New Album Discussion 1 - Songs of..... - Unreasonable guitar album

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
They better have the songs. Middle-of-the-road posturing (hello JT30!) and platitude sloganeering disguised as middling rock songs (A-soul) ain’t gonna cut it.

LAPOE and Bullet gonna rip something fierce if they wanna go the FOAD route.
 
You aren’t referring to the right wing boomers who can’t believe U2 are suddenly a political band all having heart attacks?

If I had my way, they’d re-release Native Son as a digital single to raise money/awareness for this absolute disaster.

I always find it so weird when I come across old people U2 fans on Facebook complaining about them being too political when U2 has been one of the most liberal political bands since ever.
 
U2 of the 90s would have been perfect to perform during these times. Cynical but not hopeless. Perceptive not cliched.

I read a pretty accurate summation of their problems and lack of inspiration on Reddit - 'a band that once searched for meaning now preaches meaning'.

Their artistry - their inspirations - once came from themes of doubt, loneliness, insecurity and existential tension (whether from a personal perspective or political climate). That has reverted to hollow platitudes on peace, love and ideals we should all aspire to. Easy for a multimillionaire to sing about in his elite celeb bubble, not so resonant for us on the ground seeing this havoc in front of our eyes.

Shouting for peace and love isn't defiance if you are so far removed and protected from the dangers the common person is experiencing. It's called being out of touch.

And with that, you can bet their next album will be called something as pointless as Songs of Defiance.
 
It wasn’t lost on me, when I watched “Deliver Me From Nowhere,” that Bruce’s artistic decline started when he started going to therapy.

Happy people don’t tend to make great art. Kind of same for 21st century U2. They seem to be happy people. And, like Bruce and most other adults, they grew up and got perspective and a bit of gratitude.

Until there’s a divorce. Then you get a great album (TOL and AB, to continue the comparison).
 
Last edited:
October/Bullet/Streets form Paris on i/e.
Staring At The Sun/Pride from the NA shows on e/i.

they can, and are, still very much in your face when they choose to be.

i have no doubt that they will be again.

my suggestion about their being possible issues with a US tour centered on possible european boycotts (which have died down a bit after trump gave up his greenland thing), and/or the current administration restricting travel visas over criticism of the administration... which, honestly, would anyone be that shocked?

if we're talking 2027 for a tour - things here could be quite different, depending on the results of the midterms. but now we're heading full steam into FYM territory, so i'll stop there.

i have no worries about a post-PEPFAR / USAID dismantling Bono holding back criticism of the current administration.
 
It wasn’t lost on me, when I watched “Deliver Me From Nowhere,” that Bruce’s artistic decline started when he started going to therapy.

Happy people don’t tend to make great art. Kind of same for 21st century U2. They seem to be happy people. And, like Bruce and most other adults, they grew up and got perspective and a bit of gratitude.

Until there’s a divorce. Then you get a great album (TOL and AB, to continue the comparison).
Bruce might not be at the level he was, but neither are his modern records mediocre like U2. They're still very good albums and better received than U2's recent work. The hackneyed and cliched output of latter U2 is the issue, and its not about expecting them to churn out another classic. But great artists like Bruce or U2 have always been searching and prying on various themes - Bruce still does this even if he is a more stable personality at peace with himself, I can't say the same for U2 barring some exceptions here and there. Back to a producer like Eno would be useful in guiding Bono to coherent thoughts and themes that resonate with originality. There's a good clutch of tunes on No Line that were the lyrical antithesis of what he largely does today.
 
Last edited:
Bruce might not be at the level he was, but neither are his modern records mediocre like U2. They're still very good albums and better received than U2's recent work. The hackneyed and cliched output of latter U2 is the issue, and its not about expecting them to churn out another classic. But great artists like Bruce or U2 have always been searching and prying on various themes - Bruce still does this even if he is a more stable personality at peace with himself, I can't say the same for U2 barring some exceptions here and there. Back to a producer like Eno would be useful in guiding Bono to coherent thoughts and themes that resonate with originality. There's a good clutch of tunes on No Line that were the lyrical antithesis of what he largely does today.


