LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
kenny_a said:I think the problem is that they are not "cool" anymore.
Bono hasn't been "with it" since he had a mullet, and look how that turned out for everyone.
kenny_a said:I think the problem is that they are not "cool" anymore.
If I take this comment at face value, I disagree emphatically. BUT if all you're saying is that they picked the wrong singles from NLOTH, I agree 100%.
I've always thought that HTDAAB felt a bit sloppy, on a production level it sounds a bit thrown together, for me, it just lacks the polish of pretty much every other album. I can hear the care that obviously went into the likes of JT, ATYCLB and NLOTH, but in the case of Bomb, it was almost as if they'd spent so long over it that they just wanted to get it off their backs and into the shops.
The mindset has definitely changed though, it used to be about carving out new paths and constantly developing their sound, but now it's more about simply finding the most resonant material, no matter how conventional.
In theory this should work, as truly great songs find a way to connect. The problem with U2 is that they're frequently at their least inspired when they're kind of operating in familiar territory.
They got away with it on ATYCLB because they'd had a 10 year break from that kind of material, but there's definitely the sense of a lack of ideas and even boredom on HTDAAB.
For me, NLOTH didn't develop things enough, outside of two or three tracks it sounds like the kind of thing U2 has done before and better.
I feel that HTDAAB was simply about writing good songs. The style was not the point. From a song writing perspective they did explore some new ground, but from a technical or sonic perspective it was re-hash. It was a substance over style album. The opposite of, say, Passengers.
NLOTH did both to a degree, but it was still more a matter of exploration of substance rather than exploration of style. It makes for an artistically compelling album, but it allowed them to make mistakes, like sully the beautiful Unknown Caller with an opening guitar sound straight out of Walk On.
Just regarding the issue that good songs aren't enough anymore:
I have mixed feelings about this. I tend to think that great songs find a way to make an impact, whether they're released as singles or not.
The Beatles are a good example of this, it's incredible how many of their album tracks have entered public consciousness: Dear Prudence, Day In The Life, Tomorrow Never Knows, I'm Only Sleeping, the list is endless.
U2 tried to bring MOS to a much wider audience at Glastonbury but I'm not sure it really worked. The problem is with the song itself, which can be a bit of a grind and, dare I say it, somewhat maudlin, especially on the chorus.
It's certainly earnest and heartfelt but I can't ever see it truly entering public consciousness, in my humble opinion of course.
I think this is a quite a perceptive comment, and it speaks to U2's endless desire to connect with a mass audience. So, there's obviously a constant tension between the band's (usually Bono's?) wide-eyed ambitions for new and exciting material and their simultaneous need to shift units and be the world's biggest group.The problem with U2 is that they're frequently at their least inspired when they're kind of operating in familiar territory.
Niceman said:I'm not going to agree with any criticism of Moment of Surrender. I think it's the band at their very finest. Did it not go over well at Glastonbury? Well, if that's so, I'll blame the crowd and not the song. Sometimes the majority are wrong. Sometimes you don't see the most beautiful things the first time you look. I expect that this song will be very famous in 10-20 years. I also expect it to stay in the live setlist next tour.
I expect neither of those two. But I adore MOS. I absolutely love it. I really wish I could agree with you, because I think it's one of the finest songs ever made by anyone.
He's talking about commercial flops. Ever since he started saying that, it has always been in the context of POP's supposed failure and the band getting older, etc. He started this particular slogan while excusing away POP in the ATYCLB pre and post album hype. Basically saying "don't worry, while POP was a failure, we've bent over and will continue to bend over backwards to make sure as many of you like our music as possible". And then promptly went out and re-recorded POP tracks to hammer that idea home. And then even later, would scrap an entire album because Larry and Adam didn't think it was mainstream enough. (read U2 by U2, if you doubt me). Point is, this is the #1 goal of U2 over the last 10+ years. For good or bad.
If it were only about his opinion he could always justify it by saying "I don't think any of it is crap"...but the excuses always come - from when, exactly? Right.
I don't disagree.
But there is a distinct difference between talking about having a certain goal and what you actually do to achieve that same goal. Meaning, there is a difference between 'conquering the world' by starting out playing bars and clubs and going on American Idol and basically 'auditioning' for millions and millions right out of the gate. There are different paths for different ambitions.
So I want to see someone argue that U2 has always taken the same path to that same ambition. Because they admit themselves (in U2 by U2) that it changed. I can find the direct quote later on this evening. The simple fact is this 'excuse' about 'U2 have always been the same' is usually used to deflect a criticism that U2 actually admits to.
They changed their M.O. after POP. So yeah, I think they've always wanted to be as big as The Beatles and conquer the world. But their creative whims changed to bend over backwards to achieve it - most recently.
I'm not going to agree with any criticism of Moment of Surrender. I think it's the band at their very finest. Did it not go over well at Glastonbury? Well, if that's so, I'll blame the crowd and not the song. Sometimes the majority are wrong. Sometimes you don't see the most beautiful things the first time you look. I expect that this song will be very famous in 10-20 years. I also expect it to stay in the live setlist next tour.
I know a lot of U2 superfans are of the opinion that ATYCLB was a hugely calculated attempt to re-connect with a large audience... and yes, it probably was. However, whether you like the record or not, the sound of that album (and some of its excellent outtakes and B-sides) is, to me, much more "organic" than the finished songs of the last two records.
As two random examples, I find the composition of both "Original of the Species" and "Breathe" to be a bit awkward. They each sound like they are the results of two or three different songs being stitched together. You never get this feeling listening to the early U2 records in the early 80s, simply because they had a few weeks to record them! And we all know the stories about HTDAAB and NLOTH being stopped, delayed, re-recorded, etc.
You have an extraordinary amount of faith in U2, niceman
Remember Bono saying, in his opinion, if you make 3 crap records, you may as well give up. Well, i got to thinking, what do you think he meant by "crap"? Is he referring to quality of material, or Sales...or what...coz if its the latter, u2 could be in the last chance saloon with their next record
Muldfeld said:U2 used to know the difference between unsuccessful artistically and unsuccessful commercially; I don't think it has known that difference for a very long time.
I'm not going to agree with any criticism of Moment of Surrender. I think it's the band at their very finest. Did it not go over well at Glastonbury? Well, if that's so, I'll blame the crowd and not the song. Sometimes the majority are wrong. Sometimes you don't see the most beautiful things the first time you look. I expect that this song will be very famous in 10-20 years. I also expect it to stay in the live setlist next tour.
Working with Danger Mouse isn't a commercial move.
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about
U2 used to know the difference between unsuccessful artistically and unsuccessful commercially; I don't think it has known that difference for a very long time.
I kinda disagree with this. If you look at the albums Danger Mouse has produced, most of them were massive. Gorillaz's Demon Days, The Black Keys' Brothers, Gnarls Barkley, Broken Bells. These were all both commercial and critical successes. It is a commercially right move for U2, but a creatively right one as well. If anyone can bring back sales + critical praise for the band, it's Danger Mouse.
I can see MOS becoming something like UTEOTW or In A Little While, a non-single that the band loves and remains part of their setlist. Whatever misgivings they had about NLOTH, it seems that they have the utmost love and confidence for that song. GOYB was at Glastonbury because it's the obligatory "new album" single. MOS was there because the band knows it's an excellent song.