Excerpt from the new RS article, "U2: Hymns For the Future" about "Winter" vs Singles

[ozeeko]

have you apologised for this yet?

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".

Amen! I don't think there's anything else i'd add. You summed it up perfectly.

 

[mrpeebles]

Yes, why?

cuz people only seem to have seen the part typed here, when there's a lot more to debate, like that part about larry and bono and teh spider-man album or whatever

 

[Salome]

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'm sorry but that's just not how I remind it at all
and even if it was exactly like that back then, by now radio has changed so much and U2's position in music has changed even so much more that if they did release The Fly and Mysterious Ways tomorrow the reaction to it would be completely different

+ I think even Vertigo blew the mind of some kid somewhere, as much as that might seem unbelievable to us

 

[financeguy]

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".

testify!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1aWk9Y9cMA&feature=related

 

[revolver]

Sorry to derail Earnie et al's insightful posts, but here is the All Music Guide's definition of "Experimental Music":

"Experimental Music is a general label for any music that pushes existing boundaries and genre definitions, be it in rock, jazz, modern composition or any other style. When a musician or composer's approach is a hybrid of disparate styles, or incorporates unorthodox, new, distinctly unique ingredients, the music could be classified as experimental."

I know some of you will focus on the word "new" there, but other than that I think what I'm saying fits perfectly: Hybrid of styles, unorthodox, unique, pushing boundaries and genre definitions.

Their definition of "Experimental Rock":

"As the name suggests, Experimental Rock is music pushing the envelope of the form, far removed from the classic pop sensibilities of before. Typically, experimental rock is the diametric opposite of standard "verse-chorus-verse" music. Because the whole point is to liberate and innovate, no hard and fast rules apply, but distinguishing characteristics include improvisational performances, avant-garde influences, odd instrumentation, opaque lyrics (or no lyrics at all), strange compositional structures and rhythms, and an underlying rejection of commercial aspirations."

Obviously the purpose is to innovate, but it'd still be considered experimental if the music were improvisational, influenced by the avant-garde, etc. The point, and my point, is that its about pushing the form, not the band pushing themselves (even though this always happens). If a way-out-there experimental band repeated themselves, they wouldn't be progressing, but they'd still be an experimental band making experimental music since it pushes the form, in this case, standard rock music.

Sorry sorry. Continue on.

 

[Zoomerang96]

+ I think even Vertigo blew the mind of some kid somewhere, as much as that might seem unbelievable to us

well, that might be. but when you heard this song, did you want to share it with anyone?

i realise with u2, sharing isn't really necessary because you know everyone will hear it sooner or later anyway... but try and pretend that they aren't big, and that the song you just heard is somewhat unknown.

that's how i try to look at u2's music... would i want to bring it up with some of my other fellow music-loving friends? i'm not sure if this is really making sense... perhaps i should quit while i'm still only somewhat behind.

 

[AEKU2]

have you apologised for this yet?

this really struck me as being atrocious and utterly out of touch. YouTube - Radiohead - The Gloaming (From the Basement)

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".

Yes, but U2 weren't and aren't in the same field as Radiohead, Massive Attack, Bob Dylan and frankly wont being compared to them back then. But you compare them now. My argument is that they are incomparable. Also the live setting you "cited" was at the basement. Again you are not comparing apples with apples. There is a HUGE difference between U2 and Massive Attack (i love MA but there under a severely different radar) to U2. The thing is KOL, Coldplay and the Killers are U2 wannabes, they play like them and are in that genre. This has not been seen in history since the early 80's when U2 sounded like some other bands around at the time.

Why should i apologise, and who are you to insist that i apologise?

