New U2 Album Discussion (alt title: Lose Your Will To Live Here)

[Chill Mike D]

Here's the alternate lyric...


1st verse) 18th of July on the banks of a not well-known river, I started a journey to where I am now. Troublesome, troublemaker, guided by the drums of my creator towards a rhythm, a rhyme, a melody line of a song called freedom, which once heard will never leave your head. Rolihlahla, on a day like this, it’s love that gives us courage to resist.

(chorus) Agape love forged like steel in the fire. Agape love like a whisper that calls us to walk out into the street with your arms out and the people you meet are neither down nor out, hey there is nothing you have that I need. I can breathe. I can breathe.

(2nd verse) All those who stand together, fist in air, now know this – that real division is not a scar on the land, but in the hearts of every man who began as a kiss not to resist, and not a fist. Now an open hand, an open face, an open page where history might rewrite its rage.

(chorus) Agape love forged like steel in the fire. Agape love whispering to us to walk out into the street, sing your hearts out to the people you meet, neither down nor out, hey there is nothing you have that I need. I can breathe, I can breathe.

Glad to see them use the alternate lines on the album.

No kidding. Those lyrics are awful.

 

[Hollow Island]

No one is getting upset about criticism, but some may get upset about shitty juvenile ramblings that basically just superimpose your opinions on to the band. If you thought your "criticisms" out a little more you probably wouldn't be getting so much flack, but if you continue with "U2 are trying to be Brittney and they should be like Radiohead" arguments then you're going to get what you deserve...

Please explain what's juvenile about my ramblings? What have I not thought about? And would you prefer that they make music for sake of making good music, or be an old band chasing the top of the charts with current hot producers with absolutely no artistic merit (DM excluded)?

 

[BVS]

Please explain what's juvenile about my ramblings? What have I not thought about? And would you prefer that they make music for sake of making good music, or be an old band chasing the top of the charts with current hot producers with absolutely no artistic merit (DM excluded)?

Comparing U2 to Brit = juvenile and lazy.

Your Radiohead comparisons not well thought out at all, these two bands have two completely different audiences distribution would be a nightmare.

Can one not make music for the sake of good music and still want a hit? This "one way or another" mentality is just plain stupid. No band that has had success has ever followed this mentality.

 

[super fly guy]

Why all of a sudden have radiohead got anything to do with U2.i thought it was Coldplay that were there rivals??

 

[Earnie Shavers]

There are always stupid comments going both ways whenever anything like this is brought up. Especially so when its Radiohead related.

Radiohead ditched EMI for specific relationship-gone-ugly reasons, which happens, but they didn’t pick up with another major label for more general reasons: They’ve never really played that game properly. Didn’t see the major label promotion/marketing machine as being what they wanted or needed. Didn’t like the commitment those deals create (didn’t like the idea of signing, say, a five album deal which pretty much locks their future in, over basically ‘owning’ their own future in whatever form it organicaly takes.) And mix that with the digital age, and a keen awareness of their own demographic/market/fanbase - generally more intelligent and more digital-leaning than the average – meaning less of a need for the huge global distribution infrastructure, but also says a lot about their communication and advertising/promotional needs. Things like that.

And it was not really a protest thing, certainly not a money thing, and pretty much entirely just an acceptance that the ‘major label’ model didn’t match theirs, and they’d reached a time when it was completely viable for them to just pass on it. They can do it on their own, so they do it on their own.

U2 are very different. They do play that game, very much so. The major label marketing machine is something they do want and need. They do want to aggressively push and sell. They don’t have the same sort of demographic base – too big and too wide, and probably more to the point, they don’t consider anything to be ‘base’ – to easily communicate with, they need big advertising and promotion, in various forms. U2 are pretty much the definition of band-as-corporation. And that’s not meant to be a slur, it is what it is. It is what they are.

I think most people here who mention Radiohead when discussing their hopes for U2 don’t actually mean that they think U2 should absolutely imitate Radiohead. They’re different bands, different people, different ethos from top to bottom. Different goals, different market. U2 could never be Radiohead, and Radiohead could never be U2. Its not just how they do it, its why they do it. For both bands it would require a wholesale change in the foundations of why they do what they do.

I think what they really mean is that they’d like to see a little less of the pure, naked ambition from U2. When it seems to roll over absolutely everything, it can be hard to take. And whether you believe that U2 have become more superficially ambitious over the past decade or not, they certainly have become more nakedly ambitious during that time.

People need to be less jumpy about this shit. It’s legitimate, if not always effectively communicated.

 

[nielsgov]

Great post Earnie.
Now let's hope that this thread will be about Radiohead U2 again.

 

[super fly guy]

One day i will come on here and there will be NEWS!!

 

[Chill Mike D]

I agree with Earnie. I think people want the excitement and unpredictability of them making art for art's sake, as opposed to art as means to some end, i.e. singles charts or butts-in-seats at concerts.

 

[super fly guy]

Cant they have both,good music and a hit? If anyone can U2 can.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Great post Earnie.
Now let's hope that this thread will be about Radiohead U2 again.

Or just learn how to read through things.

"More like Radiohead" does not mean ditching Universal and ditching all overt commercial ambition (because Radiohead are subtly commercially ambitious - don't think that "Ha ha! Album in 5 DAYS kids!" is anything other than clever promotion) and becoming poster boys for artistically and creatively pure blah blah blah. It just means that whoever says that would very much like to see U2 retreat a few degrees back from their extreme opposite-end-of-the-spectrum position, where they get the sense that commercial goals over ride absolutely everything else, and that the real problem is that they suspect that the music is suffering as a result. And the music is a pretty important part of it, no?

There's nothing wrong with people wanting to express that, or even try and, you know, discuss it, but if people either deliberately bring it up in a provocative or dumb way, or other people instantly just leap up and scream murder everytime 'Radiohead' appears in a post, possibly without actually reading said post, that's... shit.

 

[Marien]

I agree with Earnie. I think people want the excitement and unpredictability of them making art for art's sake, as opposed to art as means to some end, i.e. singles charts or butts-in-seats at concerts.

I like Earnie's post, he explains it quite well and logically, the only thing is that some people want U2 go that way and some people don't, including the band in this last case.

In the fans side I don't think it is right or wrong in this, they are different opinions and nobody should want to impose theirs upon the others' or do value judgements on the others.

 

[Hollow Island]

Comparing U2 to Brit = juvenile and lazy.

Your Radiohead comparisons not well thought out at all, these two bands have two completely different audiences distribution would be a nightmare.

Can one not make music for the sake of good music and still want a hit? This "one way or another" mentality is just plain stupid. No band that has had success has ever followed this mentality.

Brit/U2: the comprarison is valid because both turn to "hot" producers in the hopes of getting a hit. For U2, it's a new thing, and fucking shameful that they work with that idiot pimp William. But there is no difference between their approach now.

Radiohead comparison is totally valid too. Different audiences so distribution would be a nightmare? Last I checked, Radiohead make their music available in the exact same way as U2: online and in stores! And both have massive, diverse audiences.

As for the "hit" thing, OF COURSE one can have it both ways! U2 used to do that but now they chase them, which is my main point. What's juvenile is that you criticise me w/o reading what I say.

 

[Chill Mike D]

Cant they have both,good music and a hit? If anyone can U2 can.

Yeah, they certainly can, the thing is that there is no way to somehow divine what will be a hit. The World is fickle. Moby-Dick was not well-received in Melville's lifetime, and yet now it's known to be one of the best things written in the English language, if not the best.

The point of that example being that anyone doing anything creative has no control over how their work is going to be received. They just need to make it and hope for the best, because whether or not it becomes a hit is not up to them.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I agree with Earnie. I think people want the excitement and unpredictability of them making art for art's sake, as opposed to art as means to some end, i.e. singles charts or butts-in-seats at concerts.

Yes. Exactly. Those that think something at the core has changed a bit, want to see it changed back. And those people will generally be on the, for lack of a better expression, 'Radiohead-fan' end of the fanbase, so it's easy code. More like Radiohead.

And the argument is often something like this:

1) U2 are far more superficially ambitious now (00s) than they have ever been before. It's different. I don't like it. It's fucking shit up.

2) No, they've always been this superficially ambitious, they are just more overt about it now. They just talk more openly about it, but they've always wanted the widest reach and the biggest hits. (Links to some quote from a 1986 Rolling Stone article.)

3) Sure, so then maybe just because of either age or time or inspiration or something, they're just not as good at it. All this second guessing and compromise and stress. The commercial ambitions were formally more organically interwoven with the creative purity. The 'hits' were a different kind of thing. These days, they all sound deliberate and forced and out of step with perhaps where they were heading naturally and it seems to infect everything else.

4) Come on! Vertigo is AWESOME!

 

[super fly guy]

Yeah, they certainly can, the thing is that there is no way to somehow divine what will be a hit. The World is fickle. Moby-Dick was not well-received in Melville's lifetime, and yet now it's known to be one of the best things written in the English language, if not the best.

The point of that example being that anyone doing anything creative has no control over how their work is going to be received. They just need to make it and hope for the best, because whether or not it becomes a hit is not up to them.

Exactly,they might think its awesome but if people dont buy it what can they do?

I for one love the whole of no line,im not bothered that it didnt sell as much as the JT or even HTDAAB.

 

[BVS]

Brit/U2: the comprarison is valid because both turn to "hot" producers in the hopes of getting a hit. For U2, it's a new thing, and fucking shameful that they work with that idiot pimp William. But there is no difference between their approach now.

If you don't see the difference then there really is no talking to you. You don't have the capacity to have this discussion.

See ya

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I'm not sure which would be worse.

U2 end up working with Will.i.Am/RedOne/David Guetta as a naked, obvious, cheap hit grab.

-or-

U2 end up working with Will.i.Am/RedOne/David Guetta because they sincerely think they are the great or cutting edge electro/club artists of the day.

 

[Chill Mike D]

I think the second would be worse. It's better to at least be self-aware.

 

[Salome]

one could make the argument U2 do make art for the sake of art
it's just that for them 'the art' includes the observer
both the artist and the observer are part of it, not just the artist
esp lyrically Bono is moving more & more towards communicating with the listener, trying to create a whole story, not just one part or one facet
that's why Boots and Crazy Tonight have to be part of No Line next to Moment of Surrender and Unknown Caller

simplifying U2's output 00 and onwards in summary as merely 'more openly ambitious' would be about the same as claiming Radiohead only record a new album nowadays after deciding on a new release promotion stunt

 

[LemonMelon]

RadioHead must suck because no one has ever bought their albums. So they release them online.

25 million sold, not counting In Rainbows or King of Limbs.

And that's with as a lead singer.

 

[Hollow Island]

If you don't see the difference then there really is no talking to you. You don't have the capacity to have this discussion.

See ya

Illuminate me. What is the difference? Their choices and motivation seem to be the same. What am I not understanding?

 

[Hollow Island]

I'm not sure which would be worse.

U2 end up working with Will.i.Am/RedOne/David Guetta as a naked, obvious, cheap hit grab.

-or-

U2 end up working with Will.i.Am/RedOne/David Guetta because they sincerely think they are the great or cutting edge electro/club artists of the day.

Oh, the possibility of the latter being true chills my soul...it can't be...

 

[BVS]

Illuminate me. What is the difference? Their choices and motivation seem to be the same. What am I not understanding?

How many song idea does Brit come into the studio with? How many songs do you think she has any kind of input in?

Maybe you should think about how U2 and Brit would work with a producer a little before typing.

Do you really think U2 are going to walk into a studio with the tracks laid out and just sing over them? Is this your fear? Is this the reason for your trolling?

 

[Hollow Island]

How many song idea does Brit come into the studio with? How many songs do you think she has any kind of input in?

Maybe you should think about how U2 and Brit would work with a producer a little before typing.

Do you really think U2 are going to walk into a studio with the tracks laid out and just sing over them? Is this your fear? Is this the reason for your trolling?

Well, on No Line U2 shared songwriting credits with the producers, and so does Britney...and Eno, Lanois, Flood, and Howie B have prepared tracks for U2...who's to say William?Guetta/RedOne (should be fuckin red man!) won't do the same? Not that I have any fears about what they do because, unlike you, I don't think I'm in the band!

Are U2 not working with the biggest club producers because they want a hit? Isn't this what Britney does? You deflected my question of motivation to bring up irrelevant points about song composition.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Between this and waiting for the carmelo anthony trade to happen I think my head might explode

 

[corianderstem]

I love that the conversation has now expanded to include Britney Spears.

Don't hold it against me, ya'll.

 

[Hollow Island]

I love that the conversation has now expanded to include Britney Spears.

Don't hold it against me, ya'll.

I think that what you raised Buster to be demands that EVERYTHING be held against you!

 

[corianderstem]

Everyone's laughing, and riding, and cornholing except Buster Bono.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

Between this and waiting for the carmelo anthony trade to happen I think my head might explode

He's going to NY?

 

[ramblin rose]

Does anyone want to start a discussing Achtung Baby?