Finally figured out what U2 has lost...

[ozeeko]

With A Little Help From My Friends is yet another silly pop song from The Beatles, and nothing else.

Don't even get me started on The Stones, although I'd argue that Sympathy for the Devil is far superior to anything The Beatles ever made.

Of course it's silly, I mean RINGO sings lead on it!

I was just saying I find it more uplifting than Where The Streets

For the Stones you gotta think 68-72 (or whenever Exile was released). In that short time they recorded some of the greatest rock albums ever.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

"day in the life" is more powerful then anything else any band has ever released IMO.. But before i get any flack,keep in mind my perspective. i am a person not old enough to have heard the song before lennon's death. So that makes it even more tragic and sad and ironic. Also other factors are the fact that the man who shot him was taking after a character in a book. Catcher in the rye. A controversial book. A book that challenged the world and questioned everything.The end of innocence. Ironic that the Beatles and Lennon were part of counter culture that would embrace a book like that. And here someone claims that's was influenced him to do this. Because he got lost in the myth of the book. The Beatles had a epic myth about them. The 60's died in 1970. Some things changed .Some things didn't. From my point of view, The death of Lennon is beyond comprehension. That some guy who was part of a band that was just started off as these innocent prim and proper rockers who girls loved with silly pop rock songs ended up being killed because of the reasons above. Its just insane. I watched a vh1 program that has footage from his fans after his death and it was so devastating . One day i decided to listen to "day in the life" and had all these thoughts running though my head at the same time. The myth and legend of the Beatles, how it started, ended,the book, the murder, the sadness, the 60's, whats happened since etc. I'm just stating what i feel about the song.

 

[digitize]

I really can't stand The Beatles, personally, and John Lennon is my least favorite of all the four.

 

[Rob33]

I can think of one.

With A Little Help From My Friends (this song lifts my spirits more than streets)

Then again, I can't think of a Beatles song that would pump me up more than Mysterious Ways.

Forget the Beatles, it's the Stones we should be talking about.

see that's the thing...With A Little Help From My Friends, A Day in the Life...they all just come off as rather ordinary pieces of music....sure, they're great songs, but when you compare it to this

YouTube - U2 Where The Streets Have No Name Live At Slane Castle

or this

YouTube - U2 - Running To Stand Still & Where The Streets Have No Name (Zoo TV Live From Sydney)

it just pales in comparison...it's not even close for me. I respect what the Beatles did during their time...what they started and what it has all led to, but when you strip things down and just look at the songs...it's no contest.

 

[ozeeko]

Well now here's the thing...

Running To Stand Still is my favorite U2 song.

Not much beats that, but I'd say the ending of "Hey Jude" definitely overpowers the music of WTSHHN.

And to be fair, you can't compare U2 live performances with Beatles recordings, since they stopped touring in the mid 60s.

 

[coolian2]

at what point are you guys going to realise you're arguing personal taste and accept you aren't going to change the other's mind?

 

[The Sad Punk]

see that's the thing...With A Little Help From My Friends, A Day in the Life...they all just come off as rather ordinary pieces of music....sure, they're great songs, but when you compare it to this

it just pales in comparison...it's not even close for me. I respect what the Beatles did during their time...what they started and what it has all led to, but when you strip things down and just look at the songs...it's no contest.

Your opinion. A huge amount of people would disagree. I mean, really, what Ian said.

 

[The Sad Punk]

John Lennon is my least favorite of all the four.

I hope you came to this conclusion by watching The Linda McCartney Story.

 

[Rob33]

at what point are you guys going to realise you're arguing personal taste and accept you aren't going to change the other's mind?

I already acknowledged that this was a matter of personal taste. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either.

Your opinion. A huge amount of people would disagree. I mean, really, what Ian said.

Ok? Obviously it's my opinion...this entire thread boils down to opinion...most everything on this board is opinion...

 

[indra]

...most everything on this board is opinion...

Except whatever I post. That's always fact.

 

[ozeeko]

I'm pretty sure everyone was aware that we are all giving opinions.

 

[daygloeyes2]

Oh OK this whole "U2 spoke for the world on the darkest day in history" is total bollocks, frankly. So 9/11 is the darkest day in history huh? So what about the thousands that died in Northern Ireland, Ireland and the UK during the Troubles? Or the tens of thousands who died in the former Yugoslavia. Or the thousands who died and are still dying in Chechnya? Or for the hell of it, how about the 50 million who died in WW2???

Oh I'm sorry, they weren't American were they? I realise this is EYKIW and not FYM, but really this sort of "ranking" thing totally riles me.....

I agree with you on the ranking thing in general. But the poster was saying the darkest day in US history, not world history.

 

[coolian2]

Except whatever I post. That's always fact.

 

[A stor]

I really can't stand The Beatles, personally, and John Lennon is my least favorite of all the four.

I liked them, when I was a little kid. During the sixties. But, I don't like Paul McCartney. He seems like a pompous ass.

Hated the book, Catcher in the Rye. My least favorite during the high school years.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

one could say streets is on the same level as any Beatles song, but the Beatles a TON of songs on streets level. as in, the BEATLES have 2 or 3 , 4 songs on the level of streets on every album. Thats how rock history has it written. When the a unreleased Beatles track of some sort comes out its like they found the holy grail. lol.

 

[roy]

Except whatever I post. That's always fact.

 

[bonoz]

Songs like Moment of Surrender, Unknown Caller, Cedars of Lebanon, Being Born really hit me hard in my soul.

But I can see where the OP is coming from. I felt the same a few months ago. But then I started listening to the new album. And I mean, really just started listening to it.

Oh and "Winter" hits my soul as well.

 

[A stor]

Songs like Moment of Surrender, Unknown Caller, Cedars of Lebanon, Being Born really hit me hard in my soul.

But I can see where the OP is coming from. I felt the same a few months ago. But then I started listening to the new album. And I mean, really just started listening to it.

Oh and "Winter" hits my soul as well.

Same for me. I also, respect where the original poster is coming from.

 

[Bono's shades]

NLOTH has some lovely songs on it, like Fez/Being Born and White as Snow, but the one that really, really still gets to me, all these months later, is definitely MOS. To me that song is proof that U2 hasn't entirely lost it, as I was afraid they had after they released HTDAAB. I'm kind of hoping they just lost their way for a little while and are starting to find their way back. I'm hoping SOA will bring them all the way back (I haven't listened to Winter though - I'm vowing to remain unspoiled!)

 

[AtomicBono]

So in other words what U2 has lost is... you!

exactly

saying U2's music doesn't touch you anymore doesn't mean they've lost anything, unless you believe U2's goal was to make music just for you and no one else.

 

[TheShootist]

I have never relied on any rock band to full fill my needs. All that matters to me is that a rock band writes good sounding music. U2 is one of the few bands that can write good sounding music, with complex arrangements… instead of simple minded tripe.
I first got into music in the early 70’s, and was spoiled by great talents like The Beatles, Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Alice Cooper (group). After those bands where gone they were pretty big shoes to fill by any bands that came after them, and U2 was one of only a few bands that where capable of it.

 

[boorock74]

I don't really think they've lost anything, example being - for whatever reason, MOS was on in the grocery store a mile from my house yesterday. I purposely went to where the freezers and customers were not so loud, just so I could listen to the song. In a grocery store. 5 Minutes from my house. Where I can blast it on good speakers. I stood in the diaper aisle witha couple tears in my eyes because MOS was playing. U2! Gotta love it.

 

[U2opra]

I think it has more to do with me personally and with my personal experience and what I'm going through in a certain phase than with U2 and their music. I didn't really enjoy most of their 90s work and wasn't really interested in them back then, but looking back now I relate to much of this stuff and actually love and enjoy it. I feel NLOTH came out in a time that I really needed this album and I can connect to it emotionally.

See that's just it, that's what I believe for me and other people allows us to connect and enjoy their music. A lot of people on this board seem to hate ATYCLB but that was the first U2 album I ever listened to. I discovered U2 in 2001 and I was soul searching and that album really connected with me. So for me I always rank that album as something special.

When I also went to their older stuff like AB and Zooropa after ATYCLB (which is a very basic sounding album) it was ground breaking, because in comparison they were more advanced albums in terms of sound. Then I got to know their other stuff like Pop, JT, RAH, TUF etc and I was hit with this huge blast wave of U2 stuff I had never heard before and it sounded more relevant to me that a lot of stuff other artists were releasing today.

Upon first hearing HTDAAB my life was changing, as was my experience with U2. I had essentially worn myself out of U2 by the time the album came out. I was so spoilt by the sounds and songs of their other albums when I went to listen to HTDAAB there were very few songs that stood out (but very good ones at that).

By the time NLOTH was being prepped for release, I was (and think we all) were expecting a change to shake things up again. When I first heard GOYB that definitely showed that. While it showed U2 were experimenting again with their sounds and song writing, there was a very earnest band in their that was similar to the Joshua Tree. It was like the songs they made were complex sounding, but simple underneath and they've got back to their roots of song making by using a certain setting and theme to set things up. Still, while I don't like every song on NLOTH as I also didn't with ATYCLB, as an album it's more interesting than their last album and definitely a side of U2 I wouldn't mind seeing more of.

 

[doctorwho]

exactly

saying U2's music doesn't touch you anymore doesn't mean they've lost anything, unless you believe U2's goal was to make music just for you and no one else.

Plus, music has an odd way of appealing to us at different times.

I'm often excited by new U2, but then when the novelty wears off, sometimes the work no longer appeals to me. As I've written previously, "Pop" is one such album. Some songs are still outstanding, but overall, I find "Pop" a rather weak album even though I enjoyed it at the time. Analogously, JT was brilliant in 1987, but I've often felt that the songs sound way too similar and the few that are different aren't very good (at least on JT - some become more powerful in concert).

Other albums though, like UF, AB and so far, NLOTH, have grown stronger and dominate my U2 listening experience.

Still, there are times I can pop on something like "Zooropa" and once again appreciate it. It depends on where I am in my life and how the music appeals to me.

So if NLOTH doesn't work for someone now, it might be more a testament to where that person is in his/her life than U2. At this moment in time, NLOTH doesn't appeal to a person. It a year, it may.

After the very soft ATYCLB and the rock-pop of HTDAAB, I was happy to get an album that isn't as easy to "digest" at first. It is reminiscent to TUF, which I feel is a very good thing. But perhaps others like the style of ATYCLB and HTDAAB, which makes NLOTH a difficult album to accept. I understand this, even though I feel the opposite.

While U2 has had music that doesn't always work for me, overall, they have enough songs both past and present that do. So even if one doesn't love NLOTH, I bet there are enough songs on the album that still offer some joy and inspiration. And it's for this reason I have remained a fan for so long. Other artists just don't have that constant appeal to at least some of their music as U2 has.

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

to me the the thing that U2 has lost is that every song is purposely trying to blow every one of there other songs out of the water. It's like they are trying too hard and are forgetting about the little songs and the melancholy songs they are so good at. Look at Until The End Of The World it's so melancholy

The new songs are great songs and NLOTH is the best attempt at this for ages but there is not much darkness and meekness and melancholy in the singing anymore.. there is also very little suprise, it feels like covered ground mostly, which is odd cause the songs all still sound so fresh and new?

Thats why I love Magnificent so much, the whole cruscendo at the beginning and bono singing the verse in that low voice singing* then the explosion of the chorus.. it is the only song that has given me a feeling of something new of U2 out of the past 3 albums.. which is wierd cause it's the most U2 sounding song ever..

 

[BVS]

The new songs are great songs and NLOTH is the best attempt at this for ages but there is not much darkness and meekness and melancholy in the singing anymore.. there is also very little suprise, it feels like covered ground mostly, which is odd cause the songs all still sound so fresh and new?

Melancholy is easy, joy is difficult. I give Bono props for trying to write about it, very few do, and out of those very few do it well...

That being said, with the exception of Magnificent and parts of Breathe the rest of the album is very new.

Taking on characters of soldiers, women's lib in a tongue in cheek way, war correspondents, traffic cops, futuristic gospel, and I know he's written about heroin before but never from such a character driven way before...

 

[65980]

oh please, don't play dumb...we're talking about "powerful" with regards to lifting spirits...of course, whatever does that for you might not do it for someone else...it's a pretty subjective thing..and it's not about any band being "better" than U2 necessarily.

I'm just curious what song of the Beatles do you think would lift the American spirit (i.e. post 911) moreso than say, MLK---> Streets? Personally, I really don't think any song of the Beatles comes close.

(I'm a bit slow in responding here.)

I actually wasn't "playing dumb" as you put it; I was completely serious. If you meant spiritually powerful, you should specify that. There's a quote from Bob Dylan, several years after his 1974 'comeback' tour, when he said (paraphrased): "..the '74 tour... All these people coming up to me and saying things like, 'That was powerful man... I loved the power.' It made me sick. You can fall into that trap easily."

What he meant was that the nouveau 70s rock crowd were mindlessly embracing him and the Band, after more discerning fans had hated them back in 1966. He meant that winning an audience over with power is a kind of fake way of going about it, and he conceded that he fell "into that trap".

In any case, I didn't know the topic was about Americans after 9/11 -- I thought we were just talking about "powerful" in general.

Some were already mentioned, but here are some powerful/uplifting/spiritual Beatles songs:
-- A Day In The Life
-- Hey Jude
-- Dear Prudence
-- Across the Universe
-- Blackbird
-- Julia
-- Mother Nature's Son
-- Here Comes The Sun
-- Let It Be
-- All Things Must Pass (later done solo on George's first album)

I personally find early songs like "Twist and Shout" (not a Beatles composition of course) and "No Reply" incredibly uplifting because of the sheer energy/joy of the recording and the vocals, which are mind-bogglingly great, but of course there's nothing 'spiritual' about them in the conventional sense.

The miracle of The Beatles is not in their doing any one thing really great, but more so in their doing everything really great, and doing it all in an incredibly short time -- 6 and a half years of recording albums (George was barely 26 when they made their final album). This meant that The Beatles tended to just dabble briefly in each musical style/genre/perspective, and then moved on to new things.

Anyway, I would agree that U2 are the most spiritually powerful (whatever that means) rock group, because they have the ability to sway a huge mainstream audience of millions with spiritual songs and uplifting ideas expressed musically. It's a slippery slope, and probably one that no other group has ever done as well as U2 does.

The proof in is the pudding. I can think of few groups that could pull off a song like "One" (or the vocal in "Pride"!) and make it sound so personal and heartbreaking, but also universal. It's a really special gift that U2 has.

 

[zoopop]

to me the the thing that U2 has lost is that every song is purposely trying to blow every one of there other songs out of the water. It's like they are trying too hard and are forgetting about the little songs and the melancholy songs they are so good at. Look at Until The End Of The World it's so melancholy

The new songs are great songs and NLOTH is the best attempt at this for ages but there is not much darkness and meekness and melancholy in the singing anymore.. there is also very little suprise, it feels like covered ground mostly, which is odd cause the songs all still sound so fresh and new?

Thats why I love Magnificent so much, the whole cruscendo at the beginning and bono singing the verse in that low voice singing* then the explosion of the chorus.. it is the only song that has given me a feeling of something new of U2 out of the past 3 albums.. which is wierd cause it's the most U2 sounding song ever..

I find MOS, Cedars, WAS, and Being Born to be pretty dark for U2. Especially for U2 in this day and age. MOS is such a great song and seeing them close out every show with it shows me U2 still wants to make great music.

 

[65980]

...part of a band that was just started off as these innocent prim and proper rockers who girls loved with silly pop rock songs...

Not to obsess on the Beatles, but I just wanted to comment that I think this opinion is not correct.

The Beatles did not start off as "innocent prim and proper rockers". Their history can fairly be divided into three phrases:
1) Club Band (1960-1963)
2) Beatlemania (1963 to mid-1966)
3) Studio band (mid-1966 through 1969)

In phase one, The Beatles were young, black-leather clad rockers, jumping, screaming, fighting, cursing onstage, playing to drunk audiences of tuffs in Liverpool and Hamburg, while sleeping with prostitutes and taking endless amphetamines. Their setlists in this period were 95% rock hits of the late 50s/early 60s and R&B standards, with a bit of country and blues thrown in. They became more "prim and proper" in appearance (only) in 1962/63, when they got a manager and started getting more professional. In those days, it was impossible to get a contract unless you wore a tie and combed your hair.

It's true that some (certainly not all) of the Beatles' early songs (recorded in about 1963 to 1965) could be classified "silly pop", but if so it was silly pop of the highest musical caliber. Once the rock culture started up (thanks to the Beatles influence), the Beatles moved on from that phase, which was just one of many such they entered into.

Even so, many of their early rock/R&B covers -- like 'Twist & Shout', 'Money', 'Long Tall Sally', 'You Can't Do That', or 'Bad Boy' -- are some of the hardest rocking tracks I've ever heard, even from today's perspective. One can only imagine what they sounded like in 1964...

 

[65980]

To get back on the topic -- I think it's only natural that one goes through ins and outs of fandom with a band that goes on as long as U2. For myself, first getting into them at the end of the 80s, I listened to them all the time from about 1991 to 1994, then I lost interest in them completely until 2001. Before ATYCLB came out, I considered U2 more-or-less washed up dinosaurs, past their prime. Reluctantly at first, I got drawn back into them at that time, and a few years later HTDAAB consolidated everything I loved about them. But since about a year ago, I've started losing interest in them again; I'm not really enjoying the new album, and it may be awhile before I get excited about U2 again.

But my point is that this is only natural when a band goes on for so long. So, if you had just discovered them in, say, 1997 or later, you might be "coming full circle" now and losing some interest in what they do -- every band is limited, after all, in how many styles they can play, and songs they can write. But that's not to say that if they don't touch you now, that they won't do so again later.