I mean, sure, reasonable people can disagree about the overall quality of work between one group and the other, and I think 21st-century U2 is a bit underrated around here (although I agree peak years were 85 to 95), but my comment was about decline and being less angsty and filled with longing and searching for meeting, etc.

I don’t think anyone in the Bruce camp would argue that anything since 1985 has been as good as between 1975 in 1985. But, as with U2, there are clear highlights/triumphs: tunnel of love and the rising. And Springsteen on Broadway.
 
Important to note that Working on a Dream, though largely forgettable, was more or less Bruce committing to the bit (indulging his 60s Wall of Sound influences in the hopeful times of Obama’s first term), not half-assing around for hits.
 
I’ve been thinking a bit about people’s fears that U2 just don’t have it anymore. A lot of dislike among the long time fans of the period 2006-now. I know I am largely in the U2-apologist bucket, but I wanted to offer what I think is some context that offers some hope. To do this I will unpack the main gripes for each era, and without trying to invalidate those gripes, I think some sort of context or explanation shows that all is not lost for this next album:

2006 - window in the skies - the beginning of more simple, poppy music, sappy lyrics.

While WITS is not everyone’s cup of tea, I think the fact it came from Rubin sessions is quite important. He works in a way that is very different to U2’s preferred style. They clearly moved away from it after a short experiment, that also yielded an engagement with some odd time signatures (12/8?).

2009 - NLOTH - the issues here are really the underlying problem with the period up to 2021 - lyrically there is no ambiguity, literalness as forced poetry started here and some of the music was so over-worked it had no life left.

I think this is mainly a symptom that the songs just weren’t there. They lost the confidence after 5 years away to put out an album that just wasn’t going to cut it commercially and they don’t yet want to embrace an album that was built entirely on artistic coherence to a single vision. So they second guessed and made something worse than either option.

2014 - SOI - my only note here is that Apple meant that no one can observe this era free of context. Some good songs and a good concept that was DOA. Ordinary Love was a decent tune, relatively well received. As was Invisible.

2017 - SOE - Apple hangover is still a thing, this era suffered more from the variability in quality, and that may be a symptom of them trying to work quickly (but still second guessing). But I also think that the doomsaying perspective of Bono’s writing flaws, Edge disappearing etc is a bit misleading here. There were some great moments on this record, and they are indicators of a step back in the right direction that is only observably an issue on NLOTH and WITS.

2018-2025 - Ahimsa is a perfectly fine song. For many it and the YSSML are indications of a sharp descent. I contend that the 10 previous years meant that fans had no space or tolerance for that style of music, even though Ahimsa is actually a decent example of that style done ok.

During this period we also got SOS. What a great sign this work was REGARDLESS of your thoughts on the music itself. It showed more creative abandon, release of things that were sketches, some rough vocal takes, digging up songs we didn’t think they remembered existed. The documentary version of EBW was sublime.

Atomic City - what I would say here is that people should imagine a world where the last ten years didn’t exist. I think we’d have viewed this for what it was - a tongue in cheek callback to the era they were championing - the excesses of Vegas, the saturation of ZooTV, the fun and bombastic lyrics mirroring the thumping plod of a song that borrows equally from London Calling and Call Me. If we weren’t so desperate for them to correct these compounding issues we’d have viewed this song in a much different light.

Re-Assemble - here’s where the tide turns for mine. Luckiest Man in the World is actually an improvement on Mercy. He didn’t re-write lyrics that lost the magic - he enhanced them. They released an album full of touched up demoes. The music on them was at times a little clunky, but it wasn’t clunky because they over worked it. It was clunky because they didn’t. That is a HUGE difference.

Add all of this to recent quotes about not necessarily trying to be the biggest band in the world. I think they have learned some lessons and I think if people were in the right frame of mind they’d see this era for what it is. My fear is that they are too far gone for a lot of people to not listen while looking out for these flaws.

