NLOTH Album Reviews Pt 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Excellent post. I love the album, but I've also wondered about the middle 3 and what could have been. Listening from track 8 through 4 (Fez-Being Born all the way through Unknown Caller with no break after Cedars) is absolutely incredible--a word that I simply cannot attach to the middle 3 songs. I think Boots is the only one of those 3 that really should have made the album. If we had 2 more mood pieces instead of SUC and CT, this album could have been scary good--probably their best ever.

that's an interesting theory (8-4). :)

even though tracks 5-7 are my least favorite on the album, i still think they're far away from throwaway tracks. i would actually substitute any of them over AMAAW, Crumbs, Miracle Drug, and LAPOE from HTDAAB.
 
everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and i think U2 fans get defensive about Pop, but that's because it's kind of inarguable that the conventional wisdom is that the album was a dude and the tour had a shaky start and ended by playing to half empty stadiums.

people like us who pay attention can easily poke holes in this narrative, but that IS the narrative that surrounds the Pop album, like it or not.

I agree, no mater how much I think the perception is wrong.

I was asking when Pop switched to being hailed as a classic now...

I assume Bomb is the new Pop then?
 
Oh i forgot that i'm here in the holy land o U2 worshippness. Discotheque(album version), DO you feel loved, God send his angels, Mofo, Mofo, Mofo, Velvet boring dress and Miami!!!!!!!!! What a huge collection of all time classics!

Wow... you just listed my favs from the album.
Nice job. :up:
Specially MOFO and Miami.
God, that album rocks.
 
Oh i forgot that i'm here in the holy land o U2 worshippness. Discotheque(album version), DO you feel loved, God send his angels, Mofo, Mofo, Mofo, Velvet boring dress and Miami!!!!!!!!! What a huge collection of all time classics!

um, ok... So I was asking when Pop started being considered a classic, other than on here...
 
I'm not sure if this has been posted here. I've read back a few pages and couldn't see it. It's by John Waters. Many of you will recall that he wrote the great book Race of Angels about U2. He has been quite unhappy with the band in recent years, so it's good to see he's had a positive turnaround with the new album.

U2 on the move again after their lost decade

They've broken away from safety to offer us something prophetic

Irish Times, February 19, 2009

By John Waters


Last time I wrote about U2 I managed three separate entries in Pseuds Corner, the Private Eye satirical magazine column that aims to puncture pomposity. I naturally approach the same subject pessimistic about matching that success.

This, approximately, has been U2's problem also. Their last two albums suggested time had played a trick, insinuating in their narrative some sense of linear purpose and yet placing their best work near the beginning, condemning them to strut around for decades in a doomed attempt to repeat themselves.

For a generation, U2 have accompanied us on the way. Out of the partly real, partly imagined darkness of 1970s Ireland, they claimed their right to express, more loudly than anyone, the blurt of longing, born of the grey suits, cars and minds that blighted the youths of the generations now faced with defining reality at a moment of unprecedented uncertainty. They emerged, primed with innocence and desire, to claim their inheritance from the depths of a culture left unplumbed in the collective desire to escape it. They were clumsy and ignorant in a good way, and in the 1980s offered themselves up as gauche guinea pigs before the gods of glitz and glitter in an attempt to road-test the sincerity they could not in conscience jettison in a medium intolerant of anything but cynicism and cool. In the 1980s they clung to a dogged authenticity against the grain of the times, producing the decade's best album in The Joshua Tree.

In the 1990s they cracked the code and convinced everyone they had changed beyond recognition, when really they had learned to dance and dress more plausibly. In the Noughties, they went AWOL from their own mission, treading water in an attempt to hold market position, and became even more successful. A bit like the broader story of their homeland, when you come to think of it.

All the while they suggested that, once they had honed their craft and sullen art, they would show us something utterly devastating. And yet, this remained a promise, which a dwindling number noticed was remaining unfulfilled.

I pressed "play" on No Line on the Horizon last weekend dreading that, like its last two predecessors, it would consolidate U2's position at the top of the premiership and perhaps win a portion of a new generation to the idea of a band that could make a handsome packet out of producing a handsome racket while winking knowingly towards the future. I was ready for an album designed to tour well and meet all the mediocre expectations that have latterly come to burden its creators. I anticipated a new bunch of songs that, injected with an essence of U2, harvested and preserved at the optimum moment between The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby, would convince the world that U2 had not, in fact, broken up.

I cannot tell you how happy I am to tell you that I have just eaten my hat, and that this is the album U2 should have made after Achtung Baby. This, of course, means they've lost a decade somewhere, but then who hasn't? It is a tribute to this album that is can be described without reference to the virtues of individual songs. Like its tremendous predecessors, it has a wholeness that owes as much to mood as to playing, lyrics or sonic integrity.

U2 have only briefly, in the middle phase, been about songs. Latterly, they have been about a Proustian rampage through the debris of a music that happens too quickly for clarity, excavating pieces that seemed like they might have contained something more than they revealed first time around. In these tracks, you keep hearing snatches of elusive allusiveness that take you to a deeper level of memory, but in a way that suggests redemption rather than repetition.

U2 squandered their lost decade casting around for a direction that would not compromise their commercial position until it seemed they would eventually have to risk frittering away their audience to complete their mission. (Their mission, incidentally, has fundamentally to do with stealing rock 'n' roll back from the dark angels, ideally involving the creation of a soundtrack in which the citizen might hope to hear, at those moments of near-despair when man-made reality reaches the outer reaches of its plausibility, something to refer him to the broader canvas. It is a tall order.) For a long time it has seemed U2 were running on the spot, standing still while suggesting radical movement. With this album they have started to move again, hesitating a further step into the improbable. And yet is is not, from the viewpoint of their premiership position, a risky album? With No Line on the Horizon, they have achieved something that, oddly, stands with one leg in the shallow, concentrate-version of U2 that the world has taken at face value for a decade, and one leg in a future as exciting as anything they have hitherto allowed us to glimpse. If, as we have previously noted, music is prophetic as to the drift of wider reality, then this album may be the most hopeful thing you will hear all year.
 
So you agree or disagree with me??? :lol:

of course I disagree, I love Pop, but you said:

Now Pop is going down in history as classic good U2 album?? :doh:

Sorry but i don't have a short memory and Pop is considered a low point in their careers.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, what I meant when I asked "when did this happen?" I meant when did the PUBLIC and or CRITICAL opinion change, not people's opinion on here.
 
Oh i forgot that i'm here in the holy land o U2 worshippness. Discotheque(album version), DO you feel loved, God send his angels, Mofo, Mofo, Mofo, Velvet boring dress and Miami!!!!!!!!! What a huge collection of all time classics!

Pop is Interference's most overrated album, it gets away with so many flaws that both ATYCLB and HTDAAB get destroyed for, so this isn't the best place to judge it's placement in U2's discography.
 
that's an interesting theory (8-4). :)
i would actually substitute any of them over AMAAW, Crumbs, Miracle Drug, and LAPOE from HTDAAB.
In some cases (i.e. Crazy Tonight for AMAAW) that's like substituting gonorrhea for syphilis. Neither one is pretty.
 
Pop is Interference's most overrated album, it gets away with so many flaws that both ATYCLB and HTDAAB get destroyed for, so this isn't the best place to judge it's placement in U2's discography.

Perhaps, but ultimately, its risks and unconventional sounds is what really makes it a classic.
 
i completely agree with you. take out the middle 3, insert some more experimental pieces, and you could convert an excellent album into a lengendary one.

CT, SUC are fun songs but sound trivial next to the others. I think they were included to appease Jimmy Iovine and all those other record exec whores.

Looking at their back catalogue I'd sub in "The First Time", "Your Blue Room" and "GBHF".:drool: But this is U2... the biggest band in the world, they have to sell records and not just for "the record exec whores"... If they weren't interested in being the top grossing act in 09 they could have given us a second passengers album or we probably would have had it by the Summer of 08. IMO this last stretch over the past few months was about finding just the right compromise between Art and Commerce... what I love about this album VS the last two is that IMO it seems they've compromised by including a small handful of lighter / pop tunes but have left the more obscure stuff intact... with HTDAAB it felt to my like they were trying to come up with a dozen singles (except perhaps OSC). I love NLOTH because it has given me some real gems to add to my U2 mixed playlist and while the middle 3 aren't my faves I find them very tolerable. SO HAPPY THE BOYS ARE BACK!:wave:
 
Perhaps, but ultimately, its risks and unconventional sounds is what really makes it a classic.

Don't you think that it takes so much more than this to make a classic album?

That's is the problem, the concept of the (Pop) album was way beyond its real capabilities. It's was meant to be an advantgarde sound album mixed with some classics U2 nuances to make a statement about irony, consumism and lack of faith. It's bold concept. They tried to take their rock music to even further levels of experimetalism iniciated by AB but they wanted it to be funky at the same time. I think somewhere on the way the got lost in the middle of all this concepts and ideas and forgot how to buld strong and listenable tunes. As much as i like even less the Zooropa album, the 93 record flashes an artsy flair. It brings to a more ethereal level that Eastern Europe scent of AB. It has a certain cohesion and refinement absent from Pop.
So before you have a big theme or concept to shout out you have to have a very good bed to lay down on the night.
Pop was a classic as a bold concept, but not even close as an simple rock album.
 
The SPIN review is confusing me, they like the album, yet give it only 3,5 points. I mean, come on, was that little half point so hard or what? They could at least have bothered to give it 4 points. Ridiculous.

About the three middle pieces, I still feel that they have to be on the album as well, NLOTH is complete because of them and I don't feel that they are preventing the album from being great. The album IS great. And there is no clear evidence that reviewers are not giving the album the best ratings because of these songs. In fact, some like CT more than other songs, some even say Boots is the best song on there. I think the three songs in the middle of the album offer relief between two very dense parts. Stand up comedy has become a favourite for me.
 
Don't you think that it takes so much more than this to make a classic album?

Umm..and that it works....but this all up to one's opinion. POP really found a place in my heart. It's so cohesive. The songs weren't finished, but the sketches that could be were amazing.

Anyhoo....POP is what I love. Yeh, I think it could have been greater..but the emotion involved into that record is memorizing.
 
I'm listening to every song for the first time now...exactly how I wanted

I dont think i've ever had tears over music before, but this is brilliant...

i'm just floored, wow...
 
Perhaps I wasn't clear, what I meant when I asked "when did this happen?" I meant when did the PUBLIC and or CRITICAL opinion change, not people's opinion on here.


omg, why do you ha8 Pop!?!?! it's soooooo amazng, my fav!!81*!1!

Discotheque :heart:
DYFL :cool:
Mofo :drool:
IGWSHA :up:

need i sayz more!?!
 
i completely agree with you. take out the middle 3, insert some more experimental pieces, and you could convert an excellent album into a lengendary one.

CT, SUC are fun songs but sound trivial next to the others. I think they were included to appease Jimmy Iovine and all those other record exec whores.

Yes, I think you're right. I think these songs are concessions (to Iovine, Larry, and possibly just their overriding concern about being "relevant" on a large scale). For all their talk about just playing for the sake of playing together and not worrying about putting an album out, SUC and CT are examples where that is blatantly not the case. Before I go into this, I want to insert the caveat that I think this album is absolutely fantastic, but that I think it is certainly possible to nitpick each of their albums (even the best). I'm not sure if this is nitpicking or not, but here goes: if you listen to SUC on headphones, you quickly realize that this is the exact opposite of MoS. Where MoS is basically live, SUC is a Frankenstein's monster of a song. It sounds like 7 different pieces expertly edited together. The guitar riff is aggressively placed to the front, but somehow sounds clean and, well, unaggressive. The lyrical flow is actually a bit more off-putting than the content, and I can see why Bono kept saying that he was holding the rest of the band back on this song. Plus I think they autotuned Bono's autotuner on some of those high notes in the 2nd half--good gracious it sounds processed. From the descriptions of this song, I thought we were getting something rough and "live"-sounding, but instead we got the most plastic track on the album. U2 would have been better-served pulling an "Eno" and erasing the track and starting from scratch--do a live take with a dirty guitar setting from Edge and then add whatever bits and pieces necessary.

Crazy Tonight is a great pop song in a similar vein to WITS. I really like both of these songs, but I don't think either necessarily fit on an album like this one. CT might be a big single for U2, but I think it should have been a single only. Overall, I think Boots fits well with the rest of the album, but because it is sandwiched between these other two, I can't really tell for sure.

Overall, amazing album that perhaps could have been absolutely phenomenal with two discrete substitutions.
 
that's an interesting theory (8-4). :)

even though tracks 5-7 are my least favorite on the album, i still think they're far away from throwaway tracks. i would actually substitute any of them over AMAAW, Crumbs, Miracle Drug, and LAPOE from HTDAAB.

I think you're definitely right there. I think because tracks 8-4 are so good (and different), it makes 5-7 shine a little less bright than they would if they were on HTDAAB. At the end of the day, they are still quality tracks on a fantastic album.
 
Back
Top Bottom