LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
U2Man said:1. ab
2. atyclb
3. jt
You should write for Rolling Stone, not waste your time here.
U2Man said:1. ab
2. atyclb
3. jt
Ohh that's really a pretty cool idea. I hope you can get your car asap.tuwie said:
yupyup! =)
"ATYCLB" is going to be my lisence plate when i get my car. hopefully it's not already taken ;] hahahah
and hopefully U2 fans will get it and say hi to me randomly on the streets!
xaviMF22 said:
hellz yea
HTDAAB
doctorwho said:
HTDAAB has similar sounds to ATYCLB, but it takes everything to that next level, including some new sounds we never heard from U2. "Vertigo", COBL "Love & Peace", "All Because...", "Yahweh" and "Fast Cars" are amongst my most favorite U2 songs. And while I do adore plenty of ATYCLB songs, these HTDAAB songs are more of the U2 sound I love (reminiscent of the old, exploratory of the new).
intedomine said:
I thought your name was COBL_04 (pronounced cobble-o-for)
LemonMelon said:
To say it's in any way similar to ATYCLB is ridiculous. I hate those "U2 is repeating themselves" threads...it's like saying that Zooropa and Pop are the same album.
Earnie Shavers said:
Yeah, but Achtung/Zooropa/Pop will always be lumped together, rightly or wrongly, as the 'experimental' albums. In the same way, I think ATYCLB/HTDAAB & probably whatever is next will always be lumped together under some term. Maybe the 'singles' albums or something. Sure, there's not a lot on one that sounds much like the other, but they are definitely each others closest relatives. They're U2's only two beginning to end pop albums, and they came one after the other, so no matter whether the guitar is heavier on one, or the songs have a little more sunshine on the other, they'll always be tagged together and forever be described as similar to one another. I agree with that too. You can build a bracket around most of what they've done post-Pop, from the Sweetest Thing to Window in the Skies, and there's a wide sonic/structural variety in there, but what absolutely all of it has in common, at it's base, is that it's all fairly simplistic pop music.
U2Man said:1. ab
2. atyclb
3. jt
Earnie Shavers said:I agree in that I think the next will be the same, pop wise. The difference I think is that in the past the progression has been based around exploration of sound or boundaries or whatever, now I think it's about having greater success at a mission or better achieving a goal. I think they do want these sort of universal big singles. Songs that will be played on the radio alongside, and with the frequency of, people like Gwen Stefani and Kanye and whoever else. I think that's the driving force there. Maybe so they can still feel relevant. Maybe because they are trying to redefine what a rock band is or can be at their age. Maybe because they just hunger for the commercial success above all else. Maybe because they want to take the U2 message to a generation growing up on aspirational rather than inspirational music. That part is up for debate, the fact that this is their goal is probably not. Notice when they are talking about their music now, it's becoming more and more in terms of size and reach than anything else. So yes, I expect the next one to be another basic pop one. So surface level sonic shifts and structural changes to the make up of the songs, I think, are not where this decade is at. They don't define the records or really share any part in the story of them. The next album could have songs on it that 'sound' soft and melodic, or 'sound' harder and more rockin', or 'sound' like a shot back to Boy or UF or Achtung, or even 'sound' different to everything else they've ever done, but that won't be where the progression is.
Example: Window in the Skies and Vertigo have nothing in common in every way on the surface, but Vertigo is a blood brother to Window, and only a very very very distant cousin of The Fly (you should see the two of them trying to talk to each other - lots of awkward silences. The Fly too distracted by passing girls and the cigarette he's smoking, Vertigo too easily distracted by crumples in his neatly ironed chino's and polo shirt). I expect the next album to perhaps 'sound' dramatically different, but still be nothing more or less than a direct progression from the last two.
LemonMelon said:
*cracks knuckles*
I'm going to come right out and say that, while I agree that U2 is indeed going to stay in their current pop vein for a little longer, I believe that you have misinterpreted their reasons for doing so.
LemonMelon said:
Look at what is on the radio today. Does U2 have anything in common with that top 40 scene at all? Of course not. U2 does, however, have their place within it that they may or may not appreciate, but I am quite certain that they wish to take advantage of it. This could be interpreted as "selling out", but that would be missing the point entirely.
LemonMelon said:
Who has U2 been emulating lately? The Beatles. What gets played on FM rock and oldies stations to this day, 30-40 years after release? The Beatles and their contemporaries that stood out.
LemonMelon said:
I propose that U2 is staying in this pop vein not because they wish for commercial success, (or to be "safe", or even so they can make a classic record), but because they wish to be remembered in the future and they believe that this classic pop sound is indeed the most logical genre for them to latch onto at this point so that may happen. Remember what Bono said about WITS being an "eternal song"? I think that illustrates my point perfectly.
LemonMelon said:If they really wish for commercial success, why would they bother to change up their sound at all, get a new producer, etc? I believe their reasons for recording music have changed since ATYCLB was released. When that album was released, I really think the band wanted commercial success, but, after getting a hit like Beautiful Day (a song that will most likely be played 30-40 years down the road, because it is a modern classic) I think the band finally found what they were looking for in a sound.
For those that cringe at the mere thought of them dragging this sound on any further, think of the classic pop songs that still get played today; "Mrs. Robinson", "Turn Turn Turn", "All You Need Is Love", "San Francisco (Be Sure To Wear Flowers In Your Hair)", etc. Are those the best songs of their respective artists? Probably not. Similarly, this new sound is not the greatest in the band's history, but U2 has never been this close to the "classic-making" magic as they currently are...to making another Beautiful Day.
LemonMelon said:Everyone here loves 90's U2, but, let's face it, how many U2 songs from that decade are people going to remember 30-40 years from now? One is an exception, but what is that song other than an alternative-rock pop song? It's catchy, memorable, and a full-fledged classic that captures a certain period of time.
LemonMelon said:And besides, isn't it logical that, as you grow older, you become more interested in leaving something behind (a song, an album, a legacy) that people will remember you by?
I rest my case.
LemonMelon said:
I agree. You can put U2's records and periods under broad aural umbrellas representing certain sounds and genres, however, that's not necessarily what bothers me. I think subtle progression is sometimes misinterpreted as repetition, which is my main complaint. HTDAAB isn't a holding pattern, in the same way that JT and UF have things in common, but one is a logical expansion of the other, and that's the way I see ATYCLB--->HTDAAB in the great map of U2's career. I think the next record will be an even purer pop record, perhaps slower, perhaps faster, but differently produced and perhaps even less U2-esque. We shall see.