Are you under the impression that U2 is obsessed with the idea
- Thread starter U2_Guy
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
U2_Guy said:
The only "old sound" about Beautiful day was the Edge's riff in "teach me, touch me" part and nothing else.
No, U2 did blues on Rattle and Hum, NOT soul. And it's nothing like either Stuck or In a little while.
No, U2 didn't do pop songs before. Sweetest thing - the original version - isn't a pop song.
Grace - is different than UF, and certainly much different than Zooropa or Passengers. With a stretch of imagination, it could fit on MDH soundtrack.
ATYCLB has new sounds. Too bad if you can't notice them.
U2girl said:
About R&H. Look for the b-side A Room at the heartbreak hotel. It's soul. It isn't blues.
U2 did loads of pop songs. I mean, loads. I guess we have different concepts of what "pop" means.
And Grace is a trying on being ambient. And it sucks big big time.
believer75
War Child
U2_Guy said:
There is definitely a concept to ATYCLB, too. By that, I mean, lyrically speaking there is an overall theme to the album.
"Packin' a suitcase to a place none of has been....."
"leaving things behind".....suitcase in heart....heart-shaped ramp, etc.
The theme of ATYCLB was very realized. It's about relationships, being real, and leaving pretense behind and being consciously sincere.
I can easily see the character in BD, Stuck, Kite, In a little while, Wild honey, New York. Thinking about moving on, family, friends, lovers, midlife crisis/affair?
Up to a point, that same person may very well be appearing in POE, WILATW and Grace, pondering the state of the world they're in.
(I didn't put in Walk on because that was dedicated to Aung Saan su Kyi and Elevation is a fun song, not necessarily with a point to make)
Up to a point, that same person may very well be appearing in POE, WILATW and Grace, pondering the state of the world they're in.
(I didn't put in Walk on because that was dedicated to Aung Saan su Kyi and Elevation is a fun song, not necessarily with a point to make)
Now you're splitting hairs.
Yes, they added the violin, cleaned up the guitar part and Bono sang another vocal - so ok, it's a re-recording.
But that doesn't change the fact that the first version of that song was made in 1987, which has a very different impression on the listener.
What would you say about Bono and Adam's 1995 version of Tomorrow, then? That it erases the original from October?
Yes, they added the violin, cleaned up the guitar part and Bono sang another vocal - so ok, it's a re-recording.
But that doesn't change the fact that the first version of that song was made in 1987, which has a very different impression on the listener.
What would you say about Bono and Adam's 1995 version of Tomorrow, then? That it erases the original from October?
believer75
War Child
U2girl + U2guy=BALANCE 
Two completely different ends of the spectrum that brings us somewhere closer to the middle. I love it!!
Two completely different ends of the spectrum that brings us somewhere closer to the middle. I love it!!
believer75
War Child
ZeroDude said:
I don't know....I don't get it either.
Of course it matters if it's a remix, because it doesn't count as a new material/song like you say.
Bottom line is no, they didn't.
They remix plenty of songs on their singles (or the new mixes on the second Best of), and that doesn't make those songs new studio material.
Bottom line is no, they didn't.
They remix plenty of songs on their singles (or the new mixes on the second Best of), and that doesn't make those songs new studio material.
believer75
War Child
U2_Guy said:
I don't know...hahaha.
An amazing U2 cover song comes to mind, though.......NIIIIIGHT and DAAAAAAAAAAY!!!
It's fun to read BOTH of your perspectives.....neither is right or wrong....different....and that's why U2 is the best....they appeal to every one in different ways.
U2_Guy said:
And you're not stubborn?
I thought we were talking about Sweetest thing. But ok:
how would Pride be pop? Electric guitar and drums all over, lyrics about Martin Luther King.
With or without you doesn't follow the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo/middle 8-end formula, and it's lyrics don't fit a pop song.
If you shout...
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Okay, I was all up in this conversation a while ago...look what a few hours can do...! Ha ha ha. In all honesty, I think that both U2_Guy (who I agree with a bit more) and U2Girl (who I don't agree with quite as much) are making some decent points--maybe, though, you're both splitting a few too many hairs a few too many times.
Here's what I've got to say about the current state of affairs in this thread...in case anybody's listening...
Songs from All That You Can't Leave Behind don't necessarily sound EXACTLY like anything else that U2's ever done--I'm not gonna' say some crazy shit like that. So U2_Guy, I think that it would be more productive to just say that the songs sound FAMILIAR and not worry about exact precedents and stuff like that; U2Girl, I'd have to say that you're right in that certain melodies and the like from, amongst others, "Beautiful Day" never came up in U2 songs before...but I'm not sure that that's totally on-topic. Sure, "Beautiful Day" doesn't sound EXACTLY like any other U2 songs (although "Elevation" just lifts the guitar riff from "Even Better Than The Real Thing" and "Walk On" borrows its feel from every mid-tempo track that band's EVER done....and now "Crumbs" borrows from that...!), but it sure as shit sounds a LOT like older U2. Chord progressions and the like aren't as important--nor are certain genres and that sort of this..."A Room At The Heartbreak Hotel" comes to mind in the context of this debate--as a lot of other stuff, you know? Same thing with "The Sweetest Thing"--it sounded new in '87 and, regardless of whether or not the "final" version is EXACTLY the same as that version (it isn't, but that's not too important), it still sounded dated (stylistically, not production-wise) when it was "finished" in '98.
The other important fact here, I think, is that regardless of how great this new album is...it sounds (I think, at least) more like the last album than it sounds like any others. To me, nothing on this album sounds even REMOTELY new... Some old elements are simply mixed up on only occasionally new ways--it sounds very nice, I enjoy it, but I don't think it sets the world on fire...that's all.
I would MUCH rather enjoy a U2 album like pretty much ALL their albums before the last one: one that DOES RELY on U2's past, but one that doesn't REST on it...! The three albums from the '90s all sound like U2...but they sound like a NEW U2 doing old things AND new things in NEW ways. The new album sounds like an old U2 (whether from four or fourteen or twenty or whatever years ago) doing old things with new production skills. New songs? Yeah. New lyrics? Yeah. New skills? Yeah. New sounds...? Hell no. There are some, but they're the exception--NOT the rule.
Sorry for rambling...! Just so much to think/talk about. This has, for the most part, been a good conversation, everyone...! Bravo. It joys me to see people thinking so critically on "both ends of the spectrum," as it were.
Here's what I've got to say about the current state of affairs in this thread...in case anybody's listening...
Songs from All That You Can't Leave Behind don't necessarily sound EXACTLY like anything else that U2's ever done--I'm not gonna' say some crazy shit like that. So U2_Guy, I think that it would be more productive to just say that the songs sound FAMILIAR and not worry about exact precedents and stuff like that; U2Girl, I'd have to say that you're right in that certain melodies and the like from, amongst others, "Beautiful Day" never came up in U2 songs before...but I'm not sure that that's totally on-topic. Sure, "Beautiful Day" doesn't sound EXACTLY like any other U2 songs (although "Elevation" just lifts the guitar riff from "Even Better Than The Real Thing" and "Walk On" borrows its feel from every mid-tempo track that band's EVER done....and now "Crumbs" borrows from that...!), but it sure as shit sounds a LOT like older U2. Chord progressions and the like aren't as important--nor are certain genres and that sort of this..."A Room At The Heartbreak Hotel" comes to mind in the context of this debate--as a lot of other stuff, you know? Same thing with "The Sweetest Thing"--it sounded new in '87 and, regardless of whether or not the "final" version is EXACTLY the same as that version (it isn't, but that's not too important), it still sounded dated (stylistically, not production-wise) when it was "finished" in '98.
The other important fact here, I think, is that regardless of how great this new album is...it sounds (I think, at least) more like the last album than it sounds like any others. To me, nothing on this album sounds even REMOTELY new... Some old elements are simply mixed up on only occasionally new ways--it sounds very nice, I enjoy it, but I don't think it sets the world on fire...that's all.
I would MUCH rather enjoy a U2 album like pretty much ALL their albums before the last one: one that DOES RELY on U2's past, but one that doesn't REST on it...! The three albums from the '90s all sound like U2...but they sound like a NEW U2 doing old things AND new things in NEW ways. The new album sounds like an old U2 (whether from four or fourteen or twenty or whatever years ago) doing old things with new production skills. New songs? Yeah. New lyrics? Yeah. New skills? Yeah. New sounds...? Hell no. There are some, but they're the exception--NOT the rule.
Sorry for rambling...! Just so much to think/talk about. This has, for the most part, been a good conversation, everyone...! Bravo. It joys me to see people thinking so critically on "both ends of the spectrum," as it were.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I'm gonna have to say what I said in the other thread...which is Bono has got to such a level of influence over the African situation now, that he has to maintain his fame - because it is this fame - or as he puts it, "currency" - which he is trying to "spend" in order to save lives in Africa. Only Blockbuster albums will give him this currency. There are too many lives at stake for U2 to put out an "unsafe" album right now. I truly believe this is a huge factor as to why they're on their current path. Because it certainly isn't for the money. And I must say, I can't disagree with them.
Similar threads
