Why Original Of The Species Will Fail

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


:confused: Did Steve Lillywhite recently have a concussion or something? How can a band that gave the world Sunday Bloody Sunday, Pride, Bullet the Blue Sky, God Part II, Like A Song, The Fly, Desire, Acrobat, Until the End of the World, etc., etc. not see themselves as a rock band? Sure, they have a lot of great ballads too, but the rock songs are a huge part of who they are.

Look, you're just pointing out some of U2 "rockier" songs, as accumulated over the past 25 years. We all know that U2 doesn't "rock" very often. It's not what they like to do. They generally excel at mid-tempo, epic sounding tracks, and any instance where they manage to come up with a loud rocker it's virtually guaranteed to find a permanent place in setlists. Why else do you think Bullet is still played live? It's the exception to the rule, and since U2 doesn't have many "heavy" songs, it will always be played live.

I guess some U2 fans have a different definition of "rock" than other people do. I heard someone once say that "Vertigo is what passes for a hard rock song if you're a U2 fan." Although this quote is consecending, it is also partly true. If I want to hear "rock," I go somewhere other than U2. but if I want to hear beautiful, slow building epics, there's no better place than U2
 
starvinmarvin said:


Look, you're just pointing out some of U2 "rockier" songs, as accumulated over the past 25 years. We all know that U2 doesn't "rock" very often. It's not what they like to do. They generally excel at mid-tempo, epic sounding tracks, and any instance where they manage to come up with a loud rocker it's virtually guaranteed to find a permanent place in setlists. Why else do you think Bullet is still played live? It's the exception to the rule, and since U2 doesn't have many "heavy" songs, it will always be played live.

I guess some U2 fans have a different definition of "rock" than other people do. I heard someone once say that "Vertigo is what passes for a hard rock song if you're a U2 fan." Although this quote is consecending, it is also partly true. If I want to hear "rock," I go somewhere other than U2. but if I want to hear beautiful, slow building epics, there's no better place than U2

You have a very misled idea of rock. As has been said by Adam Clayton and I'm sure by others too, rock is not something you can buy in a record store. It's an attitude. It's not just about being loud and hard and agressive and having blistering guitar solos and whatnot. You don't have to be deafened by a song for it to be rock. It's about the attitude. Vertigo isn't truely rock because it doesn't have that attitude.

Look at the following list...

I Will Follow
Out Of Control
The Electric Co.
I Threw A Brick
Rejoice
Fire
SBS
NYD
Like A Song
Wire
Bad
Bullet
Exit
Desire
Got Part II
EBTTRT
UTEOTW
The Fly
Acrobat
Numb
Dirty Day
HMTMKMKM
Discotheque
Mofo
LNOE
Gone
Please
Elevation
New York
LAPOE

All U2 rock songs, just to name a few. Some of these are somewhat minimalistic, not that loud. But they are still rock because they pocess that attitude.

This stupid, ignorant idea that if a band isn't breaking their instruments and screaming and making music for parents to hate, it's not rock, has got to go.

U2 are a rock band, always have been. Only on the last two records has the level of 'rock' gone down.
 
Last edited:
Random question to spark debate:

Is Coldplay a rock band? People describe them as the next U2.
 
mobvok said:
Random question to spark debate:

Is Coldplay a rock band? People describe them as the next U2.

No. Wrong attitude, wrong sound. Even if they're a UF-era U2 ripoff, it's not as if they're making Indian Summer Sky or Wire.
 
I don't own any Coldplay albums, so the references to U2 have always confused me. Their singles always seem to be kind of....sleepy, I guess would be the right word. Not of or possessing much attitude, like namkcuR defined rock as.

So their non-single stuff isn't much peppier, I take it....
 
OOTS is a masterpiece, but there is something wrong.
Bono loves to say "when you look back, WOWY was a very unusual song, you didn't expect this on radio".
OOTS is very different, I don't understand why U2 are afraid, why did they remix this song for radios?
They already sold 8, 9 or 10 M of HTDAAB and their tour is sold-out, there is no risk, if it's a flop, well.... no problems.
Be brave U2, people are not stupid, OOTS is a great song, no need to remix it.
 
In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, Martin identified himself as a fan of Chris Cornell and Soundgarden (as well as Metallica). With the exception of Led Zep (Edge and Bono are fans), U2 has tended to be critical of "Heavy Rock". Yet I'd say U2 rocks more than Coldplay.


Axver said:


No. Wrong attitude, wrong sound. Even if they're a UF-era U2 ripoff, it's not as if they're making Indian Summer Sky or Wire.
 
Axver said:


No. Wrong attitude, wrong sound. Even if they're a UF-era U2 ripoff, it's not as if they're making Indian Summer Sky or Wire.

I agree, Coldplay are a mood/atmosphere band. They are not a Rock band in the U2 vein. I verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry much doubt that Coldplay are talented enough to fuck about with their sound like U2 did in the 90's. In fact I am absolutely certain that this kinda of reinvention is way out of Coldplays capability. I love X and Y though, but I think Coldplay are more in the Radiohead area of music, full of mood and atmosphere.:wink:
 
rjhbonovox said:


I agree, Coldplay are a mood/atmosphere band. They are not a Rock band in the U2 vein. I verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry much doubt that Coldplay are talented enough to fuck about with their sound like U2 did in the 90's. In fact I am absolutely certain that this kinda of reinvention is way out of Coldplays capability. I love X and Y though, but I think Coldplay are more in the Radiohead area of music, full of mood and atmosphere.:wink:

If Coldplay wants to live up to that U2-hype, they need to re-invent their sound because it's getting really old, really fast or they'll lose their popularity not only repeating other bands before them, but repeating themselves.
 
LeafsNation said:
In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, Martin identified himself as a fan of Chris Cornell and Soundgarden (as well as Metallica). With the exception of Led Zep (Edge and Bono are fans), U2 has tended to be critical of "Heavy Rock". Yet I'd say U2 rocks more than Coldplay.

When have U2 been critical of heavier rock? Bono regularly shits on about 'heavier rock' bands, from bands like Nirvana to Rage Against The Machine to even Silverchair's Diorama album (a very, very heavy album which Bono said "everyone should swim to Australia to listen to"), & a quick look at a lot of U2's support acts over the years includes many heavy rockin' bands. I've heard them lay into late 90's/early 00's rap-metal, and fair enough, but otherwise I haven't heard a word from them that suggests any feelings against heavier rock....
 
mobvok said:
I don't own any Coldplay albums, so the references to U2 have always confused me. Their singles always seem to be kind of....sleepy, I guess would be the right word. Not of or possessing much attitude, like namkcuR defined rock as.

So their non-single stuff isn't much peppier, I take it....
Nope. Sleepy is a good way to describe Coldplay.:wink:

I only own their the first two albums though, so I can't really comment on the new album, but for me, Coldplay has been little more than my lullaby band. Their music is good, but its just not as..... exciting as U2. I wouldn't call them as versitile as U2 either -- U2 have lulluaby songs as well, but they also have so many different genres.
 
mobvok said:
Random question to spark debate:

Is Coldplay a rock band? People describe them as the next U2.

That's because they sound so bloody much LIKE U2, but they can't very well be the next U2 with U2 still around.

Coldplay has some songs that could qualify as rock, but even those are "mid-tempo" and make songs like The Fly look like heavy metal. I wouldn't say Coldplay overall are a rock band, however I would say that U2 are a rock band.

I guess it just depends on how you define "rock."
 
In the book "At the End of the World" (I think that's the name of it), Edge in praising Jimmy Page and Led Zep, goes on to slam the direction Hard Rock/Heavy Metal went after them. I believe he calls it "awful", though I don't have the book with me.


