My issues with SUC is that it sounds so neutered. It has a few clunky lyrics but it still could have been a big song, instead it sounds like a song that had a lot of small ideas glued together and the whole never measured up the parts. By all counts this should have been a big stadium song, but I think it's telling that U2 haven't played it...
It has a few good lines.
It has a nice hook even if it's slightly Oasis like...
The "love love love" part is kinda cool.
There are small little transitions that are interesting...
Yet when I don't look at the parts and just listen to the song as a whole, I find I'm bored. It's actually one of the few times I can say that...
forget the "much later"...what i meant was it occured to him after it was written
This is what I get out of it!
The song fits fine, unless someone wants to say that UC into CT or SUC into F-BB is somehow less fitting than Pride into Wire.
The album does not tell the same chronological story envisioned in Linear or in previous posts with various material(good job if you made a list!), but I just don't see how SUC could possibly be interpreted as sounding like it came from a completely different project.
It certainly sounds nothing like anything from Bomb, it is complete new ground for U2. The CT-Boots-SUC trilogy has so much more going on musically than anything from Bomb.
CT, GOYB and SUC were all being worked on in some form alongside the title track, Magnificent, MOS, UC, F-BB, WAS, Cedars, etc. They went through many incarnations and were intended right from the beginning.
I know its all opinion but I just can't see how the NLOTH middle 3 can be in any way represented as sticking out like a big, disruptive sore thumb.
If this is the case, then I surmise that a thread arguing that LIB, The Fly, So Cruel and One could have all come from different projects could do just as well here.
No coherent U2 album lacks diversity, JT had Trip, WOWY and Exit, War had Like a Song and Drowning Man, UF had Wire and Promenade, etc. It does not mean the overall atmosphere of the album or the flow of the album is broken.
I always get the same vibe throughout my listens of NLOTH, AB, JT, UF and War. That is certainly not true of Bomb, where all songs supposedly fit.
Regarding SUC and CT...
I'm one of those that likes to hear albums from beggining to end. I don't hear beach clips, ever.
Guess I'm old school, but I love to wait untill I have my copy in my hands, and the sweetness of the moment when I open the booklet and read the lyrics as I listen to the album for the first time. It's like a sacred moment, and I create a context where I can put everything on hold and just listen to the album from beggining to end and just try to devote myself to listening to the album the way the artist intended to, as a piece.
After some nights of repeating this experience and having assimilated the album as a piece, I start to come back to the album in different ways. With NLOTH, it took me a couple of days to accept the fact that I had to skip CT and SUC to still like them. Let me explain this: I think CT and SUC are good songs and I like them, but I can't stand them in the context of hearing NLOTH from beggining to end. It's in that context where they don't work, FOR ME.
So every now and then when I don't feel like hearing any of the other songs in NLOTH, I hear CT and SUC individually and I really like them, and then I can't stop hearing them in my head all day and enjoying them as great songs.
As Bram said some time ago, I think GOYB takes extra heat just for being in the middle of those 2, and it suffers from a kind of "sandwich effect" hahahaha...
Hope I make some sense.
You're the first person I've heard say that they like the songs BUT don't think they belong.
I like the songs, but I think they don't belong. There's two for you Sometimes I actually think CT works well where it is though.
I actually think your theory might be backwards. I think many people dislike these songs more than they otherwise would because of how they fit (or, more precisely, don't fit) on the album. I.e. more people have a problem with how they fit than with the songs themselves. I hardly need tell you that this has been a hot topic since before the album leaked (and even before we had 30-second clips!) when all we had were song descriptions and the track listing.
You could make the same argument for Breathe. It's also a more straightforward big rocksong. And it's sandwiched between WAS and COL. But I don't here many people complaining about it (because most people think it's a better song?).
I pretty much like SUC but it does sound a bit forced.
Yeah, I was wondering if Breathe would come into this conversation and I'm glad you brought it up, nielsgov. As someone who was not terribly interested in this song after hearing the beach clip (and who's still lamenting the loss of Bono's vocals in the outro), I happen to think this song fits perfectly between the two slowest, chillest songs on the album. A lot of this has to do with the intro (start quiet and build--the opposite of the obnoxious ABOY intro) and the pulsing, direction-changing outro (I realize that this guitar figure shows up earlier as well, but it's fairly divorced, sound-wise, from the rest of the song). I think it works flawlessly despite the fact that it could seem very out of place, just as Exit and Acrobat could if you stop and think about it without playing them through. I realize that my argument here is pretty nebulous (i.e. "It just works!"), and I'd actually love to hear the thoughts of someone who disagrees. Edit: just saw your post ozeeko
It's almost always the tenth track on a U2 album that sounds a bit different than the rest of the album: OOTS, Exit, New York...
I think Breathe just works great between them because it doesn't make the last part of the album too slow. I'm not the person to analyze lyrics to the detail but it probably doesn't work lyrically. Musically it's just some fun between the more serious songs WAS and COL. I have the same feeling about the "middle three". Just some playful songs that the album needs to make it a bit lighter.
POP also has If god ...
just about their worst song and ... after Mofo
now I know people will make a case for this song
but truly
jarring is The Fly - Mysterious Ways
and I still don't see how In God's Country and Trip go with the rest of JT
and I could prolly think of 1 or 2 more
Edit: I don't want to turn this into a back and forth on the merits of SUC.
and I still don't see how In God's Country and Trip go with the rest of JT
What's the harm? It would be an an awfully short discussion.
You don't see how In God's Country fits into an album that seeks to be an aural representation of the American southwest?
I don't think variety is the issue. Variety is not a problem.
It's not like people are reaching for reasons not to like SUC. It's like a brick in the face to me how much it doesn't sound like a NLOTH track. It's a rare song that fails on 2 levels. 1) Not being a good song. And 2) Not sounding like a song that belongs on the album. And I feel the same way about CT, just more because of reason #2 than #1.
Okay, since this is an opinionated issue I won't go on for too too long. But I will say this, that whoever used LIB, So Cruel, One, The Fly AND TTYW AND Drowning Man AND Like A Song as examples of songs sounding out of place on albums...tragically weak examples, and if anything you have strengthened the other side's argument by comparing CT-GOYB-SUC to those songs.
In God's Country...the title alone should be enough to convince you of its worthiness. The Joshua Tree is an album that deals with America. The song's called In God's Country. Need I say more?
TTYW is a bluesy song. The Joshua Tree is an album that deals with U2 exploring American roots music. It works.
I did not say these songs were out of place on albums, maybe reading the post would have helped.
I said that anyone who could argue that CT-GOYB-SUC are out of place could plausibly argue the songs I mentioned are out of place. I do not think any of them are, and I did not compare the merits of any of these songs to the middle 3 of NLOTH.
Thematically, musically, these songs are not out of place on NLOTH. Sorry. They sound different, but I could not think of any 2 different sounding songs than UC and MOS, both from the original fez sessions and both universally loved.
You strengthened Niceman's and my argument when a few posts under this one, you expressed for the 100th time your strong dislike for SUC in general.
Most of the criticism of these songs are from people who do not like them, and that clouds their view of everything else related to how they fit with the other songs, track order, etc. With all due respect, I just don't see it any other way.
Anyone want to tell us how woefully bad the UC into CT and SUC into F-BB transitions are? It would be interesting to hear an argument that actually makes a case that these tracks are woefully out of place.
You and Niceman's argument is comprised of somehow having some kind of mindreading talent, as you both claim to know what goes on in some member's heads. As I've explained repeatedly my reasons for thinking some songs sound out of place, even confessing that i happen to enjoy a couple of them...this gets ignored by you and Niceman apparently because u continue to just chalk it up to, "you just don't like the songs and it's clouding your vision". Forget the other examples i've given of songs I DISLIKE yet think sound fine on a said album. I'm talking about flow and cohesion, while you guys are getting too fixed on just plain liking or disliking a song based solely on the song itself. Two different conversations. Which one would u like to have? I thought the convo about albums was more interesting.
But getting to your question about UC into CT - my gripe, at that moment the album forgets the plot, ceases to be a moody masterpiece, and instead becomes a silly pop romp for 3 songs with the same drivel Bono's been feeding us since 2004. Sounds nothing like 2009 Bono, sounds like Bono from 2004. The BOMB Bono has decided to drop by and visit for 3 songs.
And SUC into F-BB - my gripe, actually it's not a gripe, I'm just pleased to have made it that far to F-BB since SUC was an utter borefest, with the same drivel Bono's been feeding us since 2004. F-BB gets us back on track, the moody masterpiece that is NLOTH the album ensues.
Honestly, remove those 3 tracks, have F-BB pick up where UC left off, the album becomes a pretty sweet ride.
It is very unfair for you to misrepresent what I have said. I have suggested that MAYBE most of the people who go on and on about how the song doesn't belong are simply the same people who don't like the songs and that they are over-complicating the issue. Yes, I am a very powerful telepath, but I would hope you understand that it is against my code to use my powers on a U2 message board...... If we aren't safe here, where else would we be?????
Seriously, I have made a suggestion that most people who say the song doesn't belong simply don't like it. No claims as to what you may keep safe in the darkness of your mind, but the constant posts saying A: "I don't like the song" and B: "I don't think it belongs" always together over and over lead me to a sneaky suspicion........ And, you'll notice, I have made NO comments about what you personally feel or don't feel.
I'm not going to explain over and over again (too late for that i guess). I'll just sum up by saying that CT and GOYB are not the worst U2 songs I've ever heard. Hell, I kinda like them. But to me they sound like a different era of U2, the BOMB era. Same for SUC (which as you should know by now is not my fave song). These songs sound like they were torn from a different project, different album, put on NLOTH to ( i guess, and as some of you have suggested) lighten the mood. But it was a bad judgement call because it takes me out of the album. It's like having a full length album with an independent EP smack dab in the middle.
And NICEMAN, sorry for roping u in with the other dude. Nothing personal. I would've just addressed him if he didn't mention u as his sidekick.