Excerpt from the new RS article, "U2: Hymns For the Future" about "Winter" vs Singles
- Thread starter namkcuR
- 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.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
I somehow missed your post, Ernie, but yeah, you're right on the money. I remember the significance of hearing that stuff on the radio as well, and without that context it's hard to fully participate in this discussion.
Yes, why?
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I totally agree with Earnie as well (as I almost always do).
The context is a huge part of the discussion. It can't really be overstated.
I have this conversation with people who think Achtung sounds like shit or was mixed badly. It was supposed to sound like that. If you didn't know U2 before "Beautiful Day' perhaps that does sound like nostalgic pining for an 'era' but it's just an observation out of experience. I admit, I am biased towards the album (as is) but I still feel like I can be reasonably objective about it. It wasn't supposed to be shiny happy arena rock.
Live...those songs transformed and maybe those incarnations of the songs are still great or even better in some cases but that doesn't mean that Achtung wasn't supposed to be exactly what it was, in terms of presentation.
The context is a huge part of the discussion. It can't really be overstated.
I have this conversation with people who think Achtung sounds like shit or was mixed badly. It was supposed to sound like that. If you didn't know U2 before "Beautiful Day' perhaps that does sound like nostalgic pining for an 'era' but it's just an observation out of experience. I admit, I am biased towards the album (as is) but I still feel like I can be reasonably objective about it. It wasn't supposed to be shiny happy arena rock.
Live...those songs transformed and maybe those incarnations of the songs are still great or even better in some cases but that doesn't mean that Achtung wasn't supposed to be exactly what it was, in terms of presentation.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
You have to remember that Achtung snuck in just before Nevermind, just before Blood Sugar Sex Magic, just before that larger wave of early-mid 90s alternative bands hit and changed the scene from top to bottom. ‘Rock’ was still the 80s cock rock hair bands spilling over into the early 90s. Mix that with some really shitty pop and really terrible pop-rap and there’s your Top 40 Radio. Achtung got in there a few months before that next wave swept through. It was really electrifying to hear on its own. Try it now, go and listen to Use Your Illusion or whatever Bon Jovi album of the day, and then Achtung Baby. Have a listen to Everything I Do, I Do It For You, Gonna Make You Sweat, Ice Ice Baby, I Wanna Sex You Up and then The Fly.
Something was about to happen to popular music, and Achtung got in their first.
Something was about to happen to popular music, and Achtung got in their first.
Very interesting article. I love almost all of what U2 does. But the bottom line indeed: it's about balance between the band and producers. When there is balance between the artsy, innovative, and "concept album" type stuff via Eno and the more strait forward meat and potatoes approach about making strong songs with more universal appeal I believe this is when U2 does their best work. I actually think NLOTH accomplishes this for the most part as does AB and JT. UF fire on the other hand is an example of just a bit too much Eno. UF was released in '84 and I believe had "The Three Sunrises" and "Love Comes Tumbling" replaced "4th of July" and "Elvis..." and had A Sort of Homecoming and Bad been more like the much more straightforward live versions this album would have been as big as Springsteens Born in the USA which was the same year. Don't get me wrong, I still love UF - think its one of their best. Just that this album best demonstrates trying to make a cohesive concept album with artsy stuff that Eno wants at the expense of picking your 10-12 best collection of songs for the album.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Yes, it's not like it was in the analog days. If I'm not mistaken it was a full digital recording, "D/D/D" as they used to call it.
It was also mastered by veteran Arnie Acosta, who also did Rattle & Hum.
That doesn't mean the album won't get a remaster at some point, but the technology wasn't as antiquated as it may have been for the stuff in the 80s's.
Yes but you still had your crazy tonights in AB as well, EBTTRT (although i love this song), WGRYWH, and even One, which is a positive upbeat song most of you radiohead detractors (NOTHING AGAINST RADIOHEAD, JUST DONT WANT U2 SOUNDING ANYTHING LIKE THEM) would hate if it was on NLOTH, but because it was so successful to the mainstream, you use it as a benchmark to compare it with NLOTH now. As i said before, you are comparing apples with oranges. A lot has happened in the music scene since AB, and secondly the new songs have not been heard in a live context. But i guess talk is cheap.
Achtung wasnt as revolutionary as grunge was (Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden to name a few), but it was revolutionary for U2 fans. Its revolution gets talked up a bit here because its interference. In a live context, without the fly goggles, macphisto or mirrorball man, the music still sounded like U2. Zooropa on the other hand yes that was revolutionary.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
A "detractor" is a negative connotation, I love Radiohead.
