If U2 used more musiscianship.......

[STING2]

This may blow people's mind but what if Bono actually improved his guitar playing where he could play all the important/ relatively complicated rhythm parts in U2 songs and sing them at the same time rather than them changing the songs up to fit only one guitar (think All Because of You). Thats an example of improved musicianship/ technique improving the live show. Then you would have less complaints about getting an extra musician and much fuller live sound!

U2 get with the program!

U2 has always been a 3 piece musically and don't need that extra stuff. I also consider HTDAAB to be the best album of the decade and U2's 3rd best as well.

 

[AtomicBono]

I don't think actually that Edge can make more than he shows

I disagree. Edge has been playing guitar for 30 years. Listen to a song like Street Mission which was written before any of U2's records when U2 were still in high school. You can tell Edge is still developing his style as the song is very direct and has a long solo, and he could play this well in high school. I'm sure if he wanted to Edge could solo for the rest of his life, but that's just not the approach he uses when he plays guitar. He approaches it like an artist, choosing the colours and textures necessary to paint a picture with a song.

I do think a more direct, rock 'n roll record is way overdue. They were trying for that with HTDAAB originally but ended up going somewhere else, but you can see it in songs like Vertigo, Love and Peace or Else, and All Because of You. Even on those songs, though, The Edge is somewhat restrained. But that's just how he plays. I think live more than on any album is where you can see what Edge is really capable of. I do think U2 could get away with making a more "musically complex" album. It all depends on where they want to go. Musically complex doesn't have to equal twenty-minute shredding guitar solos.

 

[Utoo]

^ If you really don't think that Edge has "picked at every string to let fire out of the guitar," I don't think you have a realisitc picture of The Edge. He "picks two strings" because that's the sound he likes, but I have no doubt in my mind that he has explored an enormous percentage of what the guitar has to offer.

Very few guitarists consistently sound "unlike" themselves--especially on the albums that they put out. Most guitarists, no matter how "technically advanced" they may be, are easily recognizable when you hear them. I'd say that it's because even if they may have studied various methods, each musician is drawn to a select few types of sound in his or her head. Edge is so meticulous, so interested and eager when it comes to music and sound, I think it's folly to believe that he really hasn't explored many forms of guitar technique.

It's true that Edge kind of fell "out of love" with guitar for a while, mainly in the mid- to late-90s. Edge is all about finding the best sound, and for a while, exploring sound meant concentrating less on the guitar. However, he's said many times in the last year or two that he's fallen in love with the guitar again, and I fully expect the next album to have some fantastic guitar.

 

[Layton]

Re: Re: If U2 used more musiscianship.......

What is "musically challenging" does not in of itself equal great music.

True, but it also does not in and of itself equal bad music.

All I'm saying is that is that more complex musicianship can enrich the songwriting process in the right hands. I think U2 has the right hands to make that happen. They just have to open their minds up a little to those kind of possibilities because they seem a little close-minded to them, currently. I think we'd all agree that close-mindedness is an enemy to great art.

 

[indra]

I'd like to see Edge stay away from "cock rock" as much as possible. For those who don't know, cock rock is where you get a big-haired guitar player and a big, pointy guitar, and he plays as many notes and moves his fingers as fast as possible.

uh, I don't think ya need to worry about the big hair bit......




** edited to note that I should have read just a couple more posts before posting this....

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: If U2 used more musiscianship.......

True, but it also does not in and of itself equal bad music.

No one said it did.

All I'm saying is that is that more complex musicianship can enrich the songwriting process in the right hands. I think U2 has the right hands to make that happen. They just have to open their minds up a little to those kind of possibilities because they seem a little close-minded to them, currently. I think we'd all agree that close-mindedness is an enemy to great art.

I really don't think they are close minded to it, it's just not suitable to them.

 

[BVS]

In what sense?

In the sense that I've seen big name guitar virtuosos, who can play amazing guitar solos for hours on end, but their songs have no spirit, no emotion, not one thing that touches the human spirit.

 

[babyman]

In the sense that I've seen big name guitar virtuosos, who can play amazing guitar solos for hours on end, but their songs have no spirit, no emotion, not one thing that touches the human spirit.

But you can't say this with absoluteness, when I listen to Joe Satriani and Steve Vai I got touched by each of their notes. Actually it's a bit too diminishing what you say, probably you don't like that much that kind of playing and so you don't get touched by it. But I can tell you that I hear the guitar breathing and speaking when I listen to some pieces like Always With You Always With Me, Time, For The Love Of God, Crystal Planet etc etc. It's not just about solos, you're not a virtuoso only because you can play infinite solos, there's much more. It's also true that there are some artists such as Malmsteen who go in the direction you say, machines who play with no emotions, but it's relative, who has something in his soul always touches human spirit

 

[BVS]

But you can't say this with absoluteness, when I listen to Joe Satriani and Steve Vai I got touched by each of their notes. Actually it's a bit too diminishing what you say, probably you don't like that much that kind of playing and so you don't get touched by it. But I can tell you that I hear the guitar breathing and speaking when I listen to some pieces like Always With You Always With Me, Time, For The Love Of God, Crystal Planet etc etc. It's not just about solos, you're not a virtuoso only because you can play infinite solos, there's much more. It's also true that there are some artists such as Malmsteen who go in the direction you say, machines who play with no emotions, but it's relative, who has something in his soul always touches human spirit

I'm not saying it with absoluteness. If you look back at my original comment it says "some of the most technical musicians"...

My whole point in all of this is that more of less musicianship means nothing when it comes to good songwriting. You have punk bands and minimal acoustic players on one end and the extrememly technical musicians on the other.

You either have it or you don't.

Some punk bands can write an amazing song given two chords, others can't. Some virtuosos can move you to tears others just write a very technically complex piece of shit.

Good music is not exclusive to musicianship.

 

[babyman]

^ If you really don't think that Edge has "picked at every string to let fire out of the guitar," I don't think you have a realisitc picture of The Edge. He "picks two strings" because that's the sound he likes, but I have no doubt in my mind that he has explored an enormous percentage of what the guitar has to offer.

With the point of the 2 strings I wanted to mean that Edge can do grandious things by picking only 2 strings, by playing 2-3 chords, not that he has picked only 2 strings of his guitar. And that there are many who can't do at all what Edge does. Give Edge 3 notes, he gets a song out, others can't do that. It's obvious that he might explored various things, but he playes the guitar with his sound, with own style, most of all with the heart, this is what counts in the end, and it's undenieble that under a pure melodic point of view Edge is a master, probably THE MASTER.
But there are many guitarists out there who, under an exquisite TECHNICAL point of view, are better than The Edge, and this is undeniable, too. What a guitar offers is infinite, is endless, you can get so many things out of it that you would need this life, the next life and another life to get everything. Edge has always great ideas, without great ideas a guitar is only a piece of wood...............

 

[Layton]

Re: Re: Re: Re: If U2 used more musiscianship.......

No one said it did.


I really don't think they are close minded to it, it's just not suitable to them.

I was talking to someone else with that first comment you quoted.

Secondly, I'm sort of hypothesizing with the close-minded stuff. It's just that it feels to me like they relish a little too much in the fact that they don't play very skillful parts.

The point of this thread was to get opinions on whether or not exhibiting more sophisticated musicianship could help U2's work improve. Your suitability comment is the kind of opinion I"m interested in, regarding this matter.

 

[babyman]

I'm not saying it with absoluteness. If you look back at my original comment it says "some of the most technical musicians"...

My whole point in all of this is that more of less musicianship means nothing when it comes to good songwriting. You have punk bands and minimal acoustic players on one end and the extrememly technical musicians on the other.

You either have it or you don't.

Some punk bands can write an amazing song given two chords, others can't. Some virtuosos can move you to tears others just write a very technically complex piece of shit.

Good music is not exclusive to musicianship.

Yeah, this is my point, too................it's what is in the soul that comes to life, if you're empty of ideas you'll never touch anyone.

 

[discotech]

This may blow people's mind but what if Bono actually improved his guitar playing where he could play all the important/ relatively complicated rhythm parts in U2 songs and sing them at the same time rather than them changing the songs up to fit only one guitar (think All Because of You). Thats an example of improved musicianship/ technique improving the live show. Then you would have less complaints about getting an extra musician and much fuller live sound!

there's a challenege to being a 3-piece band and performing the huge stadium songs that U2 does. i don't think Bono should play that much guitar. i think their ability to fill the musical space of their huge songs with only 3 musicians and a singer is one of their best talents.

 

[Layton]

My whole point in all of this is that more of less musicianship means nothing when it comes to good songwriting. You have punk bands and minimal acoustic players on one end and the extrememly technical musicians on the other.

Good music is not exclusive to musicianship.

Do you really believe more or less musicianship means nothing in regards to songwriting? It seems like the more 'tools' you have at your disposal would give you more possibilities regarding songwriting.

I suppose more 'tools' also makes it more difficult to choose the right one for a particular song. I think this is primarily where the virtuosos go wrong in their songwriting process. They tend to choose the wrong parts for a song.

I think U2 are creatively talented enough to expand their 'toolkit' and still choose the right parts for their songs. They have the ability to turn the expanded possibilities that more instrumental skills offer into realities.

 

[babyman]

there's a challenege to being a 3-piece band and performing the huge stadium songs that U2 does. i don't think Bono should play that much guitar. i think their ability to fill the musical space of their huge songs with only 3 musicians and a singer is one of their best talents.

It's also true that they use many pre-recorded bases

 

[babyman]

I think U2 are creatively talented enough to expand their 'toolkit' and still choose the right parts for their songs. They have the ability to turn the expanded possibilities that more instumental skills offer into realities.

But under which aspect do you mean basically? Sound or technique?

 

[BVS]

Do you really believe more or less musicianship means nothing in regards to songwriting? It seems like the more 'tools' you have at your disposal would give you more possibilities regarding songwriting.

Absolutely.

More possibilities doesn't mean better songwriting. You can give a man a whole garage full of tools, but if he only needs a hammer and nails to do the job, then the other tools are useless to him and would weigh him down.

 

[babyman]

Absolutely.

More possibilities doesn't mean better songwriting. You can give a man a whole garage full of tools, but if he only needs a hammer and nails to do the job, then the other tools are useless to him and would weigh him down.

Fine example, but it's also true that you can risk to do just the same things, except if you're called U2............................

 

[Axver]

As one of the few progressive rock fans here, I'd personally love to see U2 explore the full extent of their musical ability.

Most U2 fans would hate it, though.

 

[Layton]

But under which aspect do you mean basically? Sound or technique?

I guess I'm getting more at technique. Edge has already proven to be a wizard of sound. I'm just wondering if expanded playing skills might expand songwriting possibilities. I tend to think they can, but U2 has historically shied away from those possibilities due to their 'philosophy'.

I'm not really railing against their minimalist philosophy. It's served them extremely well, but is that philosophy a result of true belief or a result of necessity because when they started they couldn't play a lick, as they've said many times over the years.

Is their still a pressing reason to hold onto that philosophy as tightly as ever or would opening themselves up to the possibilities that expanded playing skills could offer to the U2 formula do U2 some good?

 

[babyman]

As one of the few progressive rock fans here, I'd personally love to see U2 explore the full extent of their musical ability.

Most U2 fans would hate it, though.

It depends, many were expecting almost a hard rock album before Atomic came out, the same Bono was claiming it as Punk Rock made on Venus.............probably it was true, but then what happened? The album should've come out by the end/beginning of 2003/04 but it came out November 2004 because maybe they had to re-work a few things and to get back at their usual base. The risk is that if U2 would try something totally new at this point of their career, they wouldn't stand a failure eventually. Same Bono said 2 shit records and you're out................and probably by shit records he means the less commercial record you can do. Personnally, I would love something never heard, a record that wouldn't neither enter the top 10 for a week but full of innovations and spirit..................but U2 will never do that.................The only time they've tried they called themselves Passengers..................there's everything explained

 

[Layton]

Absolutely.

More possibilities doesn't mean better songwriting. You can give a man a whole garage full of tools, but if he only needs a hammer and nails to do the job, then the other tools are useless to him and would weigh him down.

Hmmm, very interesting take.

I've always believed the more possibilities the better. Let's say that man had a hammer, nails, a wrench and a saw at his disposal. Like you say, the job facing him might only require a hammer and nails. A great artist would choose those 2 tools from the 4 available. A bad artist would choose some other combination. I think U2 are great artists and wouldn't be weighed down by more 'tools'.

Now, another job facing that man might require something different than a hammer and nails, but if all he has in his garage are those 2 tools then the potential greatness that a saw and wrench might do will remain out of this man's reach. Personally, that would frustrate me. I wonder if U2 somewhere in their collective hearts feel the same way.

 

[babyman]

Hmmm, very interesting take.

I've always believed the more possibilities the better. Let's say that man had a hammer, nails, a wrench and a saw at his disposal. Like you say, the job facing him might only require a hammer and nails. A great artist would choose those 2 tools from the 4 available. A bad artist would choose some other combination. I think U2 are great artists and wouldn't be weighed down by more 'tools'.

4 available, but he chooses always those 2 because he likes them on principle.......................so, he might be weighed down in the end by having more than he needs

 

[babyman]

Now, another job facing that man might require something different than a hammer and nails, but if all he has in his garage are those 2 tools then the potential greatness that a saw and wrench might do will remain out of this man's reach. Personally, that would frustrate me. I wonder if U2 somewhere in their collective hearts feel the same way.

I share it

 

[BVS]

Now, another job facing that man might require something different than a hammer and nails, but if all he has in his garage are those 2 tools then the potential greatness that a saw and wrench might do will remain out of this man's reach. Personally, that would frustrate me. I wonder if U2 somewhere in their collective hearts feel the same way.

I doubt it, one of the signs of a great artist is to recognize your own limits. Push yourself to those limits but you have to know them. I think U2 are very well aware of their limits, they are very vocal about it.

When the job called for it they embraced new technology, other genres, etc.

I think at this point, more complexity would just be for "more complexity" sake and would hinder them.

 

[babyman]

That's why they don't get away from their usual style, first of all because they don't need to change anything. If you look good, it's not necessary to look necessarly better. U2 has a history of its own, the cool thing in U2 is that you can't classify them as any type of band, U2 is not a rock-band, not a hard rock band, not a metal band, not an ambience band, not a techno band................U2 is a "U2 Band", this is their genre, style, everything

 

[Layton]

4 available, but he chooses always those 2 because he likes them on principle.......................so, he might be weighed down in the end by having more than he needs

When do principles become restrictive? That's one of the hypotheticals I'm throwing out for everybody to think about. Have U2's principles become a restriction toward other artistically great possibilities?

Who knows, this conversation might be entering the abstractly irrelevant realm, but it's an interesting angle on their work, I think.

 

[discotech]

It's also true that they use many pre-recorded bases

yeah, that's shite. but i love their use of backing tracks.




and another thing. . . for All Beacuse of You -- i LOVE the version now with 1 guitar. on the album, there are 2 guitars and a lot of electronic shit going on. but on the Vertigo tour, its just guitar, bass, drums, and tambourine, and yet it still fills up the entire stadium. ABoY and Vertigo are 2 songs which blow me away for that reason -- its only guitar, bass, and drums, but the sound is so big.

 

[Layton]

I think at this point, more complexity would just be for "more complexity" sake and would hinder them.

Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to say.

I agree that if they went the more complex route they'd have to have a real inspired reason to do so. I would just hope that if they stumbled onto a real inspiration to do so that they would not stop themselves from doing it just because of their 'philosophy'.

 

[babyman]

When do principles become restrictive? That's one of the hypotheticals I'm throwing out for everybody to think about. Have U2's principles become a restriction toward other artistically great possibilities?

Who knows, this conversation might be entering the abstractly irrelevant realm, but it's an interesting angle on their work, I think.

I think Bonovoxsupastar gave the right answer to this question, a great artist knows his limits and tries not to overcome them. In the case of U2, running ways they would not know could be very dangerous, they would kinda lose themselves. The fact is one, U2 has probably still 2 records (hope so) in front of them, they don't need to show anything more, the risk would be to make a longer step as the leg can do. The guys aren't technically gifted, they make great music in the way they do and in the way they have always done. What you say, would be suitable for a band that starts now, but not fo a band that plays since 1976.............always in the same (superb) way