Question for 00's Bashers/90's Lovers...

[dan_smee]

You can design songs so they'll be a hit. Which is what U2 is doing these days.

Its true you can.

Thats why im such a famous musician, all the hits that i designed.

 

[Mr. V]

It is catchy, radio friendly pop that the band created to be a hit.

I don't know what they said exactly but they went from interesting lyrics to the most generic, constant-radio-play rocker you could imagine because it would sell records.

I'm not saying that at all. That's what the band seems to think though.

It's catchy, and it's radio friendly. So what? It's a fucking grandiose song. Who says they created it to be a hit? Again, they can't create something and then ensure it sells millions. It sells on its own merits, of which there were many.

I really like Vertigo, it rocks hard, and I personally think Native Son sucks ass and feels forced. I think some of the gloss came off it because it was so overplayed, and because the riff feels like it's been around forever.

I suppose you'd rather U2 released Elvis Ate America and DGPFYCC and 4th of July as lead singles because they wouldn't sell well. Do you have a fear of success or something?

I'm sorry, but U2 aren't an underground band anymore, they're the biggest band in the world and I'm sorry that you can't handle the idea of sharing them with everyone. I hope the next album turns you off so much that you stop listening to U2 and stop posting here.

 

[Mr. V]

You can design songs so they'll be a hit. Which is what U2 is doing these days.

You ignored the post you quoted. I said that you can't ensure that a song is a hit, because that is up to the general public, who buy songs according to their own tastes or because of the song's merits. In fact, designing songs that are made to appease the public often backfires as people can see through it.

 

[Screwtape2]

What was S. Thing turning into ? The Best of version and the original B-side sound almost exactly the same already.

Wave of sorrow actually is finished, they only added the lyrics. Again no hit there, and certainly no single.

I'd be ashamed for them if Always had made the album when it had the potential they realised in BD, and read again the reason why they re-wrote Native son, it wasn't about money.

How creative can you get with a Best of selection ? You put hits on it and a new song or two. They did that, and actually, Saints did better on radio airplay and charts so there goes your theory that WITS sold U218.

It was going into a funky, loose Trip Through Your Wires sort of thing.

But why go for the hit when you can do something creative instead? People were going to buy the Best of's anyways.

BD was turned into something that would sell. The same with Native Son. While they could have just improved upon them they instead turned them into first singles to make sure the albums sold.

If being on Interference has taught me anything, there are some creative things you could do with a best of. At the time, a lot of people were wishing for a live best of. That's just one idea. While WITS didn't sell U218, it sure as hell was meant to.

 

[dan_smee]

You ignored the post you quoted. I said that you can't ensure that a song is a hit, because that is up to the general public, who buy songs according to their own tastes or because of the song's merits. In fact, designing songs that are made to appease the public often backfires as people can see through it.

Mr V, Do you have my album? its called, massive hits by Dan

 

[Mr. V]

It was going into a funky, loose Trip Through Your Wires sort of thing.

But why go for the hit when you can do something creative instead? People were going to buy the Best of's anyways.

BD was turned into something that would sell. The same with Native Son. While they could have just improved upon them they instead turned them into first singles to make sure the albums sold.

If being on Interference has taught me anything, there are some creative things you could do with a best of. At the time, a lot of people were wishing for a live best of. That's just one idea. While WITS didn't sell U218, it sure as hell was meant to.

Please don't forget that Bono wrote the song as an apology to his wife for forgetting her birthday. It is a cheesy, adorable love song, exactly what it was in '87, exactly what it was upon re-release, and that's why I love it so much. You forget that songs mean certain things to the band, and that they made them, not you. If you want to discuss your dislike for the songs for what they are, feel free, but don't challenge their motives when you have no evidence, because you're basically insulting all the fans of these songs and albums for being sucked into commericalised crap.

 

[Screwtape2]

If you want to discuss your dislike for the songs for what they are, feel free, but don't challenge their motives when you have no evidence, because you're basically insulting all the fans of these songs and albums for being sucked into commericalised crap.

I have evidence but you are ignoring it. It isn't insulting anyone since it is the truth.

 

[Popmartijn]

Sweetest Thing was destined for more than being a simple pop song. Instead of doing something innovative with it they decided to make it generic pop that would make them lots of money.

OK... So if I understand your line of reasoning, it's this:
- Change a song and that song turns out to be successful = not creative, only done for the money
- Change a song and that song turns out to be failure = creative

 

[Mr. V]

I have evidence but you are ignoring it. It isn't insulting anyone since it is the truth.

Evidence please?

If its the same shit in this thread, don't piss and moan when people hate you for saying their favourite band are sellouts. You couldn't expect otherwise surely?

And yeah, feel free to ignore the first part of that post that destroys your Sweetest Argument.

 

[Screwtape2]

OK... So if I understand your line of reasoning, it's this:
- Change a song and that song turns out to be successful = not creative, only done for the money
- Change a song and that song turns out to be failure = creative

No.

They are changing a song for the sole purpose of having a hit that will sell records. They choose making a hit above trying to be creative.

 

[Screwtape2]

Evidence please?

If its the same shit in this thread, don't piss and moan when people hate you for saying their favourite band are sellouts. You couldn't expect otherwise surely?

And yeah, feel free to ignore the first part of that post that destroys your Sweetest Argument.

I have given you tons of evidence, already. Read back through the thread.

I don't like the word 'sellouts.' I do think the band has chosen being financially successful and being so popular above creativity. They aim for the simple not the creativity they are known for.

I know what the song is about that doesn't change that it was heading away from simple pop before the band wanted a hit.

 

[U2girl]

It was going into a funky, loose Trip Through Your Wires sort of thing.

But why go for the hit when you can do something creative instead? People were going to buy the Best of's anyways.

BD was turned into something that would sell. The same with Native Son. While they could have just improved upon them they instead turned them into first singles to make sure the albums sold.

If being on Interference has taught me anything, there are some creative things you could do with a best of. At the time, a lot of people were wishing for a live best of. That's just one idea. While WITS didn't sell U218, it sure as hell was meant to.

The official versions are the B-side and the Best of version. Both quite similar and nothing like Trip. If you mean that Youtube kittens video, that still sounds nothing like Trip. It's a demo, nothing more.

BD was an improvement over Always. While some prefer Native Son over Vertigo I always saw it as a clunky weak U2 goes political song. Vertigo is a far better single and a better live song (that is not to say it was the purpose of the song, read the quotes we have).

Live Best of and a "rest of the Best", yes. The former has many issues, to start with song selection and particular tour version to use. The latter, while more plausible, is still a hard task. How many songs to pick for a single disc selection, and which ones ?

 

[Mr. V]

I have given you tons of evidence, already. Read back through the thread.

Nah, alcohol has fucked up my brain enough already.

I don't like the word 'sellouts.' I do think the band has chosen being financially successful and being so popular above creativity. They aim for the simple not the creativity they are known for.

That's like saying 'I don't like ice cream. I do, however, enjoy frozen confection made from dairy products such as milk or cream, and assorted flavourings, sweeteners, and various other ingredients.'

I know what the song is about that doesn't change that it was heading away from simple pop before the band wanted a hit.

Yeah, but it was "simple pop" before, that's what you're ignoring. The changes from the '87 version to the Best Of version are so minimal, I can't understand how you think the song could have been anything else other that what it became, without the aid of a variety of hallucinogenics, or just general dumbassery

 

[Popmartijn]

No.

They are changing a song for the sole purpose of having a hit that will sell records. They choose making a hit above trying to be creative.

And how do you know that they were changing the songs (Beautiful Day, Vertigo, etc.) for the sole purpose of having a hit and not because they thought the demos weren't good enough? And why is it not creative creating a song that's a hit?

 

[intedomine]

Beautiful Day is one of the all-time great songs, it stands out on it's own. Sure it's accessible, but it's uniquely accessible. It's so contemporary yet timeless, yet no one else was writing songs like that. An extraordinary masterpiece.

It's better to write a hit that blows your mind, rather than be all pretentious and avant garde and just write songs that are trash and no one cares about.

Radiohead have written their fair share of trash y'know. I wouldn't call it safe or sell-out for U2 to try and write a song that sounds good. And avant garde stuff might be boring to play live.....

At the end of the day, more people are gonna wanna listen to ATYCLB than something like Amnesiac just 'cause the songs sound better to most people.....that's a key thing. There's usually a really good reason a song is a hit because it has something good-sounding about it.

 

[BVS]

Wow, I went to bed and there was one post, now I awake and 7 pages...

Of course most of it's filler.

Damnitt listen to me, I know all about music and the mindset of musicians, U2 suck.

 

[Bonochick]

We can do without the fighting and insults. People are of course going to have different opinions, so let's try to show a little more respect and maturity while discussing and debating.

 

[tomtom]

It's sad. This was actually an excellent topic, credit to the OP, that was then hijacked (not intentionally) by, as BVS put it, filler.

First of all - guys, I dont think there's any point arguing with Screwtape. Seems like talking to a brick wall. I dont mean that as an insult, but honestly, man, when you have essentially no one on your side, it should give you cause to re-examine your thinking. And this isn't the first time this has happened.

Going back to the original topic, I'm not altogether happy with the quality of U2's output post-2000, but I dont see it as "crap", either. There are a few standout songs (Kite, In a Little While, Stateless, TGBHF, Yahweh, Xanax/Fast Cars), quite a few decent songs, but overall, I feel the quality isn't up to the standards pre-2000. Few songs have the classic quality of their best work, where the songs actually sound better the more you listen to them - rather, its the opposite - they sounded fantastic to my ears for about a month, and then tailed off quite rapidly. What really bothers me above all, is the quality of Bono' lyrics (and sometimes the singing) - if the lyrics had been better, I think I'd be at least reasonably happy with the output of the band over the past 8 years - i.e. not JT/AB material, or even War/UF/Zooropa, but definitely third-tier R&H or maybe Pop. Which are high compliments since I still dig those albums. Yes, there have been some silly TV appearances and commercial deals of late which haven't exactly enthused me, but if the albums were great, then whatever. I really wouldnt care.

So the question is, if they put out something that was near the level of their best, would I just see these years as a blip on the radar? Well, yes. If you deliver the goods, you're back in the club. And to that extent I'd probably be inclined to be more generous to the last 2 albums as well, since if they werent to become representative of the band's sound/quality from then on, they would be documents of what the band was like at the time, for better or for worse, and I'm obsessed enough with U2 to like listening to even to what I consider to be their sub-par stuff. But I dont think I'm ever going to be of the view that these were "interesting detours" or "sidesteps". In my world, they are either reflective of a long-term decline in U2's artistry, or temporary mediocrity. On the whole (and it must be stressed again, there are notable exceptions), they just dont stack up to previous efforts, and they likely never will. So blow my mind again, U2, in the way only you can.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

First of all - guys, I dont think there's any point arguing with Screwtape. Seems like talking to a brick wall. I dont mean that as an insult, but honestly, man, when you have essentially no one on your side, it should give you cause to re-examine your thinking. And this isn't the first time this has happened.

You win a

 

[u2search]

I've always seen (heard?) the last two albums as just one type of music they're capable of making. Neither better nor worse, just different.

 

[Zoots]

Screwtape, I have an honest question for you. When did you get into U2? What year? What era?

 

[A stor]

I am more of the eighties lover. It is still my favorite decade of U2's music. Probably, because of my age.

The first time, I heard of U2, was when they appeared on the Tom Synder show. Then, a few years later, War. I was hooked. AB is a great album. Creative and experimental. In my list of top five. I also like, ATYCLB. But, I have to say. I am not a fan of the Bomb. Just my two cents.

 

[MrPryck2U]

I'll admit that ATYCLB and Bomb weren't my favorite U2 albums, but I enjoyed most of the songs on both those albums.

I'm not a basher of their work from the 2000's. I have a lot of great memories from those two albums. If U2's next album turns out to be the ultimate masterpiece, I'll love the other two albums just the same.

It does seem that some people have a tough time deciphering the words "truth" and "opinion".

Truth- U2 released 2 studio albums in the 2000's so far.
Opinion- Those 2 albums were very good.

 

[popacrobat]

But none of the singles were rewritten or designed to be huge hits. They were all too unique sounding to actually end up being the single that sells the record.

How do you know? I'm willing to bet those songs evolved much like Vertigo or Beautiful Day did.

 

[Screwtape2]

Screwtape, I have an honest question for you. When did you get into U2? What year? What era?

1997 or 1998. It would have been during 4th or 5th grade. I got The Best of 1980-1990 and really liked The Unforgettable Fire. Then I got The Joshua Tree. Rented Rattle & Hum. Listened to the soundtrack at my aunts. I wasn't aware of Popmart at the time.

 

[Reead]

Screwtape's comments in this thread actually yanked me out of forum oblivion to make a comment...

Screwtape: Please read what you are writing. Your musical tastes and preferences regarding U2 aside (which I respect), the comments you've made about the band "Selling out" and pandering to the mainstream are COMPLETE opinion and can't backed up by any evidence or conventional logic.

Like many before me have said, one cannot measure the quality, "creativity", or originality of music by any scientific measure. Sure, you can measure its time signature, its chord progression, its lyrical value, but music (and especially U2 music) has always been so much more than the sum of its parts.

So every time you say "U2 sold out" you are in essence saying "I don't like U2's newest music, therefore they have sold out." Every time you say "U2 is no longer creative", you are actually saying "I don't like U2's newest music, therefore they are no longer creative." You have not said a single thing in this entire thread to back up those statements, and I wanted to call you out on it.

So, to make this constructive: Screwtape, speaking objectively and honestly, why have U2 sold out? Do tell.

 

[Zoots]

1997 or 1998. It would have been during 4th or 5th grade. I got The Best of 1980-1990 and really liked The Unforgettable Fire. Then I got The Joshua Tree. Rented Rattle & Hum. Listened to the soundtrack at my aunts. I wasn't aware of Popmart at the time.

So you didn't get into them by listening to Pop or watching any videos on MTV or listening to the current hits at the time on the radio?

 

[popacrobat]

As for the original post, I enjoy basically every U2 album. I don't care much for October, it does have some pretty good tracks (October, Gloria and I threw a Brick) but on a whole it's pretty blah.

I think Atomic Bomb had better songs overall than All That You Can't... but that the latter worked better as an album. I think U2 will have a slightly different sound and combine the best of both worlds here- excellent songs and excellent songwriting in a cohesive album. That's my expectation, and then I think even the 00 bashers will be album to look at the past two albums in a different light showing the progression from those two to the next one. If that makes sense?

 

[Screwtape2]

So you didn't get into them by listening to Pop or watching any videos on MTV or listening to the current hits at the time on the radio?

Yeah pretty much. I think the first new single I ever heard was Beautiful Day. That being two years after getting into them.

 

[Zoots]

Yeah pretty much. I think the first new single I ever heard was Beautiful Day. That being two years after getting into them.

Well.. why I asked is, if you got into them during the 90s, I can somewhat understand why they have turned you off over the last few years. They really were a different band back then! I cannot speak for the 80s cos I wasn't a U2 fan back then. But if you want them to remain that 90s band in not only artistic style, also the mindset of not caring for the mainstream (like Passengers) then you're (sadly) listening to the wrong band. Maybe U2 doesn't want to be in that mindset anymore. Maybe U2 wants to reach out to more people with huge hits. How can you find fault with them if that is what they want?