Don't believe the hype!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

wolfwill23

War Child
Joined
Nov 2, 2000
Messages
649
Location
New York, NY
Ok, the record is good. Is it the second coming? No way. I think you should shield yourself from all the reviews and propoganda as those things do ultimately affect your feelings about the record. Here are some things that I have found to be myths.

1. This is a rock record in the vien of War. No way. I really fell for this one after hearing Vertigo. There are only two rock songs on the record (Vertigo & ABOY-one could argue for LAPOE as well.) But the rest of the record is more like Matchbox 20 or something. It's like rock-lite.

2. Edge reinvented the guitar on this record. No. He sounds like the Edge on a U2 record, even moreso than he did on ATYCLB. That's not a bad thing, but just not what I was expecting.

3. Every song on the record is a potential single. No way. I can only see a few of these songs getting any airplay for any amout of time (Vertigo, ABOY, COBL.) The rest of the songs just don't have the life needed to make it on the radio today.

I don't watch movie previews before seeing a film, why I read all the reviews for this record before listening to it, I don't know. But I wish I didn't.
 
I think more of the songs are single material than you give credit for (OOTS, SYCMIOYO, even man and a woman could be big). I also think it's much louder and alive than matchbox twenty.. it's not ROCK as everyone seems so obsessed with, but it's certainly not lite. I think it's pretty heavy myself.

Otherwise I mostly agree with you.
 
Right. It's not like you're getting a Metallica album or anything. This is U2. This is what the band sounds like. If you like it, Good. If you don't, I guess you're not a U2 fan. Besides, too many hard rocking songs on an album would not be a quality album.
 
I took the reviews at face value and I am loving this album for what it is - not for what I expected or wished for or heard about - but simply for what it is. And it's a great album. Better than JT or AB? Who cares. Why bother with comparisons? They are all different and they are all worthy of much enjoyment.

This is an album that I think I can enjoy from start to finish. Very few songs, if any, that I'll be skipping over from time to time. And that is a hard thing to accomplish when you think about it.

I think the boys can be proud of this one.

And there are some tracks that I think will go down as U2 greats. 'City of Blinding Lights' is almost as good as it gets. One reviewer hit it on the money when he said, "Back to the wide-open terrain of Unforgettable Fire" with this song.
 
By the way, I would also add that comparing this album to Matchbox 20 is a bit absurd I must say. Not to be insulting - but I think that is WAY off.
 
username said:
By the way, I would also add that comparing this album to Matchbox 20 is a bit absurd I must say. Not to be insulting - but I think that is WAY off.

I'm saying it's kind of lite, that's all. I think it's safe to say that could hear both bands in a dentists office. Do you disagree with that?
 
wolfwill23 said:


I'm saying it's kind of lite, that's all. I think it's safe to say that could hear both bands in a dentists office. Do you disagree with that?

I tend to hear teenybopper pop radio at the dentist's office ...
 
Last edited:
wolfwill23 said:


I'm saying it's kind of lite, that's all. I think it's safe to say that could hear both bands in a dentists office. Do you disagree with that?



You could say that about a lot of Beatles songs, doesn't mean they are shit though does it? :)
 
I'm sick of these Matchbox 20 comparisons. Matchbox 20 doesn't suck because they rock light; Matchbox 20 sucks because they have no gift for mood, imagination or soul. Likewise, there are a lot of bands who rock hard and suck even harder.

Hey, it's not the White Stripes, but nor could Jack White write a song like A Man and a Woman or Crumbs from Your Table or Miracle Drug or....Oh, and I completely disagree with #3.
 
You could say the same thing about both Coldplay albums as well. That certainly doesn't mean they're shit. And you wouldn't find me comparing them to Matchbox 20 either! Yikes!
 
rock and roll is a very flexible term. And let's face it, most hardcore rock songs suck. Louder is not better. There is only one hard rock song I like and that is Feeder - Shade (this song is damn awsome).
 
I COMPLETELY disagree. I respect your opinion, but U2 is a loud folk band. That's what they've always been.

And this is their best album.

And I've been a huge fan for almost 17 years.

And I had elevated hopes because of the reviews, etc.

And it EXCEEDED my expectations BIG TIME.

I'm basically astonished how great it is.
 
You may catch some flack for this opinion wolfwill23, but I agree completely with you.

All the reports about this album being more of a rock record (as Vertigo teases) were very much untrue, to which I am personally disappointed. The record does feel like U2-lite. I liked ATYCLB, but it was also "lite" in this fashion and I was really hoping for a harder "edge" to this one.

And I also agree with your comment about the only potential hit singles being COBL and ABOY. In order for a song to be a successful single, it has to have a great hook. And this album just doesn't have many of them. I was just thinking earlier today about how most of these songs aren't interesting enough to merit the type of repeated play that being a hit single entails.

To me this album is U2 treading water, and I miss the band that used to push the envelope. It probably isn't fair of me to expect a band that has been around as long as U2 to put out something progressive, but I guess I have higher expectations of these guys because of their history.

As good as Achtung Baby? As you said Wolfwill, don't believe the hype. HTDAAB is a good record, but IMO not great by any means.
 
wolfwill23

Do you like the record? I think that the Begees sounding chorus on Sometimes you can't make it on your own is awesome. It doesn't sound like U2. I love when they throw you a hook with some song that doesn't fit the model of any other song that they have done. They have done this on every record.
 
It always bothers me when people expect U2 albums to be nothing but full-on rock songs, such as Vertigo. I mean, that's just not who U2 are. I do love having a few tracks like that on the album, such as the three we have on HTDAAB, but having the full album like that just wouldn't be the U2 we all love. I was actually a little worried when I kept reading stuff that suggested this would be an album of nothing but Vertigo-like tracks. Needless to say, I love the way HTDAAB turned out. I couldn't have asked for a better album.
 
Last edited:
right on gorm

boo hoo its not full on rock, so what. these songs pour emotion into your head at full blast ON EVERY SONG. the creativity shimmers on this record
 
If you want to get your ears blown out by guitars U2 has never been the band to listen to. Quite frankly if U2 did every song with nothing but a heavy guitar in it they wouldnt have lasted past the War album and I think they know that.

The U2 fanbase in general i believe enjoys a lot of variety in the music and in general this album definatly provides that. If you like it good, if not listen to something else simple as that.
 
Exactly, Gorman. U2 are not a hard rock band. If you want hard rock, you're listening to the wrong band.

U2 make songs with meaning and soul. They play exactly the music that the song requires. Think about it: One Step Closer would SUCK if Edge was trying to push the envelope in a Zooropan manner, and LAPOE would be DREADFUL if Bono tried to reinvent the falsetto. U2 know their craft and they know when a song should rock and when it shouldn't.
 
There is a certain depth that is not attainable with a full on rock record. U2 has never ever been a full on rock band, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
 
wolfwill23 said:


1. This is a rock record in the vien of War. No way. I really fell for this one after hearing Vertigo. There are only two rock songs on the record (Vertigo & ABOY-one could argue for LAPOE as well.) But the rest of the record is more like Matchbox 20 or something. It's like rock-lite.


I don't normally criticize peoples opinions but you have really, really bad taste.
 
I've been listening to U2 as long as anyone here, so I know what U2 are about, and what they are capable of. "Bullet the Blue Sky" and "Until the End of the World" are two of my favorite U2 songs, and both are great rock songs. Wanting them to rock in this nature is not the same as wanting a hard rock record or some such thing. I just would have preferred that there had been more actual rock songs on this album, as had been advertised by the band. That's the extent of it

Hey, if you love this record then congratulations. Feel grateful for that, I sure wish I was as enthusiastic about HTDAAB as most of you here appear to be. Perhaps I'll come to love the album as much as you someday. And if not, there's always the hope that the next record will be better (providing there is a next record).
 
If you haven't noticed, Bullet is the only song of its kind on JT. We should be pretty happy that we've got three rockers (Vertigo, LAPOE, and ABOY) on this album.

People need to stop whining and like U2 for who they are rather than who you want them to be.
 
So not being thrilled with the album is "whining." Axver, you've got some balls to make this claim when in your sig you have a link to "Contradiction is balance: Axver's LiveJournal."

It amazes how some fans can't handle a dissenting opinion without becoming totally defensive and insulting. Either love the new material or you should not comment, is that it?

Feh...
 
Yo, don't beat me up. I'm just saying that we were promised a hard rocking record (don't remember actual quotes.) And after hearing that it's going to be a hard rocking record, they release Vertigo. I thought we were in for some rock tunes, that's all.

Look at the rock tunes on AB. EBTTRT, MY, UTEOTW, The Fly, Zoo Station, Acrobat & Ultra Violet. That's a rock record.

I think Bomb is good work, but I guess I was just expecting something else.
 
Well, when I saw this thread, I knew I would respond. I politely and respectively disagree with the assertion that this is not a great record because it's not rocking enough, or doesn't seem to have enough 'single material'. How many singles do you need these days anyway, you don't need to put the whole album on the radio - about five is suffice I'd say? Okay, so there's the already released Veritgo, and I love it, COBL (U2 classic, only in my humble opinion), Original of the Species (One of the catchiest, most beautiful songs of recent memory), Miracle Drug (damn good song), Crumbs from your table (I think it's a solid, not necessarily head banging, but solid U2 song) that's five singles in my opinion - and well, SYCMIOO, that to me is a great ballad, and pushing further into the year when they've already had most the sales racked up, sure, throw out 'A Man and A Woman', see what happens... or for the first time, through out a closing number for a single, because 'Yawheh' is a wonderful song. Oh yeah, and hey, Love and Peace or else, is a catchy, deep bluesy song with a great beat to keep the song on the radio airways, and when the edges guitar distorts and mends with Larry's commanding swaggery drumbeats, that sounds like a section of Discotheque on acid! And near the end, where the edge chimes away at the higher notes, and Bono says 'the troops on the ground are about to dig in, where is the love' - such beautiful relevance. So in my deliberate list of singles, when I said only five were required, but think there could potentially be up to 9, yes 9 of 11 (I would not release ABOY as a single, being the weakest track on the album in my opinion (yep, regardless of its categorical blessing of being 'rocky') - it is limpid and incomplete.
Alas, the overall impression of the album? So Achtung Baby is one of the best albums ever, and Joshua Tree is a cemented classic, of not just U2, but of in relation bands in the history of music. So I don't think it was possible for a second coming to begin with, and I don't think anyone was waiting for that, come on people, we were waiting for the 3rd coming - the third greatest album of U2's career, the one that can proudly fill in that ever-so-precious concept of a beautiful Trinity - and, after repeated, analytical listenings, and finally sitting back and taking it all in, yes, this is at least the third best album. In my opinion, on some days, I will take this album to the car over my Joshua Tree or my Baby cd, but these three will be the most common U2 cd's, and there we go, it's my (a dedicated U2 fan) three masterpieces.
Also, I would like to point out something - Joshua Tree was hardly a rock album, it was a folky gospel album - and I hear it in the Dentist's and Doctor's office all the time, but that does not mean it is not worthy of 'classical' entitlement, it only shows how far-reaching U2 is in the world - from Dentist office to 50, 000 fans, to top of the charts, to Rock and Roll hall of fame, to young fans and older fans, from simultaneously being on adult contemporary rock radio and being on the youth dominate alternative rock stations: This is U2, a band with such musical scope and human accessibility, that it is no wonder why they are occasionally the biggest, always the best, Rock Band on earth!

Well, this is just my opinion, my viewpoint, and we all feel how we do, but I'm just happy that U2 made this album, and many others feel the same way, while others may not - that's perfectly normal. Besides, we already heard Joshua Tree (Enough, a lot, sometimes too much) - we heard Achtung Baby - it is now time for How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. Remeber what Bono said, you don't dismantle the bomb with death-grind-core metal, it's with love... with love. :wink:

Thank you for whoever read this post!

- Nicholas

zoou2@hotmail.com

P.S. Sure Matchbox twenty is occasionally played with U2 in a dentist office - but the difference is Matchbox Twenty permanently stays in that office like a nightmarishly eternal root canal.
 
I guess The Beatles arent a rock band either then.

Because thats what people seem to be associating with rock music is that it needs to have heavy guitar in every track and pounding drums.... The Beatles rarely did this.
 
wolfwill23 said:


Look at the rock tunes on AB. EBTTRT, MY, UTEOTW, The Fly, Zoo Station, Acrobat & Ultra Violet. That's a rock record.


Achtung Baby, in terms of rocking songs, is really an exception among U2's albums.

Personally, I would say that EBTTRT and Mysterious ways are dance-rock songs - something that maybe INXS would come up with had they more prominent guitars.

I agree on UTEOTW, The fly and Acrobat. Zoo station really only has a rocking riff, and I don't know where Ultra Violet belongs.

Axver: what about Exit? It's also a rock song IMO.
 
The greatest of rock albums have great concepts....thats what has separated Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree and in my mind will separate this album as being the 3rd classic that every U2 fan should own. It certainly isnt because you can bang your head against a wall to the music.
 
Back
Top Bottom