Even Better was feigning superficiality, with a definite message in the subtext.
Crazy Tonight admits it up front, and could have a twist on it's meaning.
Neither approach is 'better' in my eyes.
They are both, as you say, pop songs.
The ultimate difference is, in my view, Even Better...for better or worse was composed perfectly. Crazy was not...
Wild Horses, I'd make the point it could have been better and more 'shiny' and digestible but that's not what Achtung was all about. It was about finding the hook in the dirt. It was about the experience of seeing the sweet melodies, choruses and (IMO maybe their best bridge) the bridge buried in at least a measure of subtlety.
'One' on the album is epic U2 on any scale and has since only become a Mary J like emotional overwrought piece of work. It's become 21st century, quite a great example of the difference.
As far as comparing apples to oranges and all that, you haven't cited anything I've said and taken specific issue with it. What is the probelm here with what I've said? You've taken my statement, quoted it and have attributed things to me, that I haven't said.
Last I checked, this has evolved into a conversation for the grown-ups.
Inserting meanings into things people say that haven't been said is weak.
I like NLOTH a whole lot, did I just blow your mind?
Its because you talk shit most of the time. No you have said before along with others that you would like U2 to be more experimental like Radiohead. As such you are a radiohead detractor. No offence intended. Just what you are. Also no need to get geed up. And dont give me these bullshit explanations like you are some critic of poetry, you no jack shit like everyone else on board, so take the carrot out of your arse and listen to the sound. No one gives a fuck what you think it means. And you are still comparing two albums 18 year apart, if that is not apples to oranges, then what is?
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Not a native English speaker?
I think you need to look up what "detractor" means.
And about talking "shit", here's where most people would cite an example...
I'm talking about two, sometimes three different issues with the context of one conversation, it's what most reasoned adults do and those that have an ability to not understand, will ask questions without assumptions.
When I discuss Achtung's sound in the context of it's release, I am referring to the conversations about how U2 has always been the same.
Different contexts imply we aren't talking apples to oranges, very basic stuff here.
I don't think U2 should "experiment" like Radiohead, I don't even agree on what that term means in most contexts. I don't even think Radiohead is all that experimental but in your haste to lump all of us (regardless of specificity) into the same general category, you've chosen to not care about the context. Perhaps that's the next thing you should look up. "context".
I think you need to look up what "detractor" means.
And about talking "shit", here's where most people would cite an example...
I'm talking about two, sometimes three different issues with the context of one conversation, it's what most reasoned adults do and those that have an ability to not understand, will ask questions without assumptions.
When I discuss Achtung's sound in the context of it's release, I am referring to the conversations about how U2 has always been the same.
Different contexts imply we aren't talking apples to oranges, very basic stuff here.
I don't think U2 should "experiment" like Radiohead, I don't even agree on what that term means in most contexts. I don't even think Radiohead is all that experimental but in your haste to lump all of us (regardless of specificity) into the same general category, you've chosen to not care about the context. Perhaps that's the next thing you should look up. "context".
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Just for a bit of fun, here are the Top 10 selling albums in Australia for all of 1993. "One of these things is not like the other ones".
1 THE BODYGUARD/SOUNDTRACK
2 UNPLUGGED/ERIC CLAPTON
3 BAT OUT OF HELL PART II - BACK INTO HELL/MEAT LOAF
4 BREATHLESS/KENNY G
5 A TOUCH OF MUSIC IN THE NIGHT/MICHAEL CRAWFORD
6 SO FAR SO GOOD/BRYAN ADAMS
7 RIVER OF DREAMS/BILLY JOEL
8 THEN AGAIN... AND MORE/JOHN FARNHAM
9 ZOOROPA/U2
10 KEEP THE FAITH/BON JOVI
Salome
you are what you is
I know I've posted this before, but really
WHY is Achtung Baby always hailed as this revolutionary piece by comparing it to some of the most shit singles of that era while NLOTH is apparently mainstream drab by comparing it to albums of Radiohead and Animal Collective
you really think this is an unbiased "you had to be there" take of things?
The Disciple
New Yorker
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I know I've posted this before, but really
WHY is Achtung Baby always hailed as this revolutionary piece by comparing it to some of the most shit singles of that era while NLOTH is apparently mainstream drab by comparing it to albums of Radiohead and Animal Collective
you really think this is an unbiased "you had to be there" take of things?
You're not allowed to ask those questions...
