Excerpt from the new RS article, "U2: Hymns For the Future" about "Winter" vs Singles

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Sidenote: I'd say that Elbow and U2 are reacting and innovating in similar ways right now. And I'd say that Elbow wins. Big, epic, but also strange in it's beauty (thinking of "The Seldom Seen Kid"). so maybe that'd be a better touchstone.
 
If we are going to compare the sonics of NLOTH and Achtung, of course there isn't much of a difference but in terms of upping one's creative ambition or artistic want, one of those albums was an indisputable risk and the other, indisputably not. That doesn't have anything to do with quality of music.

Achtung was all about the context.
If I were 25 and had heard Achtung for the first time 7, 8 years ago. I might not think it's such a leap of ambition for them. But if I have enough sense to go back and perhaps watch Under a Blood Red Sky and then Rattle and Hum, it might make more sense... or it might not. Depends on who's digesting it.

Even then, you can't fully appreciate it, just like I was too young to fully appreciate that pre-Joshua Tree era. I remember U2 on MTV when I was a kid and even liking it but I didn't appreciate it. I can listen and watch and read but it's not the same thing as experiencing full context, it never would be.
 
The only fair thing to compare U2 to is themselves, in terms of experimentation. U2 is reacting to things that radiohead isn't, and visa versa. U2 does experimental in the terms of experimental mainstream, experimental universality. Radiohead isn't that, and that doesn't mean that they aren't universal or incredible. they are. But that's not what they're reacting to. They're reacting to Asa Breed and dubstep and Madlib and Messien. Things that U2 isn't.

"Faust Arp" may not sound like the most experimental thing in the world, but if you listen to reference points, like "Cell Song" by Nick Drake, you see where the reaction comes from and why it's exemplary.

I'd love it if U2 was reacting to more of the fringe of music. But they're back in a literal "fucking up the mainstream" mode. In the sense that they're putting stuff like Fez, COL, etc, on an album that people are buying on the strength of Vertigo, on the strength of a big name top 40 band. NOLTH will be remembered as one of U2's more experimental albums. it's not completely, and it's certainly not a 10 on the experimental scale. but I'd say that NOLTH, MOS, UC, GOYB, F-BB, and COL are some of their more consciously innovative stuff. So, it's a 6/10, 6/11. not a 4.

Okay, so 6 out of 11 songs are experimental, but none are experimental enough, and thus I still only give it a 4! It's my rating system, dammit!:D
 
So you'd rather they focused on what you wanted than on what they wanted?

This is depressing to read, knowing that there's a less overcooked version of Stand Up Comedy somewhere (I can't see how it could be worse than what we got), and that Bono's still on this 45 bullshit. We get it, you did this with the last two albums, give it a fucking rest. The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby didn't focus on hit songs--guess what, each album had a handful of successful singles! Focus on the fucking MUSIC, not on the audience.
 
Well that's the argument, isn't it? Whether what they want to focus on is right or not? All I'm saying is that at this point in their careers, they should be making music for themselves, they've earned it. There's no reason to do it with one eye looking over your shoulder at some potential audience. It's limiting.
 
Well that's the argument, isn't it? Whether what they want to focus on is right or not? All I'm saying is that at this point in their careers, they should be making music for themselves, they've earned it. There's no reason to do it with one eye looking over your shoulder at some potential audience. It's limiting.

Exactly. It's pointless to say stuff like "you'd rather they focused on what you wanted than what they wanted." At the end of the day, an artist either makes a right decision or a wrong decision. If what "we" want is right, then I'd rather the band went that route. Some people, like these U2 guys, get confused in old age - we're only looking out for them!
 
I was there too, but I see A LOT of revisionist history in here about this album all the time. A lot of the same sell out arguments were made then that are being made today, etc etc...

Who is talking about U2 "selling out" though?
Whoever it is isn't worth arguing with, they don't get 'it' and never will.
That's about the lowest common denominator 'charge' leveled against any artist who is successful, without regard to any consistency.

That said, there is something to be said for the degree to which U2 will go to be relevant. And I could use their own words (mostly Bono) to string together a pronouncement of what they are all about. And even then some around here would find ways to apologize for Bono.

What does he mean by being "relevant" anyways?
Isn't that the big question to ask?

Will they compromise a song so that it will be digested more easily and become more "relevant"? Of course and I can show you their own words echoing that. Then you get into this territory of talking about... it's their canvass! They can paint as they want! Sure. That doesn't change the ambition to be relevant and what they think it takes to get there.