 

[Salome]

well, that might be. but when you heard this song, did you want to share it with anyone?

no, I was very disappointed with the song
but so were a lot of 80s U2 fans with Achtung
and I have musical baggage now that I didn't have back early 90s just as someone will be able to listen to VErtigo without baggage

and this forum's obsession with glorifying the 90s really is becoming insane
even more so if we're going to talk about "the context" of certain songs without seeing that our personal context might not be the entire context

 

[Zoomerang96]

Yes, but U2 weren't and aren't in the same field as Radiohead, Massive Attack, Bob Dylan and frankly wont being compared to them back then. But you compare them now. My argument is that they are incomparable. Also the live setting you "cited" was at the basement. Again you are not comparing apples with apples. There is a HUGE difference between U2 and Massive Attack (i love MA but there under a severely different radar) to U2. The thing is KOL, Coldplay and the Killers are U2 wannabes, they play like them and are in that genre. This has not been seen in history since the early 80's when U2 sounded like some other bands around at the time.

Why should i apologise, and who are you to insist that i apologise?

they happen to pull songs off like that in every setting, whether it's in the basement, a theatre, an arena or an open air setting. your argument has water under it.

do i really expect you to apologise? no, of course not... i was deliberately trying to be absurd whilst illustrating my point that you clearly sounded like you didn't know what you were talking about when you said your part on radiohead.

as for the rest of your post, i fail to see how it addresses my points in any way. maybe it does, but at this late hour lots is not registering in my mind.

but i can't go to sleep... not when someone is wrong on the internet.

 

[ozeeko]

Yes, but U2 weren't and aren't in the same field as Radiohead, Massive Attack, Bob Dylan and frankly wont being compared to them back then. But you compare them now. My argument is that they are incomparable. Also the live setting you "cited" was at the basement. Again you are not comparing apples with apples. There is a HUGE difference between U2 and Massive Attack (i love MA but there under a severely different radar) to U2. The thing is KOL, Coldplay and the Killers are U2 wannabes, they play like them and are in that genre. This has not been seen in history since the early 80's when U2 sounded like some other bands around at the time.

Why should i apologise, and who are you to insist that i apologise?

What do you mean by your first sentence? I'm totally confused.

 

[AEKU2]

What do you mean by your first sentence? I'm totally confused.

They werent being compared to them. They were different genre's especially the likes of Massive Attack with U2, chalk and cheese.

 

[AEKU2]

they happen to pull songs off like that in every setting, whether it's in the basement, a theatre, an arena or an open air setting. your argument has water under it.

do i really expect you to apologise? no, of course not... i was deliberately trying to be absurd whilst illustrating my point that you clearly sounded like you didn't know what you were talking about when you said your part on radiohead.

as for the rest of your post, i fail to see how it addresses my points in any way. maybe it does, but at this late hour lots is not registering in my mind.

but i can't go to sleep... not when someone is wrong on the internet.

Crusader against the wrong on the internet - you cannot be a judge of right and wrong - as like myself, you are a mere speck of shit on this arsehole, known as the universe. Also what is right and wrong? when all you hold in this cosmos is a mere perception, a window into this universe, should one really care about what is right and wrong, or are they merely values that our perceptions compare to other values. No resign yourself and go to bed. As i said before, when i listen to U2 i want to listen to U2, when i listen to radiohead i listen to radiohead, when i listen to massive attack i listen to massive attack. I never mix them. Nor do i want the one to sound like the other. In a live setting in a stadium, radiohead dont compare to U2 and never will. I will much prefer radiohead at the basement.

 

[AEKU2]

Oh and we wouldnt want our bands to be ego driven. No way. Radiohead is not ego-driven. Radiohead just make music to keep you Zoomerang happy.

 

[lazarus]

Bottom line is, you said Radiohead wasn't a live band, and I think Zoomerang has struck that argument down pretty solidly.

If you had ever been to a Radiohead show, or maybe even heard one of their bootlegs, you wouldn't be throwing such asinine statements around.

 

[AEKU2]

Bottom line is, you said Radiohead wasn't a live band, and I think Zoomerang has struck that argument down pretty solidly.

