thavidesco
Refugee
Angel Of Harlem... song that never disappoints...
*Spoilers* - Rehearsals in Vancouver
- Thread starter ramblin rose
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
thavidesco
Refugee
Regarding Ballroom, I think it is the most exciting song in terms of change of their style. It is almost like their "Get Lucky". It´s like U2 discovering new areas, new directions. That´s what I expected when they said they are preparing a club album. I think it is so different and so catchy, it was potentionally a big radio hit. Certainly not B-side material. It should have never ended up on a B disc. It should have been saved for another project.
Maybe their plan is to play city specific songs at a mass transit stop before each show #confirmedrumor
malchik_petya
The Fly
The long promised b-sides and rarities tour
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
RaisedByWolves
War Child
so excited to hear RBW!!!
This is not confirmed so stop acting like it is.
The NYT article calls RBW the "bleak midpoint" of the show, but that doesn't inherently mean it's the final song of the first set. We haven't yet had a lengthy rehearsal setlist posted publicly that indicates which songs are being rehearsed as closers, and only The Troubles and EBW have been mentioned as sounding like they are being rehearsed for closing roles.
I concur that RBW is a likely candidate in light of the NYT quote, but it could be the most dramatic and eye-/ear-catching (but not last) song in a sequence. Think, for example, of Streets being described as the culmination of the main set on tours where it has nonetheless been followed by one or two more songs before the encore break.
Oregoropa
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
No 'People Get Ready' this tour
Cool to see the band. Here is a brief clip somewhere in New York:
https://instagram.com/p/2SFlrTFmBm/
https://instagram.com/p/2SFlrTFmBm/
cobl04
45:33
oh hey romi...
dan_smee
ONE love, blood, life
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
If the song was "Angel of Southie", I'd fully expect to have to sit through it, its a cross you'll have to bear.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Yup. It's a decent enough b-side, but I don't get the huge love for it on here. Lots of people have compared it to Love Is The Drug, but I don't hear that at all. What I do hear is that it's very close to Arcade Fire's We Exist, except Arcade Fire did it better.
U2FanPeter
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Just got an email saying Edge/Larry/Adam were spotted entering the Coliseum tonight. No word yet if they played.
Keep in mind that Bono-free mid tour soundchecks aren't that rare, there's even a CD comp of IEM sourced ones that's a fascinating listen.
Keep in mind that Bono-free mid tour soundchecks aren't that rare, there's even a CD comp of IEM sourced ones that's a fascinating listen.
This doesn't surprise me a whole lot. It means they can get in an extra night of rehearsals without worrying about pushing Bono's voice too hard. You'd assume they ran through at least something.
Hallucination
Refugee
I gotta be honest and say on the Vertigo tour I felt COBL would be the opener and on 360 I felt Breathe was the very obvious choice to open shows.
As for Invisible I think you're right, it would work great as a second set opener. However I still feel cedarwood Road would be a terrible song to open with. I just find it incredibly boring. It's a song that starts strong and then falls flat on its face in medocrity in my opinion. It would have a more underwhelming reaction than Breathe did and Breathe is a much better song in my opinion. The opening song should grab people and hold them. Cedarwood Road would grab people but then struggle to hold them.
UGH. I keep trying to like it and when the topic of it opening shows comes up I go ahead and listen to see what I'm missing that others are hearing and NOPE. I can't icture a worse opening song actually. They'd be better off opening with Sleep Like a Baby Tonight.
Hallucination
Refugee
California maybe could've been a decent hit. Although today while driving and listening to the ALBUM version of Every Breaking wave I thought to myself "Why the fuck wasn't this the lead single?" The band are so out of touch when it comes to choosing their lead singles, whch is ironic for a band that so desperately wants to be played on radio. Here's an idea, pick a song that's unabashedly U2 yet modern, is catchy, with good lyrics and release that as a lead single. Ummm....... Magnificent and Every Breaking Wave maybe? Nope Get on Your Boots and The Miracle(Of Joey Ramone)
cobl04
45:33
If they had balls and didn't care so much they would have released Moment of Surrender as the first single from NLOTH and The Troubles from SoI. They have all the money in the world and a long and illustrious career. They could afford to release an album without bet-hedging songs. I mean look at someone like Nick Cave - about the same age, he doesn't give a shit about having a "hit" and his latest album was released to widespread critical and fan acclaim. And he's selling tons of tickets all over the world. None of the songs from that were thrashed on radio or appeared in the top 40. Tom Waits, even older, his last album was also beloved by critics and fans alike. And both artists just released the albums they wanted to make, none of this desperate, pathetic pandering to idiots.
Ironically I believe that if U2 went down that route they'd actually be more relevant and appreciated now.
Ironically I believe that if U2 went down that route they'd actually be more relevant and appreciated now.
dan_smee
ONE love, blood, life
Hallucination
Refugee
I agree on the very last part but not about releasing MOS or The Troubles as lead singles. There's no point in releasing any singles if those are the songs you're going with. Great songs just awful choices as lead singles. I've been saying it for years and years now. U2 should stop worrying about what fans and non fans think. Just make the album they want, for no other reason than they like it and that will be more than enough. In fact it will be better even. Just start picking thier best choices for singles though. It's hard to imagine them sitting around and agreeing on the decision to release Boots and The Miracle as lead singles. How does that even happen?
The thing is they have the songs. They have great songs that would be decent hits on radio but they choose not to use them. Sure they use them eventually but nowadays if your lead single sucks it's over in terms of radio airplay for the entire album basically. Boots and The Miracle are two of the worst lead singles ever by any band. Just awful. They come off as very "Ty Hard".
cobl04
45:33
Why shouldn't they release Moment of Surrender or The Troubles as lead singles? In my view they are the best songs on their respective albums. It doesn't matter if they release Boots or Magnificent, nor Miracle or EBW. All of them are going to fail because no one gives a shit anymore. They would be far more likely to get good press and have success by releasing the best songs from new albums than hedging their bets and releasing a shitty rocker or a slow-burning ballad (and the four songs I mentioned above are all U2-by-numbers). Using my earlier examples, the first track we heard from Nick Cave's latest Push the Sky Away was We Know Who U R, which is a very quiet, slow, moody song. It didn't chart anywhere, doesn't matter. For Tom Waits' Bad as Me the lead single was Hell Broke Luce. Again, didn't chart anywhere, wasn't a "hit", but it doesn't matter. Critics and fans alike loved both. U2's strategy of releasing shitty rockers or a tired ballad alienates everyone. Plus, releasing the best songs might actually garner them some favour with taste-making music blogs, like Pitchfork or CoS or Stereogum or Popmatters or whatever. Instead, they hedge their bets and nobody wins.
(I do like Every Breaking Wave, for the record, they pull it off, but honestly it pales in comparison to their past attempts at the slow, stately ballad.)
(I do like Every Breaking Wave, for the record, they pull it off, but honestly it pales in comparison to their past attempts at the slow, stately ballad.)
Best song on the album =/= best choice for single.
I've never been on board the "MOS should've been a single" train, but then I think it's nothing more than a decent track, not particularly notable. I agree that The Troubles should be a single, but not the first one. The first single needs to be an attention-grabber, something to cut through the current music scene - perhaps because it's irresistible and catchy (Pride, BD, Vertigo) or so unlike anything any really popular band is making at the time (WOWY) or straight-up surprising and arresting (The Fly). I'm not sure what fits the bill from SOI, probably EBW for the catchiness. Then go with The Troubles second, to showcase the depth of the album once people have realised U2 are back.
But what do I know.
I've never been on board the "MOS should've been a single" train, but then I think it's nothing more than a decent track, not particularly notable. I agree that The Troubles should be a single, but not the first one. The first single needs to be an attention-grabber, something to cut through the current music scene - perhaps because it's irresistible and catchy (Pride, BD, Vertigo) or so unlike anything any really popular band is making at the time (WOWY) or straight-up surprising and arresting (The Fly). I'm not sure what fits the bill from SOI, probably EBW for the catchiness. Then go with The Troubles second, to showcase the depth of the album once people have realised U2 are back.
But what do I know.
cobl04
45:33
Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I don't think they are capable of releasing a song that cuts through anymore. It's been 11 years since that happened. So why not just release the deeper cuts that are actually good songs? Other artists of this vintage do that.
Salome
you are what you is
The entire "U2 should just make the music they want to make" statement just shits me.
What does that mean, really?
There's 4 people in U2, there is no 1 sort of album all 4 of them want to make at the same time.
They aim for consensus.
And they mostly achieve it.
As the 90s is this forum's favourite U2 period and also the only decade where they released albums I doubts all 4 members of the band were completely on board I very much doubt we really want to hear U2 "doing what they want to do".
What does that mean, really?
There's 4 people in U2, there is no 1 sort of album all 4 of them want to make at the same time.
They aim for consensus.
And they mostly achieve it.
As the 90s is this forum's favourite U2 period and also the only decade where they released albums I doubts all 4 members of the band were completely on board I very much doubt we really want to hear U2 "doing what they want to do".
Yahweh_OMG
New Yorker
California would have been the best 1st single.
Not my top 2 favourite, but it's catchy, U2 ish and much radio friendlier than Miracle or The Troubles.... EBW would have done a good job as well I guess....
Not my top 2 favourite, but it's catchy, U2 ish and much radio friendlier than Miracle or The Troubles.... EBW would have done a good job as well I guess....
cobl04
45:33
Sorry forum police. Put me in the stocks
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked
