You sometimes just have to fall in love with a different band (no, not a new song!)

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

I respect your opinion, but it does go to show music is quite subjective, as I would say Pop sounds quite flat as well in many places. That spirit of U2 you mention, if not lacking, is certainly blanketed by the seemingly laboured production of Pop....while Zooropa manages to take that spirit and allow it to be just as ecstatic as ever before yet in a brand new production setting, making it a resounding success. As for HTDAAB, I don't really agree that it is trying to be like their 1980s output, more that it is striving to understand where they came from and who they are as people... some of Bono's most personal lyrics are on Bomb)... but I do agree that it doesn't succeed on the same level as ATYCLB, despite it having a higher number of "quality" songs. Here's what I wrote in the Best Album thread...

5. ATYCLB - The first 7 tracks are the longest stretch of pure melody on any U2 album. What ranks this album ahead of Bomb for me is the feeling it gives me....yes, the joy. U2 were hoping to create joy on this album, and that's what they managed to catch like lightening in a bottle. A lot of sunlight, and a really good vibe. That feeling does tail off after 'Wild Honey', but if it hadn't, this would have given Rattle and Hum a run for its money for the 4th position, maybe even for the 3rd.

7. Bomb - The highest number of good songs on one U2 album. But that's just the problem I have with this album. They're all just good songs. None are great. Unlike others, I have no problem with the album's flow. This album has the best flow since Achtung Baby. But it's lacking a song like 'One' or 'Pride', or even a 'Mysterious Ways' - ie, an obvious staple. Some of the songs sound like they're being sung simply because they're meant to be sung, rather than because they had to be sung, if that makes any sense (ie, 'All Because of You', 'A Man and a Woman', 'Yahweh'...). The songs here are all very well composed, put together well in a technical sense, however they lack the magic I feel on earlier U2 records. Even ATYCLB had a certain magic on many of the tracks. It's the feeling I'm missing. And that might be my problem, not U2's. I might be able to relate to this album more when I am older...but I can't help but feel this music is a bit flat in some places. That said, U2 prove they are accomplished musicians on this album, and songs such as 'Vertigo' and 'Original of the Species' shine when played live. And I love 'Crumbs from your Table'.

Anyway, back to this post...

You mention the songs on Bomb don't really seep in. Like my review above states, I wasn't able to relate to many of the songs on that kind of level, however there are a few songs that do seep into my subconscous, and I quite often have 'Sometimes' and 'Mirracle Drug' (never thought it was like October, but an interesting take nonetheless) running through my head and emotional registry. Same with 'Crumbs'.

I know what you mean, and I agree with u on ure reviews of both those albums (except I don't think the Bomb has even "good" songs. They're all pretty mediocre to bad). However, maybe...(crossing my fingers)...in the future I will be hit unexpectedly by this album, for whatever reason. I really doubt it, cuz U2 usually never needs THAT much time to grow on me. The only album I needed time to appreciate was POP, and not because I thought it was too simple or "wannabe retro", but because I was just confused by their approach. But even at that time, I had a feeling one day POP would hit me, and it did years later, partly because I just stopped listening to the album quickly after it was released, and stopped listening to U2 all the time until ATYCLB came out. When I finally returned to POP after probably a 5 year period, I realized how creative and daring it was for them, and I fell in love with it. With the bomb, unfortunately, I really don't see myself finding anything new within the songs. I feel like I already know the songs inside-and-out and don't see myself discovering anything unexpectedly good in the future. But you never know.
 
I love u2 even more after listening to many artists, not because u2 are better than them but because u2 appeals more to me.
 
:crazy: I don't know.

I just don't know anymore what exactly upsets me about U2 in the 00s. :| It's weird cos when I'm in that mood, I can listen to ATYCLB & HTDAAB forever! But other times, the earlier albums seem clearly superior to me. Maybe it's in the lyrics. Maybe it's not.

Maybe it's partly cos I grew up with the nostalgic 90s stuff and didn't really question it much. And now that I'm older, I'm looking at their music thru a microscopic lens. Maybe not.

:|
 
Zootlesque said:
Maybe it's in the lyrics. Maybe it's not.

Maybe it's partly cos I grew up with the nostalgic 90s stuff and didn't really question it much. And now that I'm older, I'm looking at their music thru a microscopic lens. Maybe not.

I think you're crazy, maybe :wink:
 
ozeeko said:


I know what you mean, and I agree with u on ure reviews of both those albums (except I don't think the Bomb has even "good" songs. They're all pretty mediocre to bad). However, maybe...(crossing my fingers)...in the future I will be hit unexpectedly by this album, for whatever reason. I really doubt it, cuz U2 usually never needs THAT much time to grow on me. The only album I needed time to appreciate was POP, and not because I thought it was too simple or "wannabe retro", but because I was just confused by their approach. But even at that time, I had a feeling one day POP would hit me, and it did years later, partly because I just stopped listening to the album quickly after it was released, and stopped listening to U2 all the time until ATYCLB came out. When I finally returned to POP after probably a 5 year period, I realized how creative and daring it was for them, and I fell in love with it. With the bomb, unfortunately, I really don't see myself finding anything new within the songs. I feel like I already know the songs inside-and-out and don't see myself discovering anything unexpectedly good in the future. But you never know.
I feel Bomb, from a songwriting standpoint, warrents no complaints. It doesn't have the feeling I'm accustomed to from past U2 efforts, but the musicianship is very "professional" - maybe too much so (for my liking anyway).

As for Pop, I know what you mean. I listen to it when I'm bored with the more "classic" side of U2's catalogue, despite the fact I don't get too much of that ethereal feeling from it. There are moments on Pop that are stellar ('Velvet Dress, 'Please', 'Gone'), but overall I feel this is where U2 began to become more of a professional sounding band, with traditional songwriting. Pop, despite being daring, sonically speaking, doesn't take off musically - ie, seldom do the melodies and hooks just "arrive." If they had, it would have been amazing. To me, Zooropa is the more consistent album ('Stay', 'Zooropa', 'Lemon', 'The First Time', even 'Numb' are all very melodious without sounding like they're trying to be, which is the key....and this is where U2 begins to fail on Pop). But it is a nice album to listen to when needing something fresh from U2 that isn't as comfortable sonically as their recent output. There are many layers to absorb...and a great album to listen to on headphones when hungering for this kind of stimuli. But overall, as I said in the other thread, it's an album that had the right idea, but maybe not the right ideas.

I sometimes wonder what Pop would have sounded like if Bono had still had his complete vocal range and sounded exactly as he did in 1991. I think vocals can have a huge influence on the songwriting process....I sometimes salivate as to how amazing Pop would have sounded with all that ambition, loops and style combined with hooks, melody, and soaring vocals. That would have been something to behold, no doubt. Still, I love the fact U2 put it out for us to have when we need something different.
 
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths said:

I sometimes wonder what Pop would have sounded like if Bono had still had his complete vocal range and sounded exactly as he did in 1991. I think vocals can have a huge influence on the songwriting process....I sometimes salivate as to how amazing Pop would have sounded with all that ambition, loops and style combined with hooks, melody, and soaring vocals. That would have been something to behold, no doubt. Still, I love the fact U2 put it out for us to have when we need something different.

Well, I don't that Pop would have been very different. What I think about Pop is that few songs seem that they are already in the demo form and that they were quickly produced to make the tracklist. That nudity and rawness of the songs contrast with the techniques and the sound effects used in studio. You percept that.

But Pop wouldn't be very different from what we know. I think that what we know from the remakes, the single versions and live versions represents where they really wanted to go.
 
I don't know, I can't help but have the feeling that Pop could have gone somewhere much farther....like they were waiting for something great to happen, but it never fully arrived. I don't think that reworking songs would have made any difference. It's as though the songs just weren't born to reach the potential that the idea of Pop seems to instill. It's a bit of a paradox, and what we got is what we got, and we should be happy with that.

And that, I suppose, is the whole point of this thread.
 
Michael Griffiths said:
I don't know, I can't help but have the feeling that Pop could have gone somewhere much farther....like they were waiting for something great to happen, but it never fully arrived. I don't think that reworking songs would have made any difference. It's as though the songs just weren't born to reach the potential that the idea of Pop seems to instill. It's a bit of a paradox, and what we got is what we got, and we should be happy with that.

And that, I suppose, is the whole point of this thread.

The 'somewhere much farther' that you speak of, for me, is if the songs on the Pop record sounded like they did on the Popmart tour. That's it. If 'Please' from Popmart was 'Please' on the record, if 'Mofo' from Popmart was 'Mofo on the record, if 'Last Night On Earth' from Popmart was 'Last Night On Earth' on the record, etc etc, the record would have been the single best record they have ever put out, imo. I've always felt that Pop was improved live much more so than any other record in U2's catalog(though Bomb gives it a run for its money in that regard...but whereas with Pop it's because the live performances were so amazing, with Bomb it's because the studio production was so awful). That is my opinion, anyway.
 
Perhaps to some degree, but there again any album is much larger than life when brought to the stage show. But I do agree Pop's songs were improved the most out of all albums, though Achtung Baby and ATYCLB certainly took off live as well, both for different reasons.

I actually like the studio version of 'Mofo' more than the live version, and I really appreciate the starkness of the album version of 'Please'. However, for many of the songs, the arrangements are quite middle of the road, despite the playful instrumentation. Bomb has middle of the road arrangements as well, with one or two exceptions ('Original of the Species'), and this may account for these albums coming off a little flat (at least for me)...whereas ATYCLB seemed relaxed and joyful which made up for it.

