Songs of Innocence Promo Tour - Discussion Thread #2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Lamest promo tour ever" got them strong reviews from casuals.

"They can't play the new material" Outside of the average (give it time, it's only gotten one performance) Volcano * those were the best promo performances of the 00's easily. And unlike ATYCLB and HTDAAB promos, they don't play any older songs (outside Stuck off BBC) and actually focus on the new songs.

"Why can't they play Troubles or SLABT or CB" ? Well, first off, two are a tad more complex to play live. The third is a massively overhyped bonus disc song and likely won't get the live nod ahead of potential SOI singles. Which is what they ought to focus on. There's still 100+ live dates of potential to play other SOI material on the tour.

* and depending on how California went down.
 
thavidesco said:
They thought Zooropa will be much more succesful, mainly in US it failed. They thought it would be their Sgt. Pepper. If something is not top succesful U2 consider it to be fail, no matter what we, fans, think :)
Click to expand...

Whattt? Zooropa wasn't treated as anything other than a one off companion album to Achtung Baby. It debuted at #1 in the US and sold 377 thousand copies its first week which at the time was their biggest first week sales in the US at the time. Not bad for an album they weren't touring for in the US. It sold on the strength of U2's name and commercial appeal and Numb was a buzz video for MTV all Summer long leading to Edge appearing at the 1993 MTV music video awards that year for his solo performance of the song. They would continue to put out music videos for the album after the tour ended as well.
 
Hollow Island said:
Vanished into oblivion? That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Even if U2's revisionist history wants to claim it was a failure, once bands get a few monumental hits they can stick around forever. Look at Motley Crue,
Click to expand...

yeaaaaaaaa...

So when U2 was selling out three 90,000 ticket shows in the NYC area during 360, Motley Crue was opening for Kiss at the 15,000 seat Jones Beach Amphitheater.

So not exactly the greatest of arguments there.
 
Volcano was far from perfect, but I really liked it when I turned up the volume and it got better after a few listens. Larry was massive :up:
 
trevgreg said:
They didn't get played because at least half of them would have been god awful in a live environment (imo).
Click to expand...

How do you know it? They didn't even seem to try it. At least not that we noticed it.
No song is "unplayable" live. First, because a good musician, a good musician that's used to play live, is always able to give new and different lives to one song to play it live - there's no point in releasing songs in albums and then not present it to the public in concert, in flesh. On the other hand, there are tones of ways to make a specific song great (or awful) in a live environment, and that involves not only the choices for the live arrangement, but the introduction it self, which songs precedes or succeeds it, it depends on the stage dispositions, lights and effects, the messages on a background screen (or not needing it)...
 
Vlaco said:
Volcano was far from perfect, but I really liked it when I turned up the volume and it got better after a few listens. Larry was massive :up:
Click to expand...


It will get better, I have a very good feeling about this song.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Reggie Thee Dog said:
And womanfish, please...DYFL? I was at the Las Vegas show in '97, and they played it...:doh:...seriously that song goes no where. I don't get all the love for it. Peace on Earth is a far better song...:shifty:
Click to expand...

Piss on Earth better than DYFL?
DYFL didn't go nowhere in concert... Because they didn't bother trying substantially different live arrangements to make it work. The song was played what? 7 times (and with similar arrangements for what I know)?
For instance, the guitar instead on focusing on the pedal effects that give body to the song got Edge playing his basic delay (except in the bridge). The same goes to "Gone". I know that "Gone" is a fan favourite, specially live (and its translation to the hedious 2002 mix), but I'm not a fan of it because of the exact same reasons. What Edge is playing Bono could perfectly play it while singing it (even I can do it), leaving freespace for Edge to alternate between the beautiful and delicate piano and the "affected" guitar present in the album cut.

The are many many ways to resolve a song and to make it work in concert. Most times it's a question of will.
If cover bands can do it with an absolute perfection, so can/should U2 be able to do it as well, as professionals for over 30 years.
 
Just saw a billboard for the album in Hollywood, and it said "featuring The Miracle and Song For Someone"

So let's not close the book yet on EBW being the next single.
 
lazarus said:
Just saw a billboard for the album in Hollywood, and it said "featuring The Miracle and Song For Someone"

So let's not close the book yet on EBW being the next single.
Click to expand...
Meh. I like Song for Someone, but it shouldn't be the second single.
 
lazarus said:
Just saw a billboard for the album in Hollywood, and it said "featuring The Miracle and Song For Someone"

So let's not close the book yet on EBW being the next single.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised it didn't say "Son g For Someone"
 
thavidesco said:
For me that album is very strong material ruined by the band´s doubts and fear that they are not relevant anymore. They thought had two crap albums in a row (Zooropa, Pop). They need to have charts hits and attract a young generation. Because of that they released their most radio friendly record. Tamed record with very forgettable arrangements and production. They filmed cheesy poppy videos to support the singles and they started to promote the album on various TV shows as much as possible. In the end it looked like an old sprinter tries to catch up young ones. A bit embarrassing.

