Invisible Discussion Thread II (Do not post song requests - discussion only!)

[asr]

Forbes review of 'Invisible'

U2's 'Invisible' Super Bowl Release: First Listen - Forbes

 

[Irvine511]

Forbes review of 'Invisible'

I like it but I don't want to like it so I have to pretend that I don't really like it but I really do like it.

Please think I'm cool.

 

[purpleoscar]

Yeah that was a shitty review.

 

[Axver]

I don't see what's so objectionable about the review at all. Reasonably kind and accurate, really. I'm expecting far harsher things to be published soon, as is the lot of practically any U2 release now. And, of course, effusive things too, but mainly from U2's "captive" mags - the kinds who'll throw five stars at whatever they do. Not naming names, Rolling Stone.

 

[powerhour24]

Haunted by the indie ghosts of the past 4 years? How the hell is that an accurate description of the sound on display here?

 

[Nick66]

There's nothing wrong with that review.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I like it but I don't want to like it so I have to pretend that I don't really like it but I really do like it.

Please think I'm cool.

Forbes, that hipster bible.

Actually, it’s really not that bad a review. I really like Invisible, but it’s certainly not a dramatic departure (it’s a little bit different, but I think people declaring this the arrival of U2 4.0 are getting well ahead of themselves). He’s basically saying it’s very U2-ey so you’ll like it if you like that sort of thing, and if you don’t, you probably won’t. Which… is obvious. It’s a really lazy review, not a bad one.

And as an aside, lord knows what is really going on with their planning/strategy/timing, but I’d like to think that there is something deliberate about ‘returning’ with something quite safe like this before launching the album off something a bit more different/challenging/risky. If whatever is destined to be the lead single is a dramatic departure, they are no doubt very gun-shy after Boots – change itself is risky, plus probably not so confident in their own judgement - would make sense that they might want to pad it’s landing a bit.

 

[dan_smee]

I think he points to a number of things that have not been in U2's music, even if they have been around in music for a while (the synth and sparse drum stuff especially). There is enough here to indicate a huge change for U2. Those two elements alone are very left field FOR THEM. Some proper German efficiency in those beats, and yea, the chorus explodes a bit into some U2ish grandeur, but so what? Even in their past re-inventions, they have retained some key U2 hallmarks -

War to TUF, Edge's signature muted strumming patterns stayed (see Surrender, Two Hearts, Wire and Indian Summer Sky) -

Rattle & Hum to Achtung retained a fair chunk of God Pt II drum and bass -

Pop to ATYCLB, very little changed in terms of structure and instrumentation, just the effects and atmosphere. When I Look at the World intro and Gone have some shared lineage, just as the big chorus vibe of Gone and LNOE carry through to Beautiful Day and Walk On.

This band is still the same band - but there is plenty there to suggest that they are done with U2 3.0, and they want to feed their creative souls a bit more. A guy can hope...

 

[last unicorn]

Here's a short piece from the Guardian:

U2 – Invisible: New music | Music | theguardian.com

 

[Axver]

Haunted by the indie ghosts of the past 4 years? How the hell is that an accurate description of the sound on display here?

Some of the synths and drum machines definitely share at least a little with the synth pop revival in the indie world...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

That amounts to a 5-star review from the Guardian (or UK press in general). Their standard U2 articles are more along the lines of: “Fresh from the gates of hell, worlds worst band U2 and their fuckhead lead shouter return with more overblown bullshit for 45 year old suburban middle managers who don't actually like music.”

 

[Axver]

That amounts to a 5-star review from the Guardian (or UK press in general). Their standard U2 articles are more along the lines of: “Fresh from the gates of hell, worlds worst band U2 and their fuckhead lead shouter return with more overblown bullshit for 45 year old suburban middle managers who don't actually like music.”

 

[Super Yo]

Here's a short piece from the Guardian:

U2 – Invisible: New music | Music | theguardian.com

I'm surprised, it's not that bad.

 

[mama cass]

That amounts to a 5-star review from the Guardian (or UK press in general). Their standard U2 articles are more along the lines of: “Fresh from the gates of hell, worlds worst band U2 and their fuckhead lead shouter return with more overblown bullshit for 45 year old suburban middle managers who don't actually like music.”

you think THAT's bad? i dare you to venture into the Guardian comments section!

 

[LemonMelon]

Two major websites are writing entire articles about one song.

That's praise in and of itself. I'm not used to seeing single reviews on Forbes and the Guardian.

 

[mama cass]

ha even The Guardian describes the 13th album as "much-delayed" - it's not just us!

 

[mama cass]

bloody hell - just finished reading the Guardian's review

 

[Nick66]

bloody hell - just finished reading the Guardian's review

Pretty enthusiastic review.

But I'm going on record now. I am not...fucking NOT...chanting "There is no them, only us" at the concert. No, no, no, no, no, fucking no. The line must be drawn here, no further, and it's one line I won't cross.

 

[mama cass]

But I'm going on record now. I am not...fucking NOT...chanting "There is no them, only us" at the concert. No, no, no, no, no, fucking no. The line must be drawn here, no further, and it's one line I won't cross.

yeah yeah that was what i thought when i saw Radiohead, but there i was arms in the air singing "i'm a creep, i'm a weirdo" with 19,999 other twats

 

[Nick66]

yeah yeah that was what i thought when i saw Radiohead, but there i was arms in the air singing "i'm a creep, i'm a weirdo" with 19,999 other twats

Ugh. Yeah but at least the Radiohead line was somewhat...I don't know, funny? Original?

This "There's no them, only us" stuff is just trite blather. Really, even for Bono, it's embarrassing, and by far the worst part of what is a pretty good song. It's something you'd expect to see in a UNICEF commercial. Or on a poster in a High Street charity shop. I know Bono's fallen into cliche' lately, but that is just groan inducing, even for him. He might as well have chanted "Think globally, act locally".

I KNOW it's going to be a big part of the song in concert, but I really hope they drop it from the album (i.e. non-RED) version.

 

[dan_smee]

Glowing praise from the Guardian - and they even stole the Coldplay-covering U2-covering Colplay bit.

 

[Irvine511]

There's nothing wrong with that review.

The review isn't unfair, I was more objecting to the reviewer himself.

 

[Aardvark747]

U2 get maximum Super Bowl visibility - Telegraph

Daily Telegraph/UK

 

[last unicorn]

^ Ha, I just wanted to post that. Interesting commentary by Neil McCormick

I found myself to get a bit angry about the fact that Invisible won't be the album's lead single. I have a feeling it would do quite well on the radio, but apart from that I hope that U2 didn't give one of the album's best songs "away" like that, even though the cause is very noble and all. I wonder what will happen after the download won't be available any more. They simply cannot just let the song disappear.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

U2 get maximum Super Bowl visibility - Telegraph

Daily Telegraph/UK

Warning: Neil McCormick.

 

[Dragonfave]

I'm still awaiting for Pitchfork's terrible review of the song........

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Isn't bono part owner of Forbes?

Sent from my android cause iphones are for old people

 

[Nick66]

U2 get maximum Super Bowl visibility - Telegraph

Daily Telegraph/UK

Thanks for posting this. Interesting takeaways:

Frontman Bono openly questioned whether the band could remain relevant and insisted "We have to make hits if we are to survive."

And if there was ever any doubt that there's a been a changing of the guard and that we're now firmly in the Guy Oseary regime:

The first fruits of their labours suggest that U2 are scaling down their rocky sound for a contemporary pop world of small speakers and social network song sharing where digital genre bending electronica reigns supreme.

It means the single will not be eligible for the charts but I am not sure that matters. They have effectively made a song for pop radio formats that don't play old rock bands anymore, and come up with a way to deliver it straight to a mass audience.

Yep, U2 4.0 has begun. No doubt about it.

 

[bedouin fire]

http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/feb/03/u2-invisible-new-music

I found this one very acceptable.

 

[Irvine511]

This "There's no them, only us" stuff is just trite blather.

really? i find it very Buddhist.