Another album soon?? Songs of Ascent

[U2girl]

Totally, Salome.

I always thought they have a mix of doing what they want, yet still being accessible to the masses.

 

[Salome]

But I'll take that 'not knowing' any day.

yeah, that's why Irvine's "i'm not going to keep some arbitrary and entirely subjective period in time in my head that i've totally romanticized and shot through with a soft light and gauzy focus as the unattainable and unrealistic standard for what is and what isn't good U2 music" post was a very good one

 

[Salome]

I always thought they have a mix of doing what they want, yet still being accessible to the masses.

which is what they've basically tried with every album they've released
some more successful than others

 

[U2girl]

But they weren't catering to the masses like it seems they are now.

I view it more as "we're okay with actually sounding like U2 again after a decade of avoiding it like the plague".

I do think that they're getting that out of their system now, just like experimenting after Pop, and that Song of Ascent will be the start of a new direction.

 

[Anji]

I am actually quite excited that Every Breaking Wave COULD be making it's appearance sometime soon I just hope and pray that it remains with OMD influences and it is not remixed

I was a MASSIVE fan of OMD in the 80's So I would be more than interested to hear how U2's 'ommage to OMD turns out

 

[bram]

I don't think there will be any more U2 "directions" that resemble anything from the past. This is totally fine with me, but I can see why it would piss some people off. If U2 are still writing and recording songs like Magnificent I will be more than happy. But U2 aren't going to "experiment" anymore in the way that a lot of people want them to. At least not without releasing another U2 album close by...or until after they have given up the world touring. Even then, I'd be surprised. If their hearts aren't in it, it won't sound good and they won't release it. The thing that the critics aren't understanding is that U2 is just as worried about being contrived/MOR/prosaic as they are about being overly avant garde--and probably much more so. But if we as fans aren't willing to be with them where they are at, then we just have to be ok with being disappointed. Luckily for me, I am very, very happy with where they are at and what is exciting them in music right now.

 

[clipper699]

Of course not; they wanted it to sell. But they weren't catering to the masses like it seems they are now. Pop seemed to me to be the last time they were honestly doing what they truly wanted to do. "OHHH YOU DON"T KNOW THE BAND!!!" Yeah, I know I don't. It's just how it sounds to me.

Honestly doing what they truly wanted to do? AB/Zoo TV and PoP/mart were the ultimate Andy Kaufmann's. Big, farsical put on's. The big top with freak show barkers. Ironic. Laugh at us as we laugh at people like us. Snicker and sing along while we reduce the Joshua Tree to kindling...

The Fly was a character. Not real. Was it all extremely cool? No doubt. But it was a total fabrication.

 

[believer75]

Honestly doing what they truly wanted to do? AB/Zoo TV and PoP/mart were the ultimate Andy Kaufmann's. Big, farsical put on's. The big top with freak show barkers. Ironic. Laugh at us as we laugh at people like us. Snicker and sing along while we reduce the Joshua Tree to kindling...

The Fly was a character. Not real. Was it all extremely cool? No doubt. But it was a total fabrication.

yes, Bono did say "it's a con".....we enjoyed being conned!!

 

[purpleoscar]

One hypothetical question: Next album is being released, you don't read the reviews before, you just go to the store the day it's released, buy and listen to it. Let's say that when you're finished you think that they finally did it. You feel that there's one new "forever" moment. Then you go out to see reviews and discover that this new album is being panned by critics and fans. How would you react?

Very good point.

 

[Salome]

The Fly was a character. Not real. Was it all extremely cool? No doubt. But it was a total fabrication.

it has always amused me that the people who celebrate the 'irony' of the 90s the most take some of Bono's statements completely on face value

 

[mikal]

i am ABSOLUTELY REPULSED by what's happened to this thread.

 

[what a bomb!]

well I'm not pissing my pants over this,proof of the pudding is hearing it in its entirety....

and jeez...don't some of you have a life? lol

 

[revolver]

yeah, that's why Irvine's "i'm not going to keep some arbitrary and entirely subjective period in time in my head that i've totally romanticized and shot through with a soft light and gauzy focus as the unattainable and unrealistic standard for what is and what isn't good U2 music" post was a very good one

If you're referring specifically to my thoughts on things, I must say I haven't romanticized my experience with Pop any more than I have with this decade's albums. I'm not even saying Pop is a better album than these albums, nor that I had a better experience with it at the time. I'm saying that Pop seems like the end of an era, which we all can agree on. ATYCLB was a risk in the form of an anti-risk, and they've been on that track ever since. Shit, in a sense, every album is a risk in some way or other! Will it sell or won't it? Is it any good or isn't it?

I think a better post than Irvine's would/should be "I'm not going to let my favorite band cloud my judgement over what is and isn't great music and simply never criticize a thing they do." If we feel that U2 isn't trying hard enough, or that the music seems like they have their hearts/minds in the wrong place, we should be allowed to say so without being accused of romanticizing an era. Plus, its insulting to be talked to like this: if you knew me you'd automatically know that there is nary any subjectivity left in me when it comes to music. That is to say, I have no favorite band, no favorite albums; only what I think is good or bad; if an album comes out by a band I was looking forward to hearing from and I hear universally that its crap, I won't buy it. And then a U2 album comes and I realize I still do have a favorite band, if only for a few months, and I come on this board to communicate and then am constantly reminded not to speak ill of the band on this board, as I was when I first joined for ATYCLB. I love the enthusiasm of all Interference members; perhaps I even envy not feeling the same. But that some of you can't kindly acknowledge that me and whoever else aren't the only people who are thinking a certain way (a 72 on metacritic proves this) is beyond me. The band is not as adventurous as they used to be. That's all. If you think the new albums are better off for it, fine. But something seems to have changed in the band's mindset - interviews and the music they're making and Bono's live gestures are enough for me to buy into this.

One thing we all share is that we hope the next album is a masterpiece. I hope, along with others, that it is the true departure.

 

[revolver]

I view it more as "we're okay with actually sounding like U2 again after a decade of avoiding it like the plague".

I do think that they're getting that out of their system now, just like experimenting after Pop, and that Song of Ascent will be the start of a new direction.

Agreed and hopeful!

 

[MMP]

Well, good sir, an excellent question. I could use this album as an example, or perhaps a reverse example, kind of. Two days after hearing of a Q magazine 5 star review, and the very night I learned of a 5 star Rolling Stone review, NLOTH leaked. So, I had no reason to think it would be anything less than a masterpiece, which even takes your hypothetical question to the next level, in a way.

I drove around as excited as could be at 2 in the morning with my brother listening to No Line. The first song I was punching my brother in the arm with excitement. The second was pretty good. The third, on first listen, lost me with its chorus, and it was virtually downhill from there, until track 8, which I found to have an amazing 2nd verse, and then track 11, which I did and still think is the best closing song since Wake Up Dead Man. I was kinda numbed by the album, but of course wanted to listen to it again. Before most of the reviews rolled in, and well before my favorite critics Pitchfork reviewed it, I listened to the album about 30 times and wrote a 3 1/2 star review for my friends via email. This pained me to no end, but I had to be honest.

Point is, I couldn't have been more excited for the new album from my favorite band, and, before knowing it was going to be the least well received U2 album of this decade according to metacritic, I didn't feel it was up to snuff. I had a nasty feeling it wasn't going to be well received; I wanted to be wrong, oh how I wanted to be wrong! But I wasn't. I have a radar for such things; I'm eternally linked to critics. I hope hope hope this next album makes me think they've done it, because then, I think, the critics would agree. This is the answer to your question, in part. If, by some chance, I thought it was a masterpiece and thought the critics were wrong, then I guess I'd be championing it on this message board and every other place I could think of. Much like those on this messageboard, I suppose. But for me this is unlikely, unfortunately, it really is.

Interesting. But as you must know, you're not fond of HTDAAB and it was much more praised than NLOTH and even Pitchfork gave it an respectable 6.9 (which you could count as a 7). So, if my hypothetical situation ever happens, you'll understand the folks that are discussing with you about your opinions on this album.
But to me your dislike for this album is fair enough. You gave your reasons. Doesn't matter if I agree with them or not. Discussing it would lead to nowhere.

Another point: we're all very influenced by crtics. And time. Had NLOTH been released in 1991 and recieved the same praise as AB maybe you would like it as much as AB now. Who knows...
Time changes music.

 

[dan_smee]

^ anyone who lists pitchfork as their favourite reviewers needs to maybe take stock and re-assess

 

[Salome]

I think a better post than Irvine's would/should be "I'm not going to let my favorite band cloud my judgement over what is and isn't great music and simply never criticize a thing they do." If we feel that U2 isn't trying hard enough, or that the music seems like they have their hearts/minds in the wrong place, we should be allowed to say so without being accused of romanticizing an era. Plus, its insulting to be talked to like this:

thing is, I have no problem critizing U2
I have been critical enough myself on albums like POP and How to dismantle ...
I still think they're good, but I expected more
especially something more focussed and better executed

my critique on neither album is based on some sort of personal opinion on innovation or on what 'moves' the band

 

[Salome]

btw I am excited at the prospect of Songs of Ascent

 

[VintagePunk]

I think a better post than Irvine's would/should be "I'm not going to let my favorite band cloud my judgement over what is and isn't great music and simply never criticize a thing they do." If we feel that U2 isn't trying hard enough, or that the music seems like they have their hearts/minds in the wrong place, we should be allowed to say so without being accused of romanticizing an era. Plus, its insulting to be talked to like this: if you knew me you'd automatically know that there is nary any subjectivity left in me when it comes to music. That is to say, I have no favorite band, no favorite albums; only what I think is good or bad; if an album comes out by a band I was looking forward to hearing from and I hear universally that its crap, I won't buy it. And then a U2 album comes and I realize I still do have a favorite band, if only for a few months, and I come on this board to communicate and then am constantly reminded not to speak ill of the band on this board, as I was when I first joined for ATYCLB. I love the enthusiasm of all Interference members; perhaps I even envy not feeling the same. But that some of you can't kindly acknowledge that me and whoever else aren't the only people who are thinking a certain way (a 72 on metacritic proves this) is beyond me. The band is not as adventurous as they used to be. That's all. If you think the new albums are better off for it, fine. But something seems to have changed in the band's mindset - interviews and the music they're making and Bono's live gestures are enough for me to buy into this.

One thing we all share is that we hope the next album is a masterpiece. I hope, along with others, that it is the true departure.

One thing I don't get about posts like yours and others is the whole tone of blaming the band for not going where you want them to go musically. Like it or not, they presented us their current artistic vision. They put out what they wanted to present to the public, period. If it's not to your liking, why blame them when a lot of others obviously do like it? Is your opinion more valid that anyone else's? Hardly.

Chalk it up to your taste not meshing, not to them being "wrong" or "playing it safe, artistically" and move on. Find something that is more adventurous. But don't expect others to sit around and pat your hand while agreeing with you. Most people are happy and excited, and posts like yours, blaming the band when it's clearly you, have a tone of pissing on that excitement.

 

[revolver]

Interesting. But as you must know, you're not fond of HTDAAB and it was much more praised than NLOTH and even Pitchfork gave it an respectable 6.9 (which you could count as a 7). So, if my hypothetical situation ever happens, you'll understand the folks that are discussing with you about your opinions on this album.
But to me your dislike for this album is fair enough. You gave your reasons. Doesn't matter if I agree with them or not. Discussing it would lead to nowhere.

Another point: we're all very influenced by crtics. And time. Had NLOTH been released in 1991 and recieved the same praise as AB maybe you would like it as much as AB now. Who knows...
Time changes music.

True and true. It's all very hard to tell. It's like that theory of time travel where no matter what you do you can't change the future!

Yes, I don't like Bomb more than 3 stars...nowadays. For 2 months upon release I felt pretty damn good about it! I've been the main proponent that people actually like this album more than Bomb, they just can't change their original scores. But I've never felt very good about this album, even if I give it 3 1/2. Time time time.

 

[MMP]

I think a better post than Irvine's would/should be "I'm not going to let my favorite band cloud my judgement over what is and isn't great music and simply never criticize a thing they do."

Btw, this was arrogant.
I love NLOTH and my judgement over what is and what isn't great music is as clouded as yours. You're saying that you want your opinion to be valid. And it is for sure, until you say that someone's else isn't.

 

[revolver]

One thing I don't get about posts like yours and others is the whole tone of blaming the band for not going where you want them to go musically. Like it or not, they presented us their current artistic vision. They put out what they wanted to present to the public, period. If it's not to your liking, why blame them when a lot of others obviously do like it? Is your opinion more valid that anyone else's? Hardly.

Chalk it up to your taste not meshing, not to them being "wrong" or "playing it safe, artistically" and move on. Find something that is more adventurous. But don't expect others to sit around and pat your hand while agreeing with you. Most people are happy and excited, and posts like yours, blaming the band when it's clearly you, have a tone of pissing on that excitement.

I have no "taste." I like anything that's good. I think the album could have been better had they taken it further. I've stated this plenty of times and I think its clear enough.

 

[revolver]

^ anyone who lists pitchfork as their favourite reviewers needs to maybe take stock and re-assess

Oh, come on! Just because they don't give U2 good reviews? Have you seen their lists of the best albums of the 70s, 80s, 90s? Songs of the 60s? They are bar none the best, most fearless site for music fanatics. For me anyway, as I learn far more from them and discover more music than anywhere else.

And a good review from Pitchfork for a U2 album would mean they really deserved it, as opposed to a great review from Rolling Stone.

 

[VintagePunk]

I have no "taste." I like anything that's good. I think the album could have been better had they taken it further. I've stated this plenty of times and I think its clear enough.

You like anything that's good to you.

What that statement tells me is that if someone likes something you don't, they automatically have poor taste, or they're just plain wrong. That's one of the most arrogant, bullshit statements I've ever read on here.

 

[revolver]

Btw, this was arrogant.
I love NLOTH and my judgement over what is and what isn't great music is as clouded as yours. You're saying that you want your opinion to be valid. And it is for sure, until you say that someone's else isn't.

I'm sorry, but nowhere but here could you find so many people disagreeing so strongly with what I'm saying. Yes, I know, its a U2 messageboard. I've responded with arrogance to arrogance is all I'm saying.

 

[revolver]

This has gotten off topic and I apologize; I thought those who started this argument would still be here with me, and I've just been bored at work all day!

I want nothing but the best for the band. Can't wait for Songs of Ascent.

 

[Niceman]

I have no "taste." I like anything that's good.

You need to take an introduction to philosophy of art class. This is a contradiction.

 

[VintagePunk]

Oh, come on! Just because they don't give U2 good reviews? Have you seen their lists of the best albums of the 70s, 80s, 90s? Songs of the 60s? They are bar none the best, most fearless site for music fanatics. For me anyway, as I learn far more from them and discover more music than anywhere else.

And a good review from Pitchfork for a U2 album would mean they really deserved it, as opposed to a great review from Rolling Stone.

Oh, I get it now. Your brain's been reprogrammed by those pretentious Pitchfork idiots.

 

[Montrose]

I have no "taste." I like anything that's good. I think the album could have been better had they taken it further. I've stated this plenty of times and I think its clear enough.

Everyone has a taste in music. If you didn't, you'd either like all music or no music at all. The fact that you like some music and not others means you have a particular taste, even if you find it hard to define.

Saying your 'taste' is equivalent to 'good' music is confusing fact and opinion.

If you didn't like the album, that's fine. When most people say they don't think something is 'good', they know it really means 'I didn't like it, but that's just me'.

It's good because you like it, not you like it because it's good.

 

[revolver]

You like anything that's good to you.

What that statement tells me is that if someone likes something you don't, they automatically have poor taste, or they're just plain wrong. That's one of the most arrogant, bullshit statements I've ever read on here.

See, these are the kinds of statements I'm talking about that I don't appreciate. I wasn't bringing anyone else into it but myself. I personally don't have anything I'd consider my favorite now; if this new u2 album was a collection of Crazy Tonight's and they were all awesome, I'd love the album. If the whole album was all Fez's and they were all awesome, I'd love the album. That is what I was saying and that is all I was saying. I, personally, don't find the album to be great - I find it to be good - because the band sounds stuck in between mainstream and experimental, and I think it would have benefitted them to go one way or the other. My PERSONAL opinion. It was not an arrogant statement nor did it have to do with anyone else. Please acknowledge this.