Been speaking English longer than you have dipshit. I suggest if you want to "detract" into another argument between you and me in relation to "English Speaking" then go ahead make my day. If you want to cite, then cite this "You are a complete fuckwit".
ozeeko
Refugee
One is not a positive upbeat song. It's, in Bono's own words, a "bitter pill of a song. It's a song about breaking up."
Clearly you missed the point.
And why are you so scared of Radiohead? It seems you truly have a bone to pick with them. Are you still mad about how they sold out after "Creep"?
Spot on chief. When AB came out, there was such a lull in music (the grunge revolution hadn't set in yet), it was able to sweep everything in its storm. Now U2 is competing with a shitload of younger bands, and it is a tougher break. The critics love this as they are seeing competition and can sniff blood.
I dont read into what Bono says because he changes his mind all the time. Listen to it, its an uplifting song. If it was on NLOTH you'd be screaming bloody murder. As for Radiohead, I actually like them, but im not going to watch them at a stadium, so there not as good as U2 for me. Would i want u2 to go down the path of radiohead. No fucking way. When i want to listen to radiohead, ill put on In Rainbows and listen to it. When i want to listen to U2, ill put NLOTH on, this is just the way it is, or hopefully they play the SFS next year as Telstra Stadium (or whatever they call it) just sucks, and see them live. I do not want Radiohead to go the U2 path either, they are unique, they are not Coldplay - that would make me really sick.
ozeeko
Refugee
I'd rather listen to Kenny G than all the young bands today. You are right for reffering to them as a load of shit.
True. But that is what they are up against.
When ideas are repeated and 'so called' experimental bands tow the same line it isn't experimental. This is because that certain sound has been approached before in a similar fashion. Once something has been done you can't still consider a repeat of it as experimental.
ozeeko
Refugee
The truth comes out. You do like Radiohead. What was all that "they haven't released a good song since Creep" crap about then?
As for One, I've listened to it a million times. I find it incredibly moving still. I think it's a sad tragic sounding song that can you reduce you to tears. I find it to be the complete opposite of upbeat and optimistic. I'd say it's downbeat and grounded with a true sense of reality. I wouldn't be screaming bloody murder, I'd be fucking ecstatic if they released something as deep as ONE on NLOTH. In fact, they do have a song that's somewhat remniscent of it, it's called MOS. And i love that song too!
Yes, but each of us takes what they think from the song. For me its about a united stance, for others its about how we all face death on our own, whatever. I dont think MOS is getting the same reception as One. People talk about production and whole lot of other baloney, when back then no one discussed such futile crap (mind you people weren't as technically sophisticated or savvy). Personally I think WAS should be a single. One Step Closer got completely rifled, especially by people on this forum, but the underlying message is so relevant to everyone, for me would have been a great closer to HTDAAB.
But you need the Breathe's the SUCs, the CTs because those will be the songs that will be played in the live context. For me UF is the best song U2 have ever done, but have you heard it on Live in Paris - makes you want to puke doesnt it?
On the other hand, i wouldnt mind if U2 did create an album that would not be taken to a tour. The closest we have come was Passengers and Zooropa (although Zoomerang used some of the Zooropa songs and to great effect mind you). But would it then be considered indulgent? (Critics are such wankers).
I was being facetious about Radiohead, trying to set the cat amongst the pigeons, so to speak. Thing is U2 cant go down that path as they will then no longer be U2. As they create history they are also creating there future, the path for themselves, or they could choose the radiohead path or the rolling stones path. Personally i think they should choose the U2 path, whatever that may be.
Oh and Love and Peace or Else - sounds shite on HTDAAB, yet when you took it live it was awesome.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I know I've posted this before, but really
WHY is Achtung Baby always hailed as this revolutionary piece by comparing it to some of the most shit singles of that era while NLOTH is apparently mainstream drab by comparing it to albums of Radiohead and Animal Collective
you really think this is an unbiased "you had to be there" take of things?
Achtung Baby wasn’t revolutionary in relation to what was going on in the wider music world. We all know it was playing off booming localized scenes in the UK and Europe. But we are talking in this thread specifically about the how/what/where/when/why of U2’s attack on the charts via their singles. And I think regardless of whether you’re talking about JT singles in 1987 or Achtung singles in 91/92, or explaining Beautiful Day or Vertigo in 10-20 years to someone too young at the time or not paying attention, context is always important. So when someone defends, say, Vertigo by saying it is no less or more a shallow and obvious made-for-radio catchy energy-rock single than the Fly, then the answer is no, it wasn’t. Context is important. Those songs weren’t that risky for U2. They were still then the biggest band in the world with massive room for going far more weird and still safely releasing it to a great reception. Whatever they did was always going to get high radio rotation/high sales.