Just don't anyone try and sell me that they are still taking the same risks.
Maybe the guitars from 1991 don't have their old context and sit side by side with the 21st century, that's fine, but they aren't out there on a fucking limb doing anything close to being that risky these days. Breathe is a pretty great song, IMO, but it's standard riff rock, straight off the tape. What limit is that pushing? Do they even need to push limits anymore?

I think all Eno and others would like, is that they went out there on that limb more often. Just have confidence enough to let it out there.

That's not who U2 is though, not anymore.
I am fine with where they are and I am done worrying about what they aren't, although it's always fun to speculate about things.
This is 3 consecutive albums folks, covering a decade. This is not a sound experiment, this is U2 as U2.

And Breathe embodies that. It's a pretty great song but it's a hell of a lot more in league with the stuff I grew up listening to, that I eventually found U2 as an alternative to. 'Being Born' is the U2 that I 'truly' fell in love with. So, they still have whatever it is that I love the most about them, they just don't want to explore it too often.
 
Who is talking about U2 "selling out" though?
Whoever it is isn't worth arguing with, they don't get 'it' and never will.
That's about the lowest common denominator 'charge' leveled against any artist who is successful, without regard to any consistency.

That said, there is something to be said for the degree to which U2 will go to be relevant. And I could use their own words (mostly Bono) to string together a pronouncement of what they are all about. And even then some around here would find ways to apologize for Bono.

What does he mean by being "relevant" anyways?
Isn't that the big question to ask?

Will they compromise a song so that it will be digested more easily and become more "relevant"? Of course and I can show you their own words echoing that. Then you get into this territory of talking about... it's their canvass! They can paint as they want! Sure. That doesn't change the ambition to be relevant and what they think it takes to get there.

Just don't anyone try and sell me that they are still taking the same risks.
Maybe the guitars from 1991 don't have their old context and sit side by side with the 21st century, that's fine, but they aren't out there on a fucking limb doing anything close to being that risky these days. Breathe is a pretty great song, IMO, but it's standard riff rock, straight off the tape. What limit is that pushing? Do they even need to push limits anymore?

I think all Eno and others would like, is that they went out there on that limb more often. Just have confidence enough to let it out there.

That's not who U2 is though, not anymore.
I am fine with where they are and I am done worrying about what they aren't, although it's always fun to speculate about things.
This is 3 consecutive albums folks, covering a decade. This is not a sound experiment, this is U2 as U2.

And Breathe embodies that. It's a pretty great song but it's a hell of a lot more in league with the stuff I grew up listening to, that I eventually found U2 as an alternative to. 'Being Born' is the U2 that I 'truly' fell in love with. So, they still have whatever it is that I love the most about them, they just don't want to explore it too often.

Well said.
 
Who is talking about U2 "selling out" though?
Whoever it is isn't worth arguing with, they don't get 'it' and never will.
That's about the lowest common denominator 'charge' leveled against any artist who is successful, without regard to any consistency.

That said, there is something to be said for the degree to which U2 will go to be relevant. And I could use their own words (mostly Bono) to string together a pronouncement of what they are all about. And even then some around here would find ways to apologize for Bono.

What does he mean by being "relevant" anyways?
Isn't that the big question to ask?

Will they compromise a song so that it will be digested more easily and become more "relevant"? Of course and I can show you their own words echoing that. Then you get into this territory of talking about... it's their canvass! They can paint as they want! Sure. That doesn't change the ambition to be relevant and what they think it takes to get there.

Just don't anyone try and sell me that they are still taking the same risks.
Maybe the guitars from 1991 don't have their old context and sit side by side with the 21st century, that's fine, but they aren't out there on a fucking limb doing anything close to being that risky these days. Breathe is a pretty great song, IMO, but it's standard riff rock, straight off the tape. What limit is that pushing? Do they even need to push limits anymore?

I think all Eno and others would like, is that they went out there on that limb more often. Just have confidence enough to let it out there.

That's not who U2 is though, not anymore.
I am fine with where they are and I am done worrying about what they aren't, although it's always fun to speculate about things.
This is 3 consecutive albums folks, covering a decade. This is not a sound experiment, this is U2 as U2.

And Breathe embodies that. It's a pretty great song but it's a hell of a lot more in league with the stuff I grew up listening to, that I eventually found U2 as an alternative to. 'Being Born' is the U2 that I 'truly' fell in love with. So, they still have whatever it is that I love the most about them, they just don't want to explore it too often.

