of the same, which only has one destination. 'Stones territory'.
hasin73
Refugee
Glastonbury just needs a longer solo.
hasin73
Refugee
Exactly
I have my share of complaints about this evident set list, but I will never buy the greatest hits/Stones comparison for one reason: It fits like Yao Ming's shoes on a 4 year old!!
Do The Rolling Stones play 7 new songs per night?
Do they try and make all new releases relevant and really focus on promoting them?
Do they have 3 very successful and 2 smash hit, burn up the chart albums this decade?
If Mick were asked "some people are labeling these tours a nostalgia run, you buy that? You're focused on starting up, getting out some brown sugar and getting some satisfaction while painting a red door black?"
He would answer with "sure, thats what they want to hear."
Bono would answer with "shoot us in the head if we ever get to that artistically stagnant a point in our careers and still charge $450 for tickets."
That does not make the Stones any less of a great band, but it does set them and U2 on opposite poles when it comes to this issue.
I could go on, but you get the idea!
Every word in your comment is true.
God Part III
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
There are three new songs, and I prefer the Return of the Stingray Guitar 
An Cat Gav
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I have to say after listening a few times to both that at first I really liked North Star better but as I listened to Glasto it kinda grew on me. As many of you know I've been a bit harsh on some of the new music, songs like Boots, SUC and WITS, lame. I must say that I might be a bit more excited to see whats next...
stagman
War Child
Glastonberry easily has alot more to it musically so i'd go that
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I've only just heard the actual concert versions for the first time. There's definitely no 'wow' to either of them, but there's nothing especially atrocious either. I do think if between these three we have an indication of where the next U2 album will land, that is pretty (very) disappointing, as I really want them to break well and truly free of the 00s for whatever comes next, and these are definitely, definitely not signs of U2 doing that.
Glastonbury - quite like it, would be good on record if they leave it a little rough around the edges. Don't over-slick it as per most 00's 'rockers'. Leave it a little dirty!
North Star - nice enough melody, crap enough lyrics to confirm it's Bomb-era, and an acoustic version means we have no idea whether on record it could be a delicately put together beauty or an overblown monster. My money would be on it ending up to be the latter, but you never know.
Stingray - don't mind the sound, but really, what is it? Just a little bit they knocked up specifically for the intro, or will it turn out to be part of a larger song? If it goes somewhere, could be good.
Glastonbury - quite like it, would be good on record if they leave it a little rough around the edges. Don't over-slick it as per most 00's 'rockers'. Leave it a little dirty!
North Star - nice enough melody, crap enough lyrics to confirm it's Bomb-era, and an acoustic version means we have no idea whether on record it could be a delicately put together beauty or an overblown monster. My money would be on it ending up to be the latter, but you never know.
Stingray - don't mind the sound, but really, what is it? Just a little bit they knocked up specifically for the intro, or will it turn out to be part of a larger song? If it goes somewhere, could be good.
ozeeko
Refugee
Haha...at least you're honest.
ozeeko
Refugee
Glastonbury's sorta growing on me...tho I still feel like Edge should ditch the "whole lotta love" tribute riff.
As for North Star - my biggest fear is it becoming, in your words, an overblown monster. I would love it if they kept it quiet, weary, melancholy, just like the live performance. Keep it in The First Time mode, or better yet, Stay (live) mode. Too much bombast will destroy this tune.
Why should Glastonbury and North Star be any indication of what's next ? One is a Bomb leftover, and one is a quickly-put together tribute to the show that never happened (yet, anyway).
Soon and Stingray are better indications.
Soon and Stingray are better indications.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Yeah there were rumours of it being worked on for SOA, which makes sense given the theme of the album.
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
While I understand people's complaints with Glastonbary's desperate and cliche'd music, I don't understand why more people aren't complaining about the utterly horrible lyrics.
Pale as snow, a flowering rose, for a flowering rose I would bend my knee
I came to find the flowering rose, the flowering rose of Glastonbury
You. Are. A pocketful of sunshine
You. Are. The miracle I came here to find
Good God. Hearing them is bad enough, but watching him sing it like it's actually cool is cringeworthy.
Pale as snow, a flowering rose, for a flowering rose I would bend my knee
I came to find the flowering rose, the flowering rose of Glastonbury
You. Are. A pocketful of sunshine
You. Are. The miracle I came here to find
Good God. Hearing them is bad enough, but watching him sing it like it's actually cool is cringeworthy.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Oh those utterly horrible lyrics!!! 
I'd rather listen to Nickleback lyrics than those lyrics!
Good God!
Bono sux!
Why can't he sing about deserts anymore?!
Is that better?
I'd rather listen to Nickleback lyrics than those lyrics!
Good God!
Bono sux!
Why can't he sing about deserts anymore?!
Is that better?
Danny Boy
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
So no North Star in Frankfurt. Hopefully that just means that they're going to flesh it out a little more before they bring it back to the stage.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I think that although instrumentally is a bit disappointing (not because of the melody, but because of the too strong reminiscence of other 2000's songs) the lyrics are simple but quite good and inspired.
At least Bono didn't write a bunch of non-sense and vague statements like in "Crazy Tonight" or "Vertigo" (I really hate when he does that).
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Didn't say that I thought they are, just if they are. i.e. they're okay, nothing really wrong with them, but I would be disappointed *IF* this was what came next.
I sincerely hope Soon is the best indicator, and that we do actually get an un-compromised complete SoA as the next album. But this is U2! They've got a few projects on the go, and we could get one of them on it's own (please, please, please), but just as likely is getting a jumble of them, unfortunately. Don't tell me you can't see a meditative SoA freaking them out at the last minute and a big monster stadium track or 'rocker' or two just slammed in there somewhere to hedge bets. I have a lot of hope, but almost no faith, in us getting a complete, cohesive album from them. There'll be singles, there's always got to be fucking singles.
And they have said that they are 'road testing' these songs, so as random as they seem (old song and a one off project) they must figure in the plans somewhere for something amongst these projects, and there's been no indication of them really knowing what they are doing with all of this stuff on the go. No clue of whether they are really focusing in any direction. They probably still don't know, so I'd say these two songs are likely as well in the mix as any Soon or Stingray or SoA track or clubby track or whatever.
monsieur fly
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 793
The lyrics aren't great, I agree, but I don't think the music is at all desperate and cliched- reminds me very much of their 90s rockers.
Similar threads