Later they got their confidence back and now they are able again to make their records fearless with dignity coresponding to their age.
Click to expand...


Tried so hard to resist, but I couldn't.

How can you make an analogy about them being old and failing to catch up about on if their most popular albums, and the one that saved their career. On one hand you blast their integrity for chasing and achieving relevance, and in the other you call it irrelevant. :coocoo:

I'm not an ATYCLB apologist. I think it is a polar record - amazing heights and shocking lows. But still, I'm not out of touch, or just plain ignorant enough to suggest that it was 'embarrassing' or 'tamed' or 'cheesy'. It was the right thing for them to do at the right time. It made them the biggest band in the world again. Tell me again how it made them look like an old sprinter trying to catch up?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I have no idea why I bothered watching that live rendition of Volcano, when the album version is so unbelievably piss poor.

Needless to say it lived up (down?) to expectations. What a fucking terrible track that is. The chorus is just appalling.
 
david said:
I enjoyed the My Bloody Valentine wall of guitar noise that was No Line's title track when I saw them live. But no one else around seemed to care. I think that was the problem with that album and its songs and how well they translated live.
Click to expand...

Ha. I never thought of MBV, but you're absolutely right. That was perhaps the highlight of the show I went to (Wembley night 1), which consisted of a mere three songs from the 1990's.
 
dan_smee said:
Tried so hard to resist, but I couldn't.

How can you make an analogy about them being old and failing to catch up about on if their most popular albums, and the one that saved their career. On one hand you blast their integrity for chasing and achieving relevance, and in the other you call it irrelevant. :coocoo:

I'm not an ATYCLB apologist. I think it is a polar record - amazing heights and shocking lows. But still, I'm not out of touch, or just plain ignorant enough to suggest that it was 'embarrassing' or 'tamed' or 'cheesy'. It was the right thing for them to do at the right time. It made them the biggest band in the world again. Tell me again how it made them look like an old sprinter trying to catch up?

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

Because in my eyes they denied their artistic ambitions with that record in order to regain some more popularity again. It´s a big difference to do music for the music itself and to use it for another goal like get to certain position. I think, the latter happened partly with that record. I don´t think we can say that record was brave, courageous, innovative, exploring, fresh. It was more likely some heartfelt songs in a nice radio friendly package. I personally dislike Bono´s attitude "our job is to be the biggest", "we need to be relevant in pop charts to make sense". I think that way of thinking influenced last three records in a bad way. I don´t say they sold out, but certainly they did a lot of overthinking and compromises in order to deliver a certain kind of product for the radio stations and to hit some pop kids. And occassionaly it made them (especially Bono) look a bit hilarious, like they try too badly aspire for something they really don´t need to :)
 
thavidesco said:
Because in my eyes they denied their artistic ambitions with that record in order to regain some more popularity again. It´s a big difference to do music for the music itself and to use it for another goal like get to certain position. I think, the latter happened partly with that record. I don´t think we can say that record was brave, courageous, innovative, exploring, fresh. It was more likely some heartfelt songs in a nice radio friendly package. I personally dislike Bono´s attitude "our job is to be the biggest", "we need to be relevant in pop charts to make sense". I think that way of thinking influenced last three records in a bad way. I don´t say they sold out, but certainly they did a lot of overthinking and compromises in order to deliver a certain kind of product for the radio stations and to hit some pop kids. And occassionaly it made them (especially Bono) look a bit hilarious, like they try too badly aspire for something they really don´t need to :)
Click to expand...


How the fuck do you know what their artistic ambitions were? If you are looking for a band that don't have aspirations to be huge, you are following the wrong band. And why does music have to be 'brave, courageous, innovative, fresh, exploring'? I would argue it absolutely was fresh after Pop, but I refer to what Nick said after SOI came out - it's funny that everyone was making claims about what U2 had to do experimentation wise with this album, but in the end, good songs win out.

Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I think they rode the '90s dance techno experimental song trend to the end. I'm glad they mixed things up again with ATYCLB. It gave them an opportunity to start over. Putting out that album took more guts than to say, let's make more albums like our '90s albums. Like I said. I think they took that period as far as it could go.
 
dan_smee said:
How the fuck do you know what their artistic ambitions were? If you are looking for a band that don't have aspirations to be huge, you are following the wrong band. And why does music have to be 'brave, courageous, innovative, fresh, exploring'? I would argue it absolutely was fresh after Pop, but I refer to what Nick said after SOI came out - it's funny that everyone was making claims about what U2 had to do experimentation wise with this album, but in the end, good songs win out.

Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

Dan...some peeps think ATYCLB is a 'sellout' album...kinda like I think Pop was their first desperate stab at being 'relevant' (i.e. straying into club/dance territory in a proper album). ATYCLB is definitely a complete 180 from Pop, and thank God for that. It is 'accessible' and I think that's what rubs the Poptarts the wrong way.

Anyhoo...looking forward to hearing me some Volcano on the new tour...:rockon:


*edit* david...YES...that's exactly my point...and like I said earlier in 4 decades of making music the 90's were the anomaly, everything else is more organic. Band centric, with smatterings of technology thrown in. If anything Invisible was Pop-like...and well done at that...:D
 
I think it was on this forum that someone said it best: U2 were never an experimental band, however they always experimented with their sound.

In my personal opinion the most diverse and challenging album they ever put out was Zooropa, and that is for several reasons... They released it in American in the summer of grunge. Pretty awesome move. They didn't tour the United States behind it. They let Brian Eno take the sound of Edge's guitar and make it not sound at all like a guitar. They had Johnny Cash sing on it before there was a Johnny Cash revival. Mixed with religious themes it continued to explore themes of media overexposure. It was a great example of how much the band evolved in the ten years since they had released War. For someone like me, who was just a few years into major U2 obsession and buying up their older albums it blew my mind that the band who recorded Zooropa also recorded albums like War and The Joshua Tree.

Passengers continued that exploration which lead to POP and as others said was their attempt at tapping into current trends at the time and is why I feel they really took their '90s sonic exploration as far as it could go.
 
I hope I can say I know the band a little and I discovered its strenghts and weaknesses through the years. And I can recognize when they are in top form and when they are confident with their album. I think it has not happened for a long time until the new album came out.

Their invisible crisis started with Pop:
Pop - they got lost with this record. they were trying to make hard rocking album first, then dance influenced album, finally it wasn´t either of it , Bono described it very well as he called it "hangover album"

ATYCLB - that was their real attempt for a pop record and in terms of that, it succeeded, nevertheless for me a big disappointing, because they resigned for artistic ambitions to gain success

Bomb - I think they were aware the record doesn´t work as whole, it was certain big songs that made it remarkable

No line - they decided to let go their imagination again and they deserve big credit when absorbing very unusual arabic vibe in their very european music to that date, unfortunately the exciting and wild side of the record disappeared with conformistic classic U2 production

The more I sense their struggle with their own identity through those 15 years, the more I admire the quality of their new record (despite some little criticisms :)
 
thavidesco said:
I hope I can say I know the band a little and I discovered its strenghts and weaknesses through the years. And I can recognize when they are in top form and when they are confident with their album. I think it has not happened for a long time until the new album came out.

Their invisible crisis started with Pop:
Pop - they got lost with this record. they were trying to make hard rocking album first, then dance influenced album, finally it wasn´t either of it , Bono described it very well as he called it "hangover album"

ATYCLB - that was their real attempt for a pop record and in terms of that, it succeeded, nevertheless for me a big disappointing, because they resigned for artistic ambitions to gain success

Bomb - I think they were aware the record doesn´t work as whole, it was certain big songs that made it remarkable

No line - they decided to let go their imagination again and they deserve big credit when absorbing very unusual arabic vibe in their very european music to that date, unfortunately the exciting and wild side of the record disappeared with conformistic classic U2 production

The more I sense their struggle with their own identity through those 15 years, the more I admire the quality of their new record (despite some little criticisms :)
Click to expand...

It is like talking to a random negative comment generator. It won't engage in the substantive nature of whatever you put into it, and it spits out asinine crap.

Unless you have HEARD what they originally intended with each album, it is all hearsay. Every time they have changed direction, it could be that the original direction produced crap music. But to claim that they have sacrificed artistic ambitions to make safe records implies you are aware of their personal and inner artistic ambitions. Which you are not. Which I am not. Which no-one on this board is.

I think the reason arguments with you go further than with most, you and Aygo on your respective crosses, is that you won't put the shovel down when you are called out on nonsense.
 
thavidesco said:
I hope I can say I know the band a little and I discovered its strenghts and weaknesses through the years. And I can recognize when they are in top form and when they are confident with their album. I think it has not happened for a long time until the new album came out.

