Another album soon?? Songs of Ascent

[ozeeko]

Good point, but Passengers was never meant to be a U2 album and didn't involve Lanois; still, I blame the boys a bit for ATYCLB, but that was still U2's choice. If you listen to Bono these days, he's completely off. His favorite song is Breathe; he recently questioned the validity of Eno's viewpoint, insulted prog rock (when Mogwai can be extremely moving) and keeps wanting self-conscious hits because he thinks U2's legacy resides there. He's lost confidence in the band's smartest approach historically: the band's best songs came out of not caring about how the mainstream would receive them.

My sense is that the best stuff from the new album involved the least of the new U2's self-consciousness to be loved. That's very sad that the band's instincts are that lousy and that they couldn't pull off a great tune without Lanois and Eno co-writing them.

A lot of my upset belies my fear that U2 hasn't really realized the folly of its approach this decade and can easily revert because Bono hasn't resolved his issues of wanting to be appreciated in the most superficial way by the widest number of people, rather than being deeply appreciated by a slightly smaller number.

These days, I'm much more trusting of Adam and especially Larry. I used to think it was the rhythm section that was traditionally holding back the band, but now it seems The Edge (with his praising of Oasis' Wonderwall as a song he wish he wrote) and Bono are the conservative ones.

100 % agree.

In my opinion, the worst shit started the second Edge played that U2 by the numbers guitar riff for Beautiful Day. If he would've listened to Bono saying "no, too cliched U2", who knows, that could've altered their entire direction this decade. But once Edge convinced Bono, it started a snowball effect, a whole idea, a "Let's chase our Joshua Tree image" mentality.

So I blame Edge. After all, he really is the musical genius of the band. If he decides to walk in the studio and go "fuck these anthems, i'm gonna actually play something different", who's going to stop him? Certainly not Bono. Unfortunately, I think everyone always does what Edge wants because they give him credit for being the musical genius. If Edge says we need Crums From Your Table/Electrical Storm/Walk On riff #4 for the next album, I'm sure everyone else just says "oh, alright".

Never thought I'd say this, but EDGE! Edge is the lazy one! Take off that damn skull cap and start fucking up the mainstream again.

 

[mobvok]

In this thread, we learn that Beautiful Day would have been better off not written, and that vague assumptions and speculations should taken as fact when it comes to the intra-band relationship.

 

[BVS]

I blame Larry...







Oh wait what are we blaming them for? Oh that's right we're just projecting our thoughts and assuming the motivations behind them...

Fun game, yes I blame Larry because he's still pissed at Adam for making him dress as the cop in the Discoteque video. He's now sabotaging all U2 albums and posting here under the name Muldfeld...

 

[daygloeyes2]

NNnnnnooooooooo!!1!!!11!eleven

Mercy shold be on every U2 album from now until the end of time!!!!!!!oneoneuno111111!!!!!!!!!!!

Fun game, yes I blame Larry because he's still pissed at Adam for making him dress as the cop in the Discoteque video.

He's mad because everyone thinks he's Adam.

 

[purpleoscar]

Never thought I'd say this, but EDGE! Edge is the lazy one! Take off that damn skull cap and start fucking up the mainstream again.

If U2 kept fucking up the mainstream on a regular basis this forum would probably be much smaller. It's okay to change styles if enough people will like it and pay for it. If the art becomes self-indulgent then your audience will shrink down to oneself and one's cronies. Independent music is full of forgettable "experimentation" like that.

 

[Irvine511]

It used to be they didn't care about the mainstream and made great music anyway that was widely accepted.

this isn't true at all. you are wrong.

U2 have never become popular in spite of themselves. they didn't turn around one day and go, "aw, shucks, we just sold 15m copies of The Joshua Tree."

they have always wanted to be big. ALWAYS. everything else is self-delusion, especially the notion that big music is by definition dumb. U2 has never been an art project, and it was never your art project.

they are a colossal rock band. that was always, always part of the project.

 

[MMP]

I'm still hoping on that Spiderman musical becoming a an U2 album, and I expect that album to be full of big shiny poppy songs. I would love to see U2 doing something like that and bringing it up to their level.

 

[Slapnutz]

Eno (who just made a fabulous album with David Byrne - "Strange Overtones" puts "Moment of Surrender" to shame, IMO)

Nice to see another fan. Everything That Happens Will Happen Today is (excuse my French) fucking beautiful.

YouTube - Brian Eno & David Byrne: Everything That Happens

2:30-3:46. If that fails to move you, well, you have my deepest sympathy.

 

[Clawgrabber]

In this thread, we learn that Beautiful Day would have been better off not written, and that vague assumptions and speculations should taken as fact when it comes to the intra-band relationship.

eeesh. seriously.

btw
Beautiful Day

anyone who says otherwise is a liar!
a liar, i say!

 

[daygloeyes2]

this isn't true at all. you are wrong.

U2 have never become popular in spite of themselves. they didn't turn around one day and go, "aw, shucks, we just sold 15m copies of The Joshua Tree."

they have always wanted to be big. ALWAYS. everything else is self-delusion, especially the notion that big music is by definition dumb. U2 has never been an art project, and it was never your art project.

they are a colossal rock band. that was always, always part of the project.

I always find myself agreeing with you.

I blame Bono. He has a Napoleon complex, or something.

 

[Muldfeld]

100 % agree.

In my opinion, the worst shit started the second Edge played that U2 by the numbers guitar riff for Beautiful Day. If he would've listened to Bono saying "no, too cliched U2", who knows, that could've altered their entire direction this decade. But once Edge convinced Bono, it started a snowball effect, a whole idea, a "Let's chase our Joshua Tree image" mentality.

So I blame Edge. After all, he really is the musical genius of the band. If he decides to walk in the studio and go "fuck these anthems, i'm gonna actually play something different", who's going to stop him? Certainly not Bono. Unfortunately, I think everyone always does what Edge wants because they give him credit for being the musical genius. If Edge says we need Crums From Your Table/Electrical Storm/Walk On riff #4 for the next album, I'm sure everyone else just says "oh, alright".

Never thought I'd say this, but EDGE! Edge is the lazy one! Take off that damn skull cap and start fucking up the mainstream again.

Agreed! I remember reading about how Bono didn't like Beautiful Day for quite a while. I wish The Edge would get back to obsessing over keyboards instead of American rock.

I also hope that, if the tour fails to sell enough tickets, that the band doesn't react the way it did after Popmart. Life's too short; we've had 8 wasted years of nonsense, although I do love "Stuck in a Moment".

 

[Irvine511]

it's amazing how people make sweeping statements about the band based upon barely remembered quotations without having any real knowledge of the band's history, whether lived through or studied in retrospect.

 

[Muldfeld]

this isn't true at all. you are wrong.

U2 have never become popular in spite of themselves. they didn't turn around one day and go, "aw, shucks, we just sold 15m copies of The Joshua Tree."

they have always wanted to be big. ALWAYS. everything else is self-delusion, especially the notion that big music is by definition dumb. U2 has never been an art project, and it was never your art project.

they are a colossal rock band. that was always, always part of the project.

Of course U2 wanted to be big, but the KEY is that it was always on their terms. Let's face it. Achtung Baby could have been more "direct" and simpler and sold more copies, but the band's attitude was if people don't like it, it doesn't matter to us; this is the music we want to make; it's not about changing the art to fit the mainstream. As Bono has said, "With or Without You" was so different from anything on the airwaves; it's that perfect blend of success for the band of an incredible song and mass approval, but the art had to be prioritized first.

Now it's all about appeasing the mainstream and being remembered. They've gotten addicted to the most shallow things and maybe that's human but it's not what led us to "The Joshua Tree" and "Achtung Baby". THAT BAND was willing to promote their work, but wouldn't alter the work itself to sell more units. That's the tragedy in all this. Bono and The Edge have deluded themselves about what's a good song and what isn't for the past 8 years by overthinking it, and they're obviously in danger of reverting this year, as evidenced in GOYB and a few other songs, based on reviews.

 

[revolver]

this isn't true at all. you are wrong.

U2 have never become popular in spite of themselves. they didn't turn around one day and go, "aw, shucks, we just sold 15m copies of The Joshua Tree."

they have always wanted to be big. ALWAYS. everything else is self-delusion, especially the notion that big music is by definition dumb. U2 has never been an art project, and it was never your art project.

they are a colossal rock band. that was always, always part of the project.

Perhaps you misunderstood. Yes, they always wanted to be the biggest. But being the biggest never got in the way of their songwriting and sense of adventure. It seems to have gotten in the way this decade. Zooropa was clearly not an attempt to maintain their status as the biggest band in the world. It was them doing something because they were in "fuck the mainstream" mode; it was them saying "we're already the biggest band in the world and we can do what we want." They are now doing things in reverse, clinging to their biggest band in the world status like it was all that mattered.

 

[Irvine511]

Of course U2 wanted to be big, but the KEY is that it was always on their terms. Let's face it. Achtung Baby could have been more "direct" and simpler and sold more copies, but the band's attitude was if people don't like it, it doesn't matter to us; this is the music we want to make; it's not about changing the art to fit the mainstream. As Bono has said, "With or Without You" was so different from anything on the airwaves; it's that perfect blend of success for the band of an incredible song and mass approval, but the art had to be prioritized first.

Now it's all about appeasing the mainstream and being remembered. They've gotten addicted to the most shallow things and maybe that's human but it's not what led us to "The Joshua Tree" and "Achtung Baby". THAT BAND was willing to promote their work, but wouldn't alter the work itself to sell more units. That's the tragedy in all this. Bono and The Edge have deluded themselves about what's a good song and what isn't for the past 8 years by overthinking it, and they're obviously in danger of reverting this year, as evidenced in GOYB and a few other songs, based on reviews.

you realize this is an amalgamation of opinions and misremembered quotations with no context, right?

 

[Irvine511]

Perhaps you misunderstood. Yes, they always wanted to be the biggest. But being the biggest never got in the way of their songwriting and sense of adventure. It seems to have gotten in the way this decade. Zooropa was clearly not an attempt to maintain their status as the biggest band in the world. It was them doing something because they were in "fuck the mainstream" mode; it was them saying "we're already the biggest band in the world and we can do what we want." They are now doing things in reverse, clinging to their biggest band in the world status like it was all that mattered.

Zooropa was originally intended to be an album that would maintain interest in the band as they embarked on another world tour more than a year and a half after the release of Achtung. it was also clearly designed to be a "lesser" album, the little sister of Achtung, and it was presented as such by the band, a collection of detritus from the Zoo TV tour. it was not designed to be a world-beating collection of songs like Joshua Tree and Achtung were designed to be. and, yes, the way Pop was designed to be.

you also have no right nor ability to question their motives. you do not know their motives. you do not know the band. you do not know what goes on behind closed doors. you seem to think that if the band would just listen to you, then they'd say, "gosh, you're right, we are just trying to get a song on the radio and nothing more." you don't know that there's been a level of calculation behind *every* U2 release since at least War.

 

[daygloeyes2]

Of THAT BAND was willing to promote their work, but wouldn't alter the work itself to sell more units.

Of course they're going to alter their work. No good band would put the first take of anything out there.

 

[Muldfeld]

I think you are insulting human intelligence - people are moved by all different types of songs - people aren't idiots - they're not going to stand in a stadium after forking out 50 odd quid for a ticket if they don't appreciate what they're seeing and hearing

I'll refer you to Bono's reaction to fans during Zoo TV at around 2:38 through to the end.

YouTube - U2 - Zoo TV - Opening Night (1992)

If certain people haven't bothered to really listen to "Love Is Blindness" or "Acrobat" are aren't willing to try to experience something less mainstream, then they shouldn't come. That's been the problem with the tours since 2000; hardcore fans like myself who haven't been willing to pay for a subscription (although I finally did this year) lose tickets when ticketmaster freezes, and some nurse at my father's workplace who is obviously a lesser fan gets to go and rub it in my face, after failing to get as much money as she wanted when her husband tried to scalp them on ebay.

Too many intolerant bellweather fans can ruin the show because the band feels it has to dumb down setlists. A more musically adventurous live U2 could sell all its tickets to arenas if it had a little patience and were willing to wait a month for the venues to sell out.

"We might lose some of the pop kids, but...we don't need 'em." Brilliant!

 

[Muldfeld]

Of course they're going to alter their work. No good band would put the first take of anything out there.

That's not what I mean. There's a difference between making something better and just better for some assumed dumb audience who has to be looked down upon and can only really appreciate a superficial party atmosphere. It might be hard for U2 to tell the difference these days, but it knew it back then.

 

[daygloeyes2]

That's not what I mean. There's a difference between making something better and just better for some assumed dumb audience who has to be looked down upon and can only really appreciate a superficial party atmosphere. It might be hard for U2 to tell the difference these days, but it knew it back then.

Ah, I see what you meant now.

I've always felt U2 has had the perfect balance of appealing to the masses while keeping their artistic integrity.

 

[Irvine511]

If certain people haven't bothered to really listen to "Love Is Blindness" or "Acrobat" are aren't willing to try to experience something less mainstream, then they shouldn't come. That's been the problem with the tours since 2000; hardcore fans like myself who haven't been willing to pay for a subscription (although I finally did this year) lose tickets when ticketmaster freezes, and some nurse at my father's workplace who is obviously a lesser fan gets to go and rub it in my face, after failing to get as much money as she wanted when her husband tried to scalp them on ebay.

Too many bellweather fans can ruin the show because the band feels it has to dumb down setlists. A more musically adventurous live U2 could sell all its tickets to arenas if it had a little patience and were willing to wait a month for the venues to sell out.

you are such an angry, sanctimonious little twit. just listen to yourself. you're acting like an indie snob ... about THE BIGGEST BAND ON THE PLANET SINCE 1987.

it's really preposterous. would you like to pass out a quiz before the show and only the top scores get tickets? you're being elitist and snobbish about fucking U2? you're using your (implied) superior knowledge and thusly appreciation about the band to make yourself out to be more worthy of music that's consumed by tens of millions across the globe?

has it really come to this?

 

[Irvine511]

It might be hard for U2 to tell the difference these days, but it knew it back then.

clearly, you should be managing the band. after all, you knew it back then.

 

[believer75]

There is so much doubt in this forum at times about U2.....U2 knows what they are doing....they would not have become and remained the biggest band in the world if they did not. The songs they have put out in the past ten years are VERY meaningful to a great number of people. I am glad those songs exist...and the songs before that...and the songs before that. The songs exist from each album in the moment....and then last longer than that. U2 is a forever band, not a yesterday band.

 

[LemonMelon]

you also have no right nor ability to question their motives. you do not know their motives. you do not know the band. you do not know what goes on behind closed doors. you seem to think that if the band would just listen to you, then they'd say, "gosh, you're right, we are just trying to get a song on the radio and nothing more." you don't know that there's been a level of calculation behind *every* U2 release since at least War.

Could everyone please read this post? It would save the forum quite a lot of bandwith it would ordinarily waste on baseless, unfounded stupidity. Thanks.

 

[Bonochick]

Please stop the fighting and name calling. Feel free to discuss things and have a difference of opinion, but let's keep it nice.

 

[revolver]

Zooropa was originally intended to be an album that would maintain interest in the band as they embarked on another world tour more than a year and a half after the release of Achtung. it was also clearly designed to be a "lesser" album, the little sister of Achtung, and it was presented as such by the band, a collection of detritus from the Zoo TV tour. it was not designed to be a world-beating collection of songs like Joshua Tree and Achtung were designed to be. and, yes, the way Pop was designed to be.

you also have no right nor ability to question their motives. you do not know their motives. you do not know the band. you do not know what goes on behind closed doors. you seem to think that if the band would just listen to you, then they'd say, "gosh, you're right, we are just trying to get a song on the radio and nothing more." you don't know that there's been a level of calculation behind *every* U2 release since at least War.

I don't understand any of this crap. Us dissenting fans just want the band to make the best music possible. Perhaps the new album is good enough for you, but its not for us. We're certainly allowed to question their motives and to state our opinions based on what we remember as our personal experiences with the band. And your Zooropa comments just prove my point - it wasn't an album made to continue world domination, it was an album made because they were hungry enough to make a great album without trying to impress anybody specifically. U2, once again, is a band that listens to their critics. It's who they are. They're half-assing things, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME, because they want to maintain their success, because this late-period success has clouded their creative brains, causing them to produce below their capabilities. In other words, in political terms, since this seems kinda like being an American against the war in Iraq: I support the troops, I think what they're doing is unnecessary.

On another note, no one's saying "Beautiful Day" isn't a great song; they're saying that it signalled a change for the band, and one that some of us wish wouldn't have defined them for this entire decade.

 

[Muldfeld]

Ah, I see what you meant now.

I've always felt U2 has had the perfect balance of appealing to the masses while keeping their artistic integrity.

It's cool. I used to think so, but I don't now.

I think you are insulting human intelligence - people are moved by all different types of songs - people aren't idiots - they're not going to stand in a stadium after forking out 50 odd quid for a ticket if they don't appreciate what they're seeing and hearing

I'll refer you to Bono's reaction to fans during Zoo TV at around 2:38 through to the end.

YouTube - U2 - Zoo TV - Opening Night (1992)

If certain people haven't bothered to really listen to "Love Is Blindness" or "Acrobat" are aren't willing to try to experience something less mainstream, then they shouldn't come. That's been the problem with the tours since 2000; hardcore fans like myself who haven't been willing to pay for a subscription (although I finally did this year) lose tickets when ticketmaster freezes, and some nurse at my father's workplace who is obviously a lesser fan gets to go and rub it in my face, after failing to get as much money as she wanted when her husband tried to scalp them on ebay.

Too many intolerant bellweather fans can ruin the show because the band feels it has to dumb down setlists. A more musically adventurous live U2 could sell all its tickets to arenas if it had a little patience and were willing to wait a month for the venues to sell out.

"We might lose some of the pop kids, but...we don't need 'em." Brilliant!

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Could everyone please read this post? It would save the forum quite a lot of bandwith it would ordinarily waste on baseless, unfounded stupidity. Thanks.

but think how boring it would be...

 

[LemonMelon]

There was absolutely no calculation whatsoever that went into Achtung Baby/ZooTV. They were only doing it for the music, man. Which is precisely why they released Acrobat as a single and refused to show their videos on MTV.

Oh, wait...

 

[Irvine511]

I don't understand any of this crap. Us dissenting fans just want the band to make the best music possible. Perhaps the new album is good enough for you, but its not for us. We're certainly allowed to question their motives and to state our opinions based on what we remember as our personal experiences with the band. And your Zooropa comments just prove my point - it wasn't an album made to continue world domination, it was an album made because they were hungry enough to make a great album without trying to impress anybody specifically. U2, once again, is a band that listens to their critics. It's who they are. They're half-assing things, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME, because they want to maintain their success, because this late-period success has clouded their creative brains, causing them to produce below their capabilities. In other words, in political terms, since this seems kinda like being an American against the war in Iraq: I support the troops, I think what they're doing is unnecessary.

On another note, no one's saying "Beautiful Day" isn't a great song; they're saying that it signalled a change for the band, and one that some of us wish wouldn't have defined them for this entire decade.

disputing the music is one thing, disputing the motive is something completely different. if the band is not where you want them to be right now, that's fine. you can move on. but continuously stating that it's clear to all that U2 is now a commercial product whereas in 1993 they were challenging artist who succeeded in spite of themselves is little more than self-delusion. there's such a fake romance that surrounds the band, it's nothing more than nostalgia akin to nostalgia for the 1950s as some kind of halcyon bygone days where things were simple and true. that was never the reality. the reality was always much more complex and much messier than it looks in retrospect.

and go back and read what i wrote about Zooropa. it was designed to MAINTAIN INTEREST in the band as they toured for another year. it was intended to maintain sell-outs in stadiums across Europe and into Aus/NZ, and the tour was intended to push more copies of that album as well.