I can respect what you're saying, but I don't agree with it all. I do think U2 stepped out on some limbs with this one, maybe not with every song, but enough to keep it fresh.

I find this album to be more of a AB to Zooropa type of departure rather than a R&H to AB type of departure...
 
Okay, so 6 out of 11 songs are experimental, but none are experimental enough, and thus I still only give it a 4! It's my rating system, dammit!:D

What the fuck does "experimental" even mean? Experimental in relation to what? U2? A band whose only truly left-field, fuck-up-the-mainstream records (Zooropa, Passengers) were released in a span of 3 years? I'm sorry, but even though I know it's fun to think of Achtung Baby and Pop as these inexplicable, bizarre creations with no apparent origin, the fact is that both records showed a band with one foot on challenging new territory and the other on well-trod ground. Huh...kind of sounds like NLOTH to me.

But perhaps I'm just biased. I really couldn't give a fuck if U2 are challenging themselves musically or not, because U2 is always going to sound like U2 to me, whether they choose to mask it in dance beats or traditional Moroccan music, and, ultimately, there are going to be more challenging records out there if I'm in need of such things. What I don't want is a record filled with banal cliches and other platitudinous nonsense. If U2 can avoid that, I don't care if they draw from the late '80s (EG: the "classic" U2 sound...as if a 5 year period is enough to define a band who has dabbled in just about everything).
 
:up:
What the fuck does "experimental" even mean? Experimental in relation to what? U2? A band whose only truly left-field, fuck-up-the-mainstream records (Zooropa, Passengers) were released in a span of 3 years? I'm sorry, but even though I know it's fun to think of Achtung Baby and Pop as these inexplicable, bizarre creations with no apparent origin, the fact is that both records showed a band with one foot on challenging new territory and the other on well-trod ground. Huh...kind of sounds like NLOTH to me.

But perhaps I'm just biased. I really couldn't give a fuck if U2 are challenging themselves musically or not, because U2 is always going to sound like U2 to me, whether they choose to mask it in dance beats or traditional Moroccan music, and, ultimately, there are going to be more challenging records out there if I'm in need of such things. What I don't want is a record filled with banal cliches and other platitudinous nonsense. If U2 can avoid that, I don't care if they draw from the late '80s (EG: the "classic" U2 sound...as if a 5 year period is enough to define a band who has dabbled in just about everything).

Yep, couldnt agree with you more.
 
This can be argued for a lot of music. I'm a fan of classic progressive rock from the 70's; Yes, Genesis, etc. Very uncool, unhip stuff. But in the context of those times, that music did push boundaries and challenge people.

Thing is, the way generations and rebellious tendencies of adolescents work, every few years there is some sort of sea change in music styles that are popular, often at the expense of what was just popular. It has nothing to do with anything being *good* or not, it has more to do with context and relevance amongst one's peer group.

Achtung was all about the context.
If I were 25 and had heard Achtung for the first time 7, 8 years ago. I might not think it's such a leap of ambition for them. But if I have enough sense to go back and perhaps watch Under a Blood Red Sky and then Rattle and Hum, it might make more sense... or it might not. Depends on who's digesting it.
 
What the fuck does "experimental" even mean? Experimental in relation to what? U2? A band whose only truly left-field, fuck-up-the-mainstream records (Zooropa, Passengers) were released in a span of 3 years? I'm sorry, but even though I know it's fun to think of Achtung Baby and Pop as these inexplicable, bizarre creations with no apparent origin, the fact is that both records showed a band with one foot on challenging new territory and the other on well-trod ground. Huh...kind of sounds like NLOTH to me.

But perhaps I'm just biased. I really couldn't give a fuck if U2 are challenging themselves musically or not, because U2 is always going to sound like U2 to me, whether they choose to mask it in dance beats or traditional Moroccan music, and, ultimately, there are going to be more challenging records out there if I'm in need of such things. What I don't want is a record filled with banal cliches and other platitudinous nonsense. If U2 can avoid that, I don't care if they draw from the late '80s (EG: the "classic" U2 sound...as if a 5 year period is enough to define a band who has dabbled in just about everything).



:up:


(though i'd argue that NLOTH is one of Bono's better lyrical efforts, despite some lapses in quality control)
 
I agree. I just wonder if it's possible for them to actually do it. For them, it could be that in order to please themselves, they need to feel that what they are doing is culturally relevant, popular with fans, etc.

Well that's the argument, isn't it? Whether what they want to focus on is right or not? All I'm saying is that at this point in their careers, they should be making music for themselves, they've earned it. There's no reason to do it with one eye looking over your shoulder at some potential audience. It's limiting.
 
The March 19, 2009 issue arrived in the mail today, and, while I'm sure there isn't much in the way of new information in it, there was part of it that I felt compelled to type out(a little of it was in the part the RS site has, but not close to all of it). It has to do with the battle over "Winter", and the philosophical musical differences between Brian Eno and the band. It's the debate we've had countless times about whether or not U2 are focusing on singles too much, pretty much had out in consolidated form in this article. Eno plays the part of the person who doesn't care about singles, and Bono responds with an argument that is valid and interesting (except for lumping the Sex Pistols in the same category as the Beatles). The rest of the article isn't about this particular subject as much, and this is just over a page from an article that has in the neighborhood of 4 pages worth of text. Read on...

In the basement of London's Olympic Studios, armed only with a MacBook and a Nord keyboard, Brian Eno is leading a doomed, one-man insurgency. It's early December and U2 are wrapping up their sessions for No Line, the track listing almost finalized, but Eno is still pushing for prayerful, moody songs that were long ago abandoned. He's most passionate about "Winter", which sounds like no other U2 song. It begins with fingerpicked, chiming acoustic guitar and falsetto backing vocals, and once Bono hits a key line - "Summer sings in me no more" - Eno's dramatic strings kick in. "Listening to the silence, the deaf and dumb roar of white noise/your voice", Bono sings at one point, followed by a choral chant. "Beautiful, isn't it? They're bonkers to leave it off," Eno says with real sadness, as the tune winds up with soaring, dissonant strings - they're synthesized played on his little keyboard down here in the basement.

Well before Barack Obama thought of it, U2 embraced Abraham Lincoln's idea of a team of rivals. "Brian's job is basically to take everything and destroy it," says Lillywhite. "And I suppose I come in after he's destroyed it, and I listen to what he's done, and to what was there before, and I sort of get some middle ground, and try and bring it back to a place where art and commerce live side by side." Adds Edge, "That tension is important to the process. But I think we're pretty much always right."

Eno, whose fearlessly arty vision has shaped some of the best rock of the last 30 years - from Roxy Music to his experimental solo albums to Bowie in Berlin to Coldplay's Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends - is bald, professorial, and unexpectedly genial, with Prada glasses hanging on a chord around his neck. "It's too long, it needs a bit of work," he says of "Winter." "But, you know, they won't spend time on it. They've spent months working on the ones that are supposed to be the radio singles. Months! This: played, put aside."

"Winter" didn't make it, but another ballad, "White As Snow", came in at the last minute. And Eno is all over the record - the squiggy synth sounds are his, and many of the songs had their seed in the atmospheric loops he records using the program Logic Studio, giving them titles such as "Grunge Beatstorm Gate." "You can hear Brian in the sort of Germanic krautrock feel of the title track," says Clayton. "You can hear his brain there."

Eno and Lanois both pick the hypnotic, seven-minute-plus "Moment Of Surrender" as a favorite track, and the one closest to the original concept of the album. It came out of what the band its producers describe as a small miracle: They all stood together one day and improvised its entire structure from scratch, all at once. That original backing track made it to the final album, complete with a trance-y bass line Clayton was figuring out as he played it - you can hear him imitate the bass part from Grandmaster Flash's "White Lines" and then switch to another idea altogether - and Mullen's uneven high-hat work, thanks to a busted electronic drum kit. ("Adam is the star of the show on this album," Bono says. "No one knew he could move from his rock & roll pulse thing to the jaw-dropping bass part on 'Moment' or the sort of neo-Motown bass on 'Magnificent'") Eno fought hard to keep the band from messing too much with the original track. "These fucking guys," he says with a smile, "they're supposed to be so spiritual - they don't spot a miracle when it hits them in the face. Nothing like that ever happened to me in the studio in my whole life."

Eno's iTunes library is a U2 superfan's wet dream, with what seems to be hundreds of discarded songs and alternate takes. In some cases, Eno has written critiques in the "Comment" field, such as "This song needs faster and more urgent singing." He demonstrates the evolution of one potentional single, "Stand Up Comedy": It began as a tune driven by Middle Eastern-sounding mandolins, with Bono singing, "We don't know what the future's gonna bring." From there, it took on a "You Really Got Me"-like riff and a chanted chorus that revolved around the words "for your love" - a little too close to the Yardbirds for comfort. Then it shifted again: new riff, new melody and a chorus that retains only the words "for your love" - upstairs, Bono and LIllywhite are still working on it. "Get On Your Boots," which began as a Garageband demo by the Edge, went through a similarly complex progression. At one point, it was called "Four-Letter Word." And at some stage it lost its central riff, leaving it sounding like what Lillywhite describes as "a Beck B-side" that was in danger of being dropped from the record altogether.

Eno ducks the question of whether U2 have an artistic as well as commercial justification for focusing on potential hits. "You should ask the band that," he replies. And it turns out Bono has strong feelings on the subject. "We grew up on the rock & roll 45," he says. "It is, in an evolutionary way that Brian should, but doesn't, appreciate, the Darwinian peak of the species. It is by far the most difficult thing to pull off, and it is the very life force of rock & roll: vitality, succinctness and catchiness, whether it's the Sex Pistols, Nirvana, the Pixies, the Beatles, the Who, the Rolling Stones. And when rock music forgets about the 45, it tends toward progressive rock, which is like a mold that grows on old, burned-out artists who've run out of ideas. We have a soundtrack/Pink Floyd side of our band, and it has to be balanced by fine songwriting. And it's an infuriating thing for me to see indie rock & roll give up the single to R&B and hip-hop. And that's why I love the Kings of Leon album or the Killers album: These are people who have such belief in their musical power that they refuse to ghettoize it." Bono pauses, and returns to the subject of his friend Eno. "What he's listening for is a unique feeling, a unique mood and a unique palate. And he doesn't get hits - I bet he told Coldplay to leave 'Viva La Vida' off their album. Brian would listen to '(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction' and say, 'I love that song, but can we get rid of the guitar bits? You know, the part that goes duhnt-duhnt-dunna dun?'"

Thanks for this!
 
Well I think this is where people get bogged down by bad definitions.

Just recently a poster in here said, we know what experimentation sounds like for U2. It has effects on the vocals, it's electronic driven, etc...

It was the most generic definition I've ever heard. He was just trying to describe U2 90's. The problem is it wouldn't be experimental anymore. Just like Radiohead are approaching their wall right now.

Musically speaking the definition of experimental is trying something they never have before. That's it.

And I can't really think of anything that has the driving rhythm and wordy verses like NLOTH, the structure of MOS, this many slow ballads, the third person lyrics, the quick paced verses of Breathe, the weird subject matter of UC...

i agree whole heartedly that the "invention" or "reinvention" is the song structure. I think this is one of the more enjoyable albums I have listened to in a while.
 
:up:


(though i'd argue that NLOTH is one of Bono's better lyrical efforts, despite some lapses in quality control)

Totally agreed! Despite some little unfortunate relapses (like the «stop helping God across the road like a little old lady») - that every U2 albums have got - I have to say that NLOTH has some of Bono's best lyrical efforts is U2's catalogue.
I even think that, more than the instrumental part (which I really like), the lyrics, the "final connection" between songs and the "whole message/meaning" is probably NLOTH's best thing. This is just my point of view...
 
i agree whole heartedly that the "invention" or "reinvention" is the song structure. I think this is one of the more enjoyable albums I have listened to in a while.
I'm still with the impression that, from all U2 albums, and even though it is not the more experimental, NLOTH is the album that avoids more the ABABC(A)B song structure - at least in some tracks [Unknown Caller (most obvious), Get On Your Boots (too much middle-eights and "intromissive little structures"), "Being Born", "White As Snow" (it never has a proper chorus)...].
 
Breathe manages to at least have a bit more character in the rapid-fire vocal delivery of the verses. It may be calculated, but this one works for me.

The other songs you mentioned...belong on other albums. Like, the last two.

Breathe, while sounding to my ears like it went thru too many compromises, is a decent song. In fact, i'd say it's probably the type of song U2 were trying to write for the past 6 years, a rousing "sing your heart out" type of song. It's a type of U2 song that I dislike but here it's done really really well, so kudos to them for actually writing a decent melody.

My main problems with it come down to 2 things:

1) The production by Lillywhite sounds too workman-like, if that makes any sense, just a little too ordinary rock sound for my tastes. I think if Eno produced it the song could've been killer. As it stands, it's just a good track. It's competant.

2) It just sounds out of place on this album. I find the ending of this album a little unsatisfying. WAS and COL are two of my fave tracks, 2 tracks where i wouldn't change a thing, but the continuous listening experience is spoiled by having Breathe in between them. I think there may have been a way to make the song work there, and i think it mostly comes down to the production. Maybe it needed to be more raw, maybe it needed more atmosphere. But to me the song just sounds a bit ordinary. A bit too BOMBish. On a positive note, if this song was on Bomb it would probably be the best track.
 
Ozeeko, slapnutz, & revolver, I'm curious about how old you are, how long you've been a fan U2 and how much you've delved into their back catalog. Of course, none of this helps/hurts your credibility, but I am curious. The songs that you all seem to have problems with seem like natural descendants of the U2 I grew up with.

Been a u2 fan since '93, i was in the fifth grade at the time...so i guess i was like 11 years old. Got Joshua Tree first, then Zooropa, then Achtung Baby, then Unforgettable Fire all within a year and played the hell out of them. I think they are the 4 best U2 albums.

I love all of their albums (with varying degrees of love) with one exception- HTDAAB.

I've read U2 AT The End Of The World, U2 Into the heart, and U2 Three Chords and the Truth. ALso got that big ass U2 book that came out a couple years ago.

Been to Popmart and been to Evolution tour, once each for each tour.

I was in a band in high school, we played many a U2 song. I was the drummer (and a bit more insane on the drums than Larry Mullen, but then again who isn't?!)

Now i'm a solo songwriter, i play piano but don't know any U2 songs on it. This week i plan on learning "So Cruel", which will be performed in my own style.

I'm also half Irish.

Did i leave anything out?
 
Well that's the argument, isn't it? Whether what they want to focus on is right or not? All I'm saying is that at this point in their careers, they should be making music for themselves, they've earned it. There's no reason to do it with one eye looking over your shoulder at some potential audience. It's limiting.

I'm reminded of Bono saying how Larry said they should be writing music, without thinking of an album or a tour. Similarly, Edge said they were "getting lost in the music".

That doesn't sound like the "11 singles/write pop music" mentality of the last two albums. Neither does, for most part, NLOTH. I think only Crazy tonight and Stand up comedy sound like those.

I do think we'll get another leap and reinvention - and maybe that's what Songs of ascent will do. Maybe it won't be as big as RaH-AB, but it will come. Consider the band was circa 20 years younger at that time - it will get harder to find new sounds for U2 (hence my suggestion to drop Eno and Lanois). What may matter more now is ageing gracefully and making quality music - and NLOTH is the first U2 album after the glory days of Zoo TV that may qualify.

I didn't mind the raison'd etre of writing "singles" as opposed to albums. Or being involved with the trends in music - be it pop music or dance/electronica. It's down to quality, in the end.
 
Who is talking about U2 "selling out" though?
Whoever it is isn't worth arguing with, they don't get 'it' and never will.
That's about the lowest common denominator 'charge' leveled against any artist who is successful, without regard to any consistency.

That said, there is something to be said for the degree to which U2 will go to be relevant. And I could use their own words (mostly Bono) to string together a pronouncement of what they are all about. And even then some around here would find ways to apologize for Bono.

What does he mean by being "relevant" anyways?
Isn't that the big question to ask?

Will they compromise a song so that it will be digested more easily and become more "relevant"? Of course and I can show you their own words echoing that. Then you get into this territory of talking about... it's their canvass! They can paint as they want! Sure. That doesn't change the ambition to be relevant and what they think it takes to get there.

Just don't anyone try and sell me that they are still taking the same risks.
Maybe the guitars from 1991 don't have their old context and sit side by side with the 21st century, that's fine, but they aren't out there on a fucking limb doing anything close to being that risky these days. Breathe is a pretty great song, IMO, but it's standard riff rock, straight off the tape. What limit is that pushing? Do they even need to push limits anymore?

I think all Eno and others would like, is that they went out there on that limb more often. Just have confidence enough to let it out there.

That's not who U2 is though, not anymore.
I am fine with where they are and I am done worrying about what they aren't, although it's always fun to speculate about things.
This is 3 consecutive albums folks, covering a decade. This is not a sound experiment, this is U2 as U2.

And Breathe embodies that. It's a pretty great song but it's a hell of a lot more in league with the stuff I grew up listening to, that I eventually found U2 as an alternative to. 'Being Born' is the U2 that I 'truly' fell in love with. So, they still have whatever it is that I love the most about them, they just don't want to explore it too often.


Well said indeed.
 
This has been a very interesting thread to read. Most of my opinions have already been well covered, but here's an additional thought:

I think sometimes Eno seems to overreach himself, or maybe he feels that he doesn't get enough credit for what he does for U2. On the NLOTH album he's on board as co-writer, performer, and co-producer, but why should his opinions matter more than the band's? Ultimately, he's not a member of U2, AND presumably it's the four of them who ultimately have the final say on tracklistings. The thing I find a bit irritating about him is that he feels the need to go public with his frustrations, and yet at the same time I also find his indiscretions to be fascinating. (Two random asides - would Eno like to be a full member of U2? I'd forgotten that Kirsty McColl apparently chose the final running order for JT - I think she got it right.)

Winter isn't that good a song (in the form that we have it), but yes, if the band had been more interested, it could've been rearranged, tightened or otherwise improved. But even in meandering, overlong form, it's still better than some of the tracks on NLOTH that made the final cut. (I keep on returning to the lyrics on Crazy Tonight, but they really are shockingly bland and, in terms of the rhyming, horrifically lazy.)
 
Who is talking about U2 "selling out" though?
Whoever it is isn't worth arguing with, they don't get 'it' and never will.
That's about the lowest common denominator 'charge' leveled against any artist who is successful, without regard to any consistency.

That said, there is something to be said for the degree to which U2 will go to be relevant. And I could use their own words (mostly Bono) to string together a pronouncement of what they are all about. And even then some around here would find ways to apologize for Bono.

What does he mean by being "relevant" anyways?
Isn't that the big question to ask?

Will they compromise a song so that it will be digested more easily and become more "relevant"? Of course and I can show you their own words echoing that. Then you get into this territory of talking about... it's their canvass! They can paint as they want! Sure. That doesn't change the ambition to be relevant and what they think it takes to get there.

Just don't anyone try and sell me that they are still taking the same risks.
Maybe the guitars from 1991 don't have their old context and sit side by side with the 21st century, that's fine, but they aren't out there on a fucking limb doing anything close to being that risky these days. Breathe is a pretty great song, IMO, but it's standard riff rock, straight off the tape. What limit is that pushing? Do they even need to push limits anymore?

I think all Eno and others would like, is that they went out there on that limb more often. Just have confidence enough to let it out there.

That's not who U2 is though, not anymore.
I am fine with where they are and I am done worrying about what they aren't, although it's always fun to speculate about things.
This is 3 consecutive albums folks, covering a decade. This is not a sound experiment, this is U2 as U2.

And Breathe embodies that. It's a pretty great song but it's a hell of a lot more in league with the stuff I grew up listening to, that I eventually found U2 as an alternative to. 'Being Born' is the U2 that I 'truly' fell in love with. So, they still have whatever it is that I love the most about them, they just don't want to explore it too often.


I agree with your musical tastes, but Breathe is a fairly atypical NLTOH song. Most of the album is a lot more leftfield, so I don't think you can characterise the album as a whole as "U2 as U2".

The majority of the album (MOS, UC, NLTOH, COL, WAS, Fez/Being born (and perhaps even Magnificent, for all the Edge guitar, there is a disco feel in the song and the bassline that are pretty new)) is not "U2 as U2", but something newer and more exciting.
 
In the basement of London's Olympic Studios, armed only with a MacBook and a Nord keyboard, Brian Eno is leading a doomed, one-man insurgency. It's early December and U2 are wrapping up their sessions for No Line, the track listing almost finalized, but Eno is still pushing for prayerful, moody songs that were long ago abandoned. He's most passionate about "Winter", which sounds like no other U2 song. It begins with fingerpicked, chiming acoustic guitar and falsetto backing vocals, and once Bono hits a key line - "Summer sings in me no more" - Eno's dramatic strings kick in. "Listening to the silence, the deaf and dumb roar of white noise/your voice", Bono sings at one point, followed by a choral chant. "Beautiful, isn't it? They're bonkers to leave it off," Eno says with real sadness, as the tune winds up with soaring, dissonant strings - they're synthesized played on his little keyboard down here in the basement.

It would have been interesting to hear what he could do with that song - as it is, it's no wonder it was put aside.

Well before Barack Obama thought of it, U2 embraced Abraham Lincoln's idea of a team of rivals. "Brian's job is basically to take everything and destroy it," says Lillywhite. "And I suppose I come in after he's destroyed it, and I listen to what he's done, and to what was there before, and I sort of get some middle ground, and try and bring it back to a place where art and commerce live side by side." Adds Edge, "That tension is important to the process. But I think we're pretty much always right."

As long as Lillywhite comes in to listen, things seem to go OK. A different matter is when he's actually in command of the production. Both tracks he produced are completely off character with the rest of the album, in fact I'm a strong advocate for a Breathe remix/rework in the hands of the mighty duo. Besides that, he's supposed to "take things where art and commerce live side by side" - "his" songs aren't the singles as far as I know - so the need of Lillywhite/Wi.lli.am(wherever the f***ing dots go) on production remains a mystery to me.

Eno and Lanois both pick the hypnotic, seven-minute-plus "Moment Of Surrender" as a favorite track, and the one closest to the original concept of the album. It came out of what the band its producers describe as a small miracle: They all stood together one day and improvised its entire structure from scratch, all at once. That original backing track made it to the final album, complete with a trance-y bass line Clayton was figuring out as he played it - you can hear him imitate the bass part from Grandmaster Flash's "White Lines" and then switch to another idea altogether - and Mullen's uneven high-hat work, thanks to a busted electronic drum kit. ("Adam is the star of the show on this album," Bono says. "No one knew he could move from his rock & roll pulse thing to the jaw-dropping bass part on 'Moment' or the sort of neo-Motown bass on 'Magnificent'") Eno fought hard to keep the band from messing too much with the original track. "These fucking guys," he says with a smile, "they're supposed to be so spiritual - they don't spot a miracle when it hits them in the face. Nothing like that ever happened to me in the studio in my whole life."

Truly Adam did a great job on this album. Exactly the bass lines Bono pointed out are my faves. :applaud:
MOS is an incredible track and Eno is spot on about it. If this track is the original and he kept the band from "messing too much" with it, I wonder what the album could have been with a similar degree of control from him on the other tracks. Possibly interesting. Very.

Eno ducks the question of whether U2 have an artistic as well as commercial justification for focusing on potential hits. "You should ask the band that," he replies. And it turns out Bono has strong feelings on the subject. "We grew up on the rock & roll 45," he says. "It is, in an evolutionary way that Brian should, but doesn't, appreciate, the Darwinian peak of the species. It is by far the most difficult thing to pull off, and it is the very life force of rock & roll: vitality, succinctness and catchiness, whether it's the Sex Pistols, Nirvana, the Pixies, the Beatles, the Who, the Rolling Stones. And when rock music forgets about the 45, it tends toward progressive rock, which is like a mold that grows on old, burned-out artists who've run out of ideas. We have a soundtrack/Pink Floyd side of our band, and it has to be balanced by fine songwriting. And it's an infuriating thing for me to see indie rock & roll give up the single to R&B and hip-hop. And that's why I love the Kings of Leon album or the Killers album: These are people who have such belief in their musical power that they refuse to ghettoize it." Bono pauses, and returns to the subject of his friend Eno. "What he's listening for is a unique feeling, a unique mood and a unique palate. And he doesn't get hits - I bet he told Coldplay to leave 'Viva La Vida' off their album. Brian would listen to '(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction' and say, 'I love that song, but can we get rid of the guitar bits? You know, the part that goes duhnt-duhnt-dunna dun?'"

I'm not so sure that "we grew up on the rock & roll 45". OK there were the singles, but in our time (I'm Bono's generation) albums were way more relevant than they are now. And not only those by progressive rock bands like Pink Floyd or Genesis - you played a Deep Purple, a Beatles, a Rolling Stones or Led Zep album in full, you revelled in it and talked to people about albums not singles. OK the general public that wasn't into music only knew the singles - but then it is to be discussed whether "vitality, succinctness and catchiness" is the force of rock & roll or rather the force of pop(ularity).

As a matter of fact, U2 wasn't so single-obsessed in the past - but that was probably because rock 'n roll made the radio naturally - there was no hip-hop or other shitty stuff to compete with - perhaps hair bands and vapid pop in the 80s - but that was later (not the time we grew up) and left room for indie rock. Bono's saying that's infuriating for him to see indie rock & roll give up the single to R&B and hip hop, but then it would be a matter of discussion if to make what today would be a single that could push hip hop from the limelight is indie rock. I mean The Fly was an indie rock single back in 91 - I doubt Bono would see something like The Fly as singles material today. In my modest opinion to overtly focus on the type of material that makes a "successful" single today is to narrow dramatically the scope of the potential music a band like U2 is capable of making. Besides that, Bono should know that a band like U2, which gets airplay in any case, can do a lot more than the standard single - that's why I was disgusted by the "singles policy" U2 adopted at the beginning of this decade. I'm glad to see Magnificent is going to be a single - and it should make one hell of a single. I hope this convinces Bono to lay off blatancy in favor of a true "punk band" attitude.
 
Back
Top Bottom