But within the context of the time and the Top 40/commercial/mainstream/whatever, it is important to point out the environment they were being released into. Yes, they had great timing. They hit at a time when there was a real lull, when music was really stagnant. The 80s were about to be thrown out, and the revolution that ended up defining the 90s was about to hit. They snuck it in there in between. But again, that’s all in hindsight. At the time, that wasn’t known. At the time the Fly/Even Better/Mysterious Ways did sound wildly different and unique on your Top 40 radio. At the time we didn’t have the internet and weren’t so easily paying attention to smaller scenes and artists and sounds around the world. At the time U2 sounded like nothing else you were hearing on those radio stations, nothing else in the charts. In context, that is important.
And in how that related to what people are saying today about U2 then vs U2 now, The Fly in 1991 vs Vertigo in 2004, and bands like Animal Collective etc…
Bono talking about his blessed 45’s etc, I’m saying yeah, I agree, I 100% agree that U2 have always wanted chart success, have always had those mega-sized ambitions, have always wanted the big hit single along with the mega selling album and the sold out super ridiculous tour. I know that and I love that – its all part of precisely what I fell in love with. I desperately want to still hear U2 barnstorming the charts as well. In that sense, looking at the Achtung singles is interesting because we know that at the time they were dragging the sounds of smaller, localized new music over into the larger global charts. They took a lot of what was happening on a (comparatively) small scale in the UK and Germany and even the US, gave it the touch of their commercial sensibilities, and pushed it into the global Top 10 via their huge brand, all without compromise on any front and with it all still having a very unique and new sound – both for them and in comparison to anything else, large or small, commercial or underground.
So I think a lot of those people name checking Radiohead and Animal Collective and wondering what goes on in Bono’s head these days are really not asking for U2 to lose their shit, run completely off the reservation etc, and don't have some false glorified view of what they were doing in the 90s, but instead just see U2 shifting to the other end of the spectrum now.
Actually, I think I can explain what it means to me personally this way: I hear Bono calling out Radiohead and saying that he wants to hear them on the radio, see them in the charts, and I know exactly what he’s saying and I actually agree with him, but I think, hang on, that’s U2’s job. That used to be what they’d do. You have Radiohead or Animal Collective fiddling over here, and then over there you have Kelly Clarkson blasting the world with her shit. What U2 used to do was then punch Kelly Clarkson around with a Radiohead song. Does that make sense? That’s where I think people see the difference, that they don’t do that now, but rather try and spin their now well accepted and known base sounds into the radio-of-the-day package. You may not agree, but that I think is where the point of contention is. Vertigo in 2004 was nothing like the Fly in 1991.
Those Achtung singles were wildly different at the time. They did knock a lot of people around. They were a complete shock to a teenage kid from Sydney only listening to those shitty singles I name checked, via commercial radio. That’s why naming them is important. And have a look at commercial radio today vs then. Yes, you can do that again if you want. It’s almost the same mix. The worst end of hip-hop, terrible manufactured pop, really bad middle of the road rock. A lot of us just think it would be fucking fantastic if in the middle of all of that shit, as it was in 1991, U2 once again dragged something into the charts that just blew the mind of a teenage kid from Ohio or wherever.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I'd like to dedicate this very long answer to you
Achtung Baby wasn’t revolutionary in relation to what was going on in the wider music world. We all know it was playing off booming localized scenes in the UK and Europe. But we are talking in this thread specifically about the how/what/where/when/why of U2’s attack on the charts via their singles. And I think regardless of whether you’re talking about JT singles in 1987 or Achtung singles in 91/92, or explaining Beautiful Day or Vertigo in 10-20 years to someone too young at the time or not paying attention, context is always important. So when someone defends, say, Vertigo by saying it is no less or more a shallow and obvious made-for-radio catchy energy-rock single than the Fly, then the answer is no, it wasn’t. Context is important. Those songs weren’t that risky for U2. They were still then the biggest band in the world with massive room for going far more weird and still safely releasing it to a great reception. Whatever they did was always going to get high radio rotation/high sales.
But within the context of the time and the Top 40/commercial/mainstream/whatever, it is important to point out the environment they were being released into. Yes, they had great timing. They hit at a time when there was a real lull, when music was really stagnant. The 80s were about to be thrown out, and the revolution that ended up defining the 90s was about to hit. They snuck it in there in between. But again, that’s all in hindsight. At the time, that wasn’t known. At the time the Fly/Even Better/Mysterious Ways did sound wildly different and unique on your Top 40 radio. At the time we didn’t have the internet and weren’t so easily paying attention to smaller scenes and artists and sounds around the world. At the time U2 sounded like nothing else you were hearing on those radio stations, nothing else in the charts. In context, that is important.
And in how that related to what people are saying today about U2 then vs U2 now, The Fly in 1991 vs Vertigo in 2004, and bands like Animal Collective etc…
Bono talking about his blessed 45’s etc, I’m saying yeah, I agree, I 100% agree that U2 have always wanted chart success, have always had those mega-sized ambitions, have always wanted the big hit single along with the mega selling album and the sold out super ridiculous tour. I know that and I love that – its all part of precisely what I fell in love with. I desperately want to still hear U2 barnstorming the charts as well. In that sense, looking at the Achtung singles is interesting because we know that at the time they were dragging the sounds of smaller, localized new music over into the larger global charts. They took a lot of what was happening on a (comparatively) small scale in the UK and Germany and even the US, gave it the touch of their commercial sensibilities, and pushed it into the global Top 10 via their huge brand, all without compromise on any front and with it all still having a very unique and new sound – both for them and in comparison to anything else, large or small, commercial or underground.
So I think a lot of those people name checking Radiohead and Animal Collective and wondering what goes on in Bono’s head these days are really not asking for U2 to lose their shit, run completely off the reservation etc, and don't have some false glorified view of what they were doing in the 90s, but instead just see U2 shifting to the other end of the spectrum now.
Actually, I think I can explain what it means to me personally this way: I hear Bono calling out Radiohead and saying that he wants to hear them on the radio, see them in the charts, and I know exactly what he’s saying and I actually agree with him, but I think, hang on, that’s U2’s job. That used to be what they’d do. You have Radiohead or Animal Collective fiddling over here, and then over there you have Kelly Clarkson blasting the world with her shit. What U2 used to do was then punch Kelly Clarkson around with a Radiohead song. Does that make sense? That’s where I think people see the difference, that they don’t do that now, but rather try and spin their now well accepted and known base sounds into the radio-of-the-day package. You may not agree, but that I think is where the point of contention is. Vertigo in 2004 was nothing like the Fly in 1991.
Those Achtung singles were wildly different at the time. They did knock a lot of people around. They were a complete shock to a teenage kid from Sydney only listening to those shitty singles I name checked, via commercial radio. That’s why naming them is important. And have a look at commercial radio today vs then. Yes, you can do that again if you want. It’s almost the same mix. The worst end of hip-hop, terrible manufactured pop, really bad middle of the road rock. A lot of us just think it would be fucking fantastic if in the middle of all of that shit, as it was in 1991, U2 once again dragged something into the charts that just blew the mind of a teenage kid from Ohio or wherever.
I'd like to dedicate this very long answer to you
I agree with you - one because i was also a teenager in Sydney at the time you say. But, one thing to note, there back catalog of if you like more mainstream stuff was only a few years old, hence from a live setting it was still fresh. U2 cant rely on playing that 80s back catalog live now (otherwise they are the Rolling Stones") although they do. They need to create both the if you like experimental and mainstream music - hence why we have what people call disjointed albums.
Zoomerang96
ONE love, blood, life
have you apologised for this yet?
this really struck me as being atrocious and utterly out of touch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJDF0H_IjU4
do u2 even have the ability to pull something like that off LIVE? answer that.
for me, i don't care that they don't because that's never really been there thing. but to say radiohead aren't even a live band is to be bankrupt of common sense after seeing them perform quite literally any song in their catalogue.
u2 can do whatever they want. really. they're obsessed with staying relevant, and that's fine. but in my opinion, they want to be relevant amongst bands that aren't relevant to me, so as a result, are only on my personal radar due to the fact that i used to care a great deal about their music. i don't give a fuck about coldplay, the killers, kings of leon or whomever else they namecheck these days, and it's a shame they appear to want to emulate these bands.
this biggest band bullshit is ego-driven, and nothing else. do you ever hear universally respected bands/artists such as radiohead, bob dylan, massive attack, whatever band damon albarn finds himself in (though of course the brit pop scene in the 90's would be a glaring exception... i gather he's moved on from that), etc. talk about this being a big competition? no. you don't. they don't bother themselves with such petty horseshit. it's MUSIC. there are no opponents! there's so much good stuff out there, it's completely outrageous to consider making music in order to "beat out the other guys".
Similar threads