Earnie Shavers said:


When have U2 been critical of heavier rock? Bono regularly shits on about 'heavier rock' bands, from bands like Nirvana to Rage Against The Machine to even Silverchair's Diorama album (a very, very heavy album which Bono said "everyone should swim to Australia to listen to"), & a quick look at a lot of U2's support acts over the years includes many heavy rockin' bands. I've heard them lay into late 90's/early 00's rap-metal, and fair enough, but otherwise I haven't heard a word from them that suggests any feelings against heavier rock....
 
Still think Original of the species is by far and away the best song on HTDAAB, along with Love and peace or else, the rest don't live up to the standard.:wink:
 
namkcuR said:
OOTS's main theme is about Bono/Edge/Larry's kids, right? I know this probably won't happen, but if that's the theme, then maybe they could let their kids be in the video(or at very least just the older ones), kind of a home-movie-ish thing. Just an idea.



That's what that song's about?
I'm so confused.
 
I've been listening to the song alot lately, and I've reevaluated my views on OOTS. I think it will stand a decent chance of becoming a hit in spite of its title. Hopefully the added orchestral bits will improve upon the bad fake strings on the album version.
 
I like OOTS as a single. It won't do any worse than the other singles that ended their albums promotion (In God's Country, All I Want Is You,Who's Gonna Ride YWH, Stay, If God Will Send His Angels / Mofo or Walk On)

It's a chorus that sticks in your head, and if heard may yield a minor hit in the US here.

I'd like to see this single in September and Yahweh for Christmas :D complete with jingle bells :wink: Just Kidding.
 
starvinmarvin said:
. Nowhere in the song does Bono actually using the words "original of the species."



this may actually be a true point, but i think the song won't fail. it is melodic, it has violins, piano, the usual edge's guitar and probably one of the best ever chorus.................no, it won't fail, perhaps it's gonna be the most appreciated single of this album, and people will learn the title, if you like a song you learn the title, too. even when it isn't mentioned. i actually thought that miracle drug would have been a fine single, but original is good, it's a great choice and the guys will be right with this choice
 
Bono's shades said:
You know, I could make a contribution to this thread...but I actually thought All Because Of You was going to be a big hit, so I think I am just better of staying away. :reject:

Well... to be fair, ABoY was NOT an official release. It was released to U.S. and Canadian radio. It performed well on U.S. Modern Rock charts and was a hit on both Canadian radio charts and sales charts (a CD single was released in Canada), but ABoY was not released in Europe or Australia. If and when the song is released there, it could be a big hit. So don't reject your thinking just yet.

Getting back to OotS as a single... U2 can re-record it, bring in 5 orchestras, have the best video ever, yet it won't be a hit in the U.S. if they don't advertise it. "Vertigo" was advertised everyone. Not only was it used in the iTunes commercial, but the song was prominently featured on the iTunes website, and on TV commercials for HTDAAB. One heard the song on TV shows - it was everywhere.

After that, U2 decided to do this almost "quiet release" for their other songs in the U.S. and the songs all under-performed. ABoY enjoyed some success on the Modern Rock charts, as I wrote above, but failed to crack the Hot 100. "Sometimes" did crack the Hot 100 at least, but it should have been a far bigger hit (at least reaching the Top 60, like "Stuck in a Moment..." did a few years back). And so far, CoBL is floundering. It may yet break out, but so far, it hasn't charted in the Top 20 on any Billboard chart. So if U2 do another "quiet release" with OotS (or any other song), I predict the same type of performance. While U2 still sells tons of albums and has no trouble selling out tours, if they want another hit single, they need to do a LOT more promotion in the U.S. than they've done with every song since "Vertigo". I recommend another iTunes collaboration, showcasing the newly mixed OotS, with a possible "2 for 1" download special (i.e., buy the newly mixed OotS, that's only available on iTunes, and get this other U2 song for free - U2 could do a new b-side (for a change) or yet another remix or a live song). Get the song on the front page of iTunes advertising. Then do another round of TV advertisements, but this time featuring the newly mixed OotS songs. Remind audiences that this album also contains HTDAAB. That'll give both the song and the album a big boost.

But then, what do I know about marketing?
 
Back
Top Bottom