End of TED talk - I just think that the broad “u2 are lazy, second guess things, are too literal, chasing pop hits” version of the problem is overly simplistic, and I think signs of the last 3 years give me cause to think that it might be shifting to a better place. I just hope people are able to see it if it happens.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been thinking a bit about people’s fears that U2 just don’t have it anymore. A lot of dislike among the long time fans of the period 2006-now. I know I am largely in the U2-apologist bucket, but I wanted to offer what I think is some context that offers some hope. To do this I will unpack the main gripes for each era, and without trying to invalidate those gripes, I think some sort of context or explanation shows that all is not lost for this next album:

2006 - window in the skies - the beginning of more simple, poppy music, sappy lyrics.

While WITS is not everyone’s cup of tea, I think the fact it came from Rubin sessions is quite important. He works in a way that is very different to U2’s preferred style. They clearly moved away from it after a short experiment, that also yielded an engagement with some odd time signatures (12/8?).

2009 - NLOTH - the issues here are really the underlying problem with the period up to 2021 - lyrically there is no ambiguity, literalness as forced poetry started here and some of the music was so over-worked it had no life left.

I think this is mainly a symptom that the songs just weren’t there. They lost the confidence after 5 years away to put out an album that just wasn’t going to cut it commercially and they don’t yet want to embrace an album that was built entirely on artistic coherence to a single vision. So they second guessed and made something worse than either option.

2014 - SOI - my only note here is that Apple meant that no one can observe this era free of context. Some good songs and a good concept that was DOA. Ordinary Love was a decent tune, relatively well received. As was Invisible.

2017 - SOE - Apple hangover is still a thing, this era suffered more from the variability in quality, and that may be a symptom of them trying to work quickly (but still second guessing). But I also think that the doomsaying perspective of Bono’s writing flaws, Edge disappearing etc is a bit misleading here. There were some great moments on this record, and they are indicators of a step back in the right direction that is only observably an issue on NLOTH and WITS.

2018-2025 - Ahimsa is a perfectly fine song. For many it and the YSSML are indications of a sharp descent. I contend that the 10 previous years meant that fans had no space or tolerance for that style of music, even though Ahimsa is actually a decent example of that style done ok.

During this period we also got SOS. What a great sign this work was REGARDLESS of your thoughts on the music itself. It showed more creative abandon, release of things that were sketches, some rough vocal takes, digging up songs we didn’t think they remembered existed. The documentary version of EBW was sublime.

Atomic City - what I would say here is that people should imagine a world where the last ten years didn’t exist. I think we’d have viewed this for what it was - a tongue in cheek callback to the era they were championing - the excesses of Vegas, the saturation of ZooTV, the fun and bombastic lyrics mirroring the thumping plod of a song that borrows equally from London Calling and Call Me. If we weren’t so desperate for them to correct these compounding issues we’d have viewed this song in a much different light.

Re-Assemble - here’s where the tide turns for mine. Luckiest Man in the World is actually an improvement on Mercy. He didn’t re-write lyrics that lost the magic - he enhanced them. They released an album full of touched up demoes. The music on them was at times a little clunky, but it wasn’t clunky because they over worked it. It was clunky because they didn’t. That is a HUGE difference.

Add all of this to recent quotes about not necessarily trying to be the biggest band in the world. I think they have learned some lessons and I think if people were in the right frame of mind they’d see this era for what it is. My fear is that they are too far gone for a lot of people to not listen while looking out for these flaws.

End of TED talk - I just think that the broad “u2 are lazy, second guess things, are too literal, chasing pop hits” version of the problem is overly simplistic, and I think signs of the last 3 years give me cause to think that it might be shifting to a better place. I just hope people are able to see it if it happens.
This is an excellent analysis. I agree with literally all of it!

Especially your observations on "Ahimsa" and "Atomic City"

If they were judged on their own merits and not "we're sick of their tendencies since 2006 or so," you'd see a much different response to them.

As Irvine said above, pretty hard to argue with 1985-1995 as the peak. I actually haven't, in 18 years here, seen anyone make that argument. Never mind take it further and say "2009-2026 actually is the best era!"

Where I really get off the train and always have, is with the argument that it's been a straight line down and everything just is permanently of a much lower quality.

We all can pick out our favorite examples, but for me, "Moment of Surrender" "Invisible" "Ordinary Love" "Raised by Wolves" "Every breaking wave" "The Troubles" "Cedarwood Rd" "Little Things" and "Red Flag Day" are just starters that disprove this argument.

And I'm with you 100% on "Luckiest Man......"

Window In the Skies, where you started this discussion....... it's funny, I don't come back to it often. But when I do, my first thought is often how much better I like it than most of NLOTH.

They were of course at the end of their last era on top of the world, and that vibe seems to show through for me. Being from the Rubin sessions as you mentioned, it also has a uniqueness to it in their catalogue.

Really don't mind this song at all.
 
Great post, Dan 👍

I agree there are many signs that they’re moving in a promising direction, based on the philosophies of SoS and Reassemble in particular.

I’m so intrigued about what the next album will sound like, given they’ve essentially admitted their hit-making days are over. Without that pressure or the identity that comes with it, they could end up recording something vastly different to the last few albums.

I have no doubt it’ll still sound like a U2 album, including a desire to make ‘big music’ that can be played in a stadium alongside their hits - and I’m also suspicious that Eno’s involvement will be fairly minimal - but I think it’ll have very different dna to the 2010s ‘Songs of’ era.
 
“Ahimsa is a perfectly fine song. For many it and the YSSML are indications of a sharp descent.”

Both are utterly appalling. Practically unlistenable. Embarrassing.
 
“Ahimsa is a perfectly fine song. For many it and the YSSML are indications of a sharp descent.”

Both are utterly appalling. Practically unlistenable. Embarrassing.
It's as simple as that for me - the bland sound is compounded by these just being bad songs . Throw much of Songs of Surrender in to the mix, it didn't represent creative abandon for me, more so creative stagnation as 90% of those songs seemed as if they were designed to play in coffee shops and John Lewis adverts. Bono's lyrical rewrites is a cause for concern and Edge 'missing in action' is taken to the extreme being on autopilot thinking he's a session musician for wallpaper music like Adele. Far far too many mediocre to awful songs there too (Breaking Wave, Get Out..., Miracle). Not so much reworked but unchallenging and watered down.
 
If people don’t like things, then they don’t like them. That’s totally fine.

I think these two points aren’t quite engaging with the point I was making, and in a lot of ways underscore it, but hey - de gustibus non est disputandem dear friends.

To explain why I think Ahimsa is fine, and SOS is a far more creative work than most credit it with - and not trying to yuck your yum (or yum your yuck as it were):

Ahimsa does not suffer the sins of the lyrical word salad, platitude mess of many songs in this period. It also was never designed to be the next big U2 single. It does exactly what it was meant to - nod to Indian culture before their first shows there. It was probably a SOE leftover riff/idea that they felt would serve that purpose. Bono’s delivery is actually quite interesting for him, melodically - the note he hits for “torn” is not something we expect. The next line “born” is absolutely what you expect. He’s trying things and musically this is what they talk about re becoming songwriters. I get the feeling most people hear “radio station” and then lazily throw it in the hamfisted lyric bucket. I see it far more in the One Step Closer bucket - subject matter that is already a bit lofty and high-falootin’ and he actually avoids too much word salad. I think whether you “like” the song is only one dimension here and my main point is that people use that single dimension to be the pillar of meaning for every other dimension.

Re SOS - I’m sorry, but again I disagree completely. U2 have NEVER been able to claim to be interesting or adventurous musicians. Edge is a genius that builds soundscapes but all within some pretty primary colours chord use and song structures. Always. They don’t have a theoretical approach and it is part of their appeal to us and the critique of others. Listen to the way they treat some of those songs - Electrical Storm and Miracle Drug have some pretty noteworthy shifts that are unique in their catalogue. The chord changes in the second half of the chorus of Electrical Storm reflect how a pianist would write that song. It’s not limited to the guitar/bass/drums way they wrote it. It adds texture, interest and some musicality they have never really shown before.

Stories For Boys is another great example. It’s the best of the three versions of Lights of Home. Who knew acoustic 11 O’Clock was even a possibility? Stay and IGWSHA are gorgeous.

Breaking down songs that are bigger than the band and reimagining them without the things that made them big was actually quite a creative exercise. Several songs had layers and nuances to them that a cursory listen that dismisses them as background music will miss. It’s a shame, but it is what it is.

But again - I’m not trying to convince anyone of my rightness, I’m just trying to explain the things that to me indicate a cause for some optimism. What I think this reaction has shown me is that I’m naive to think that people can listen to anything new that may or may not be coming this year with a clean slate.

Everyone likes to think they are objective, but we all bring unconscious bias. I am just by saying these things. And I’d rather go in trying to hear the best of something than ensuring I hear the worst of it before it happens.
 
If people don’t like things, then they don’t like them. That’s totally fine.

I think these two points aren’t quite engaging with the point I was making, and in a lot of ways underscore it, but hey - de gustibus non est disputandem dear friends.

To explain why I think Ahimsa is fine, and SOS is a far more creative work than most credit it with - and not trying to yuck your yum (or yum your yuck as it were):

Ahimsa does not suffer the sins of the lyrical word salad, platitude mess of many songs in this period. It also was never designed to be the next big U2 single. It does exactly what it was meant to - nod to Indian culture before their first shows there. It was probably a SOE leftover riff/idea that they felt would serve that purpose. Bono’s delivery is actually quite interesting for him, melodically - the note he hits for “torn” is not something we expect. The next line “born” is absolutely what you expect. He’s trying things and musically this is what they talk about re becoming songwriters. I get the feeling most people hear “radio station” and then lazily throw it in the hamfisted lyric bucket. I see it far more in the One Step Closer bucket - subject matter that is already a bit lofty and high-falootin’ and he actually avoids too much word salad. I think whether you “like” the song is only one dimension here and my main point is that people use that single dimension to be the pillar of meaning for every other dimension.

Re SOS - I’m sorry, but again I disagree completely. U2 have NEVER been able to claim to be interesting or adventurous musicians. Edge is a genius that builds soundscapes but all within some pretty primary colours chord use and song structures. Always. They don’t have a theoretical approach and it is part of their appeal to us and the critique of others. Listen to the way they treat some of those songs - Electrical Storm and Miracle Drug have some pretty noteworthy shifts that are unique in their catalogue. The chord changes in the second half of the chorus of Electrical Storm reflect how a pianist would write that song. It’s not limited to the guitar/bass/drums way they wrote it. It adds texture, interest and some musicality they have never really shown before.

Stories For Boys is another great example. It’s the best of the three versions of Lights of Home. Who knew acoustic 11 O’Clock was even a possibility? Stay and IGWSHA are gorgeous.

Breaking down songs that are bigger than the band and reimagining them without the things that made them big was actually quite a creative exercise. Several songs had layers and nuances to them that a cursory listen that dismisses them as background music will miss. It’s a shame, but it is what it is.

But again - I’m not trying to convince anyone of my rightness, I’m just trying to explain the things that to me indicate a cause for some optimism. What I think this reaction has shown me is that I’m naive to think that people can listen to anything new that may or may not be coming this year with a clean slate.

Everyone likes to think they are objective, but we all bring unconscious bias. I am just by saying these things. And I’d rather go in trying to hear the best of something than ensuring I hear the worst of it before it happens.
There's a great clutch of songs on that album, exemplified best by the one in bold. I like Stay, and Dirty Day too, and a good few more. The best one's turn the songs into something almost unrecognisably different. I know these aren't complicated songs, U2 have always been pretty straightforward in musical ability and songwriting but within those confines they created different worlds through various sounds, different tempos, different vocal delivery, etc. For the most part, reimaginings should lean into that rather than watering them down for mainstream consumption, which seemed the case for most of the versions here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom