Album 13: Mirror mirror on the wall, there's no album so let's just talk y'all

[BVS]

Too many people in here can't make the difference between reinvention and sounding fresh.

And the worst part is that U2 fail on both,.....whatever they tried to do with "Invisible".

Then please enlighten us.


Actually I think Invisible is the freshest they've sounded since Beautiful Day.

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

As out of focus NLOTH was,at least 2 songs sounded more fresh than Invisible.The title track and Fez- being born.They didn't use neither of the 2 as a single.Go figure.

 

[BVS]

As out of focus NLOTH was,at least 2 songs sounded more fresh than Invisible.The title track and Fez- being born.They didn't use neither of the 2 as a single.Go figure.

NLOTH was pretty fresh and a great opening.

I really like Fez, but it's not the type of song I want throughout the album.

But an album of NLOTHs and MOSs

 

[Diemen]

This thread imploded!

That implies that it was doing well at some point.

 

[Nick66]

That implies that it was doing well at some point.

As a respected moderator, I think you should direct Digitize to restart his excellent "Rate the Song" series (preferably a version for live songs) until the new record is officially announced. At least then we're actually talking about the, um, music. I actually think that series spurred a lot of great discussion.

Digitize, I'm changing my avatar to my namesake, and your conscience, and it will remain thus until you revive the RTSS (or at least until I get bored with it).

 

[BVS]

That implies that it was doing well at some point.

lol, true

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

They broke up, without as much as a farewell tour. That's not imploding ?

Also, they haven't really been the same band once Berry left.

No.

That would be a band breaking up.

Most bands, ya know, simply break up without milking a farewell tour out of it.

 

[Zoo Lemon]

Five minutes more than I

 

[AndrewCowley]

I'm listening to the Achtung Baby out-takes for the first time in many years. It's awesome to hear them playing so freely in the studio. And a neat reminder at how strangled the past few albums have been. If you are losing faith then have a listen.

Anyhow I wonder how the songs from these current studio seasons sound at the same stage in comparison? I hope they are similar. But I wonder if they can play that freely today? Heck it's taken so long it's hard to see how there could be any consistency or focus.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

I had a dream last night that

aw fuck it, never mind

 

[The_acrobat]

Crew members for the Rolling Stones tour have said they will be busy in 2015 with U2. So that's something. Seems like obvious information, but I thought for sure we'd see a U2 tour in 2014, so you never know.

If you went back in time a year ago today, and told me that we'd still be in this position in April 2014, I probably wouldn't believe it.

 

[doctorwho]

Too many people in here can't make the difference between reinvention and sounding fresh.

And the worst part is that U2 fail on both,.....whatever they tried to do with "Invisible".

I don't think "Invisible" was meant to be necessarily "fresh" (whatever that means) or a "reinvention".

It was meant as a charity song. As such, it was meant to also be a bit safe. U2 wanted people to download it. They wanted it to be more accessible.

I like the song. And given how many times it's been covered on YouTube, I would say that it shows U2's relevance. Also, hearing some of those singers really straining to hit the notes in the song shows how great Bono's vocals really are. For U2, the song was a bit different. More keyboard, less Edge's delay effect - that is probably due to DM. Is that "fresh"? Maybe not, but relying on Edge's signature sound would have made the song as stale as it could possibly be.

 

[JOFO]

It was meant as a charity song. As such, it was meant to also be a bit safe. U2 wanted people to download it. They wanted it to be more accessible.

Well, it was a charity song after they decided it wasn't going to be the first single of the new album to be released in April 2014, instead it would "test the waters" so they could get an idea if that's the direction they were going to go with. Clearly they decided otherwise, or at least had to finish what they already had been working on. No way it was this:
"Hey guys, let's release a new single for charity that has nothing to do with our album that we have no idea when it's coming out and debut it on the Super Bowl."

 

[Aygo]

Then please enlighten us.


Actually I think Invisible is the freshest they've sounded since Beautiful Day.

Because "Invisible" is a refresh of "Beautiful Day", which already was a refresh of the past.

 

[Nick66]

i don't think "invisible" was meant to be necessarily "fresh" (whatever that means) or a "reinvention".

It was meant as a charity song.

lol.

 

[BVS]

Because "Invisible" is a refresh of "Beautiful Day", which already was a refresh of the past.

You're so right, and it sounds like Coldplay.

Oh, and it's U2 by numbers.

Yay, I used all the lazy arguments!!!

 

[doctorwho]

Well, it was a charity song after they decided it wasn't going to be the first single of the new album to be released in April 2014, instead it would "test the waters" so they could get an idea if that's the direction they were going to go with. Clearly they decided otherwise, or at least had to finish what they already had been working on. No way it was this:
"Hey guys, let's release a new single for charity that has nothing to do with our album that we have no idea when it's coming out and debut it on the Super Bowl."

Gosh, this seems incredibly pessimistic and negative. If you think "Invisible" was only meant to be a "test the market" aspect, fine. But what better way to do so than have a charity song that raised millions?

I don't get all this "reinvention" talk anway. U2 will always sound like U2. They may sound more punk or rock or ambient or techno or folk or pop, but it's always U2. What do you really want them to sound like?

It's funny how people ignore some really creative songs like Fast Cars and Moment of Surrender in this discussion. If you don't want slower songs like Ordinary Love (which was appropriate for the film), why ignore Breathe?

I really have no idea what people here want from U2. But it has to be "fresh". It's pretty tough to be 100% innovative when U2 have experimented with so many sounds already. Anything they create is bound to sound like something else they have done in the past. At this point, solid song writing is brilliant. And I hear that on both Ordinary Love and Invisible. Both are that softer pop sound, but both are far more brilliant than weaker tracks like Crazy Tonight.

 

[The Slow Loris]

As out of focus NLOTH was,at least 2 songs sounded more fresh than Invisible.The title track and Fez- being born.They didn't use neither of the 2 as a single.Go figure.

The electronic flourishes and spirit of 'Fez' reminds me of 'Zooropa' (the song) without the ecstatic explosion that song manages to pull off. The style is there in spades…but it never really achieves the lift off where that special "otherness" (as Bono likes to call it) can take place. Fresh is one thing…but where's the lift off? Where's the urgency? True "punch" isn't fabricated….it comes from somewhere below the surface. They found it in places on NLOTH. 'Unknown Caller', for example. 'Magnificent', of example. Parts of 'NLOTH' and parts of 'Moment of Surrender', for example. One thing is for sure, however: The first 4 songs had a shining light that permeated a very special feeling of serenity (for lack of a better word) throughout. If only that feeling had not been disturbed by the likes of 'Stand up Comedy' and 'Boots' and instead been replaced by 'Winter' and 'Soon'…..oh, that would have been a near classic album despite songs like 'Fez' and 'Cedars of Lebanon' not really going anywhere truly special.

 

[JOFO]

I support that they donated Invisible to the fight against AIDS 1000%.

I'm just saying I don't think that was the original plan as such.....I think by December last year they decided it was the first single and the album was coming out in April-ish. After they commited to the Super Bowl ad and everything was in place, including the video, they decided something wasn't right with the record or whatever, decided to hold off, but go forward with Invisible anyways, because how could they not at that point?, and here we go: we'll donate all they money to charity so even if it tanks what do we care it's still raising money for a good cause....

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Because "Invisible" is a refresh of "Beautiful Day", which already was a refresh of the past.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Why can't somebody just obliterate this thread.

 

[corianderstem]

Why can't somebody just obliterate this thread.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

 

[popacrobat]

Why can't somebody just obliterate this thread.

This house hasn't been worth protecting for months now. I just want to see it burn at this point.

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

i that Tomb Raider video

I was recently up close and personal with the leather trenchcoat Ad' wore as part of "evil" U2.

Spoiler

It's now on display at the Rock Hall. Saw it last month when we took a weekend trip to Cleveland. Kinda interesting to see how the display was changed/moved from the last trip to the Rock Hall back in 2010.

The most beautiful thing...

U2 - Love Is Blindness (Edge's Solo Performance) - YouTube

Anyone enjoyed this moment in the documentary ?

I'm not an Edge girl, but this was incredible.

I like it as much as the album version. The album version is angsty, heartbroken, trying to simply get through the night. Whereas this version sounds more like a lullaby. Like everything will be alright.

had they not rekindled that "Magic" and ONE had not been written by accident...

One of my absolutely FAVORITE moments of FTSD was hearing the tapes from the jam session(s) and seeing how during working on MW they accidentally 'fell' into One. Like, literally, from one second to the next. They were playing a bridge that was intended to be part of MW and something entirely new happened right on that take. One was born. And that song saved the band.

Spoiler

Shame that the song has gone stale in recent years. I'd love to see new life breathed into it and have it gain back some of its original power rather than be a (boring? sorry. ) setlist staple.

aw fuck it, never mind

Was it a musical journey?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb9g0ksXEgo

Why can't somebody just obliterate obliviate this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RndiA34iqqk

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

IWas it a musical journey?

In all seriousness I was somewhere and one of my cats was with me and I met Adam and Larry and talked to them for a few moments. Larry didn't say much of anything but Adam was very cool and remembered me (from where?). The only thing was my cat kept rubbing up against him and I got the impression he didn't like that.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Gosh, this seems incredibly pessimistic and negative. If you think "Invisible" was only meant to be a "test the market" aspect, fine. But what better way to do so than have a charity song that raised millions?

I don't get all this "reinvention" talk anway. U2 will always sound like U2. They may sound more punk or rock or ambient or techno or folk or pop, but it's always U2. What do you really want them to sound like?

It's funny how people ignore some really creative songs like Fast Cars and Moment of Surrender in this discussion. If you don't want slower songs like Ordinary Love (which was appropriate for the film), why ignore Breathe?

I really have no idea what people here want from U2. But it has to be "fresh". It's pretty tough to be 100% innovative when U2 have experimented with so many sounds already. Anything they create is bound to sound like something else they have done in the past. At this point, solid song writing is brilliant. And I hear that on both Ordinary Love and Invisible. Both are that softer pop sound, but both are far more brilliant than weaker tracks like Crazy Tonight.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

This house hasn't been worth protecting for months now. I just want to see it burn at this point.

 

[trevgreg]

I don't get all this "reinvention" talk anway. U2 will always sound like U2. They may sound more punk or rock or ambient or techno or folk or pop, but it's always U2. What do you really want them to sound like?

... It's pretty tough to be 100% innovative when U2 have experimented with so many sounds already. Anything they create is bound to sound like something else they have done in the past.

This x1000.