If you had ever been to a Radiohead show, or maybe even heard one of their bootlegs, you wouldn't be throwing such asinine statements around.

when was the last time you saw radiohead live? where? and what did you truly think? (i.e. without having regard to trying to joust with me over an argument)

 

[lazarus]

I saw them last summer at the Hollywood Bowl (second night, I think), and before that last May in Bristol, VA (the infamous flood show).

They were amazing both times, and I have recordings of both shows that verify that initial impression.

 

[AEKU2]

I saw them last summer at the Hollywood Bowl (second night, I think), and before that last May in Bristol, VA (the infamous flood show).

They were amazing both times, and I have recordings of both shows that verify that initial impression.

Better than U2 in your opinion?

 

[lazarus]

It didn't have the peaks of the most recent U2 show I saw, but there was also nothing as godawful as the neutered acoustic version of WGRYWH, either.

They are able to reproduce the album sound of their songs as well as U2 does, and can also rearrange them to result in a superior live version as well. So they're certainly comparable.

 

[AEKU2]

It didn't have the peaks of the most recent U2 show I saw, but there was also nothing as godawful as the neutered acoustic version of WGRYWH, either.

They are able to reproduce the album sound of their songs as well as U2 does, and can also rearrange them to result in a superior live version as well. So they're certainly comparable.

No peaks and troughs. Were they better? If they are comparable you should be able to tell me.

 

[namkcuR]

Better than U2 in your opinion?

You know how you keep talking about apples and oranges? This is an example of exactly that. I've never actually seen Radiohead live, but I've watched youtube videos of them live. I remember once watching a video of Radiohead performing Exit Music(For A Film) live and everyone listening in total silence, as if they were in church or something, that was the atmosphere. That's not exactly U2's style live. Where Radiohead puts on performances that probably sort of hypnotize the audience or make them stand still with their hearts beating out of their chests for certain periods of time and move them from inside, U2 seems like their primary goal in the live setting is to make all however many thousand people jump up and down and sing along with every word in unison. They're different kinds of performances. One wants to move you from within and make you feel like you're the only person in the room, the other wants to create a communal experience where you feel like you're best friends with these other 20,000 people that you've never met before and might never see again.

I realize this is a wildly broad generalization and is probably not correct 100% of the time(i.e.if Radiohead bust out 'The Bends' people will jump up and down and when the organ for Streets starts, it's like a religious experience, etc), but I'm just trying to make a point.

 

[AEKU2]

You know how you keep talking about apples and oranges? This is an example of exactly that. I've never actually seen Radiohead live, but I've watched youtube videos of them live. I remember once watching a video of Radiohead performing Exit Music(For A Film) live and everyone listening in total silence, as if they were in church or something, that was the atmosphere. That's not exactly U2's style live. Where Radiohead puts on performances that probably sort of hypnotize the audience or make them stand still with their hearts beating out of their chests for certain periods of time and move them from inside, U2 seems like their primary goal in the live setting is to make all however many thousand people jump up and down and sing along with every word in unison. They're different kinds of performances. One wants to move you from within and make you feel like you're the only person in the room, the other wants to create a communal experience where you feel like you're best friends with these other 20,000 people that you've never met before and might never see again.

I realize this is a wildly broad generalization and is probably not correct 100% of the time(i.e.if Radiohead bust out 'The Bends' people will jump up and down and when the organ for Streets starts, it's like a religious experience, etc), but I'm just trying to make a point.

Correct, you cant compare, hence my argument. They cater to different mind sets, and one cannot be like the other, even remotely.

 

[lazarus]

Yes, but you STILL said that Radiohead wasn't a live band. Are you not going to back down from this, or admit that you didn't have firsthand evidence to support that statement?

 

[Irvine511]

You know how you keep talking about apples and oranges? This is an example of exactly that. I've never actually seen Radiohead live, but I've watched youtube videos of them live. I remember once watching a video of Radiohead performing Exit Music(For A Film) live and everyone listening in total silence, as if they were in church or something, that was the atmosphere. That's not exactly U2's style live. Where Radiohead puts on performances that probably sort of hypnotize the audience or make them stand still with their hearts beating out of their chests for certain periods of time and move them from inside, U2 seems like their primary goal in the live setting is to make all however many thousand people jump up and down and sing along with every word in unison. They're different kinds of performances. One wants to move you from within and make you feel like you're the only person in the room, the other wants to create a communal experience where you feel like you're best friends with these other 20,000 people that you've never met before and might never see again.

this is absolutely correct -- and i have seen Radiohead, albeit opening for REM in 1995 and they were notably good -- and i think it gets to a fundamental difference in the two bands which is why i think some people are missing the point when they say they want U2 to be more like Radiohead, by which they mean post "Bends" Radiohead since "The Bends" sure sounds a lot like U2. sure, U2 could put out more Passengers albums, and they could write strange tunes like on Kid A (and i like Kid A a lot) -- but here's the thing: i don't think they'd be very good at it.

Bono and Yorke are two very, very different people. they are two very, very different bands. it would be fakery if one were to try to be more like the other. i say appreciate the differences between the two and leave it at that.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I don’t think anyone wants U2 to actually sound like Radiohead. We have Radiohead for that. I've never read anything by anyone saying that they want U2 to sound like them, or I’ve complete missed a post somewhere. I think people are talking about the perceived attitude of Radiohead, or more to the point, other progressive acts, with Radiohead just being the big obvious one.

 

[AEKU2]

I don’t think anyone wants U2 to actually sound like Radiohead. We have Radiohead for that. I've never read anything by anyone saying that they want U2 to sound like them, or I’ve complete missed a post somewhere. I think people are talking about the perceived attitude of Radiohead, or more to the point, other progressive acts, with Radiohead just being the big obvious one.

If the process is the same then the results will be the same.

 

[shart1780]

I don't know where to start. Good God... this is everything I hate about U2. The only thing that should matter is making great music. Period. U2 obviously care more about becoming popular and leaving a legacy than making their music the best it can be.

What the heck is with U2 dissing on prog rock? He talks about Pink Floyd as if they had a bunch of catchy pop songs. But that was a different time. Pink Floyd doesn't have one single that could make it on the radio today. A song with a guitar solo that lasts 2+ minutes can't make it today. And there are a ton of geat prog rock bands. Him implying bands like Yes and King King Crimson are stale and boring is completely ridiculous.

Ugh Bono... I like NLOTH a lot but to see U2 probably compromised a lot of the album's mood and creativity so it would be more succussful is disappointing. Do you think This album would garner more attention because U2 went back to being daring and creative, or because they released GOYB and and Crazy Tonight as singles? I mean seriously, what kind of legacy has Boots left other than U2 are more annoying than they used to be?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

If the process is the same then the results will be the same.

Which is why it's great that virtually every recording artist on earth has a different, unique process.

 

[AEKU2]

Yes, but you STILL said that Radiohead wasn't a live band. Are you not going to back down from this, or admit that you didn't have firsthand evidence to support that statement?

Will it help your ego if i backed down? Radiohead are not a live band but a studio band. Whether they can play live or not is irrelevant. Take it or leave it. U2 on the other hand are a live band not a studio band.

I hope this helps.

 

[AEKU2]

Which is why it's great that virtually every recording artist on earth has a different, unique process.

Hence why U2 should not go the path of Radiohead. Maybe a bit simplistic in my approach, but you would have to agree in parts.

 

[lazarus]

Will it help your ego if i backed down? Radiohead are not a live band but a studio band. Whether they can play live or not is irrelevant. Take it or leave it. U2 on the other hand are a live band not a studio band.

I'll leave it.

Your classification doesn't seem to work when one considers that U2 has a handful of brilliant albums that come from a heavy dose of involved producers and using the studio as an instrument, and why Radiohead is considered one of the best live bands around right now.

You're seriously beginning to sound like a troll.