MERGED-->All Discussion of NME Track by Track Review of HTDAAB

[isabelle_guns]

awesome, thanks for that

 

[Roland of Gilead]

Fast Cars will likely be a B-side on a future single for those countries that do not get this as a bonus track on the album. The question is, how long can you wait? Yahweh is obviously going to have an album closing sound that U2 are great at. Fast Cars might sound out of place after it on an album. Hmmm, decisions, decisions. What to buy.

 

[radioskugga]

What to buy.

Everything!!

 

[Roland of Gilead]

Another thought -

Obviously there is a message in Fast Cars that U2 want to tell only the people of Japan concerning the atomic bomb. That is cool.

 

[Jaxx]

Very nice article, especially coming from NME. They seem to have really liked the record, even though they probably only heard it once or twice. Looks like there's something in there to please all fans of U2, while still maintaining a coherent style to the album. It's getting really hard to wait for this, but so far, everything seems to indicate it will be worth it.

 

[bathiu]

What do you think of this :

1. Vertigo : Rocker
2. Miracle Drug : Rocker
3. Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own : Ballad
4. Love and Peace or Else : Mid-tempo
5. City of Blinding Lights :Slow
6. All Because of You : Rocker
7. A Man and a Woman : Rocker
8. Crumbs From Your Table : Mid-tempo
9. One Step Closer : Slow
10. Original of the Species : Slow
11. Yahweh : low
12. Fast Cars : Up-tempo

So i think well have :

4 Rockers
2 ballads
2 mid-tempo
3 slow songs
1 up-tempo

I think the album's gonna rock more than atyclb but maybe not as much as some people think after hearing Vertigo.

What do you guys think?

NME didn't say that "Yahweh" is "low tempo"/slow... only that's it's a plea for peace...
I think it will be a "slow"/"mid-tempo"/"rocker" song... lets say like "Wake Up Dead Man"... everything in one song...

 

[Caroni]

this kind of threads are not good to calm down the expectations

I liked those descriptions....Tribal drums

 

[Inner El Guapo]

4 years to make 48 minutes of music. Jeez.

You can fit 78 minutes of music on a compact disc. 48 mintues plus Fast Cars is probably like 52 mintues.

4 years and less than an hour of music. Forgive me if that chaps my ass a little bit. They could throw a few more tracks on the album, unfortunately some moron convinced them that they can't have more than 11 tracks on an album.

Other than that, it sounds cool. The music on there is gonna be great, it's just gonna be quick and leaving everybody asking "where is more?". 4 years is a long time for less than an hour of music.

 

[ponkine]

Not including Fast Cars, the album is 48 minutes, 16 seconds.

Amigos, I hate to say this, but I told you so

I knew this album will be just another ATYCLB, just 11 songs with an stupid extra track just for Japan...the same shit happened with ATYCLB, remember "The Ground Beneath Her Feet"

Come on The Edge, try to see our way, just for one time think in fans from Africa, Asia, South America, etc

Another short album... a shame, after 4 years waiting, we´ll just have less than 50 minutes album... where is U2´s fresh music, ideas, concepts, messages, etc ?. I mean, don´t fool me pleaseeeeee, I´m not going to spend money for such CD. I really want to have 60 minutes of music, with linked songs by music, lyrics, etc, no 11 separate songs putting togheter making just 48 minutes. I can´t stand that, because I really love U2, but a record like that, after 25 years career, is something that shows lack of commitment, indifference, apathy and just a wish of making easy money with the smallest possible effort, simply I can´t stand that my friends .

Now, for the music, just another stuff with "rock", "Ballads", etc... nothing interesting, nothing to comunicate

I was afraid this new album will be exactly was it will be, but now waiting is over...

DREAM IS OVER
( John Lennon, 1970 )

 

[Jaxx]

4 years and less than an hour of music. Forgive me if that chaps my ass a little bit. They could throw a few more tracks on the album,

Why? Do you feel cheated if the CD isn't used to full capacity? I don't get it. Over the years I've come to appreciate albums where every song counts, even if there are fewer of them, rather than16 track albums where half of it is filler material that you're likely to skip after a couple of listens anyway.

An album should work as a whole, it should have a structure, a flow to it. The band might have written 20 songs for this album, but do they have to include them all? No. If they feel a song is not as good as the rest they shouldn't put it on the album. If they feel a song is good but doesn't fit with the rest of the material, or would somehow disrupt the flow of the album, they shouldn't put it in there either. Maybe hold on to it for another occasion, or release it as a b-side.

Personally, I'm just happy I'll be getting 11 new songs from U2. They don't owe me anything and if they feel these are the songs that should be on the album I have to trust their judgement. Adding more stuff simply for the reason that it fits on the CD doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Caroni]

Maybe they have to save songs for the future albums

 

[Jaxx]

Now, for the music, just another stuff with "rock", "Ballads", etc... nothing interesting, nothing to comunicate

What exactly were you expecting? String quartets? Full orchestral pieces? Experimental Xylophone symphonies? For Christ's sake, you haven't even heard the songs yet!

 

[riteshbhatt1]

I'd much rather have 11-12 good/great songs than a bunch of filler tracks that make 16-17 songs & fill an entire CD. Have you really been waiting for 4 years? I think the band was touring or doing other things in their lives for about 2 years.

 

[bathiu]

I would understand you ponkine, if their albums usualy had 15 or 16 tracks.... and those "ONLY" 11 (12) on HTDAAB was just an exception... but it's not and I don't understand what you're talking about... there were always: 10, 11 or 12 (great) songs... /edit/ + some -also good- B-Side songs on singles...

 

[ponkine]

I'd much rather have 11-12 good/great songs than a bunch of filler tracks that make 16-17 songs & fill an entire CD. Have you really been waiting for 4 years? I think the band was touring or doing other things in their lives for about 2 years.

Yes my friend sadly I have waited ( not anymore after reading the review ) for 4 years and much more, since ATYCLB dissapointed me

Not all is Black or white. Why talk about a short and good Album or long and bad one ?. Why ?
Why not a GREAT and long album as well ?

I wasn´t expecting string quartets or something related. I was expecting something worth have after 25 years career
something that really proves U2 is alive, something anti-ATYCLB, something with life, colours, body, history.history, depth, continuity. If Bono pointed out that the Title "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" it´s referred to his father Bob, then the album should be something much realler and truer that ATYCLB. But after "Vertigo", I cant wait an album, I ´just can wait songs, but it seems that a lot of people don't see the difference.


Also, go to www.amazon.com to see the album cover...

 

[Jaxx]

I wasn´t expecting string quartets or something related. I was expecting something worth have after 25 years career
something that really proves U2 is alive, something anti-ATYCLB, something with life, colours, body, history.history, depth, continuity. If Bono pointed out that the Title "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" it´s referred to his father Bob, then the album should be something much realler and truer that ATYCLB. But after "Vertigo", I cant wait an album, I ´just can wait songs, but it seems that a lot of people don't see the difference.


Also, go to www.amazon.com to see the album cover... [/B]

I'm sorry, I still don't get how you came to that conclusion after hearing one song (out of 11/12), reading a track listing and looking at an unconfirmed album cover.

 

[AtomicLemon]

By the way, Miracle Drug is NOT a rocker. It's a very heavy ballad

 

[djerdap]

Amigos, I hate to say this, but I told you so

I knew this album will be just another ATYCLB, just 11 songs with an stupid extra track just for Japan...the same shit happened with ATYCLB, remember "The Ground Beneath Her Feet"

Come on The Edge, try to see our way, just for one time think in fans from Africa, Asia, South America, etc

Another short album... a shame, after 4 years waiting, we´ll just have less than 50 minutes album... where is U2´s fresh music, ideas, concepts, messages, etc ?. I mean, don´t fool me pleaseeeeee, I´m not going to spend money for such CD. I really want to have 60 minutes of music, with linked songs by music, lyrics, etc, no 11 separate songs putting togheter making just 48 minutes. I can´t stand that, because I really love U2, but a record like that, after 25 years career, is something that shows lack of commitment, indifference, apathy and just a wish of making easy money with the smallest possible effort, simply I can´t stand that my friends .

Now, for the music, just another stuff with "rock", "Ballads", etc... nothing interesting, nothing to comunicate

I was afraid this new album will be exactly was it will be, but now waiting is over...

DREAM IS OVER
( John Lennon, 1970 )

I say, shut up and listen to the album first.

 

[david]

Joshua Tree was only 50 minutes and the best damn 50 minutes.

So this album is 48 minutes big freaking deal. U2 put the songs on the album that they felt best fit the feel of the album.

I don't want filler and crap just to fulfil 60 minutes of listening time.

And I like how people "ponkine" are damning the band and their efforts without even hearing the 10 other songs that make up this album.

 

[riteshbhatt1]

Would putting all the B-Sides that were on the JT singles have made JT a better album?

 

[david]

Would putting all the B-Sides that were on the JT singles have made JT a better album?

God no. The b sides for that album were great, but they just did not fit with the overall feeling of the album. They would have taken away from the real gems that made it to the album.

 

[Homerpalooza]

Would putting all the B-Sides that were on the JT singles have made JT a better album?

Quality-wise, yes. But the record would have become much too bloated.

11 tight tracks sounds awfully good to me. I don't understand the complaining...

Once you get the b-sides, burn a longer version of the album if you want.

 

[ponkine]

I say, shut up and listen to the album first.

I´ll do, is just my feelings I really want to be wrong !!! but so far, all that´s happening shows me I´m right

No one U2 fan wants to hear a bad album, that´s the reason I posted what I have posted

 

[Homerpalooza]

Also, keep in mind the NME claims they listened to an "unmastered" version of the album. There are still things that could change before the final product. For example, they didn't mention anything about an intrumental, which Edge assured us will be in there somewhere.

 

[david]

I´ll do, is just my feelings I really want to be wrong !!! but so far, all that´s happening shows me I´m right

No one U2 fan wants to hear a bad album, that´s the reason I posted what I have posted

How does anyone know it's bad if it hasn't been heard by anyone on this forum that isn't The Edge?

 

[bsp77]

The album is about 2 minutes shorter than JT and 7 minutes shorter than AB. So what, is that a big deal? It is also longer than their first 4 albums, which are considered classics by many. I have heard a lot of hour plus albums, and I usually think that they could have been great if only they had trimmed the filler a little. That is all U2 did, trim the filler. I would love to have an amazing 60 minute album, but a 48 minute amazing album is better than a 60 minute mixed one.

 

[david]

The underlying assumption I got from reading Ponkine's statement is that just because the songs and the album will be short this will be a bad album and that since U2 took 4 years to release an album (technically 2 if you take into account that they toured and then put together the best of album) that they owe us 20 songs and 75 minutes of music.

 

[bsp77]

The underlying assumption I got from reading Ponkine's statement is that just because the songs and the album will be short this will be a bad album and that since U2 took 4 years to release an album (technically 2 if you take into account that they toured and then put together the best of album) that they owe us 20 songs and 75 minutes of music.

Exactly, and that is BS. I am just happy U2 is still around. Has there ever been a band that was still producing relevant music at the same time they were to be inducted into the Hall of Fame? Only the Rolling Stones come close, but their music has not been truly relevant since Tattoo You (1981), which was less than 20 years into their career. Now they are just a greatest hits act, and I say this with only love for the Stones.

 

[phommel]

Would putting all the B-Sides that were on the JT singles have made JT a better album?

I agree!
And the same counts for all their albums.

 

[purpleblackeye]

the best albums are usually shorter anyway....look at the beatles...mostly 35 to 40 minute long albums.

the fact that it is 48 minutes doesn't bother me at all.