October did not fail because of the music, it failed because....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

allbecauseofu2

Refugee
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,258
we got a pretty intense pop thread on here. but that made me relize something.


my qustion is, has anyone ever stood up for october the way people stand up for pop? lol (im guity of not giving attention to oct myself). i mean the band can slag pop all they want, at least pop will make it and has to future setlists. they don;t even acknowledge october. they put one song from october as HIDDEN TRACK on the best of. how about a instead of pop vs ATYCLB, we have pop vs october. if pop is the red headed stepchild, then whats october? lol. why didn't they put new mixes of october on a best of? they didn't wanna even bother with it. instead of starting a new thread, how you guys feel about pop vs october. cause pop is getting treated like its the lowpoint of thier career, but what about october? should they put new mixes of october out? i think thiers some strong stuff on october like fire that u2 should bring back. so take this discussion on pop and apply toward october. two of u2's lowest sellers ( right? anyone got the actuly numbers?) pop is cristicized, october is just out right ignorned. it;s not even worth slaging apprently.
 
Despite being a sensational album featuring wonderful songs like Gloria, Fire, Tomorrow, October, and Scarlet, October is seen as the bastard child everyone would rather forget. I don't understand why. It's such a wonderful album.
 
They don't play any songs from October because, I believe, Bono doesn't like the lyrics on it...if you remember he lost the notebook they were in and had improvise the whole thing from memory. He probably remembers what it could have been and that makes him dislike what it is.

But I do think it's brilliant. At the moment I like it the most out of the first three records.
 
October is great! It's a record with passion, energy and faith of course. Why does it not get dissed as much Pop? Cos it's so far back in time, that's why! I'm sure at least some of the people arguing about Pop don't even know about October.
 
I like October. Always have. In fact I think sometimes U2 could benefit by tossing all their planned material aside and just "making up the songs as they go" (for an album). They'd probably get crucified for it, but I'd love to see what they'd come up with if they went to the studio for just one month without any songs pre-planned or re-worked, previously unreleased older material.
 
indra said:
I like October. Always have. In fact I think sometimes U2 could benefit by tossing all their planned material aside and just "making up the songs as they go" (for an album). They'd probably get crucified for it, but I'd love to see what they'd come up with if they went to the studio for just one month without any songs pre-planned or re-worked, previously unreleased older material.

That's pretty much what they did in the late 80s and bulk of the 90s. When ATYCLB was released, I remember reading quotes from Bono about how that was the first time ever that U2 had written all the songs before going into the studio.
 
You know, one of the albums HAS to be the weakest. That's just the way it is. While U2 may not have any BAD albums, one is just going to be behind the rest of the pack

The reason why it's easy to point to October is because it's very similar to Boy, but is missing some of the energy of the debut album. It's not a rare thing. A lot of bands have been waiting their whole lives to release their first album, and it's usually a call to arms. Boy is no different. Compared to something like Guns 'n' Roses' Appetite for Destruction or R.E.M.'s Murmur it isn't a superlative debut record, but it's still very good.

October isn't different enough from its predecessor to make a stronger impression, and on a song by song basis it's slightly weaker by comparison. They try a couple new things but there's not a marked artistic growth there.

While you could say similar things about War, Sunday Bloody Sunday and New Year's Day are clearly giant steps up in terms of songwriting and musicianship. While the album has a couple clunkers on it, the sheer power of the band sounds much increased. So it doesn't surprise me that many people like this the best of the first three.

October has a lot of champions who talk about its greatness, but frankly those people are a minority. I don't remember which album was voted off first in the last albums poll, but I'm pretty sure this was gone right after Passengers and Under a Blood Red Sky (which shouldn't have been on the list anyway).

I'd say Bravo to U2 for having their weakest album that far back in their catalog. Many other bands have big missteps later in their careers.


laz
 
Bono even said that he was disappointed with October because he lost the briefcase of lyrics before it came out and he had to come up with new stuff in a hurry.
 
I think October is far better than Pop, despite the fact that October was probably more unfinished than Pop was (what with Bono losing his lyrics, and all). There's just something so...I don't know, desolate about the album that I just love. It's very moving and emotional. I prepared myself for the worst when I originally bought it, because fans in countless U2 forums slag it off repeatedly. I was so pleasantly surprised when I listened to it for the first time. For me, it's far easier to connect with October than it is to connect with Pop. If I were to compare the songs from both albums, based upon preference, this is how it would go:

Gloria
Do You Feel Loved?
I Threw A Brick Through A Window
Rejoice
Staring At The Sun
Tomorrow
Gone
With A Shout
Stranger In A Strange Land
Scarlet
Please

(I'll exclude Wake Up Dead Man)

October is a brilliant album, in my opinion, so I find it rather difficult to see why so many people ignore it completely.
 
the problem with october was the hair. seriously. bad hair. and not enough singles and marketing. not enough giant lemon shaped spaceships. AND no BOOM-CHAs. no enormous video screens either. also, the lyrics just arent as sexy as anything on pop.

'with my nails under your hide' :wink:
 
so how about some new mixes for october? or even new lyrics? tommoro has long been blasted for getting aggresive halfway throguh the song for no reason. making rookie mistakes.
 
allbecauseofu2 said:
we got a pretty intense pop thread on here. but that made me relize something.


my qustion is, has anyone ever stood up for october the way people stand up for pop? lol (im guity of not giving attention to oct myself). i mean the band can slag pop all they want, at least pop will make it and has to future setlists. they don;t even acknowledge october. they put one song from october as HIDDEN TRACK on the best of. how about a instead of pop vs ATYCLB, we have pop vs october. if pop is the red headed stepchild, then whats october? lol. why didn't they put new mixes of october on a best of? they didn't wanna even bother with it. instead of starting a new thread, how you guys feel about pop vs october. cause pop is getting treated like its the lowpoint of thier career, but what about october? should they put new mixes of october out? i think thiers some strong stuff on october like fire that u2 should bring back. so take this discussion on pop and apply toward october. two of u2's lowest sellers ( right? anyone got the actuly numbers?) pop is cristicized, october is just out right ignorned. it;s not even worth slaging apprently.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure October failed because of the music.

Although it's a tad hard to fail when you haven't even had success yet. Outside of Ireland and parts of England, U2 were being played on college radio stations. They didn't have very big exposure. But also:

October sucks.







-Miggy D

:wink:
 
Re: Re: October did not fail because of the music, it failed because....

Miggy D said:


October sucks.

-Miggy D

:wink:

I can see an impending stampede... an army of October fanatics coming your way.
 
Re: Re: Re: October did not fail because of the music, it failed because....

Zootlesque said:


I can see an impending stampede... an army of October fanatics coming your way.

Bring 'em on! I was born in October, so I speak with authority.

Bring it on, ya' bastards!

-Miggy 'October Sucks A Lot And No One Likes It Except People Who Have No Musical Taste Whatsover And Like Listening To The Banging Of Pots And Nails Scratching Against Chalkboards And Babies Crying' D

:wink:
 
October is my fav album, It has really good songs on it such as Gloria, I fall down, I threw a brick through a window, Fire,Tomorrow and october. This is u2's best album.
 
is that all? was track not realy needed. i like fire and gloria alot. and they havn;t played anything from it since the 80's. as far as i know. i thoguht the only chance you have is october track itself being played, into new years day. as far as being played in 2005.
 
October sucked like a Dyson.

There's always gonna be someone mad enough to campaign on its behalf.

If Bono farted, there's gonna be someone here who says it's their best work.
 
I think I'd be right in saying October is one of their shortest albums in terms of actual length, possibly the shortest. Some of the songs stand up well 24 years later (I did a double take writing that - hard to believe U2 have been going a quarter century), but frankly it's not in the league of Actung Baby, Joshua Tree or Unforgettable Fire. Would be nice to hear some of the songs live again though!
 
Last edited:
October is worse than Boy.

And when you play it today, it sounds extremely dated, whereas a number (not all) of other U2 albums are able to transcend the period of time in which they were recorded and thus have that timeless quality about them.
 
Would some of you mind telling us all why you think October sucks, instead of simply stating it as "fact" without backing it up? Bono's lyrics may not be the best on it, but considering the circumstances, I think they're forgivable. There are a lot of songwriters out there who couldn't do any better, even without getting their lyrics stolen. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with the musical side of October, in my opinion. Hell, Larry does some of his finest work in Rejoice! The Edge even did some of that good ol' experimentation that everyone here seems to enjoy so much - there wasn't hardly as much piano work done in Boy as there was in October.

And please, don't give me any of that "blind follower" shit, because it's a load of utter nonsense. The thing I hate most about Interference is the fact that there are certain members around here who seem to think it's automatically uncool to find something to like in all of U2's work. The fact that I like October, ATYCLB, and HTDAAB doesn't make me a sheep. Music is subjective. I don't go around telling other fans that I think they must be going deaf to actually like something as bad as the album version of Miami. To do so would be in poor taste. I think everyone's entitled to like whatever they like. But I don't think it's alright to completely and utterly belittle a person because they just so happen to like something that you think is crap. It's juvenile.
 
October is the best of the first three records.

Gloria
I Fall Down
Fire
Tomorrow
October
With A Shout
Scarlet

All songs I would put on any early 80s U2 compilation. Fire especially is an amazing song, and Gloria is unfairly maligned by band and fans alike.

I've REALLY gotten into this record lately. There is a passion in this record that I love.

1)AB
2)Pop
3)JT
4)Zooropa/October
 
GibsonGirl said:


And please, don't give me any of that "blind follower" shit, because it's a load of utter nonsense. The thing I hate most about Interference is the fact that there are certain members around here who seem to think it's automatically uncool to find something to like in all of U2's work. The fact that I like October, ATYCLB, and HTDAAB doesn't make me a sheep. Music is subjective.

You know, music IS subjective, but then what's the point of discussing the music at all here if we're going to stop at that thought?

The people who think October is the best album, or that it's brilliant are either doing so because they want to seem different and cooler than the average U2 fan, or have a really fucked up taste in music. It's pretty simple. With all that U2 has accomplished over their careers, you think that's their goddamned pinnacle? That's pathetic. If you told the band members that they'd probably roll their eyes. It's not about defending their most recent material, because Bono himself basically said Achtung was their finest LP.

Everyone has their own tastes, but why are you on this forum if you think October was the best they could come up with? Anyone can prefer a set of songs over another, but there is NO ARGUING that the band have GREATLY improved as musicians since October, and have become more sophisticated in their songwriting. The layers found in the recordings from Unforgettable Fire onward are things they couldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole back in 1981. They have become more ambitious. They have stretched the artistic boundaries of rock music.

I really can't believe we're having this argument. As someone said before, there's always some lunatics that are going to defend ANYTHING as the best. But you're going to find fewer die-hard believers in October than for any other album.


laz
 
lazarus said:


It's not about defending their most recent material, because Bono himself basically said Achtung was their finest LP.

Yeah, he said that in the Irish Times interview around Christmas, when asked by the interviewer what was U2's best album, he replied Achtung Baby, on the basis that he felt it was the most complete album.

I have to say personally I prefer Joshua Tree, I think Achtung Baby has dated just a small bit. But that's just a personal opinion, next year I'll probably say I prefer Achtung Baby!
 
No album I've ever seen, by U2 or anyone else, brings out such strong feelings in fans. With most bands, you eitherl like or don't like an album, so what, you like others, whatever. But with Pop it's some kind of crime not to like it, and you get accused of all kinds of things and people try to come up with all kinds of excuses why it didn't do so well, none of them the fault of the band or the music of course, blaming it all on fans who were too dumb to see the genius :yawn: :rolleyes: :tsk:

This doesn't happen with anything else. It's weird.
 
Does October have any standout tracks like the other early albums? IMO, I don't see an I Will Follow, Sunday Bloody Sunday or New Year's Day. No matter how good October or Tomorrow are, they don't stack up to those 3. It's a solid album, just doesn't have a real standout track, and I feel kind of the same way with Pop, no true clear fave.
 
lazarus said:


You know, music IS subjective, but then what's the point of discussing the music at all here if we're going to stop at that thought?

The people who think October is the best album, or that it's brilliant are either doing so because they want to seem different and cooler than the average U2 fan, or have a really fucked up taste in music. It's pretty simple. With all that U2 has accomplished over their careers, you think that's their goddamned pinnacle? That's pathetic. If you told the band members that they'd probably roll their eyes. It's not about defending their most recent material, because Bono himself basically said Achtung was their finest LP.

Everyone has their own tastes, but why are you on this forum if you think October was the best they could come up with? Anyone can prefer a set of songs over another, but there is NO ARGUING that the band have GREATLY improved as musicians since October, and have become more sophisticated in their songwriting. The layers found in the recordings from Unforgettable Fire onward are things they couldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole back in 1981. They have become more ambitious. They have stretched the artistic boundaries of rock music.

I really can't believe we're having this argument. As someone said before, there's always some lunatics that are going to defend ANYTHING as the best. But you're going to find fewer die-hard believers in October than for any other album.


laz

How in the name of the good Lord did you come up with that, based upon what I wrote? In no shape or form did I EVER say that October was U2's best album. My favourite U2 album, depending on my mood, is either The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby. I'm not bloody deaf, for goodness' sake! I'm only defending October because I think there's some quality stuff on the album, and because I think it really isn't as crap as some people here at Interference and other U2 forums make it out to be. I don't like it because I think it's "cool" to like it (who the fuck with half a backbone does that anyway?) Of course U2 have improved drastically since October. One would have to be rather daft to think otherwise. However, that doesn't take away from the reality that October isn't all bad! I enjoy the album a lot, and am frankly sick and tired of seeing people constantly putting it down. And if that means I have a fucked up taste in music, well then so be it.

Honestly. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom