HTDAAB Has no staying power

[bsp77]

Really? wow, that I didn't know. I knew Thomas had the production credit but thought they re-did the tracks. Thanks for the info.

No problem. All the other "alternates" are the original Chris Thomas productions. Yahweh was the opposite.

 

[shart1780]

I used to feel the same way as the originial poster, then I learned to just accept HTDAAB as what it is, and what it is is pretty darn good. What it is isn't as good as Achtung Baby or anything, but it's still great.

 

[Layton]

I make the point, and from what the band has said they needed the hits, the hooks whatever you want to call them to get on the radio, to push the product. That to me is not artistic motivation. The band's own words tell you why they did what they did. They did it for fear of commercial failure.

Interesting point. The band did say they needed hits. They said that on the last album, too. I guess I just don't see that as interfering with their artistic motivation, like you do. I actually see their recent sonic leanings toward the familiar and obvious as a major part of their recent themes and a reflection of the times we live in. This decade has been most defined by tragedy. Everything from 9/11, London bombings, Madrid, Tsunami, New Orleans, Iraq, African AIDS, etc.

I feel like U2 channeled some of this vibe for their thematic content on HTDAAB. U2's artistic take on this kind of vibe is that people tend to gravitate toward the familiar and obvious when tragedy dominates the social climate. Thus, U2 choosing familiar and obvious musical 'tools' makes artistic sense to me. I agree that the alternate versions are what you say they are, but they just didn't fit the creative theme U2 wanted to present. I think they doggedly pursued an artistic vision and some of that great alternate stuff was the cost of that artistic pursuit.

Next, you'll never hear me saying that U2 doesn't pursue sales also. U2 come from the old school of rock greatness. That being, great rock songs can heal and change the heart of the music listener. In these times defined by tragedy and given U2's theme of opening yourself up to address your place in this world and these times, the fact that U2 relies on some familiar and obvious 'tools' DOES make it easier on the palette of the masses. Maybe U2 are being exremely presumptious, but they think they can help the masses deal with these times with their music. By making it easier, U2 feels that they can make the extremely difficult task (only made more difficult in these kind of times) of truly opening yourself up a little easier. Easy to digest helps serve the artistic purpose of this album, I think. There was a time when these types of social aspirations associated with rock albums and songs were considered some of rock's greatest attributes. U2 is clearly tapping into that spirit for the artistic presentation of HTDAAB.

Lastly, don't take any of this banter as me trying to change your mind about anything. I'm not. I get where you're coming from. I just think HTDAAB is rich with artistry. Some of it arguable; like the artistic idea that rock can heal or change the world that U2 taps into with their easy to digest maneuvers. Maybe that's way to grandiose of an idea. I don't know, but HTDAAB definately puts it to the test.

 

[U2DMfan]

U2's artistic take on this kind of vibe is that people tend to gravitate toward the familiar and obvious when tragedy dominates the social climate. Thus, U2 choosing familiar and obvious musical 'tools' makes artistic sense to me. I agree that the alternate versions are what you say they are, but they just didn't fit the creative theme U2 wanted to present. I think they doggedly pursued an artistic vision and some of that great alternate stuff was the cost of that artistic pursuit.
.............

Lastly, don't take any of this banter as me trying to change your mind about anything. I'm not. I get where you're coming from. I just think HTDAAB is rich with artistry. Some of it arguable; like the artistic idea that rock can heal or change the world that U2 taps into with their easy to digest maneuvers. Maybe that's way to grandiose of an idea. I don't know, but HTDAAB definately puts it to the test.

I really like that idea in your first paragraph. The idea that when U2 sat down to listen to their rock and roll record, not only did they think they didn't have hits, they just didn't believe the album would come across as they wanted. It wasn't were they ended up.

So I can accept that. As Edge has said before, and as most artists and musicians tend to come to the conclusion, sometimes you start out wanting to make X and you end up making Z.

................

I don't think you are trying to change my mind and I am not trying to change yours. To me it's about opening each other up
to perspectives.

ATYCLB made more sense after 9/11 to A LOT of people on perspective alone. It does matter in music, I think.

Good constructive dialogue does good. If we can avoid extremes and be fair. There is enough extreme bashing and apology on this forum to go around a few times.

 

[thrillme]

I don't think this album has any more themes of spirituality than any of their other records, they all have songs about God and faith, and doubt and the whole thing. But as you said, probably a discussion for another forum.

Yeah, concerning Yahweh, that's one song out of 11. And even in that case there is a market for mainstream Christian listners who think contemporary Christian music sucks. Now, I don't think they made that song with this in mind, at all. I am just saying it's not a totally inacessible track for a lot of people.

My point is, Yahweh, does make it inaccessible to a lot of people with the title alone. Obviously calling the song "God" would've been more risky, but it doesn't take long to figure out what Yahweh means if you search it.

Every U2 album does have themes of spirituality. Bono can write about anything, yet goes for the themes that, generally, turn off the general public that aren't themselves, religious minded.

This is why I don't buy into this, "U2 are making music for the masses", "safe", "accessible pop music" stuff.

Bono does get vague at times, but never completely.

Bono's probably too vague for the contemporary Christian music scene at times, but not vague enough for the mainstream rock listeners.

I suppose if U2 really want to make safe, accessible albums, appeal to the masses, Bono should just write love songs. Bitter ones, happy ones, but no politics, and certainly no religious themes.