Anyway, I still would love to see U2 explore the territory on Pop once again, this time with reckless abandon.
 
Haha, thanks BonoManiac....now I'm really beginning to feel the love in here!

I should add one more thing about Pop. When I say "reckless abandon", I don't want to be taken literally! I realize U2 know what they're doing, and I applaud them for their ambition in taking a step into the world of electronica infused rock. I almost think they took that album too seriously, however, (yes, even 'Miami'). Perhaps, then, it would have arrived with all the promise of the idea. But this is all my opinion... though it appears the band sort of feels the same way.
 
dietcokeofevil said:
No matter what the band does they will please 25% of their fans , 50% will be lukewarm and 25% will hate it.

Why? Because depending on what era touched each fan...all new material will be compared to that era

In short, every long time fan, subconciously or not, IS STUCK IN A MOMENT THAT THEY CAN'T GET OUT OF
How true!
 
namkcuR said:


The 'somewhere much farther' that you speak of, for me, is if the songs on the Pop record sounded like they did on the Popmart tour. That's it. If 'Please' from Popmart was 'Please' on the record, if 'Mofo' from Popmart was 'Mofo on the record, if 'Last Night On Earth' from Popmart was 'Last Night On Earth' on the record, etc etc, the record would have been the single best record they have ever put out, imo. I've always felt that Pop was improved live much more so than any other record in U2's catalog(though Bomb gives it a run for its money in that regard...but whereas with Pop it's because the live performances were so amazing,

I agree. Although I think Pop got his mission accomplished (despite the band doesn't think so), Pop could've been even better than it is. The live versions and the single versions proved that it was just a question of time... Of months.
Only MoFo I love it how is is the album (I'm refering to namkcuR's examples) but a single version identical to the show opening wouldn't have been a bad idea...
 
Aygo said:


I agree. Although I think Pop got his mission accomplished (despite the band doesn't think so), Pop could've been even better than it is. The live versions and the single versions proved that it was just a question of time... Of months.
Only MoFo I love it how is is the album (I'm refering to namkcuR's examples) but a single version identical to the show opening wouldn't have been a bad idea...
This simply confirms why I don't think more time would have taken the album to its full potential (improved it, possibly...), as I actually much prefer the album versions of 'Gone', 'Please' and 'Staring at the Sun' than the single versions. The only single version that I (think) I like better is possibly 'If God Will Send His Angels', though it's really too close to say.

Sometimes I find - in the case of U2 songs anyway - that a live arrangement brought into the studio comes off as a little too grandeur. The single version of 'Gone' comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths said:
as I actually much prefer the album versions of 'Gone', 'Please' and 'Staring at the Sun' than the single versions.

Even Please??? :ohmy:

Cos I think Please is the one song that is greatly improved on the single & esp. live versions!
 
I used to like the single version more, back when I had hoped Pop sounded "more U2"...but now I feel they nailed it on the album. It has a sort of sparse soul to it, like an electronica hangover - a lost poet dissolusioned in the 21st century vibe...that I feel is lacking in the updated, cleaned up, "U2 sounding live" single.
 
Michael Griffiths said:

This simply confirms why I don't think more time would have taken the album to its full potential (improved it, possibly...), as I actually much prefer the album versions of 'Gone', 'Please' and 'Staring at the Sun' than the single versions. The only single version that I (think) I like better is possibly 'If God Will Send His Angels', though it's really too close to say.

Sometimes I find - in the case of U2 songs anyway - that a live arrangement brought into the studio comes off as a little too grandeur. The single version of 'Gone' comes to mind.

Well, more or less...
IFWSHA, Please and LNOE improved a lot in the single versions and in the live performances.
MoFo is great in both versions.
Gone too: the new mix improved and is good, but it's not the same than the album version...
But Discotheque and SATS went wrong with the remakes... The first one lost its techno influence the power of the orignal version and SATS with overproduction you can't almost listen the guitar riff and the electronic bits... it went just wrong and the album version was great...
 
Aygo, yeah, it was a bit of mixed bag with the remixes and re-recordings. Kind of like the originals in that regard! Pop was supposed to be the kind of album that you couldn't pin down and sort out, as it turns out.

You can reach but you can't grab it / You can't hold it control it you can't bag it
 
Exactly. In the end, Pop IS Pop. Reaching for something, something grand, and stumbling at the finish line. Pretty much every song is about reaching out for something and not quite getting it. The whole album did that in the end. Perfect.

I also like the album version of Please. I'd take the guitar from the single/live, but leave the strings behind.
 
Back
Top Bottom