Songs of Surrender - New album discussion - 6

[RUBIKSCUBE]

Again though, I think people are setting strange limiters or strange expectations for what this is. You are certain to not enjoy it if your frame of mind is expecting to like them better than the originals. I think you’re meant to go in with a curious mindset to see where they take them, and hopefully you find some that are worthy re-interpretations that you would happily listen to occasionally as a point of difference.

Correct - if the songs are reworked significantly enough that they explore new moods and take the songs to different places, then it will be a worthwhile exercise and would make the issue of comparing the recordings with the originals redundant.

Hope they pull it off, to some extent at least

 

[Hollow Island]

And it would miss the entire point.

I think you are over thinking the issue here. Registered Dude put it best - they could have just cobbled them together from the original recordings, but instead they put the effort in to re work and re record them to make it somewhat interesting and different. Above all, it will make it a cohesive companion, but the book is the focus.

This compilation could be many things but I don't think cohesive is one of them. It's been a long time since they've made a cohesive album.

I don't see how a live compilation would miss the point when the point is to present the 40 songs that inspire chapters in the book. I agree that rerecording songs they think missed the mark wouldn't tie into the book but it would be a more interesting record. I don't think the album is secondary to the book, either. They're being released together but they're of equal importance. U2 wouldn't release music they didn't think stood on its own.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

From a touring standpoint it’s a brilliant idea to rework a lot of songs because, let’s face it Bono, can’t sing like he used to. It’s less of a shock to fans if a few tunes are performed in the re-recorded manner so Bono can hit notes.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If only they were glorifying the past...instead they're repeating themselves, and they don't even have the excuse of trying to get back copyright.



Also, glorifying the past is detrimental to the past and present, and it's a good line.

It's always been a bit of a bullshit line that certain aspects of U2 fandom point to when they want to criticize the band's current direction, forgetting that...

a) the album the line came on featured old songs and was entirely based around glorifying a tour that had already happened
b) the album featured Bob Dylan and BB King, paid tribute to Billie Holliday and featured two covers of iconic 60s songs
c) the song itself is a sequel to a song from 1970 written by an icon of the 60s
d) the band channeled the big band era and have their most Irish folk sounding song they've ever recorded.

Everything about the album is glorifying the past.

I digress

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Again though, I think people are setting strange limiters or strange expectations for what this is. You are certain to not enjoy it if your frame of mind is expecting to like them better than the originals. I think you’re meant to go in with a curious mindset to see where they take them, and hopefully you find some that are worthy re-interpretations that you would happily listen to occasionally as a point of difference.

It wouldn't be interference if we didn't have a bit of overreacting to what is more or less just a companion album.

Springsteen issued a companion album for his book - it's literally just a greatest hits CD with a smattering of unreleased recordings from his pre E Street days.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The more I think about how these songs will be the ones that are most significant to Bono's life story in the context of his life as a musician, the more I'm thinking the deepest cut you'll see on the LP will be Miss Sarajevo (possibly complete with his faux-opera singing) or maybe something along the lines of Moment of Surrender; which honestly, I'd welcome a reworking of that one. Overall though, it's probably the career milestones (AKA - the hits) and I do think that's a bit of a bummer compared to songs that have more "what could have been" potential.

Either way, I'm remaining open to whether these versions will be any good or not; and you can count me as more interested than uninterested.

Nothing is confirmed yet but it's already rumored to have some deeper cuts on it. Luminous Times being one that has been mentioned.

 

[DeVaul]

d) the band channeled the big band era and have their most Irish folk sounding song they've ever recorded.

That they NEVER fucking play that would take maybe 2 minutes and give Bono a vocal break and be an easy nod to the hardcore fans and they’re fucking dumb and ok I’m done now.

 

[Hollow Island]

From a touring standpoint it’s a brilliant idea to rework a lot of songs because, let’s face it Bono, can’t sing like he used to. It’s less of a shock to fans if a few tunes are performed in the re-recorded manner so Bono can hit notes.

Yeah, you're right! I wonder if that's part of their motivation for this project. Either way it's a very interesting way of considering this thing and I'm not going to forget it.

 

[Hollow Island]

It's always been a bit of a bullshit line that certain aspects of U2 fandom point to when they want to criticize the band's current direction, forgetting that...

a) the album the line came on featured old songs and was entirely based around glorifying a tour that had already happened
b) the album featured Bob Dylan and BB King, paid tribute to Billie Holliday and featured two covers of iconic 60s songs
c) the song itself is a sequel to a song from 1970 written by an icon of the 60s
d) the band channeled the big band era and have their most Irish folk sounding song they've ever recorded.

Everything about the album is glorifying the past.

I digress

No shit everything about that album was glorifying the past. Doesn't mean it's a bullshit line, though. I've taken it as Bono acknowledging that they were on a dead end street and needed to turn around, and I don't think it's an accident that God Part 2 is the only contemporary song on a self-consciously retro album.

 

[Hollow Island]

It wouldn't be interference if we didn't have a bit of overreacting to what is more or less just a companion album.

Springsteen issued a companion album for his book - it's literally just a greatest hits CD with a smattering of unreleased recordings from his pre E Street days.

It wouldn't be Interference if we didn't have people making excuses for why an album, song or idea isn't good.

Springsteen's book tie in is very different from what U2 are rumoured to have done. He put a compilation together. They made a fucking box set of re-recorded songs.

 

[Hollow Island]

That they NEVER fucking play that would take maybe 2 minutes and give Bono a vocal break and be an easy nod to the hardcore fans and they’re fucking dumb and ok I’m done now.

Crowds would lose their shit if U2 played Van Dieman's Land or Seconds.

 

[dan_smee]

It wouldn't be Interference if we didn't have people making excuses for why an album, song or idea isn't good.

Springsteen's book tie in is very different from what U2 are rumoured to have done. He put a compilation together. They made a fucking box set of re-recorded songs.

I’m not making excuses for a bad idea, I’m saying that we don’t even know what the idea is yet because it hasn’t been announced. How can you say it is bad?

 

[ascender_RS]

I’d be a lot more happy with this whole concept if they used Bono’s original vocals. But they won’t. So I’m resigned to the fact that I will not like a single one of these new versions better than the originals since Bono’s voice from like 1980-1995 is what made me really love the band originally.

I guess that's the thing, these are different versions of the songs, based on where the band are today. The originals will still exist.

Based on the things we've seen over the last 12 months, he seems to be figuring out how to get the best out of his voice given its changed and his advancing years. I'm very glad he's doing that instead of just trying to pretend everything is normal - see Jon Bon Jovi.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It wouldn't be Interference if we didn't have people making excuses for why an album, song or idea isn't good.

Springsteen's book tie in is very different from what U2 are rumoured to have done. He put a compilation together. They made a fucking box set of re-recorded songs.

lol you've completely gone off the deep end.

Excuses for why an album or song isn't good? NOBODY HAS HEARD IT.

lol it might suck and be super dumb but for fucks sake I'm willing to let it be released before I criticize it.

And yea - it's different. Springsteen put zero effort into his compilation, and these guys are putting quite a bit of effort into theirs. So let's bash them for it before even hearing a single note! What?!?

I'm not even going to address the idea that I'm somehow "guy who always needs to defend the band" because that's absurdly dumb.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I’m not making excuses for a bad idea, I’m saying that we don’t even know what the idea is yet because it hasn’t been announced. How can you say it is bad?

Seriously.

How can someone play the "well you all always support the band no matter how bad the album is" card when they're bashing an album that nobody has heard yet?

 

[DeVaul]

Crowds would lose their shit if U2 played Van Dieman's Land or Seconds.

I lost my shit for “Two Hearts Beat as One” (and more quietly, “October”) at MSG and would love more moments like that.

They should’ve played Seconds (and The Refugee) on e+i

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

I think the good news right now is that if SoS isn't your cup of tea (even in principle before you've heard it, i.e. the idea of reimagined versions of pre-existing songs simply doesn't interested you), at least it looks like we'll be getting an album of new material and a tour very soon afterwards: March 2023 for a new album, June 2023 for a tour, according to U2songs.

I'll always be more interested in new songs, but I think it's cool as hell that in the meantime we'll get to hear the band have some fun experimenting with reworking older stuff. As has been pointed out, it's much more interesting than yet another 'greatest hits' compilation, and as Dan said, if you go into SoS to experience some 'what if' reimaginings rather than expecting these covers to rival or exceed the originals, then it could be quite fun.

I know delays are probably more likely than not with this band, but it does feel like it's about to be a pretty good time to be a U2 fan.

 

[dan_smee]

Seriously.

How can someone play the "well you all always support the band no matter how bad the album is" card when they're bashing an album that nobody has heard yet?

Yep. Spot on. Seems as though some people crave the sub-cultural capital of being the “discerning” black hat on a u2 forum like a shot of heroin to the spine, so they make the same tired, lazy criticism ad infinitum no matter what. I’ve said this before, but I think the people who make excuses for the worst of U2 are easier to take than people who criticise everything lately no matter what. It’s a freaking u2 fan forum after all. I see myself as someone who will call bullshit on things when it’s obvious it deserves it, but will be lenient on the borderline things because I have loved the band most of my life. If that makes me less discerning then I don’t fucking care.

 

[mikal]

Headache, I've had enough of you defending U2 on the whole Apple fiasco already. Get a grip!

 

[Hollow Island]

Seriously.

How can someone play the "well you all always support the band no matter how bad the album is" card when they're bashing an album that nobody has heard yet?

I'm not playing the "you always support the band" card. I'm saying that this is another instance of people making excuses for the band. Excuses were made for Ahimsa, Your Song Saved My Life, and now this dumb, lame idea.

I'm not bashing the album, I'm bashing the idea of the album. Rerecording old songs, especially hits, is fucking stupid unless the artist is trying to reclaim the rights.

 

[Hollow Island]

Yep. Spot on. Seems as though some people crave the sub-cultural capital of being the “discerning” black hat on a u2 forum like a shot of heroin to the spine, so they make the same tired, lazy criticism ad infinitum no matter what. I’ve said this before, but I think the people who make excuses for the worst of U2 are easier to take than people who criticise everything lately no matter what. It’s a freaking u2 fan forum after all. I see myself as someone who will call bullshit on things when it’s obvious it deserves it, but will be lenient on the borderline things because I have loved the band most of my life. If that makes me less discerning then I don’t fucking care.

I've loved the band for most of my life, too. Been a fan since I was 12 in 93. I'm also willing to be lenient on borderline things. I'm not willing to be lenient towards things that the band I fell in love with would have scoffed at, and retreading past glories is one of those things. I hope this book and album are the end of the "looking back" period they've been in since SOI.

 

[Hollow Island]

I’m not making excuses for a bad idea, I’m saying that we don’t even know what the idea is yet because it hasn’t been announced. How can you say it is bad?

The idea that has been reported by the supposedly extremely reliable U2songs is a bad idea. Rerecording minor works and failures: good idea. Rerecording hits and classics: bad idea.

But it doesn't matter if it's a bad idea because the focus is the book /s

 

[mikal]

I'm not playing the "you always support the band" card. I'm saying that this is another instance of people making excuses for the band. Excuses were made for Ahimsa, Your Song Saved My Life, and now this dumb, lame idea.

I'm not bashing the album, I'm bashing the idea of the album. Rerecording old songs, especially hits, is fucking stupid unless the artist is trying to reclaim the rights.

But...what if it ends up being really good?

 

[womanfish]

This compilation could be many things but I don't think cohesive is one of them. It's been a long time since they've made a cohesive album.

I don't see how a live compilation would miss the point when the point is to present the 40 songs that inspire chapters in the book. I agree that rerecording songs they think missed the mark wouldn't tie into the book but it would be a more interesting record. I don't think the album is secondary to the book, either. They're being released together but they're of equal importance. U2 wouldn't release music they didn't think stood on its own.

SOI is pretty damn cohesive IMO.

 

[pacemaker]

SOI is pretty damn cohesive IMO.

Other than The Miracle - luckily leading things off, instead of dumped in the middle of, and ruining the running order - I'd say its almost as cohesive as most of their 90s albums. In certain ways, it's more cohesive than The Joshua Tree

 

[Rich79]

I’m not sure this will be the case; yes, some of those big hits were meaningful for the story of his life, but there are also deeper cuts that are very autobiographical/personal that he might wind up writing about in the book and want to reinterpret with the band.

I honestly think they’d get bored by simply doing a greatest hits album of alternate versions.

Quite possibly. As soon as I hit submit on this one, I recalled we already knew about Luminous Times having a good shot and I was kicking myself. So, not a hot take, I admit.

 

[Rich79]

The more I think about it, the more I'm excited for this release:

1. Either way, it's something new-ish from my favorite band; accompanied by a book I'm already engaged with from the sample we've heard.

2. Even if a new version of a given song sucks, I won't be able to say "They shouldn't have done this." because I can always go back to the original if I don't like it. That will still exist. We're not dealing with a George Lucas never letting the theatrical versions of Star Wars see the light of day ever again scenario. These new versions will likely do absolutely nothing to the legacy of the originals, unless they truly do end up being improvements (entirely subjective, of course).

...tossing this in the bad idea bin outright is a bit of a reach for me.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Headache, I've had enough of you defending U2 on the whole Apple fiasco already. Get a grip!

Those no good kids with their fancy shamncy phone devices need to just get over it

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

But...what if it ends up being really good?

no! there's no chance!

 

[dan_smee]

The idea that has been reported by the supposedly extremely reliable U2songs is a bad idea. Rerecording minor works and failures: good idea. Rerecording hits and classics: bad idea.



But it doesn't matter if it's a bad idea because the focus is the book /s

I suppose what I’m saying, and I believe headache and mikal are saying, is that being so closed off to the thought that something might not be as extreme or binary as being an absolute good or bad idea before we know what it is, what the basic concept it is, what’s on it, what it sounds like, how it’s been done etc is, in and of itself, a very bad idea.