More new U2 album discussion!

[bonocomet]

Hey bc , no offense taken I will stop my rants on it from now on.... but I REALLY would like to change your mind on it

Not gonna happen

Bono has said the lyrics (maybe some, not all, I don't know) to this song came to him, or were at least inspired at a fun fair with his family. I think they are light, fitting, and yeah fun, and go with the feel of the song. It isn't the place or the song for lyrics like the ones in Running to Stand Still. It's a different thing is all. Some of us hate it, some of us like it. It's okay.

 

[Blue Room]

you could prolly go back on vacation couple weeks.

I wish I could. But it is back to the reality of work.

The Chris Martin thing is interesting. My wife is a huge Coldplay fan, I'm "ok" with them. Seems like a lot of artists are collaborating with other artists more frequently. So it would not surprise me if this were true. I doubt it will be any kind of major part of the album or song if it is even true.

 

[AcrobatU2Pop]

Not gonna happen

Bono has said the lyrics (maybe some, not all, I don't know) to this song came to him, or were at least inspired at a fun fair with his family. I think they are light, fitting, and yeah fun, and go with the feel of the song. It isn't the place or the song for lyrics like the ones in Running to Stand Still. It's a different thing is all. Some of us hate it, some of us like it. It's okay.

It's interesting when you think about it. Did U2 condition their audience to expect lyrics with big themes, many times politically driven to where a song like GOYB just sticks out like a sore thumb? I just can't really think of any songs in the 80's with playful or goofy lyrics. I guess my point is that I don't know if the lyrics in GOYB are necessarily "bad", they're just so different than the style that many of grew up with following the band.

 

[FlyontheHorizon]

Just to bring the topic back to a few pages ago when Chris Martin was being discussed, I happen to work in the vicinity of the two studios which Coldplay use in London, and though I always hold back from ever running the risk of bugging Chris with a questions - last week I thought what the hell, and when I saw him in the street I asked about the rumours of him recording with U2 in New York. He put his finger to his mouth and said "Come on now, that would be telling". Thought I'd throw this extremely tiny bit of info into the mix, for what it's worth.

He could have said one of two things: "I'm not saying" or, "No, that's just a rumor." But he said the former, so...

 

[trevgreg]

We gone from "cry without weeping, talk without speaking" to "candy floss, ice cream". Perhaps a backwards step.

Of course, every set of lyrics doesn't have to exactly be Shakespeare-level either. I think there can be room for both serious and fun, even though we might differ on what lyrics just plain stink or not.

I think it's an issue of writing songs in the studio as opposed to bringing in prepared work. I remember reading about sometimes they will write down whatever comes out of Bono's face during a jam session and try to work that into a lyric, which never made much sense to me.

But then again, 'the hell do I know?

I don't think that's uncommon for a singer to do when the band is jamming to a song though. A lot of them might say the first thing that comes to them or start humming a melody line for later. It wouldn't surprise me if U2 comes up with a lot of their songs that way wither. In fact, I'm pretty sure the opening lines of Stay came out of Bono's ad-libbing while standing at a mic, for example. And a lot of people seem to connect with those lyrics, despite, say, the 7/11 reference!

 

[FlyontheHorizon]

Your reaction to lyrics would depend on what state of mind you're in. For example, I usually don't care much for MOS, except on the occasion when I happen to be feeling down when I hear the song and think at that moment the lyrics are pure poetry. And then a day later MOS doesn't sound so great. Just today I was listening to One Step Closer, which I usually think is one of U2's most boring songs, and the lyrics suddenly made a whole lot of sense to me (though I have yet to feel that way about the instrumentation). I have similar "bipolar" responses to Walk On, Unknown Caller, Magnificent, etc.

 

[YBORCITY]

Hey bc , no offense taken I will stop my rants on it from now on.... but I REALLY would like to change your mind on it

Ok BC we will agree to disagree but I don't like the melody either.... that being said we're okay again aren't we?

 

[U2DMfan]

re: Magnificent

If you skip the intro and begin at 0:46 and listen to 2:22, that's 1:36. 96 seconds and you have heard the whole song. You've heard the hook/riff. You've heard the verse melody. You've heard the crescendo ("oh, oh") and you've heard the chorus. Short of the bridge/solo, you have already heard the extent of the song.

And there are still 3 minutes left in the song. People complain about the bridge/solo, IMO, not because it's particularly bad, but because it doesn't take the song anywhere else. It doesn't feel like a different chapter, to me.

But the bridge/solo aside, the song had effectively, already peaked. It is front loaded. There is no natural build up to it once it has...arrived. And this is the type of song that could have stood to be treated with some subtlety. Dumping the churning B-riff from the outset. They should have began with the verse, using the same chords, but different instrumentation - then when we come out on the other side of the first chorus, we hear that full 'dance' feel for the first time - we're moving somewhere - then we would hear that crescendo "oh oh" and the driving guitar for the first time. The song is now moving somewhere else. And then when we fall into the bridge/solo it feels, possibly, more interesting to some people.

As is, there is no anticipation in the song once it moves from intro to the opening riff. Which is most likely why they put that intro on there in the first place. That should have told them that they had the fundamental structure a little wrong to begin with. It needed an intro but not one that exploded right into the 'hook'. And THAT right there was the problem. They were so concerned with brow-beating the hook...'singles' mentality.

And the chord structure is the same throughout which is fine otherwise but because of that song structure issue w/Magnificent, it's not in this case. Look at WOWY (or even Exit...or others) for an example of a song where the chord structure is the same throughout and yet there are different parts, different counter-melodies. WOWY goes to different places (and you give...).

All that said, I actually really do like the song but feel like there was an absolute gem there that they didn't fully realize. I feel the same - and even more so about Unknown Caller. But there are FAR better targets (when it comes to recent songs) for us to pick on when it comes to what U2 did right and wrong. There is enough right about Magnificent that it can be forgiven. By me at least.

 

[jeevey]

Well I think there's a subjective bad and an objective bad.

Boots' lyrics are objectively bad. MoS 'ATM machine' line is an objectively bad lyric.

Walk On's lyrics are not objectively bad.

Seems like people really hate those concrete lyrics like the MOS atm line, or the "force quit, move to trash" of UC, but I don't think that's an objectively terrible line. Often they're pretty effective.


I think that while the line doesn't quite 'sing' when read as poetry, it's a really effective grounding image in the song. It really sets the scene and the character, because otherwise the song is kind of in outer space- it could be anybody anywhere. That and the subway line really cement the mood of urban alienation. Then when you get voices working in unision about an experience as solitary as an ATM machine, the irony becomes poignant, too.

 

[bonocomet]

It's interesting when you think about it. Did U2 condition their audience to expect lyrics with big themes, many times politically driven to where a song like GOYB just sticks out like a sore thumb? I just can't really think of any songs in the 80's with playful or goofy lyrics. I guess my point is that I don't know if the lyrics in GOYB are necessarily "bad", they're just so different than the style that many of grew up with following the band.

I enjoy when U2 aren't totally serious, and they do have other songs that fit the goofy or fun feel from other eras. I dont think I've ever seen them as overly serious. Boots appeals to me in that he's saying yeah there's serious stuff going on but sometimes you need to just step back and enjoy the fun too.

Ok BC we will agree to disagree but I don't like the melody either.... that being said we're okay again aren't we?

Of course! Discussing this stuff is serious I know, but it should be fun too.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Seems like people really hate those concrete lyrics like the MOS atm line, or the "force quit, move to trash" of UC, but I don't think that's an objectively terrible line. Often they're pretty effective.

The notion of an atM machine is a redundancy. That's definitely a lame line that doesn't properly make sense.

And the UC line is just super corny.

I don't know how either of those lines are effective whatsoever.

 

[U2girl]

I think that Magnificent has fantastic lyrics. According to Bono, the song is about "two lovers holding on to each other and trying to turn their life into worship", which to me implies that the "I was born to song for you" line is not about Bono.

Hopefully most people realise the song isn't self-referential. And that's not actually Bono's line...

Most people interpret the religious/worship lyric...I always thought the song was being an ode to music as their art.

 

[U2girl]

Is the chorus not part of "the song itself"? I always thought it was And, no, the comparisons to 'One' are not justified. One has a very unusual structure. It's like a middle 8 on repeat. The verses and the chorus are essentially part of the same chord structure. Conversely, 'Moment of Surrender' has a very traditional gospel structure -- and as you already stated, has a very poppy and (using your words) "radio friendly" chorus. These are attributes that 'One' does not have. Neither does a song like 'With or Without You'. Ironically, it's the unusual, unpoppy structure of songs like 'One' & 'Without or Without You' that made them stand out on the radio -- and propelled them to chart positions that 'Moment of Surrender' could only dream of.

A slow gospel song isn't 00's U2 by numbers.

Not comparisons in structure...rather in MOS, like One, being the centerpiece of the album, and being a powerful song.

U2 weren't an old band when they wrote One and WOWY, and they had chart hits and album sales. MOS indeed can't compete with singles of old...it would stand out on the radio.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

It's interesting when you think about it. Did U2 condition their audience to expect lyrics with big themes, many times politically driven to where a song like GOYB just sticks out like a sore thumb? I just can't really think of any songs in the 80's with playful or goofy lyrics. I guess my point is that I don't know if the lyrics in GOYB are necessarily "bad", they're just so different than the style that many of grew up with following the band.

Shame on us if we are surprised with "playful" U2 lyrics at this point. This is the same band that wrote a song called "Big Girls Are Best" in the 90s, and penned the line, "If OJ is more than a drink, and a Big Mac, bigger than you think," from the so called "high brow 90s" album, Pop....is it really a surprise when they write stuff like "A mole, digging in a hole?" in the 2000s and now writing songs like 'Boots'? U2 threw their rule book through the window almost as long ago as they threw that brick on the October album. They were quite playful in the 80s as well; you just had to look for it more. As Bono likes to say, U2 fans have to be very elastic. They cannot put U2 into a box.

 

[Globo14]

The notion of an atM machine is a redundancy. That's definitely a lame line that doesn't properly make sense.

There's lots of bits and pieces of music that don't make sense. It's a wonder to me why so many people remain hung up on that line. Is it grammatically correct? No. But musically, it fits, certainly better than Bono extending it to be "ATeeeeeemmmmmmmmm".

I do think the line is a bit lame, but the grammar isn't the reason why.

PS, shouldn't it be "Where the Streets Have No nameS"?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It's not grammar. It's idiocy. Grammar is not an issue. It's like "are we human, or are we dancer?" That just doesn't make sense. Well, that's way worse but the point still stands. He wouldn't need to atemmmmmmmmm it. He can just not write that line. Or replace machine with another word.

Yes, and it's corny. That specific line doesn't have much going for it. Objectively it's poorly written and merely fits the flow of the music. It's not the worst thing ever (Like the chorus to Human), but it's still pretty weak.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

re: Magnificent

If you skip the intro and begin at 0:46 and listen to 2:22, that's 1:36. 96 seconds and you have heard the whole song. You've heard the hook/riff. You've heard the verse melody. You've heard the crescendo ("oh, oh") and you've heard the chorus. Short of the bridge/solo, you have already heard the extent of the song.

And there are still 3 minutes left in the song. People complain about the bridge/solo, IMO, not because it's particularly bad, but because it doesn't take the song anywhere else. It doesn't feel like a different chapter, to me.

But the bridge/solo aside, the song had effectively, already peaked. It is front loaded. There is no natural build up to it once it has...arrived. And this is the type of song that could have stood to be treated with some subtlety. Dumping the churning B-riff from the outset. They should have began with the verse, using the same chords, but different instrumentation - then when we come out on the other side of the first chorus, we hear that full 'dance' feel for the first time - we're moving somewhere - then we would hear that crescendo "oh oh" and the driving guitar for the first time. The song is now moving somewhere else. And then when we fall into the bridge/solo it feels, possibly, more interesting to some people.

As is, there is no anticipation in the song once it moves from intro to the opening riff. Which is most likely why they put that intro on there in the first place. That should have told them that they had the fundamental structure a little wrong to begin with. It needed an intro but not one that exploded right into the 'hook'. And THAT right there was the problem. They were so concerned with brow-beating the hook...'singles' mentality.

And the chord structure is the same throughout which is fine otherwise but because of that song structure issue w/Magnificent, it's not in this case. Look at WOWY (or even Exit...or others) for an example of a song where the chord structure is the same throughout and yet there are different parts, different counter-melodies. WOWY goes to different places (and you give...).

All that said, I actually really do like the song but feel like there was an absolute gem there that they didn't fully realize. I feel the same - and even more so about Unknown Caller. But there are FAR better targets (when it comes to recent songs) for us to pick on when it comes to what U2 did right and wrong. There is enough right about Magnificent that it can be forgiven. By me at least.

I can see where you're coming from, and I agree to some extent. A song like 'Where the Streets Have No Name', despite it's obvious chord repetition, still has a few changes and counter melodies here and there to balance it out. I will say that I really enjoy the background vocals during the guitar solo in 'Magnificent'. The falsetto going into the sliding guitar with Bono's barely audible husky lower register coming in really creates a classic U2 moment, IMO, that harkens back to the classic U2/Eno/Lanois work of yore.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

I've heard that the new U2 album will be titled DERRICK ROSE.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Oh so it's just going to be shelved then?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

A slow gospel song isn't 00's U2 by numbers.

Not comparisons in structure...rather in MOS, like One, being the centerpiece of the album, and being a powerful song.

U2 weren't an old band when they wrote One and WOWY, and they had chart hits and album sales. MOS indeed can't compete with singles of old...it would stand out on the radio.

Again, my contention is not that 'Moment of Surrender' is not a good song. As I said, it's a very nice pop gospel song. Does it really stand out? I'm not so sure. The verses do stand out, but the chorus blends right into the mainstream like butter on toast (to use Bono's not so original line from 'Winter', lol). If you look at another gospel song from U2's past and compare it, I really don't think you can use their youth as the primary reason it went to #1. 'I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For' just didn't sound like the pop gospel of the time. It sounded different from anything else on the radio. The drumming was different. The singing was different. The structure was different. 'Moment of Surrender' sounded like it would blend in beautifully with any adult contemporary radio station's format before it was even ever on the radio. 'I Still Haven't Found' didn't sound mainstream until it became the mainstream due to its popularity. It caught the attention of a generation BECAUSE it stood out. That's the difference, IMO.

 

[corianderstem]

The notion of an atM machine is a redundancy. That's definitely a lame line that doesn't properly make sense.

Well, since I guess we're rehashing every argument we've ever had on Interference, this one had to make an appearance.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I try.

 

[mtnfox]

Sorry if this has already been posted (I didn't see it anywhere though):

Spanish FNAC Record Store Lists U2 Album in November

 

[popacrobat]

probably got the information from the same Spanish girl who had the CD last time but wouldn't leak it. or whatever that scoop was.

 

[AcrobatU2Pop]

probably got the information from the same Spanish girl who had the CD last time but wouldn't leak it. or whatever that scoop was.

It was the death threats. They just didn't stop!

 

[Edge Evans]

The nice thing is we passed time discussing NLOTH songs here as we have no news and no one has antagonized anyone. And no mention of Rush...

Oh shit

 

[dismantlemyfly]

Well, here's hoping for a new album that isn't, at first blush, pleasing, accessible, and radio friendly. I'm hoping for something a bit more challenging, that will take a number of different listens to actually "get it".

Ah, who am I kidding...

 

[Sken]

Just to bring the topic back to a few pages ago when Chris Martin was being discussed, I happen to work in the vicinity of the two studios which Coldplay use in London, and though I always hold back from ever running the risk of bugging Chris with a questions - last week I thought what the hell, and when I saw him in the street I asked about the rumours of him recording with U2 in New York. He put his finger to his mouth and said "Come on now, that would be telling". Thought I'd throw this extremely tiny bit of info into the mix, for what it's worth.

Please god no.

I don't mind Coldplay, I respect Chris Martin, but I don't want them anywhere near a U2 record.

Btw, thanks for taking the time to ask him the question.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

The Fred Falke remix?

Yes that's the one
thanks

This is probably the best "club mix" of the song:

[/url]

That one is very good as well

 

[PookaMacP]

Our discussion actually simply highlights the problem with NLOTH: it's so bloody frustrating that it led the listener, and us, all these years later, to dissatisfaction.

Case and point:

I say 'ATM Machine' all the time. Maybe it's an Irish thing?

I find the Unknown Caller lyrics to be great, 'Force Quit, And Move to Trash' and all.

That, and I think Breathe starts out really good but is interminably booooorrrrrinnnnnng, with one of the by-numbers choruses I've ever heard.

Magnificent is a great song too, but I really would like to hear the version before Steve Lillywhite came in very late on and told them to change the drum track. That video of Larry drumming on his own and bringing the song to a brilliant finale just sounded great (I think it was called 'Fr Brian Eno drums' but I can't find it on YouTube).

Edit: here it is:
http://media.u2.com/flash/highlights/FatherBrianEnoDrums.swf