New Album Discussion (Is Headache Going To The Superbowl?)

[LadySpinHead]

My thoughts on the song: it's a good, solid soundtrack pop song. Not fantastic, not terrible. Like someone else put it in the same category as Sweetest thing and WITS- and I like both of those songs well enough. It's been stuck in my head since first listen and I don't mind it one bit. I do wish for more guitar, maybe just brought up in the mix a bit, but maybe the vinyl will sound more balanced. It's catchy overall. If it was a first single off the new album, though, I might be a tiny bit disappointed. As it is, it does the job.

As for comparisons to Hold Me Thrill Me and Ground Beneath Her Feet, I'm not sure if those are fair. Hold Me already existed and had been cut from a previous album and was sitting in a no man's land waiting for the right medium. Batman just happened to work. And Ground was a partnership with Rushdie. It's going to have a different feel with someone else writing the lyrics, naturally. I get the impression Ordinary Love was written specifically for this film- of course, we don't know for sure, parts are probably taken from other songs here and there.

Overall it's a decent song, but I'm not judging the forthcoming album by it. It's good to have them back in whatever form.

 

[LadySpinHead]

^ aaaand that should have gone in the Ordinary Love thread. that's what I get for posting before coffee.

 

[mama cass]

Some posts on this forum just help to suck any excitement out of anything new the band does

just ignore them... nothing they can say will wipe the massive inane happy grin off my face when i listen to the song

 

[ascender_RS]

There's definite throwbacks to the UF era both in guitars and vocals, phrasing. And now we've heard it in decent quality, they've definitely held back where on the last few albums the temptation would have been going in to overdrive and turning everything up to 11. That plus the crisp, fresh sound to the mix and the drums in particular I'm guessing are a sign of Dangermouse's influence?

 

[mama cass]

There's definite throwbacks to the UF era both in guitars and vocals, phrasing. And now we've heard it in decent quality, they've definitely held back where on the last few albums the temptation would have been going in to overdrive and turning everything up to 11. That plus the crisp, fresh sound to the mix and the drums in particular I'm guessing are a sign of Dangermouse's influence?

yeah it's gorgeous, it's got all the right ingredients, beautiful melody and instrumentation, nice and understated, and i love all the contrasts, the highs and lows, quiet/loud moments, lovely little subtle musical touches, and B-man's singing is really beautiful... it's perfect

 

[standrums]

just heard it on the radio (XFM in the UK) in the hairdressers at lunchtime which was a pleasant surprise

 

[PhilsFan]

Why should they need to challange themselves now though?, surely they should just be doing what they want at this stage in their lives?

I never said they need to challenge themselves, though. All I said was that some fans might prefer those times when U2 are challenging themselves.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

That's the risk of going to a fan board.

this is a fan board?

I thought it was a hook-up place like e*harmony or grindr

 

[Registered Dude]

this is a fan board?

I thought it was a hook-up place like e*harmony or grindr

we didnt want to say anything... you seemed so innocent..

 

[last unicorn]

Someone on another U2 forum said that one thing they appreciate about U2 is their versatility and how many different kinds of songs they can do. It's not like you have to embrace every single thing they're doing musically, but I decided to simply appreciate them as the band they are and for the music they make. There's something for everyone, which is a good thing. On the other hand, it's difficult to please everyone because they also have a very heterogenous fanbase since the band has had such a long history and went into so many different styles. They will never be able to make new music that every fan finds great because everyone has different expectations.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

we didnt want to say anything... you seemed so innocent..

 

[BVS]

This is great, I've never seen this bashing strategy of a blind sheep to a dissatisfied fan. So now the new strategy is "justify your dissatisfaction by explaining that or making comparisons with the other artists you like".

Awesome!

Yeah, that's exactly what I did...

Why don't you stick to talking about "artistic integrity" and Madonna.

 

[mikal]

this is a fan board?

I thought it was a hook-up place like e*harmony or grindr

I've always looked at it more of a mix of Christian Mingle and Questchat.

 

[BVS]

Why does The National need to have given The Fly for him to like them more than U2? He was making two separate points.

(And The National has been better than U2 since Sad Songs for Dirty Lovers, and has been my favorite band over U2 for over three years. It's not outrageous for him to think so.)

The National is a band I really like, but I think they've cranked out their sound now for several albums. Yet I see people on here say they want U2 to "reinvent" themselves every time another album comes out. It doesn't make any sense to me. U2 have successfully reinvented themselves at least twice in their career, some bands do it once, most never do. So it seems silly to me to bitch about how a band in their 50s isn't reinventing themselves yet they're happy with new young bands making their same sound over and over.

 

[YBORCITY]

You guys turned me on to The National a while back really cool band, as for the song I guess I'm okay with it. I'm NOT going to read into it that much because it is for a soundtrack but I do like some things in it. There's a point of the song that brings my ear back to TUF which I find pretty neat. I certainly am much happier with this song than I was with GOYB but I wouldn't say it's earth shatteringly good either. I'm not over thinking that this will be indicative of the tunes on the new album.

 

[Aygo]

Yeah, that's exactly what I did...

Why don't you stick to talking about "artistic integrity" and Madonna.

Because I apply the same criticism to both acts and despite having been talking about her due to the career similarities, thankfully, I have other artists that I love and, even though that's bizarre to you, I do not search the same on them that I eventually search or appreciate on U2 or even Madonna.

But there's one thing you're right at: no matter which artist I appreciate, if there's something that I really value is the ability of having that artistic integrity and a creative vision, and most of all not losing it even if having to fulfill other necessary requirements such as commercial sucess or artistic relevancy (which is different than mediatic relevancy, and I'm afraid that for U2, today, both mean the same).

 

[U2girl]

Don't Coldplay sound like U2?

And vice versa with Ordinary love.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

And vice versa with Ordinary love.

I don't agree

 

[iron yuppie]

The National is a band I really like, but I think they've cranked out their sound now for several albums. Yet I see people on here say they want U2 to "reinvent" themselves every time another album comes out. It doesn't make any sense to me. U2 have successfully reinvented themselves at least twice in their career, some bands do it once, most never do. So it seems silly to me to bitch about how a band in their 50s isn't reinventing themselves yet they're happy with new young bands making their same sound over and over.

The thing about The National is Matt almost always has something insightful or witty to say, whereas Bono hasn't in at least 15 years. Diversity in songs isn't just about instrumentation.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

This place could seriously kill even the most enthusiastic of person excitement with some of the posts

 

[PhilsFan]

This place could seriously kill even the most enthusiastic of person excitement with some of the posts

Why does this place influence your level of excitement?

 

[doctorwho]

I can't believe how worked-up YOU get over someone elses opinion. Some people (including myself) don't like the song. What's the big deal? You and many others do like the song. That's fine. I don't sleep any worse because of a mediocre U2 song. Apparently you're the one who gets quite emotional over this issue c.q. people's opinion on an internet forum.

Agreed with your last alinea.

I think sometimes people have a listen and immediately love/hate a song.

I have found that when I immediately love a song - by any artist - often it wears on me quickly. There are always exceptions, of course, but often a few months later, I really am tired of the song that I immediately loved. Years later, I don't even want to hear it.

In contrast, songs that don't catch my attention at first, may do so upon subsequent listens. "Ordinary Love" is like that. At first, it seemed throwaway - just some simple, slow track U2 created for the movie. However, after a few listens, I find myself appreciating the song.

While this tune will never rank amongst my favorite U2 tracks, I think the point is for people to slow down and give the song a chance. Upon your first listen, you may hate it. But a second, third, fourth listen may help you realize this is quite a good song.

It's the expectations vs. reality that we have to overcome. After nearly 5 years with no new U2, this song wasn't what many expected. We have to overcome those expectations to appreciate something.

After 3-5 listens you still hate it, then so be it. I won't care. All I ask is that you give the music a chance.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Why does this place influence your level of excitement?

Because it's been a day since it was released and the negativity is already starting to kick in

 

[mikal]

The thing about The National is Matt almost always has something insightful or witty to say, whereas Bono hasn't in at least 15 years. Diversity in songs isn't just about instrumentation.

I'd personally take less quality lyrics for better vocal performance, but I do agree that Matt wins in the lyric department any day.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The national sound like coldplay. Everyone sounds like coldplay. Except coldplay. They sound like u2

 

[Vlaco]

I think sometimes people have a listen and immediately love/hate a song.

I have found that when I immediately love a song - by any artist - often it wears on me quickly. There are always exceptions, of course, but often a few months later, I really am tired of the song that I immediately loved. Years later, I don't even want to hear it.

In contrast, songs that don't catch my attention at first, may do so upon subsequent listens. "Ordinary Love" is like that. At first, it seemed throwaway - just some simple, slow track U2 created for the movie. However, after a few listens, I find myself appreciating the song.

While this tune will never rank amongst my favorite U2 tracks, I think the point is for people to slow down and give the song a chance. Upon your first listen, you may hate it. But a second, third, fourth listen may help you realize this is quite a good song.

It's the expectations vs. reality that we have to overcome. After nearly 5 years with no new U2, this song wasn't what many of expected. We have to overcome these expectations to appreciate something.

After 3-5 listens you still hate it, then so be it. I won't care. All I ask is that you give the music a chance.

Good post and I agree with you on most part. There are some U2 songs I wasn't that keen on when I first heard them and that I do love now....but 90% of the time those were totally opposite of Ordinary Love. Those were 'challenging' songs, not very easy listeners. I rank some of them as favourite by now. However, Ordinary Love is just not the type of song I like when it comes down to U2. I listened about 10 times and it's still as boring as the first time, I'll try it again within a few days, but I know the answer already....

 

[iota]

I think it's their best single since Beautiful Day. The mix is understated and complex...and it FLOWS as a song. It doesn't feel like a desperate attempt at a hit...but it could be a hit. The more I listen, the more I appreciate it.

 

[mikal]

The national sound like coldplay. Everyone sounds like coldplay. Except coldplay. They sound like u2

I once saw someone at Atease (yes, I visit there every once in a while) call The National the "Barritone Coldplay". I LOL'd.

 

[doctorwho]

I'd personally take less quality lyrics for better vocal performance, but I do agree that Matt wins in the lyric department any day.

He would if I had any idea what he was singing or what he was singing about. I find that he tends to mumble through songs (similar to early Stipe, IMO - I hear and don't hear him at the same time) and I have no idea what his songs mean. Now, that may be great for some as it could mean anything, but this extreme ambiguity is a cop-out, IMO.

While Bono has some brilliant lyrics on the past few albums, I will agree that his absolute best was in the UF through Pop era (with some exceptions). But I always find that there's nothing wrong with just a fun rock/pop tune either. Why does everything have to be so majestic?

 

[PhilsFan]

Because it's been a day since it was released and the negativity is already starting to kick in

Yeah, but why should you care at all how other people feel?