Their invisible crisis started with Pop:
Pop - they got lost with this record. they were trying to make hard rocking album first, then dance influenced album, finally it wasn´t either of it , Bono described it very well as he called it "hangover album"

ATYCLB - that was their real attempt for a pop record and in terms of that, it succeeded, nevertheless for me a big disappointing, because they resigned for artistic ambitions to gain success

Bomb - I think they were aware the record doesn´t work as whole, it was certain big songs that made it remarkable

No line - they decided to let go their imagination again and they deserve big credit when absorbing very unusual arabic vibe in their very european music to that date, unfortunately the exciting and wild side of the record disappeared with conformistic classic U2 production

The more I sense their struggle with their own identity through those 15 years, the more I admire the quality of their new record (despite some little criticisms :)
Click to expand...

OK, that's your best post yet, and gives me a little more understanding into your thinking. I understand your lack of love for ATYCLB, after Pop it's a regression to a point...but it's a solid album, even if it's toned down.

SOI is their most cohesive album in some time. HTDAAB was a great collection of songs, but as an album, it's more like a Best of. NLOTH was just all over the place...SOI is solid 1 - 11!
 
Aygo said:
Piss on Earth better than DYFL?

DYFL didn't go nowhere in concert... Because they didn't bother trying substantially different live arrangements to make it work. The song was played what? 7 times (and with similar arrangements for what I know)?

For instance, the guitar instead on focusing on the pedal effects that give body to the song got Edge playing his basic delay (except in the bridge). The same goes to "Gone". I know that "Gone" is a fan favourite, specially live (and its translation to the hedious 2002 mix), but I'm not a fan of it because of the exact same reasons. What Edge is playing Bono could perfectly play it while singing it (even I can do it), leaving freespace for Edge to alternate between the beautiful and delicate piano and the "affected" guitar present in the album cut.



The are many many ways to resolve a song and to make it work in concert. Most times it's a question of will.

If cover bands can do it with an absolute perfection, so can/should U2 be able to do it as well, as professionals for over 30 years.
Click to expand...


I agree with this so much! What limits them so much is the fact that they don't have a rhythm guitar/keyboard/backing vocalist/auxiliary musician. I'm talking someone more than Terry understage. Somebody to help fill the body of the song so that Edge can do his lead parts. Someone to play the piano parts on NYD so that Edge doesn't have to do both, leaving him free to fill in some guitar parts. Somebody else to make the backing vocals fuller. There needs to be a 3rd voice doing the falsetto "VOL CAN O", because high singing doesn't come through as powerfully.

It would help if Bono was a competent Rhythm Guitarist, but we'll cut him some slack for being one of the best frontmen ever, and a great singer. Larry should have a mic on all the time and sing some of the more "sing a long" types. He does this a little bit, but he needs to do more. Adam could also open his mouth and do a little bit too. Just some "WALKAWAY WALKAWAY" type stuff would help.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
dan_smee said:
It is like talking to a random negative comment generator. It won't engage in the substantive nature of whatever you put into it, and it spits out asinine crap.

Unless you have HEARD what they originally intended with each album, it is all hearsay. Every time they have changed direction, it could be that the original direction produced crap music. But to claim that they have sacrificed artistic ambitions to make safe records implies you are aware of their personal and inner artistic ambitions. Which you are not. Which I am not. Which no-one on this board is.

I think the reason arguments with you go further than with most, you and Aygo on your respective crosses, is that you won't put the shovel down when you are called out on nonsense.
Click to expand...

Of course no one has a patent for true, but maybe it´s because we try to elaborate our opinion and support it with some arguments while some others only raging?
:)
 
The_acrobat said:
I agree with this so much! What limits them so much is the fact that they don't have a rhythm guitar/keyboard/backing vocalist/auxiliary musician. I'm talking someone more than Terry understage. Somebody to help fill the body of the song so that Edge can do his lead parts. Someone to play the piano parts on NYD so that Edge doesn't have to do both, leaving him free to fill in some guitar parts. Somebody else to make the backing vocals fuller. There needs to be a 3rd voice doing the falsetto "VOL CAN O", because high singing doesn't come through as powerfully.

It would help if Bono was a competent Rhythm Guitarist, but we'll cut him some slack for being one of the best frontmen ever, and a great singer. Larry should have a mic on all the time and sing some of the more "sing a long" types. He does this a little bit, but he needs to do more. Adam could also open his mouth and do a little bit too. Just some "WALKAWAY WALKAWAY" type stuff would help.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...


Hear, hear!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
thavidesco said:
Of course no one has a patent for true, but maybe it´s because we try to elaborate our opinion and support it with some arguments while some others only raging?

:)
Click to expand...


All the while things get discussed, you raise the same illogical points in the face of reason, evidence and logic. Then when you can't argue it anymore, you claim persecution, or take this false high road and talk of other's rage. Try not making the silly comments in the first place, or at least taking on board what others (not just me, many others) are saying to you.

:) :) :) :) :)


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom