Taking A Break From U2/U2's Biggest Musical Weakness

[monke]

great 8 pages, sad to see it turn to the same deal as ever, and the one thig i like about RHCP, is the one thing ive always foundlacking of u2, there my favorite band, always will be, but the music, i hate to say it, but in MY opinion, they just dont sound like they are having fun with the music, everythings so serious, the lack of this is what got me into RHCP, and yes, Stadium Arcadium is brilliant

 

[hcbiggs2002]

I just read the entire long-winded original post in this thread and I 100% DISagree. First off, Bomb is a better album overall than ATYCLB. ATYCLB was essentially half an album, much like War was.

Second, U2 is not "missing" anything. They have instead evolved. It seems as though a lot of folks who complain about the last two U2 albums were also the people that think the Zooropa/Pop era were a great era in U2 music. There's nothing wrong in thinking that. But the problem is, you don't realize that people change, U2 changes and therefor the overall sound changes. If you love the Zooropa/Pop eras so much then pop in those cd's or your Pomart tape and have at it all you want.

But what I love about U2 so damn much is that they allow their music to evolve and change with them. I'm not a huge fan of the Pop/Zooropa era. But I think it was necessary for U2 to go through that process to continue their musical journey.

The band has had 5 basic eras in sounds - the early years with a raw in your face sound, the UF/Joshua Tree era with a more sophistacated sound, the Achtung Baby/Zoo TV years in which there was no one sound but was creatively fantastic, the Zooropa/Pop era with its darker, electronic sound and the current Beautiful Day/Bomb era which I have yet to totally define (it will likely take more time for me to fully define this era.. it took many years for me to define the previous eras). I am being very broad and there are exceptions but that basically covers U2's sound eras in one paragraph.

Over the years I think many fans have wanted U2 to stay in the sound era that they personally like the most. To me that was Achtung Baby/Zoo TV. For others that was Zooropa/Pop. For still others it's the UF/Joshua Tree sound. And you know what? there is probably a group of fans out there that think the current U2 sound is the best. But no matter what any of us want, U2 is going to move on and do their own thing and that's what makes them the great band they are.. in fact that is WHO they are.. they are different, unique and groundbreaking. Every era has brought with it its several excellent songs. This one is no different.. Beautiful Day, Vertigo, OOTS and for me New York, Love n Peace and COBL are all awesome tunes.

If what you or anyone else wished was for U2 to continue in dance/synth style of the 90's then guess what, there probably wouldn't be a U2 anymore. The band went down that road, did that thing and finished what they wanted to accomplish. Then they did what they've done in every other era of their existence, moved on.

I think Bomb is an excellent album. And it does NOT have one continuous sound like many have suggested in this and other threads. Vertigo, Love and Peace, and ABOY sound 180 degrees from the likes of OOTS and Crumbs. It is also not "overproduced". That is one of the most inaccurate descriptions of the album I read here. The album was produced to the degree necessary for each song to have the final sound U2 wished it to have. That's not being "overproduced", it is trying to make the finished product sound the way it is supposed to. It is what every band strives to achieve when they head into the studio to record an album. If Bomb is "overproduced" then so is every other U2 album because it's the same process they've used throughout their entire career.

One other point.. if you think the lyricism of Bono has somehow gone south for the last 5 years I suggest you read the lyrics and listen to the songs again. Lyrics on the last two albums and particularly Bomb have been excellent and exquisitely layered. Bomb reminds me a bit of Joshua Tree in that way. The same song can mean different things to different people. If anything I think Bono's ability to fit the lyrics for the songs has been getting better with age.

Bottom line.. I think a lot of fans expect U2 to somehow go back to the future and put out another JT or AB or Pop. That's not going to happen folks. They will put out the music they are best capable of puting out today. And I wouldn't want my U2 any other way.

FWIW, those of you who don't like the sound of Bomb or ATYCLB can probably rest easy. I believe U2 is ready to turn the page once again and head in a new direction. What that is or where it takes them I have no idea but I can't wait to find out what it is. That's one of the great perks of being a U2 fan... any day a new U2 album comes out I feel like a little kid on Christmas seeing that big box with his name on it and wondering what's inside. Because with U2 you never know what their music is going to sound like til you pop it into the cd player.

Yay!! Finally a post I can hold heartly agree with! Been reading through this whole thread, hoping I'd find someone with a more positive outlook of the whole musical development of U2s career, before posting my own views. But you said everythihng I was going to say!
And I am too, looking forward to my next U2 Christmas gift!!

 

[roy]

"The point of the post wasn't about Bomb being calculated, it was about U2's inability to be and/or aversion to being subtle, what I percieve to be their biggest musical weakness throughout their WHOLE career, 1976-2006."

Despite that disclaimer, most of your criticism in this thread is in the vein of Pre-2000> post 2000, which has been discussed a thousands times here.

Yes, this thread has a "Same old Shit" vibe about it, but if you're gonna blame others for taking it into that direction you should take some of it yourself.

Very good post Yet another lame excuse by namkcur to have a go at HTDAAB. It just shows how self-indulgent the vocal minority are on here.

 

[U2girl]

I would like to, once and for all, hear why it's such a crime to some people that U2 is sounding like U2 - if they have the license to "go away and dream it all up again", there also has to be the license when they inevitably (and I know most won't admit it, but it started in 1997) go back to their sound.

I also think it's possible to enjoy songs from any and all era (I'm sure I'm crazy, but to me "oh you look so beautiful tonight", "all of this can be yours" and "I will be with you again" all work) it's mutually exclusive. I don't think U2 "lost" anything, they just adapt to their enviromnent. Over and over again.

It would be nice if with all the "overproduced" and "hoping on the bandwagon" hype we could include the album that started all that. Oh and to all the "they used to not care what anyone thinks" folk, think again. Their biggest music shifts happened exactly because they DO care what people think.

Hit records? Wanting to be on the radio? Old news.

As for winning/losing fans, it happens with every album. I think U2 was somewhat lucky in that they got additional fans in 1991. I would also agree that it's the older fans getting back that is majorly helping the success of Bomb and ATYCLB. Fans are entitled to their opinions, but it seems some are more valid than others.

Ground beneath her feet does not fit on ATYCLB, same goes for Mercy and Fast cars and Bomb (neither musically or lyrically). The band put them on some album versions for CD price reasons.

Re-working Pop songs on the Best of had nothing to do with pleasing fans, U2 has said from day one they feel the album is unfinished.

 

[mickeza]

I see complexity in 'Love and Peace or Else', I see subtlety in 'One Step Closer' and I see brilliance in 'Original Of The Species'. Your comment about U2 have always lacked Subtlety is wrong, imo. Listen to Unforfgettable Fire and, with the exception of Pride and maybe Bad, i hear subtlety and understated sound at its best and most beautiful. Lets bring in Pasengers, would you consider 'Your Blue Room' a song that "Shouts from the roof top", what about 'The First Time', does that scream at you, does that insist that it be heard. 'Stateless', 'Ground Beneath Her Feet', 'If You Wear That Velevet Dress', i'd argue that the subtlety is a strength of U2 rather than a weakness, they may not do it often but when they do, boy is it good.
Now to your point about 'Stadium Arcadium', well I loved it the first time i heard it, just like I loved the bomb the first time, if Stadium Arcadium is "ambitious" then tell me how HTDAAB is not? If trying to get an album to sound like a Best Of album is not ambitious, because thats what I think Bono meant when he said he wants every song to sound like a single, then tell me what ambitious is? Explain to me how HTDAAB is any worse than Stadium Arcadium when it comes to energy, because I really don't see it. You say Bomb is overproduced, but hasn't that been the way all through their career? Why is it now you think this is a problem?

 

[Aygo]

and u2 are no leaders with HTDAAB coldplay already released that album with a different name!!!

Coldplay's songs are not pure rock, HTDAAB is 100% (or closer) rock... That's the difference...

 

[Aygo]

mofo is no more daring than love and peace or else for the time, mofo wasj ust following brit pop/electro rock of the 90's IMO

huh?? Have you ever heard about The Prodigy? You should try to listen to them. Then listen to Oasis and to Blur an find the differences...

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking A Break From U2/U2's Biggest Musical W

And the sales/tour attendances say otherwise

"common knowledge" - The last refuge of the fact-less

not every ZooTv show sold out, and popmart was a disaster in the U.S. so yes ticket sales do say everything

 

[KUEFC09U2]

and namkcuR why would putting me on ignore help? so then no one would be around to disagree with you?, its nothing personal am just trying to have a debate, which is what this forum is about right?, i have NEVER said any personal comments to you, but yet you want me ignored for disagreeing with your post?

i find it quite hurtful, that simply because i am just trying to debate a topic thats been put on the board should result in you wanting me ignored, i like and repesct your posts, but i always enjoy to debate them simpy because thats what i thought this forum was about, discussion and debate,

i was always told "it would be pretty boring if we all agreed with eachother", well, its all been turned on its head now

 

[petmac]

I don't want to get into the arguement over whether bomb is good or not, but your arguement about complexity is rediculous. "Bad", "One" and "Streets" are three of the most basic songs ever written. Bad is just two chords over and over again, and it is the most epic U2 song of all. Greatness has nothing to do with complexity or simplicity.

 

[BVS]

great 8 pages, sad to see it turn to the same deal as ever, and the one thig i like about RHCP, is the one thing ive always foundlacking of u2, there my favorite band, always will be, but the music, i hate to say it, but in MY opinion, they just dont sound like they are having fun with the music, everythings so serious, the lack of this is what got me into RHCP, and yes, Stadium Arcadium is brilliant

This is a hole they dug and the band's addressed it themselves...

Pre-Zoo TV tour they said something to the effect of- we never took ourselves seriously but we took the music seriously...

But since then the few times they have just let loose and recorded something purely for fun, they've gotten slammed, i.e. Vertigo.

It's the double edged sword they live with.

 

[Aygo]

What annoys me sometimes here is that people tend to get stuck with the glue of an era, wondering when U2 will make "another AB or another Zooropa or another UF".

Thank God that U2 does not listen to what the hardcore fanbase says! Well, in fact, they never did! That's why they're still alive...
And thankfully I do not get stuck in the JT era or the AB album, wishing that Macphisto gets back in the encore of a future show...

Yeah, even when experimental and always running away from their roots and fanbase (that's what they've been doing since 1984) that was calculated, that's why editors exist...!

I was always satisfied with the band's directions, because it never was the same, there was always something to show.
I bet that, without a warning, U2 will change its direction again and there'll be tones of fans bashing and saying exactily the same kind of things that a few people say about the "bland / cheesy / radiofriendly / overproduced / calculated / innacurated / ATYCLB II / and whatever" HTDAAB. I'll pay just to watch that...!

God, I've been reading so many nonsense statements... But the story will continue, I know it...

 

[toscano]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking A Break From U2/U2's Biggest M

not every ZooTv show sold out, and popmart was a disaster in the U.S. so yes ticket sales do say everything

The context of the comment was that you said they lost a lot of fans with achtung, the ticket sales and album sale say otherwise.

Not selling out a 50,000 seat stadium is still more tix than selling out a 20,000 seat arena.

Or are you just referring to "common knowledge" again ?

They didn't win a lot of casual fans with Pop, hence the need to generate a whole new set again with something less interesting and daring, something more lowest-common-denominator, something like HTDAAB and ATYCLB

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking A Break From U2/U2's Biggest M

The context of the comment was that you said they lost a lot of fans with achtung, the ticket sales and album sale say otherwise.

Not selling out a 50,000 seat stadium is still more tix than selling out a 20,000 seat arena.

Or are you just referring to "common knowledge" again ?

They didn't win a lot of casual fans with Pop, hence the need to generate a whole new set again with something less interesting and daring, something more lowest-common-denominator, something like HTDAAB and ATYCLB

but its back to the question what is so daring about pop? theres songs on there that sound like U2, and theres songs on there that sound like U2 trying to create a electro feel imo, i wouldnt call is especially "daring",

all just in my opinion of course, and i apologise if anyway has taken any of my psots out of context, i was only trying to have a debate

 

[Nate Dogg]

U2 rock.



close thread.

 

[Snowlock]

Coldplay isn't subtle at all. And there is no subtlety in Bomb.

Coldplay's melodies are very subtle, especially prior to X & Y. I'm not here to sing their praises or debate their merits. But they make large impressions with quiet songs. That's pretty much the definition of subtle.

And I've certainly said there's no subtlety in Bomb. But as I said in the entire post, U2 aren't and have never been a subtle group of guys.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand my criticisms? I know that U2 has always lacked subtlety and I know that they have always intentionally been a 'shout it from the rooftops' band. And that worked for most of their career. They created some incredible rock music that way. All I'm saying is that the bigger and more epic a song is, the more complex the substance of the song has to be in order for the song to have the impact it's supposed to have. 'Oh you look so beautiful tonight' is very hollow compared to 'I will be with you again', simply because there is a hundred times as much going on behind 'I will be with you again' as there is going on behind 'oh you look so beautiful tonight'. That's what I'm getting at.

I know that's what your getting at. But in order for me to agree with you, I have to buy into the premise that there's more going on with "I will be with you again." And I don't. Vertigo, Beautiful Day, OOTS, and Walk On and the Band Version of Electrical Storm in my opinion are if not as good, can at least hold their own with, Streets, Bad, Myst Ways, Stay and UTEOTW.

So, since I don't buy that premise; I have to look at your other point which is wishing their was more subtlety to their music. And that's why I say, "Why?" None of those other songs are subtle. Arguably their two biggest songs, or at least their most well known, "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "Pride" have all the subtely of a jackhammer; and intentionally so. So what's the problem?

But the big songs don't have to be hollow songs, and most of the songs on Bomb are hollow to me.

Yeah, and that's the essence of your argument. These songs don't speak to you. And that's fine. That's just personal taste devoid of objectivity. But that leaves you making the same old argument that you accuse others of employing. It can't all be Pop, Namk.

 

[Layton]

Re: Re: Re: Taking A Break From U2/U2's Biggest Musical Weakness

Well played Layton, very well played! I like how you completely twisted U2's 'lack of balls' approach into a ballsy one! Stay with me on this as I continue...

Oh yeah,,I love being the smartest guy in the room.

That risk is nothing and you know it! Even if some of us here don't wanna admit it, 90s U2 was a departure from their epic, bombastic & 'in your face' style of the 80s! As namkcuR pointed out, with the onset of the 90s they started using subtlety and more prominently of course irony in their music. There was a huge freakin' risk there of alienating a solid fan base built up until 1989. I'm sure overall, there are more U2 fans that prefer the 80s work than the 90s. They started losing fans with Zooropa and more so with Pop. So with ATYCLB, while they may have disappointed 90s fans, that number is nothing compared to the original fan base they regained!

What do you mean the risk is nothing. If one fan is sure to be pissed off that's something. They decided to mingle with the mainstream on the last 2 albums. This comes on the heels of a long period where they wanted to "fuck with the mainstream". That's a huge departure in approach and alot of 'fuck with the mainstream' fans would surely be pissed. Those fans were some of their most loyal, as evidenced by how many of them still hang around here even with their disappointment. U2 pretty much stated that they didn't need you anymore. Welcome to the club of jilted U2 fans. That's what they do. Of course, we all know none of you really go anywhere. The authority U2 has over their fanbase is tremendous. This allows them to do whatever they want. A truly unique position.

What are you talking about??? The 'geek squad' fans are still pissed off that there is no Fight Like A Brave, Catholic School Girls Rule or Me & My Friends on Stadium Arcadium! The band hasn't bothered about them and has actually evolved very well in their middle age.

RHCP don't fuck with their audience nearly as much as U2 has.

Is that why they were embarassed by the failure of Pop and reworked (read slaughtered) some of the songs for the Best Of??? Doesn't sound like independent minded souls to me.

I don't get this. To them, Pop is incomplete. They don't care what you or I think. They do what they want with it. Hell, I think Bono said Pop is his daughter's favorite U2 album. Obviously, that didn't stop them from messing with the songs you speak of. Apparently, they don't care what the family thinks of the songs either.

 

[Layton]

Zootlesque, I just thought of something else that's weird about your line of thinking. You seem to be caught up in this idea that U2 gained more fans in the '00's than they lost from the '90's and that this somehow alleviates any risk they took in alientating '90's fan.

What you fail to see is that an audience's loyalty goes a long way toward defining a band's reputation. U2 didn't just risk a certain number of '90's fans, they risked a hard-earned reputation that those long-time fans helped define. 1 fan who likes the Vertigo video vs. 1 fan who followed the band for a decade of trials and tribulations is not an equal trade off.

It's this reason that I think the Vertigo/IPod thing is the biggest risk of U2's career. They totally put that aforementioned hard-earned reputation on the line in order to reach out to a wider base who may or may not end up being a loyal long-term follower.

There's no way that anybody can tell me that risking hard core loyalists for fans who could only like one song and then be gone is anything other than a MAJOR risk. It speaks volumes about U2's guts for them to believe they could pull that off. They truly believe they can get in the heads of these 'new' fans and make them as loyal as you, Namkcu and ShaunVox used to be. Try to find me a band that's taken that bold of a step, especially this far into their career.

 

[LemonMelon]

See what I said to doctorwho. You're arguing one line. The point of the post wasn't about Bomb being calculated, it was about U2's inability to be and/or aversion to being subtle, what I percieve to be their biggest musical weakness throughout their WHOLE career, 1976-2006.

I disagree that it's even a weakness. U2 have proven from 93-98 that they CAN be subtle, so there's no need to even argue that there's a weakness there. It's a choice they've made, not a weakness. I don't need to music that closes me in from the rest of the world, there's too much of that as it is. I think it's great that there are bands that can stick out these days...too many of them refuse to scream from the roodtops.

Bomb may not be very subtle (Sometimes, lyrically, may be one of the most stark tracks I've ever heard) but I disagree that it's a band not having any fun. It's quite unlikely that if the band didn't have any fun recording the songs that they'd translate as well as they have to the live stage. Besides, it wouldn't be nearly as fun for ME to listen to.

U2 don't need to shut themselves in. They've done that, and the fans left because of it. They're not U2 when they shut themselves out from the world.

I applaud them. Keep up the good work, guys. I wouldn't want you any other way.

What's so daring about Mofo?

Because it sounds like nothing else in their oeuvre.

For those curious of where I stand in my opinions of said oeuvre, here's a list of my favorite to least favorite U2 albums:

1. Zooropa (A+)
2. JT (A)
3. Pop (A)
4. War (A-)
5. HTDAAB (A-)
6. AB (B+)
7. Boy (B+)
8. R&H (B)
9. ATYCLB (B-)
10. October (C+)
11. UF (C-)

A=Amazing
B=Great
C=Average

 

[Bono's shades]

Arguably their two biggest songs, or at least their most well known, "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "Pride" have all the subtely of a jackhammer; and intentionally so. So what's the problem?/B]

You're right. SBS and Pride certainly aren't subtle. But they work because of the passion and conviction behind them. Back them U2's big, epic sound came naturally - it was just U2 being U2. Then they evolved away from that and started doing different things, but then they kind of reached the end of their rope with that and it seems like they just settled on something safe and familiar to them by writing songs in the old U2 tradition. But the new "epic" songs just sound like pale imitations of the older ones. I'm not sure if it's because they are older now and more cautious and less idealistic, or because they are simply trying too hard to match the average music listeners' notion of what U2 are supposed to sound like. It's coming out of a sense of obligation rather than out of their own enthusiasm. Or like someone said earlier, Bono's not in the studio much with the other three at the same time anymore, so that's bound to have an affect on things.

 

[Harry Vest]

Too bad the Chili Peppers could NEVER come close to writing something like " Bad", "The Unforgettable Fire", "Exit", "Bullet The Blue Sky", "Please", "Gone", "Running To Stand Still", "Drowning Man", "Love Is Blindness"............................................................
and the list goes on....................We'll see what the Chili Peppers sound like when they're in they're mid 40's??????????????

 

[ImOuttaControl]

Too bad the Chili Peppers could NEVER come close to writing something like " Bad", "The Unforgettable Fire", "Exit", "Bullet The Blue Sky", "Please", "Gone", "Running To Stand Still", "Drowning Man", "Love Is Blindness"............................................................
and the list goes on....................We'll see what the Chili Peppers sound like when they're in they're mid 40's??????????????

*cough cough*

The members or RHCP are in their mid 40's.


Also, as in epic songs...listen to:
Under the Bridge, Venice Queen, Wet Sand for starters.

It's such a bad arguement saying "RHCP could NEVER come close to writing...ect by U2" because U2 could NEVER come close to writing a song like "By The Way," "Can't Stop," "Give It Away," "Dosed" or "Dani California."

 

[LemonMelon]

*cough cough*

The members or RHCP are in their mid 40's.


Also, as in epic songs...listen to:
Under the Bridge, Venice Queen, Wet Sand for starters.

It's such a bad arguement saying "RHCP could NEVER come close to writing...ect by U2" because U2 could NEVER come close to writing a song like "By The Way," "Can't Stop," "Give It Away," "Dosed" or "Dani California."

I sure hope you mean that they could never SOUND like that, and that you're not referring to quality...

 

[cobl04]

This is the first post in a LONG time that I can actually agree with some of comments made about HTDAAB. Personally I love the album but I can definitely see where you are coming from namkcuR. However I disagree with the Stadium Arcadium comparison. I really, really like the RHCP and will go and see them at Big Day Out in 07 but I can't compare SA or any other album to a U2 album because they are such vastly different bands.

I would love to see the next U2 album have variety. That said, HTDAAB and ATYCLB are bloody fantastic. But they aren't timeless classics like TJT or AB.

Well put.

 

[cobl04]

Arguably their two biggest songs, or at least their most well known, "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "Pride" have all the subtely of a jackhammer; and intentionally so. So what's the problem?

That is a very good point. Pride and SBS are as good as any song that is subtle. They are straight to the point, yet they are probably their two most successful songs, especially Pride.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

I don't agree with the assessment of HTDAAB. It is a great collection of songs. I do agree the production of some songs is not so great--Crumbs being recorded too loud and all...

Here is my opinion. No, HTDAAB is not very subtle. The songs themselves are, but in the end we had Bono explaining what most every damn song meant!

The songs that Bono felt needed some explanation:

Vertigo: "Vertigo, with all these people in it and the music is not the music you want to hear, and the people are not the people you want to be with, and then you see somebody and she's got a cross around her neck, and you focus on it, because you can't focus on anything else. You find a little tiny fragment of salvation there."
To some of you this may be blasphemy, but I think Vertigo is one of the most subtle tracks on HTDAAB. There is a LOT more going on in that song than most people give it credit for.

Miracle Drug: Explained by Bono to be written about Christopher Nolan and the "miracle drug" that allowed him to write "Dam-Burst of Dreams."

Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own: About Bono's dad of course. Had I not known that, it could have spoken to me much more personally--like a breakup. Instead, I only hear death.

City of Blinding Lights: Bono went and explained how this was about naivity and looking back at pictures of himself when he was younger, loss of innocence...ect. Had I not known that right away, I would have been able to go back and read the lyrics, listen to the music and try to figure it out...but...

All Because of You: I read somewhere that Bono explained it at a rock song to God or something like that.

Crumbs From Your Table: Another one with awesome metaphors, but Bono went and had to explain it again.

Original of the Species: "it's about seeing some people who are ashamed of their bodies, in particular teenagers with eating disorders, not feeling comfortable with themselves and their sexuality. I'm just saying to them, you are one of a kind, you are the first one of your kind, you're an original of the species..."

Another song with great metaphors. Luckily there are a few opposing explations to this song so it is still open to a little interpretation.



In the end, I think there COULD have been a lot of sublety in the lyrics of HTDAAB. For me, it's hard to relate to a song when the band explains what the song is about. In the past, it seemed like U2 would explain the song but explain it metaphorically, like "a phone call from hell" or TUF being inspired by Hiroshima/Nagasaki. That keeps my mind wondering much more than saying "It's about my father" or "this is about christopher nolan."

 

[Snowlock]

You're right. SBS and Pride certainly aren't subtle. But they work because of the passion and conviction behind them. Back them U2's big, epic sound came naturally - it was just U2 being U2. Then they evolved away from that and started doing different things, but then they kind of reached the end of their rope with that and it seems like they just settled on something safe and familiar to them by writing songs in the old U2 tradition. But the new "epic" songs just sound like pale imitations of the older ones. I'm not sure if it's because they are older now and more cautious and less idealistic, or because they are simply trying too hard to match the average music listeners' notion of what U2 are supposed to sound like. It's coming out of a sense of obligation rather than out of their own enthusiasm. Or like someone said earlier, Bono's not in the studio much with the other three at the same time anymore, so that's bound to have an affect on things.

I think this is a well made point. But I don't agree with it. The reason why is because it seems like Bono specifically is making his songs more personal now than ever before. And that is giving those songs ligitimacy and conviction. I don't think you can listen to Sometimes and not hear conviction. Or how about when he lists off the names of the bombing victims in Peace On Earth, or the sorrow of Kite, of the plea for Africa in Crumbs, or his love of God in Yahweh, All Because of You and Vertigo. Maybe it's just me, but I'm hearing more conviction now than ever at least since the end of the Joshua Tree days.

Plus, watch any live show, and that conviction is there, even when playing the new songs. I'll say it again, I think the weakness of Bomb is less U2's fault and more the fault of the producers. I think U2 are still writing the songs that they like the best, and the producers are trying to shove those songs into a package that the masses will eat up. But what they need to do is look at history. U2 is one of those bands that will change personal tastes and create new fads in music. They don't need to tweak their music to fit existing pesonal tastes and fads.

But I think that's the nature of the lousy music industry with the America Idols, boy bands, Xerox'd rap artists, Dave Matthews clones. How can true musicians succeed when performance is rated more highly than musicianship or song writing?

I wish the Bomb hadn't been dismantled. I was it had been left alone and detonated all over the music industry in it's raw glory. Back in 1986, Hair Metal was king. In 1987 The Joshua Tree changed that culture. In a matter of a few months, after the stripped down With or Without You and the following, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For went to #1, metal bands changed or died. The makeup and power cords were suddenly gone. Red leather was exchanged for black. Even the fledgling band Guns N Roses radically changed their style from their first video to their second.

I believe the boys still making the music that can change a culture; but they need the right producers and record execs to not only let them do it, but promote it accordingly.

PS, as I'm writing this, Powter's Bad Day, the clone of all clone songs is playing the background. How appropriate.

 

[namkcuR]

I don't agree with the assessment of HTDAAB. It is a great collection of songs. I do agree the production of some songs is not so great--Crumbs being recorded too loud and all...

Here is my opinion. No, HTDAAB is not very subtle. The songs themselves are, but in the end we had Bono explaining what most every damn song meant!

The songs that Bono felt needed some explanation:

Vertigo: "Vertigo, with all these people in it and the music is not the music you want to hear, and the people are not the people you want to be with, and then you see somebody and she's got a cross around her neck, and you focus on it, because you can't focus on anything else. You find a little tiny fragment of salvation there."
To some of you this may be blasphemy, but I think Vertigo is one of the most subtle tracks on HTDAAB. There is a LOT more going on in that song than most people give it credit for.

Miracle Drug: Explained by Bono to be written about Christopher Nolan and the "miracle drug" that allowed him to write "Dam-Burst of Dreams."

Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own: About Bono's dad of course. Had I not known that, it could have spoken to me much more personally--like a breakup. Instead, I only hear death.

City of Blinding Lights: Bono went and explained how this was about naivity and looking back at pictures of himself when he was younger, loss of innocence...ect. Had I not known that right away, I would have been able to go back and read the lyrics, listen to the music and try to figure it out...but...

All Because of You: I read somewhere that Bono explained it at a rock song to God or something like that.

Crumbs From Your Table: Another one with awesome metaphors, but Bono went and had to explain it again.

Original of the Species: "it's about seeing some people who are ashamed of their bodies, in particular teenagers with eating disorders, not feeling comfortable with themselves and their sexuality. I'm just saying to them, you are one of a kind, you are the first one of your kind, you're an original of the species..."

Another song with great metaphors. Luckily there are a few opposing explations to this song so it is still open to a little interpretation.



In the end, I think there COULD have been a lot of sublety in the lyrics of HTDAAB. For me, it's hard to relate to a song when the band explains what the song is about. In the past, it seemed like U2 would explain the song but explain it metaphorically, like "a phone call from hell" or TUF being inspired by Hiroshima/Nagasaki. That keeps my mind wondering much more than saying "It's about my father" or "this is about christopher nolan."

You seem to be talking about lyrical subtlety. I'm talking about musical subtlety. Lyrical subtlety is a whole different thread/arguement.

 

[Bono's shades]

I think this is a well made point. But I don't agree with it. The reason why is because it seems like Bono specifically is making his songs more personal now than ever before. And that is giving those songs ligitimacy and conviction. I don't think you can listen to Sometimes and not hear conviction. Or how about when he lists off the names of the bombing victims in Peace On Earth, or the sorrow of Kite, of the plea for Africa in Crumbs, or his love of God in Yahweh, All Because of You and Vertigo. Maybe it's just me, but I'm hearing more conviction now than ever at least since the end of the Joshua Tree days.

Plus, watch any live show, and that conviction is there, even when playing the new songs. I'll say it again, I think the weakness of Bomb is less U2's fault and more the fault of the producers. I think U2 are still writing the songs that they like the best, and the producers are trying to shove those songs into a package that the masses will eat up. But what they need to do is look at history. U2 is one of those bands that will change personal tastes and create new fads in music. They don't need to tweak their music to fit existing pesonal tastes and fads.

But I think that's the nature of the lousy music industry with the America Idols, boy bands, Xerox'd rap artists, Dave Matthews clones. How can true musicians succeed when performance is rated more highly than musicianship or song writing?

I wish the Bomb hadn't been dismantled. I was it had been left alone and detonated all over the music industry in it's raw glory. Back in 1986, Hair Metal was king. In 1987 The Joshua Tree changed that culture. In a matter of a few months, after the stripped down With or Without You and the following, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For went to #1, metal bands changed or died. The makeup and power cords were suddenly gone. Red leather was exchanged for black. Even the fledgling band Guns N Roses radically changed their style from their first video to their second.

I believe the boys still making the music that can change a culture; but they need the right producers and record execs to not only let them do it, but promote it accordingly.

PS, as I'm writing this, Powter's Bad Day, the clone of all clone songs is playing the background. How appropriate.

First, I agree that Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own is a personal, very moving song. It sounds like something Bono HAD to do because of the death of his father, rather than something that was contrived. But Vertigo and City of Blinding Lights are as contrived as it gets.

Second of all, as much as I wish I could believe U2 was responsible for killing hair metal, that just isn't the case. I remember 1987 vividly. They'd play a U2 video every hour, but the rest of the hour was mostly hair metal videos. And although it wasn't quite as huge after 1987, hair metal was still popular until Nirvana and Pearl Jam and all the other grunge bands got big and finally killed it off, thank God.

 

[ozeeko]

Nirvana "Smells Like Teen Spirit" pretty much closed the door on hair metal. But Guns and Roses also played a hand much earlier.