Album 13: Arguing/Punning/Meme-ing/Discussion thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Normally I'd get all scoldy on my high horse about body-shaming, but ..... I can't. I just can't bring myself to do anything but join the rest of you in the "holy shit, NO" corner.
 
*I thought I saw a camel toe there for a minute

*that was a terrible echo

*interference needs a colonoscopy bag

*I forgot what I was going to say


Tattooed on my ass because when the power grids fail your phones are all useless.
 
Nick66 said:
When did women who look like women go out of fashion?
Click to expand...

1966

twiggy.jpg
 
jeevey said:
Yeah, I was just going to say, "So long as it includes a healthy amount of body fat." Lean is one thing, but this is not cute.
Click to expand...

"Not cute" is one way to put it. "Hideously unattractive" is another.

FTR, I was like 13 when the 'Open Your Heart' video came out.

Needless to say Madonna was...um, less just say a vital part of my puberty.

She was hot. Now she looks sick.

And it's definitely not because of age. I could name dozens of examples of famous women in their late 40's and 50's that look damn good.

But amen to your comment about body fat. Ladies, you know why we think Rihanna and Beyonce and Katy Perry are hot? They call it T&A for a reason. And you can't have T&A without some jiggle. God bless jiggle.
 
powerhour24 said:
First off I'm not arguing WOWY because they still play it well, I am with people on One being deflated from at least Vertigo on. As for a rotational thing, I never mentioned any other specific tracks.

As to your second paragraph, that's an absurd straw man argument and obviously not what I meant. All I mean is a Vertigo style tour with the variety increased a tad. It doesn't have to be to the same degree as him, but look at what Springsteen does, variety and you don't hear people complaining about Springsteen setlists. Of course the fact that he plays longer than U2 allows for more songs to be included anyway but that's a different story.
Click to expand...

First paragraph: Gotcha. But you did make the "95%" argument when it came to set lists being the same. Maybe I'm just used to other bands which, literally, maybe change one song or two as a tour moves along. Compared to them, U2 actually does quite a bit. It's not a different thing every single night, but there's always going to be songs which go over better. And compared to other bands, they do change songs up and drop them as they go.

Like I said, even if they did a different set list every night, there's still going to be people wishing they played this song instead of that one. And even then, the majority of people are still going to just one show in their area. If they want to promote new material that they enjoy playing, then they're not going to give those songs a night off (usually). Same for other songs they want to throw in there from the past. They might rediscover something from an old album and feel like playing it until they get tired of it. Why make it weird by putting it in every other night?

Second paragraph: That sentence wasn't really directed at you, but it was more or less what I look at as an extreme of things. If people say the set lists aren't varied enough, then they make the argument that the band shouldn't play big venues or McGuiness/Oseary is just worried about money (you did make the 'money making machine' reference, which is maybe why I said it). Yet again, if they play smaller venues, then a lot of us are going to be complaining about the trouble getting tickets, how the set lists are still not varied enough, etc.. And even then, I doubt any audience is going to really get into a show where they play just non-singles (not saying that's your thinking, but yeah). It's just not going to happen.

Springsteen's brought up often as the exception, but that's exactly what he is... the exception. I've never seen him live myself, and I have heard about the good reviews he gets from music lovers. But I've still heard about people that go to shows where they're upset he doesn't play (insert popular song). He's not above that criticism. I did look at a song list from one of his tours, and it seemed like he did play at least half the songs at most of the shows, with a lot of others in varying degrees (a lot coming in at 3 or 2 shows only). I'm no Springsteen expert by any means, but if one of you guys can teach me a thing or two here about the numbers, I'd love to hear them.

As for longer set lists, besides issues like curfew or stadium closing times or whatever... maybe they're just not physically up to it? There wouldn't be anything wrong with that either. I doubt many of us are still standing at 3+ hour shows as it is!
 
The last few pages of this thread have been kind of lame folks.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
I'm not sure a band that feels more than 11 songs on an album is overkill would be playing 2.5 hour, let alone 3 hour shows.

Clearly they feel there's a "perfect" length for things at this point, right or wrong. And considering many of their older fans can't even get to the end of the current shows before heading to the exits, they won't want to test that endurance limit any further.
 
Gonna Run 2 U said:
If invisible is in fact the lead single for the album I would agree with Adams statement of something along the lines of "returning to their roots with maturity" from the sound of the hangar clip. With danger mouse producing I would expect a "fly" type of song somewhere. Perhaps second single. I expect this album to be at least be better than NLOTH because to me it's their weakest.
Click to expand...

Adam made that statement back in October. Leads me to believe we've had a finished album for awhile if that's the case. Back then he was hoping to be done with the recording process by December so they could enjoy the holidays. I'm pretty sure he had the right idea. (No, not biased. Not one bit.... :whistle: )


corianderstem said:
Who's going to take the "Vanilla Ice" spot in the forthcoming U2SEX book?
Click to expand...

images


Bless you, Google Images. :bow:
 
Maybe her clothes are invisible and she's run out of town and alone. Then she walks into Barker Hanger and U2 is there to greet her with clothing.
 
Not sure how to link this, but....

Found a twitter post by some Brad Wheeler guy that spoke to Dangermouse, who wasn't comfortable saying anything on U2 album because he's "not in the band".
He's certainly being tight-lipped!

Here's his page, it's from January 13

https://twitter.com/BWheelerglobe
 
This video was posted to youtube today. Here's what the description says:

"After I posted my hangar interpretation of invisible I was emailed a clip of another badly recorded song that is alleged to be a new U2 song. I can't say whether it is or not but this is what it sounded like to me, minus the singing and I can't do a good Bono impression so I'll skip that and you use your imagination."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0rICOerHuM&feature=youtube_gdata_player


I don't buy any of this for a second, but I figure this is the place to post stuff like this. :shrug:
 
U2DMfan said:
"Not cute" is one way to put it. "Hideously unattractive" is another.

FTR, I was like 13 when the 'Open Your Heart' video came out.

Needless to say Madonna was...um, less just say a vital part of my puberty.

She was hot. Now she looks sick.

And it's definitely not because of age. I could name dozens of examples of famous women in their late 40's and 50's that look damn good.

But amen to your comment about body fat. Ladies, you know why we think Rihanna and Beyonce and Katy Perry are hot? They call it T&A for a reason. And you can't have T&A without some jiggle. God bless jiggle.
Click to expand...

I loved Madonna's early 80s body, when she had nice round arms and some flesh over her breastbone. If you want the opinion of a straight girl, even Katy Perry and Rihanna are a little on the hard and lean side. For my money I'd go for the so called "big" girls like Robin Lawley or Crystal Renn.
 
trevgreg said:
First paragraph: Gotcha. But you did make the "95%" argument when it came to set lists being the same. Maybe I'm just used to other bands which, literally, maybe change one song or two as a tour moves along. Compared to them, U2 actually does quite a bit. It's not a different thing every single night, but there's always going to be songs which go over better. And compared to other bands, they do change songs up and drop them as they go.

Like I said, even if they did a different set list every night, there's still going to be people wishing they played this song instead of that one. And even then, the majority of people are still going to just one show in their area. If they want to promote new material that they enjoy playing, then they're not going to give those songs a night off (usually). Same for other songs they want to throw in there from the past. They might rediscover something from an old album and feel like playing it until they get tired of it. Why make it weird by putting it in every other night?

Second paragraph: That sentence wasn't really directed at you, but it was more or less what I look at as an extreme of things. If people say the set lists aren't varied enough, then they make the argument that the band shouldn't play big venues or McGuiness/Oseary is just worried about money (you did make the 'money making machine' reference, which is maybe why I said it). Yet again, if they play smaller venues, then a lot of us are going to be complaining about the trouble getting tickets, how the set lists are still not varied enough, etc.. And even then, I doubt any audience is going to really get into a show where they play just non-singles (not saying that's your thinking, but yeah). It's just not going to happen.
Click to expand...


Outside of constructed pop "concerts" I can't think of tours with static set lists for their entire run so I guess I'm coming at this from a different perspective.

I guess I don't see what argument you are making, firstly I have no problem with certain songs (especially the brand new ones) showing up nightly, I just don't think they need to be afraid to drop certain ones from certain tours/legs/etc. or mix up the war horses. Pride and Bullet were not a factor for the majority of 360 and everyone survived despite playing to the widest net of casual fans they ever have.

Yes, they are there to entertain the audience, but what keeps me coming back is that they show passion for going out and wanting to play. A rote setlist with less than energetic takes on songs played over 500 times in the past 30 years takes away from that for me. This is what we've seen for SBS at times, certainly One in recent times, and sadly I Still Haven't Found on 360 was mostly just a sing along.


I made the "money-making" statement as that would be what people would label them if greatest hits became the central focus at the start of a new tour, because it would go against their stated MO, not because I'm criticizing them for making money.
 
powerhour24 said:
I guess I don't see what argument you are making, firstly I have no problem with certain songs (especially the brand new ones) showing up nightly, I just don't think they need to be afraid to drop certain ones from certain tours/legs/etc. or mix up the war horses. Pride and Bullet were not a factor for the majority of 360 and everyone survived despite playing to the widest net of casual fans they ever have
Click to expand...

I was at the last show at which U2 played Pride before a very long hiatus: the first Chicago show in 2009. The band played four The Unforgettable Fire songs that night: Pride, Bad, MLK, and The Unforgettable Fire. I have a memory of Pride not getting nearly the sort of response that The Unforgettable Fire and especially Bad got. This was a pretty diehard-heavy show (being the first US show of the tour; being the first U2 stadium show in the US since 1997; and being in Chicago, which is a bit of a U2 stronghold), but it was still a U2 stadium show with tens of thousands of casual fans. When U2 dropped Pride the next night, I remember thinking that it seemed like U2 had detected Pride's tepid response compared to the other TUF songs (and other warhorses) and dropped it in response.

That being said, I doubt that U2 dropping Pride actually had anything to do with the audience response at Soldier Field on September 12, 2009. And this "memory" could be entirely constructed after the fact to fit into a narrative that I have constructed, one whose central message is "STOP PLAYING PITNOL".
 
I love that there's, like, 8 separate topics being discussed in the last two pages. :lol:

Go Cart Bono says "VROOM! VROOOOOOOOOOM!"
 
powerhour24 said:
Outside of constructed pop "concerts" I can't think of tours with static set lists for their entire run so I guess I'm coming at this from a different perspective.

I guess I don't see what argument you are making, firstly I have no problem with certain songs (especially the brand new ones) showing up nightly, I just don't think they need to be afraid to drop certain ones from certain tours/legs/etc. or mix up the war horses. Pride and Bullet were not a factor for the majority of 360 and everyone survived despite playing to the widest net of casual fans they ever have.

Yes, they are there to entertain the audience, but what keeps me coming back is that they show passion for going out and wanting to play. A rote setlist with less than energetic takes on songs played over 500 times in the past 30 years takes away from that for me. This is what we've seen for SBS at times, certainly One in recent times, and sadly I Still Haven't Found on 360 was mostly just a sing along.


I made the "money-making" statement as that would be what people would label them if greatest hits became the central focus at the start of a new tour, because it would go against their stated MO, not because I'm criticizing them for making money.
Click to expand...

Eh, no worries…. I think we both could have used some clarification from the other in these posts. ;)

I guess my point is that these set lists are not half as bad as people make them out to be. Yes, there are a few songs that get played at almost every show. But not all of them are ‘hits’ or ones that are put in only for popularity purposes. And for the most part, I think people can agree that a lot of songs are kept in there because they work in a live environment, at least to some extent. Songs like Vertigo or Beautiful Day are played because it gets a huge crowd reaction (and yes, maybe gets some benefit from being a more recent single). Others like ISHFWILF or WOWY are probably kept in since they get the audience participating. At the same time, they can still have the chance to throw something like Ultra Violet or Zooropa in there, and it might get a big reaction if it comes across the right way too. If people are just standing around not having any idea what the heck is going on, it’s not going to be a good show. Simple as that. Compromises are fine and they probably have as good an idea as anybody what works and what doesn’t.

That’s not to say that I wouldn’t want to hear certain songs from time to time. But that’s going to be the same thing regardless of the situation (different set lists every night, etc.). We’re never going to hear every song we personally enjoy or prefer, and we don’t even know if a lot of them would sound okay in a live setting. So it’s not going to kill me either.

Plus, it’s not like they’re literally playing the exact same songs on every tour, which is an argument some people have made. And at the most, it’s maybe 6 or 7 that survive from the previous one. Everyone wants to hear Streets, so that’s pretty much been grandfathered in. And as said before, WOWY and One are maybe 10% of the set lists combined, so it isn’t a terrible loss by any means. They dropped stuff like Walk On for the Vertigo tour – mostly anyway – and BTBS on the 360 tour before too. Yet again, they brought back songs like EBTTRT (in its original key) and The Fly for some shows in 2011 and they got accused of being a ‘greatest hits’ act again. Pride was played at half the shows and got the same criticism sometimes. So I don’t know what people need to be satisfied in some cases.

I was participating in a similar discussion over on the @U2 forum not too long ago, and one particular fan went off about the set lists and expected more of the same next time. I made a comment about the possibility of them maybe only getting away with some songs in smaller venues, which was unlikely to happen anytime soon (and less tickets for us if we wanted to go). I can’t remember their exact wording, but they responded that they were willing to see them play smaller venues, even if they personally couldn’t seem them do it, in order to “retain their artistic integrity” and not see them play New Year’s Day in a stadium for the umpteenth time. I then responded that I had yet to see NYD in a concert myself. :lol: Anyways.. I didn’t do it afterward, but what I should have done was say, “Okay, well if you were willing to not attend a show, then what does it matter what they play?” It sounded like they just wanted to get the satisfaction of knowing their favorite band was catering to a hipster notion (for lack of a better term) of playing obscure stuff and flying under the radar. It just doesn’t work that way, and I don't think it ever has for this band. The First Avenue/"ambient" comment I made sort of was related to that, but fans have given similar viewpoints from time to time.

As for the casual fans argument, we do realize that other band's fan bases consider us 'casual fans' as well, right? It's easy for Aygo to say "f*** them”, but I'm sure we wouldn't mind seeing the 'known' songs for a lot of other acts we don't follow 24/7 either.

Anyway, back to the new album discussion!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
Songs of Songs, Books & Fat Puns - New Album Discussion #8
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
53K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
LuckyNumber7
Desert Island Mini - LP Island - Rules & Sign Up Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
4K
Axver
Axver
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Master List and Discussion Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
5K
Axver
Axver
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 1 Listening Thread
7 8 9
Replies
244
Views
7K
LemonMelon
LemonMelon
CosmoKramer
IHeart Radio + New Album
Replies
11
Views
2K
camiloj
camiloj

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom