My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheFly84138 said:
I think the entire album from start to end is the most contrived, uninspired, musically and lyrically boring part of U2's catalog. "Vertigo" sounds like a last minute throw away with a bubble gum over-the-top hook that is repeated 50 times too many along with the "all of this can be yours" breakdown which is laughable and pathetic every time I hear it. Other songs such as "Miracle Drug," "Love and Peace or Else," and "All Because of You" represent U2 at their creative worst; overused subjects mixed with cheesy hooks and the same pop formula-intro, riff, verse, bridge, chorous repeat for 4 minutes. The reason why this album pissed and continues to piss me off is knowing what they are capable of with such recordings as Pop and Achtung Baby. Even The Joshua Tree album had different ideas about pop music and developed them into unique songs, whether it be gospel, soul or light ballads. Now they just sound like an excellent parody of themselves. I'm absolutely not a U2 hater nor do I ascribe fans according to what era of the catalog they prefer, all I'm saying is now that I've had roughly 7 months to digest the album I think the entire work is grossly lame and forgettable.

This backs up my point about U2 fans who don't like the new album because they are stuck in the past and ignorant. Some fans, no matter how good an album U2 churn out, they won't want to like because they are stuck in the past.
 
I see nothing wrong with being stuck in the past and not liking this era. Nothing wrong with listening to JT or AB or Zooropa and so on and liking those albums better.
But I can't say that I like the way some people always talk shit about the two newest albums. It's ok not to like them, of course. But it's not facts. Especially when lots of new fans discover U2 because of these albums. Not a very good welcome to the community. And then the argument comes: "The new fans are just pop-kids" ... and it could be followed by: "so everything was so much better before". Same argument all over again.
I think that many people discover U2 because they are sick of pop-kids-music.
In the same way I say that there is nothing wrong with being stuck in the past and not liking the new era, I really think some people here should say that it's ok to love the new era and the new album.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

COBL_04 said:


This backs up my point about U2 fans who don't like the new album because they are stuck in the past and ignorant. Some fans, no matter how good an album U2 churn out, they won't want to like because they are stuck in the past.

No U2 are stuck in the past, the album is like The Joshua Tree 2 and could easily have been recorded back in the 80's. They are churning out songs they have made before, 20 years ago. COBL could easily be included in an album like Unforgettable Fire for one example.:wink:
 
Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

rjhbonovox said:


No U2 are stuck in the past, the album is like The Joshua Tree 2 and could easily have been recorded back in the 80's. They are churning out songs they have made before, 20 years ago. COBL could easily be included in an album like Unforgettable Fire for one example.:wink:
yes god forbid U2 sounding like U2, and if your such a smart ass, what is there left for them to do thats different to what they have already done?
 
Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

rjhbonovox said:


No U2 are stuck in the past, the album is like The Joshua Tree 2 and could easily have been recorded back in the 80's. They are churning out songs they have made before, 20 years ago. COBL could easily be included in an album like Unforgettable Fire for one example.:wink:


In that case, those who prefer JT or UF should embrace the new album ...?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

KUEFC09U2 said:
yes god forbid U2 sounding like U2, and if your such a smart ass, what is there left for them to do thats different to what they have already done?

Thank you! :bow:

What is so wrong with a band sounding like themselves? The Beatles certainly evolved, but the first few albums were similar as were the last few. R.E.M. sounds like themselves (albeit, the more melancholy aspect of their sound). I've not heard any changes in Radiohead or Coldplay in their last few albums. Bon Jovi still sounds like Bon Jovi. Bruce Springsteen still sounds like Springsteen. Yet when U2 dares to sound like U2, half the fans consider it crap. This is often why I feel U2 fans are some of the worst fans ever - nothing U2 does is enough. Make something experimental and fans "don't get it", make something a bit more mainstream and it's "selling out".

That said, as KEUFC09U2 wrote, U2 have covered tons of territory. I dare say, what sound do you want them to consider now? Some sort of new age ambient sound? Some sort of bizarre rock? Some sort of spoken word song? If so, they even did these sounds already!

Right now, U2 are exploring their own sound - something they've never done before. And given how much U2 have changed over the years, it's tough to say exactly what that sound is ("War"? JT? AB?). As such, I'm enjoying U2 exploring U2 - and I've loved the progress from ATYCLB to HTDAAB.

U2 works in "threes": Boy- War, UF-R&H, AB-PoP. And in each case, the last album in the trio is arguably the hardest album. As such, I'm curious to hear the third album in this current trio as it may produce some of the hardest sounding U2 ever!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

doctorwho said:


Thank you! :bow:

What is so wrong with a band sounding like themselves? The Beatles certainly evolved, but the first few albums were similar as were the last few. R.E.M. sounds like themselves (albeit, the more melancholy aspect of their sound). I've not heard any changes in Radiohead or Coldplay in their last few albums. Bon Jovi still sounds like Bon Jovi.


Thats about it, U2 have become the same as everyone else, they now are repeating themselves and are doing the same songs over and over. The Beatles took it as far as it could go for them, they didn't go back and start writing "she loves you" again, they said thats it we've taken it as far as we can. U2 took it as far as they could with Pop, they should have said thats enough then. They should have just let Bono go off and do his saving the world thing and the others continue on with their different projects what ever they may be, Larry becomes an actor and so on. Their credibility intact, the creative brilliance of their work up to Pop for everyone to see. Maybe reunite for a tour now and again.:wink:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

rjhbonovox said:


Thats about it, U2 have become the same as everyone else, they now are repeating themselves and are doing the same songs over and over. The Beatles took it as far as it could go for them, they didn't go back and start writing "she loves you" again, they said thats it we've taken it as far as we can. U2 took it as far as they could with Pop, they should have said thats enough then. They should have just let Bono go off and do his saving the world thing and the others continue on with their different projects what ever they may be, Larry becomes an actor and so on. Their credibility intact, the creative brilliance of their work up to Pop for everyone to see. Maybe reunite for a tour now and again.:wink:

AMEN!!

but you know the people that own u2 will milk them as if they were a fat cow. thats what is going on right now!!!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

rjhbonovox said:


Thats about it, U2 have become the same as everyone else, they now are repeating themselves and are doing the same songs over and over. The Beatles took it as far as it could go for them, they didn't go back and start writing "she loves you" again, they said thats it we've taken it as far as we can. U2 took it as far as they could with Pop, they should have said thats enough then. They should have just let Bono go off and do his saving the world thing and the others continue on with their different projects what ever they may be, Larry becomes an actor and so on. Their credibility intact, the creative brilliance of their work up to Pop for everyone to see. Maybe reunite for a tour now and again.:wink:

The last few albums haven't been my favorites, however there are several songs I love. I'm better off for having heard those few songs. I don't expect them to put out another Achtung Baby, and that's fine. I'll just keep an open mind and see if I like whatever they put out. If I do, great, and if not, that's alright. :shrug:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

rjhbonovox said:


Thats about it, U2 have become the same as everyone else, they now are repeating themselves and are doing the same songs over and over. The Beatles took it as far as it could go for them, they didn't go back and start writing "she loves you" again, they said thats it we've taken it as far as we can. U2 took it as far as they could with Pop, they should have said thats enough then. They should have just let Bono go off and do his saving the world thing and the others continue on with their different projects what ever they may be, Larry becomes an actor and so on. Their credibility intact, the creative brilliance of their work up to Pop for everyone to see. Maybe reunite for a tour now and again.:wink:

That would blow. Any solo projects would probably pale in comparison to the last two albums. The only one who I think could really hold his own as a solo artist is The Edge, and even then I don't think it'd be nearly as good without the rest of the band. Really, the band need each other, and they WANT each other. It was Edge I think that said he's done some solo projects but he didn't really like it, he wanted Adam, Larry, and Bono around to help make the song the best it could be, get different perspectives.

and...Larry being an actor? :yikes: unless he's an actor like in Electrical Storm... :drool:

I'd rather U2 stick together and makes new albums to tour than have twenty "reunited" and "farewell" tours, even if the albums don't live up to the former glories of the band...or whatever.
 
I love the album...a 5 star effort.

It's a showcase of how U2 have developed as songwriters over the past 3 decades. Hence, rather than trying to be as experimental as they were with Pop and UF and Achtung Baby, they have created an album that is a 50 minute journey through a range of different musical approaches U2 have attempted over their career.

That said, the album is not completely devoid of any audacious experiments. Take Fast Cars and A Man and a Woman for example.

I love listening to the album, it's a band doing what they do best. Making music that sounds good.

Even so, album number 12 needs to be one where U2 start exploring and obliterating genre's like they have on previous albums.

Maybe it's time for an ambient dance album, maybe combining something like a Moby, Chemical Brothers or Everything But the Girl sound.

Who knows...

Or perhaps take the Vertigo/All Because of You/Love and Peace hints and write a full on heavy metal album or something.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

rjhbonovox said:


Thats about it, U2 have become the same as everyone else, they now are repeating themselves and are doing the same songs over and over. The Beatles took it as far as it could go for them, they didn't go back and start writing "she loves you" again, they said thats it we've taken it as far as we can. U2 took it as far as they could with Pop, they should have said thats enough then. They should have just let Bono go off and do his saving the world thing and the others continue on with their different projects what ever they may be, Larry becomes an actor and so on. Their credibility intact, the creative brilliance of their work up to Pop for everyone to see. Maybe reunite for a tour now and again.:wink:

WHAT?!?!

The Beatles didn't break up because of what you wrote. No where have I ever read or heard the Beatles say that they "took their sound as far as it could go". If that was true, I really doubt all four members of the Beatles would have released solo albums that sounded remarkably like their last few albums just a year or so after their disbandment. Clearly the four Beatles felt that they had more of "that sound" in them.

It seems to me that you and a few other members really get off on debasing U2. You enjoy tearing them apart for no other reason than to tear them apart. I've been in the online U2 community for over a decade now and I've seen your type many times - you aren't unique. It's odd how you slag off U2, but failed to acknowledge my comments about Radiohead, Coldplay, R.E.M. and Springsteen still sounding the same. Funny how a "hot" artist like Coldplay is forgiven for sounding exactly the same on every album, but U2 - even with their experimentation and diverse catalog - is not. :tsk: In reality, if anything is boring and repititive, it's forum members like you. You've lost your sparkle.

Oh, and some of us don't think the work on "Pop" was all that horribly original and creative. "Pop" - for all the slack it's taken for being this techno/dance album, is really a pretty straight-forward rock album with a few experimental nods. In fact, it's remarkably similar to HTDAAB in that capacity. And that's perfectly acceptable. Nothing wrong with U2 pushing the boundaries a bit, while still retaining their own unique sound.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

doctorwho said:


It's odd how you slag off U2, but failed to acknowledge my comments about Radiohead, Coldplay, R.E.M. and Springsteen still sounding the same. Funny how a "hot" artist like Coldplay is forgiven for sounding exactly the same on every album, but U2 - even with their experimentation and diverse catalog - is not. :tsk: In reality, if anything is boring and repititive, it's forum members like you. You've lost your sparkle.

Coldplay have released 3 albums, each with a progression with the latest using synths more than the other 2, I can definetly see progression in their music. Think you will find Radiohead Bends era is quite a lot different than Radiohead Hail to the Thief era unless you have cotton wool in your ears. REM have gone tits up since their last decent album was the more experimental UP which wasn't a bad album. The last 2 REM albums have been crap. Springsteen I don't much like anyway.

doctorwho said:

Oh, and some of us don't think the work on "Pop" was all that horribly original and creative. "Pop" - for all the slack it's taken for being this techno/dance album, is really a pretty straight-forward rock album with a few experimental nods. In fact, it's remarkably similar to HTDAAB in that capacity. And that's perfectly acceptable. Nothing wrong with U2 pushing the boundaries a bit, while still retaining their own unique sound.

Pop has absolutely no connection with HTDAAB, the only song maybe nearly worthy of that album is Love and Peace Or Else. The main problem I have with U2's music on the last 2 albums is the constant need to make every fucking song as catchy as a pop single, shiny and over produced and it has to have 3 choruses at least. I was listening to "Hawkmoon 269" from Rattle & Hum and it just hit me that why don't U2 make raw songs like this anymore, whatever the era it is. Ratlle & Hum is not my favourite U2 album by any stretch of the imagination but it still has an energy about the studio stuff that the last 2 don't. I listen to the last 2 albums and think I am listening to best of collections, sounds like one single after the next. As I have said before the only song that doesn't fit this description is the excellent Love and Peace Or Else which isn't a shiny, catchy pop single and notice how the song is written, the structure of the song is very similar to the old way of a U2 song, no over used chorus in there.:wink:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

rjhbonovox said:

Pop has absolutely no connection with HTDAAB, the only song maybe nearly worthy of that album is Love and Peace Or Else. The main problem I have with U2's music on the last 2 albums is the constant need to make every fucking song as catchy as a pop single, shiny and over produced and it has to have 3 choruses at least. I was listening to "Hawkmoon 269" from Rattle & Hum and it just hit me that why don't U2 make raw songs like this anymore, whatever the era it is. Ratlle & Hum is not my favourite U2 album by any stretch of the imagination but it still has an energy about the studio stuff that the last 2 don't. I listen to the last 2 albums and think I am listening to best of collections, sounds like one single after the next. As I have said before the only song that doesn't fit this description is the excellent Love and Peace Or Else which isn't a shiny, catchy pop single and notice how the song is written, the structure of the song is very similar to the old way of a U2 song, no over used chorus in there.:wink:

Yeah, there's some good points in there. One thing about your Hawkmoon analogy is that they don't make songs like that anymore is because they're not only ABLE to make songs like that anymore. Trust me, if they could they'd go back and rewrite all that stuff since their songwriting capabilities have improved so much, at least in their mind. All their songs have 3 choruses nowadays because the songs can melodically support 3 choruses in a way that a song like Hawkmoon couldn't. They've become enamored with their burgeoning songwriting skills. They have more tools in the arsenal so to speak. It's very difficult to set aside the new tools (melodies) they've discovered this decade in favor of old habits that were born out of limitations in the first place. You have a very fair point about limited U2 being more interesting than skilled U2.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

Layton said:


Yeah, there's some good points in there. One thing about your Hawkmoon analogy is that they don't make songs like that anymore is because they're not only ABLE to make songs like that anymore. Trust me, if they could they'd go back and rewrite all that stuff since their songwriting capabilities have improved so much, at least in their mind. All their songs have 3 choruses nowadays because the songs can melodically support 3 choruses in a way that a song like Hawkmoon couldn't. They've become enamored with their burgeoning songwriting skills. They have more tools in the arsenal so to speak. It's very difficult to set aside the new tools (melodies) they've discovered this decade in favor of old habits that were born out of limitations in the first place. You have a very fair point about limited U2 being more interesting than skilled U2.

Yeah love the irony, but give me limited songwriting ability if thats what they/you want to call it. Pop music is ok if all your obsessed with is getting in the charts but for fuck sake U2 have become a pop band and if thats called better song writing then Busted are fucking geniuses then!:wink:
 
Lancemc said:
U2 write great songs which happen to do very well as singles. Shame on them.

Are you kidding me here? Open your eyes.

They don't write songs that HAPPEN to do very well as singles. They write songs that are INTENDED to do very well as singles.

Big. Ass. Difference.

And of the songs that are actually released as singles, only two of them have had a great amount of success - Beautiful Day and Vertigo. The other songs released as singles haven't done 'very well'.

Mind you I am talking 00s U2 only here.
 
namkcuR said:


And of the songs that are actually released as singles, only two of them have had a great amount of success - Beautiful Day and Vertigo. The other songs released as singles haven't done 'very well'.

Mind you I am talking 00s U2 only here.

I'm sure those in Europe would beg to differ with you there.


My point is, songs like Beautiful Day, City of Blinding Lights, Sometimes You Can't Make it On Your Own, Walk On are still incredible songs. For me, any of these songs are just as good as the classics like New Years Day, With or Without You, One, Stay, and Please. And don't even start with that blind worship shit. If anyone is "blinded" it's you and your arrogant and incredibly narrow "U2 is a pop band" attitude. You simply DONT WANT to see the good in their music these days, and that's sad.
 
Lancemc said:


I'm sure those in Europe would beg to differ with you there.


My point is, songs like Beautiful Day, City of Blinding Lights, Sometimes You Can't Make it On Your Own, Walk On are still incredible songs. For me, any of these songs are just as good as the classics like New Years Day, With or Without You, One, Stay, and Please. And don't even start with that blind worship shit. If anyone is "blinded" it's you and your arrogant and incredibly narrow "U2 is a pop band" attitude. You simply DONT WANT to see the good in their music these days, and that's sad.

Are you nuts? I DESPERATELY want U2 to still be making music that makes me feel the way every record up through Pop did. DESPERATELY. But they're just not. And I don't have a narrow attitude about U2 at all. You have no idea how eclectic and varying my musical taste is - I can enjoy almost any genre of music you can imagine(except for most - but not all - hip-hop and country). I even like easy-listening pop music too sometimes, but not when it's being made by U2. It's like when Michael Jordan tried to play baseball - you might be a baseball fan but I'm sure a lot of baseball fans weren't crazy about seeing MJ playing it. He was supposed to be playing basketball.

Look, If you like the music they're making now, fine, that's cool. The only thing I was saying 'open your eyes' about was that U2 write songs these days intending for them to be single-material. They don't 'happen' to be single material. I don't think you're a blind follower.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

rjhbonovox said:


Yeah love the irony, but give me limited songwriting ability if thats what they/you want to call it. Pop music is ok if all your obsessed with is getting in the charts but for fuck sake U2 have become a pop band and if thats called better song writing then Busted are fucking geniuses then!:wink:

Let me ask a question just for fuck's sake. Do you think they're better melodically on the last 2 albums than they've ever been? Disregard everything else, but the melodic content. I'm just curious because I think this idea of limited U2 vs. skilled U2 is worth pursuing. I just want to know if you're on the same page as me regading their current enhanced melodic skills.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

Layton said:


Let me ask a question just for fuck's sake. Do you think they're better melodically on the last 2 albums than they've ever been? Disregard everything else, but the melodic content. I'm just curious because I think this idea of limited U2 vs. skilled U2 is worth pursuing. I just want to know if you're on the same page as me regading their current enhanced melodic skills.

I'm not sure I follow you here. I'm in the belief that U2 have gone down the road where the songs now rely too heavily on the chorus. From the past 2 albums this seems to be the case. I just remember a quote from when ATYCLB was released and Bono said something like "if you missed the chorus here it is again" or something like that. If thats there intention then the band have changed the way they write songs, or they think they have improved as songwriters. Also a quote from Steve Lilywhite about SYCMIOYO when he heard the 1st version of the song he said "hang on, you haven't got a chorus" and so they went and wrote the cringeworthy falsetto bit. Seems its the be all and end all for U2 songs now, to have that killer hook in EVERY song. But the problem with this is, yes when you hear the album first time you get it straight away, the hooks etc, but after repeated listening it starts to lose its shine and gets boring. Theres nothing there to grow on you, in essence this is how pop music albums are. Anyway thats the way I see it.
 
I don't know about the rest of you, but sometimes I LIKE a song to have a chorus... is that a crime? At least U2's choruses don't sound exactly like all the other pop choruses out there (it's hard to put into words but it seems a lot of the pop-rock songs all have the EXACT SAME CHROUS, the same sugar-coated chord progression). In fact, I'd say most U2 songs have a chorus, not just the latest ones. One, Where the Streets Have No Name, I Will Follow, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Staring at the Sun, Gloria, Stay, New Year's Day... all great songs with, guess what? Choruses.

Though I do agree that the structure of almost all U2 songs lately seems to be "intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus-outro" or a slight variation of that. It'd be nice to throw in a couple of Zooropa's, which...I don't know how the fuck you would diagram that one, lol.
 
COBL sucks!!

its worse that a simple pop song its almost as bad as country music!!!

and its a big flop in the usa!!

u2 are trying to make albums with 80% soft rock songs, thoes kind of albums sell alot because "you will buy it, your mom will buy it even your grandma will buy it becaus its easy listening music !!! and in the end u2 will make alot of $$$, thats what it all comes down to!

thank you u2, for fucking me over!!!!!!!:mad:
 
I don't quite buy that. Sure they may be getting better or tighter at getting the melodies, and certainly working harder for them, placing that as the goal, but I don't think it's something that's been missing from them at all, I just think it's a different belief in their music and how it's structured. To go back to Rattle & Hum, look at All I Want Is You. A U2 melodic pop single if there ever was one. Forget the sound and production, the length and build etc, and that could fit easily onto The Bomb as far as 'quality of melody' goes. What about With or Without You? There are also plenty, dozens, of other U2 songs that have a great, great melody there, but for whatever reason, it's been avoided or stripped - and the songs are better for it.

What if With or Without You had been written and recorded circa 2004? A build up that takes that long and starts that quiet? No way. We'd be banging the strings and big full strength chorus straight after the first couple of lines as per Miracle Drug and Original of the Species. But no, instead there's patience and calm and no need to blow the load early. The melody is there, it's how it's used. The ending isn't given away at the beginning. The beauty in that song is specificaly that it doesn't go for bigness at any point. If God Will Send His Angels - another example, but slightly different. If they'd wanted that to be the big pop single, all it takes is a different structure and sound. No change in melody, just take away the beauty and build and hit us up from the start. You can slightly here that in the crappola way they edited it for the single. Anyway, point is, amazing melodies have always been there. It's not their existence or lack of that is different, it's all in the sound and structure. They haven't worked them the same way because they had a different feel for the songs in the past. I personally think Miracle Drug would be infinetely better if they'd kept it low and relatively calm right up until the guitar explosion and the last chorus, but that's not what they do now. They're not giving you a taste here and there waiting for you to be absolutely drooling then giving it to you near the end, briefly, before fading away again, leaving you salivating for more. There is no U2 song that is rushing to please as quickly as Original of the Species. The structure is the key there, and what they are doing (on some, but not all songs) is milking the melody for every drop it's got right from the get go. Whether you like that or not is personal opinion, and mine is that, like food as I said above, the melody, the beauty of the song, is the flavour in the food. Subtle hints throughout the meal are perfect. What they are asking you to do on some songs is what all pop songs do. It's not the icing on the cake, it's just eating a bucket of the icing. You eat the cake and get those little bits of chocolate icing and you love it and want more, more, more, but if you just mixed up a load of the icing, you'll be the happiest person in the world for a little while, but within a few spoonfulls you'd be well over the flavour very quickly. I'm not sure if I'm wording that analogy correctly, but I'm sure you know what I mean.... But each to their own. I love a song like If God Will Send or Velvet Dress or Who's Gonna Ride or With or Without You or Running to Stand Still etc etc for the way they have within them outstanding melodies, but take their time to open up, give you a little, push you back, pull you in, never give themselves right up to you. I don't like a song like Original of the Species because it's all laid out there in front of you from the get go, the first listen, the first taste it's all there. It makes the experience fleeting. I've eaten too much of it by the third listen. I slept with it on the first date. What have these songs got left to give? Personal opinion, but thats where it is with me. Melodies, whatever. U2 have always had them. The difference is in their use and delivery and they've over cooked it by a mile in my view.
 
Last edited:
Earnie Shavers said:


But no, instead there's patience and calm and no need to blow the load early

Thats it in a nutshell, U2 are blowing their load to early on the past 2 albums.:wink:
 
why do some people spend so much of there time trying to convince people that like the last 2 albums, that there wrong? quit winding people up "just to get a rise" if you have your opinion thats the albums are crap then, nice one, but for fucks sake stop taking your opinion as if its the opinion of everyone else, and rjhbonovox U2 will never become as predictable as your posts
 
KUEFC09U2 said:
why do some people spend so much of there time trying to convince people that like the last 2 albums, that there wrong? quit winding people up "just to get a rise" if you have your opinion thats the albums are crap then, nice one, but for fucks sake stop taking your opinion as if its the opinion of everyone else, and rjhbonovox U2 will never become as predictable as your posts

He's not 'taking' his opinion 'as if it's the opinion of everyone else'. If you actually read his post, he took painstaking measures to make it clear that it was all HIS opinion.

And if you want your complaints to be taken seriously, at least TRY to use some grammar and check your spelling(i.e. you needed 'their' instead of 'there' in the first line of your post).
 
Earnie Shavers said:
I don't quite buy that. Sure they may be getting better or tighter at getting the melodies, and certainly working harder for them, placing that as the goal, but I don't think it's something that's been missing from them at all, I just think it's a different belief in their music and how it's structured. To go back to Rattle & Hum, look at All I Want Is You. A U2 melodic pop single if there ever was one. Forget the sound and production, the length and build etc, and that could fit easily onto The Bomb as far as 'quality of melody' goes. What about With or Without You? There are also plenty, dozens, of other U2 songs that have a great, great melody there, but for whatever reason, it's been avoided or stripped - and the songs are better for it.

What if With or Without You had been written and recorded circa 2004? A build up that takes that long and starts that quiet? No way. We'd be banging the strings and big full strength chorus straight after the first couple of lines as per Miracle Drug and Original of the Species. But no, instead there's patience and calm and no need to blow the load early. The melody is there, it's how it's used. The ending isn't given away at the beginning. The beauty in that song is specificaly that it doesn't go for bigness at any point. If God Will Send His Angels - another example, but slightly different. If they'd wanted that to be the big pop single, all it takes is a different structure and sound. No change in melody, just take away the beauty and build and hit us up from the start. You can slightly here that in the crappola way they edited it for the single. Anyway, point is, amazing melodies have always been there. It's not their existence or lack of that is different, it's all in the sound and structure. They haven't worked them the same way because they had a different feel for the songs in the past. I personally think Miracle Drug would be infinetely better if they'd kept it low and relatively calm right up until the guitar explosion and the last chorus, but that's not what they do now. They're not giving you a taste here and there waiting for you to be absolutely drooling then giving it to you near the end, briefly, before fading away again, leaving you salivating for more. There is no U2 song that is rushing to please as quickly as Original of the Species. The structure is the key there, and what they are doing (on some, but not all songs) is milking the melody for every drop it's got right from the get go. Whether you like that or not is personal opinion, and mine is that, like food as I said above, the melody, the beauty of the song, is the flavour in the food. Subtle hints throughout the meal are perfect. What they are asking you to do on some songs is what all pop songs do. It's not the icing on the cake, it's just eating a bucket of the icing. You eat the cake and get those little bits of chocolate icing and you love it and want more, more, more, but if you just mixed up a load of the icing, you'll be the happiest person in the world for a little while, but within a few spoonfulls you'd be well over the flavour very quickly. I'm not sure if I'm wording that analogy correctly, but I'm sure you know what I mean.... But each to their own. I love a song like If God Will Send or Velvet Dress or Who's Gonna Ride or With or Without You or Running to Stand Still etc etc for the way they have within them outstanding melodies, but take their time to open up, give you a little, push you back, pull you in, never give themselves right up to you. I don't like a song like Original of the Species because it's all laid out there in front of you from the get go, the first listen, the first taste it's all there. It makes the experience fleeting. I've eaten too much of it by the third listen. I slept with it on the first date. What have these songs got left to give? Personal opinion, but thats where it is with me. Melodies, whatever. U2 have always had them. The difference is in their use and delivery and they've over cooked it by a mile in my view.

Great post, once again, Earnie. :applaud:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom