Another album soon?? Songs of Ascent

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
revolver said:
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.
Click to expand...

See, this album does deserve it. It is by far and away better than anything they've done since AB.

My problem with pitchfork is that they are too predictable. They get sets against certain artists, not just U2, and decide to lambast everything they do. That's not journalism (neither is the mutual masturbation between RS or Q and U2).

If you are looking for fair and unbiased you have sling-shot yourself from RS and Q, past the equilibirum, and off the other end of the scale. I agree, if pitchfork gave them a good review it'd be worth it, but come on man, that will never happen, no matter how good the album is.

Plus, they gave HTDAAB 6.9... is it really that much better than NLOTH??? I thought not
 
Montrose said:
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.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with the majority of critics. Which is the only truly objective way to define "good" music - not by agreeing, but by looking at a poll or concensus or metascore of what is considered "good". I don't mean anything arrogant by this. I know that what matters is only what the individual thinks. I'm just saying so you can better understand my "taste".

But as far as taste goes, I just meant that if you give me Beach Boys, Jay-Z, Mozart, Lyle Lovett, and Madonna, I'll like them all as long as the album is good. In other words, there is no style I prefer to another. Truthfully.
 
revolver said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then by virtue of that, if it's your PERSONAL opinion, you acknowledge that others have different opinions. Since there is no right or wrong as far as opinions go, the opinions of others are just as valid. Making it A MATTER OF TASTE.

:crack:
 
dan_smee said:
See, this album does deserve it. It is by far and away better than anything they've done since AB.

My problem with pitchfork is that they are too predictable. They get sets against certain artists, not just U2, and decide to lambast everything they do. That's not journalism (neither is the mutual masturbation between RS or Q and U2).

If you are looking for fair and unbiased you have sling-shot yourself from RS and Q, past the equilibirum, and off the other end of the scale. I agree, if pitchfork gave them a good review it'd be worth it, but come on man, that will never happen, no matter how good the album is.

Plus, they gave HTDAAB 6.9... is it really that much better than NLOTH??? I thought not
Click to expand...

You're right about everything you say. Thank you for the considerate response.

The interesting thing about Pitchfork is their unabashed love for "POP" music, like Kanye West and other hip-hoppers and Justin Timberlake and Robyn and the like. So I think they somewhat avoid easy categorization that many folks would want to shackle them with. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying I don't think its quite so clean cut. I personally hate how they left Achtung Baby off their 90s albums list! Plain wrong!
 
VintagePunk said:
Then by virtue of that, if it's your PERSONAL opinion, you acknowledge that others have different opinions. Since there is no right or wrong as far as opinions go, the opinions of others are just as valid. Making it A MATTER OF TASTE.

:crack:
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm fine with that. I'm saying others have put words in my mouth. This was, after all, a discussion about motive originally, and it got way out of hand to become a discussion about good and bad and right and wrong.
 
revolver said:
I generally agree with the majority of critics. Which is the only truly objective way to define "good" music. I don't mean anything arrogant by this. I know that what matters is only what the individual thinks. I'm just saying so you can better understand my "taste".

But as far as taste goes, I just meant that if you give me Beach Boys, Jay-Z, Mozart, Lyle Lovett, and Madonna, I'll like them all as long as the album is good. In other words, there is no style I prefer to another. Truthfully.
Click to expand...

1) Critics have no more special insight into what's "good" or what's "bad" than the rest of us do. They're stating their OPINIONS, that's all. They have two ears and a vocabulary, that's their qualification.

2) That means that within your musical tastes, you enjoy music from a wide range of genres. I do too. I have very eclectic taste in music. But do I like everything from those genres? No. In fact, some genres, I like very little of it, but I can usually find at least a few works that I enjoy, and think are really well done. I think you're confusing the word "taste" with exclusively enjoying everything from a genre.
 
Anyone who engages in this experimental VERSES commercial debate regarding U2 is either unaware of, or ignoring U2's own view on this.

They want to be the songs we hear in our head. And yet, the sweetest melody is the one we haven't heard. They want to find new sounds, new colors, and yet be universally loved for them. This is how they have always approached their work.

Even when working on Passengers, I guarantee you that they imagined the album being massive. Only when the work was done and they took a moment to look it over did they realize that that wasn't likely to happen, and so they packaged it the way that they did.

They're experimenting IN ORDER to find the songs that will infiltrate themselves into everyone in the world, not in order to play to a few music snobs and their wives. They've never been interested in the inaccessible paths other bands have taken: not out of sheer greed, but out of a desire to be HEARD!
 
VintagePunk said:
1) Critics have no more special insight into what's "good" or what's "bad" than the rest of us do. They're stating their OPINIONS, that's all. They have two ears and a vocabulary, that's their qualification.

2) That means that within your musical tastes, you enjoy music from a wide range of genres. I do too. I have very eclectic taste in music. But do I like everything from those genres? No. I think you're confusing the word "taste" with exclusively enjoying everything from a genre.
Click to expand...

Okay, but there is this thing called "good taste" and it in itself is an arrogant term. It is arrogant because of the snobs who define what "good taste" is. Critics, for example, define "good taste". Thus, I like all genres of music, but if confronted with an Outkast album or a Vanilla Ice album, I will most likely prefer the OutKast album, because it is the "better" album. It just works out that way. A matter of opinion, yes, but the supposedly "better" album nonetheless.

And I do hold critics in high regard; always have, always will. They weed out the "good" from the "bad" for me, and I've learned who to trust and who not to; I've learned certain publications apparent motives and trends. I always say, if you're going to learn math, learn it from a math teacher. If you're going to learn about music, learn it from a music critic. That's just me.
 
Niceman said:
Anyone who engages in this experimental VERSES commercial debate regarding U2 is either unaware of, or ignoring U2's own view on this.

They want to be the songs we hear in our head. And yet, the sweetest melody is the one we haven't heard. They want to find new sounds, new colors, and yet be universally loved for them. This is how they have always approached their work.

Even when working on Passengers, I guarantee you that they imagined the album being massive. Only when the work was done and they took a moment to look it over did they realize that that wasn't likely to happen, and so they packaged it the way that they did.

They're experimenting IN ORDER to find the songs that will infiltrate themselves into everyone in the world, not in order to play to a few music snobs and their wives. They've never been interested in the inaccessible paths other bands have taken: not out of sheer greed, but out of a desire to be HEARD!
Click to expand...

:up: Yes, they've always been very up-front about this, haven't they?
 
revolver said:
Okay, but there is this thing called "good taste" and it in itself is an arrogant term. It is arrogant because of the snobs who define what "good taste" is. Critics, for example, define "good taste". Thus, I like all genres of music, but if confronted with an Outkast album or a Vanilla Ice album, I will most likely prefer the OutKast album, because it is the "better" album. It just works out that way. A matter of opinion, yes, but the supposedly "better" album nonetheless.

And I do hold critics in high regard; always have, always will. They weed out the "good" from the "bad" for me, and I've learned who to trust and who not to; I've learned certain publications apparent motives and trends. I always say, if you're going to learn math, learn it from a math teacher. If you're going to learn about music, learn it from a music critic. That's just me.
Click to expand...

Everyone thinks that their taste is "good." Have you ever heard anyone state "I have bad taste?" It's human nature.

Then what you've done is you've found critics whose taste seems to fit very well with your own, and if that's working for you, then have at it. :up: Personally, I like to rely on my own judgment. I trust my own "inner critic" more than anyone else.
 
Niceman said:
Anyone who engages in this experimental VERSES commercial debate regarding U2 is either unaware of, or ignoring U2's own view on this.

They want to be the songs we hear in our head. And yet, the sweetest melody is the one we haven't heard. They want to find new sounds, new colors, and yet be universally loved for them. This is how they have always approached their work.

Even when working on Passengers, I guarantee you that they imagined the album being massive. Only when the work was done and they took a moment to look it over did they realize that that wasn't likely to happen, and so they packaged it the way that they did.

They're experimenting IN ORDER to find the songs that will infiltrate themselves into everyone in the world, not in order to play to a few music snobs and their wives. They've never been interested in the inaccessible paths other bands have taken: not out of sheer greed, but out of a desire to be HEARD!
Click to expand...

I can agree with this.
 
VintagePunk said:
Everyone thinks that their taste is "good." Have you ever heard anyone state "I have bad taste?" It's human nature.

Then what you've done is you've found critics whose taste seems to fit very well with your own, and if that's working for you, then have at it. :up: Personally, I like to rely on my own judgment. I trust my own "inner critic" more than anyone else.
Click to expand...

I actually know many people who revel in their own bad taste! They love to admit it!

To a certain extent, I have found critics whose taste fits mine; but I also take them all into account equally - metacritic or acclaimedmusic are sites that do this for you, and I like to ponder why a certain critic likes something and another doesn't. For me, its all about determining the worth of an album, taking everyone's opinions into account and having my own opinion oversee it - the definition of taste I guess; this is just how I prefer to do things, an intricate process but for me a worthwhile one. But I was defining a clear, snobbish term - "Good taste." It exists, it doesn't mean you have to buy into it, but it is out there and is determined by foreign film, art-loving, butthole sniffing critics.

I trust my own inner critic above all things as well; it unfortunately for me often amounts to being able to predict what critics will think. Yikes! :sad:
 
revolver said:
I actually know many people who revel in their own bad taste! They love to admit it!

To a certain extent, I have found critics whose taste fits mine; but I also take them all into account equally - metacritic or acclaimedmusic are sites that do this for you, and I like to ponder why a certain critic likes something and another doesn't. For me, its all about determining the worth of an album, taking everyone's opinions into account and having my own opinion oversee it - the definition of taste I guess; this is just how I prefer to do things, an intricate process but for me a worthwhile one. But I was defining a clear, snobbish term - "Good taste." It exists, it doesn't mean you have to buy into it, but it is out there and is determined by foreign film, art-loving, butthole sniffing critics.

I trust my own inner critic above all things as well; it unfortunately for me often amounts to being able to predict what critics will think. Yikes! :sad:
Click to expand...

Your definition of good taste seems to = fashion?

I ignore critics myself. I trust my own opinion 100%. Their only uses to me are: A. Giving me information I didn't have. B. Sometimes helping me express an opinion I agree on.
 
Can I just say, weven though there has been some differing of opinion on here, everyone seems to be discussing this in a mature and sensible way.

Kudos to all, and Revolver, you have been great in this discussion. Wow, it's amazing to see someone take counter points and not go bananas and start a bitch-fight :up:
 
VintagePunk said:
Everyone thinks that their taste is "good." Have you ever heard anyone state "I have bad taste?" It's human nature.

Then what you've done is you've found critics whose taste seems to fit very well with your own, and if that's working for you, then have at it. :up: Personally, I like to rely on my own judgment. I trust my own "inner critic" more than anyone else.
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on Human Nature! Awful awful band (or boy-band)
 
Niceman said:
Your definition of good taste seems to = fashion?

I ignore critics myself. I trust my own opinion 100%. Their only uses to me are: A. Giving me information I didn't have. B. Sometimes helping me express an opinion I agree on.
Click to expand...

I believe criticism is a science. Its complicated for me. I have a hypothesis and then I test it. It's what I like to do. I'm not condemning anyone's taste, just revealing my own methods.
 
is this thread still about the next album called "Songs of Ascent"? or should i post my thoughts somewhere else?
 
dan_smee said:
Can I just say, weven though there has been some differing of opinion on here, everyone seems to be discussing this in a mature and sensible way.

Kudos to all, and Revolver, you have been great in this discussion. Wow, it's amazing to see someone take counter points and not go bananas and start a bitch-fight :up:
Click to expand...

Thanks! Kinda would like to get on topic, though. :doh:
 
I will add just to make a point that it seems that right now more than any time in their career, there are more songs in U2's back pocket that they have actually discussed or that we know exist than at any other time in their career

The Rubin Material
The other Eno Material (Songs Of Ascent)
The Spidey Stuff

the 06 beach clips (all my life)-- are those the same as the Rubin songs?
plus Mercy

That and the fact that it appears likely we will get no bonus track / b sides of any original content on this album cycle tells me that they have much more in store for us before this decade is over.
 
Clawgrabber said:
I will add just to make a point that it seems that right now more than any time in their career, there are more songs in U2's back pocket that they have actually discussed or that we know exist than at any other time in their career

The Rubin Material
The other Eno Material (Songs Of Ascent)
The Spidey Stuff

the 06 beach clips (all my life)-- are those the same as the Rubin songs?
plus Mercy

That and the fact that it appears likely we will get no bonus track / b sides of any original content on this album cycle tells me that they have much more in store for us before this decade is over.
Click to expand...

:up:

Optimism FTW
 
gweeps said:
How do we know we're not going to get any new song b-sides from the remaining 3 singles?
Click to expand...

we dont, but its a logical guess on my end, considering that on the last two album cycles, the majority of original bsides / bonus tracks have been right out of the gate, with the first single (or special edition of the album) and then we are inundated with remixes and live tracks on the remaining singles

plus it seems to me that they are almost grooming us to get used to having only one bonus track per single on this record, with their focus on 7" singles and the promotional collector's set box. So i imagine that in the next three singles we will likely get 3 total bonus songs... one being the Will.I.Am remix of Magnificent.

And maybe the nine minute version of Moment Of Surrender?
 
Clawgrabber said:
we dont, but its a logical guess on my end, considering that on the last two album cycles, the majority of original bsides / bonus tracks have been right out of the gate, with the first single (or special edition of the album) and then we are inundated with remixes and live tracks on the remaining singles

plus it seems to me that they are almost grooming us to get used to having only one bonus track per single on this record, with their focus on 7" singles and the promotional collector's set box. So i imagine that in the next three singles we will likely get 3 total bonus songs... one being the Will.I.Am remix of Magnificent.

And maybe the nine minute version of Moment Of Surrender?
Click to expand...

And one of the 5 alternate version of stand up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dont_turn_around
Hello everyone!
Replies
1
Views
196
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Registered Dude
  • Locked
Songs of _________________; New album discussion #7
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
56K
U2387
U2387
Digital Spy 2
I am back
Replies
2
Views
382
Digital Spy 2
Digital Spy 2
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
2K
count rushmore
count rushmore
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
453
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom