War

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
TheQuiet1

TheQuiet1

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
3,816
Location
N.Yorkshire UK
What's everyone's opinion on this album? I know if this was a thread about Pop then 99% of people would love it with perhaps just one person popping up to slag it off. But when it comes to War, things don't seem as clear cut. Lots of people love it but then there seems to be hordes of people who can't stand it.

Would you say War tends to be highly regarded among U2 fans or not?
 
Personally, I rate War in about the middle of U2's albums. It has some really amazing stuff and the opening five tracks are as good as any other opening five combination that U2 has made, but it stutters a bit from there. As much as I find The Refugee to be fun and one of the best examples of Larry's drumming, it is not exactly a great song. Two Hearts Beat As One is out-of-place throwaway fluff. Red Light is arguably the worst U2 song ever. And while the studio version of 40 has a special charm, I can see why some people don't like it.

I think War is a bit over-rated in the general public by virtue of SBS and NYD, while amongst U2 fans, I think it gets about the right amount of attention.
 
War kicks ass. I honestly think a lot of the "don't like War" folks weren't alive when it came out.

And it's better than Pop...
 
Ayeah! War... great drums! :drool:

Personally, I love War and I think it has a lot of great songs (only song I don't like at all is Red Light). I know only a few people who like this album as much as I do, but of course that doesn't mean that most of the fans don't like War.

P.S. I wasn't born when War came out, yet I still love it. :wink:
 
It's frickin amazing. :drool:

I don't see why so many interferencers dislike it...most critics consider it among U2's top 3 or 4. :shrug:
 
It's a great album, but by U2 standards I would say it's average at best. I prefer Boy and October over War.
 
An Cat Gav said:
It's a great album, but by U2 standards I would say it's average at best. I prefer Boy and October over War.
Click to expand...

Boy & October are more consistently good IMO; there's nothing on either of them that's as weak as Red Light, or even Surrender...but I think War's best songs are better than those on October & Boy, if that makes any sense.
 
CTU2fan said:


Boy & October are more consistently good IMO; there's nothing on either of them that's as weak as Red Light, or even Surrender...but I think War's best songs are better than those on October & Boy, if that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

Yes it does :)
New Years Day is a 10 times better than I will Follow for example.
 
Mine too, love Larry's work on that one. Pity they only played it live the one time.
 
CTU2fan said:
Mine too, love Larry's work on that one. Pity they only played it live the one time.
Click to expand...

I've read some unconfirmed stuff that they actually played it a second time, before the Dundee gig at an unbroadcast BBC Session in January 1983. I would dearly love to know if that is actually true.

Also, I praised War and I wasn't born until nearly four years after it came out. :wink:
 
War isn't an album I listen to that much anymore. Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, and 40 are all amazing songs live, but the album versions seem sort of tame now. I love Like A Song, and Two Hearts Beat As One is definitely in my top 10 U2 songs, but the album really starts to go downhill after Drowning Man.

The band made an amazing leap between War and UF. It's hard to believe the two albums came out within a year of each other. In fact, it's pretty incredible that U2's first four albums came out in four years. Wouldn't it be crazy if they could put together that many good songs in that amount of time now?
 
As much as I loathe a good chunk of UF, I must agree that I'm glad they released it. That album was a key stepping stone in their career. Without it, the true masterpiece Joshua Tree never would have been recorded. :drool:
 
Screwtape2 said:
War has a lot of great songs but it doesn't hold up very well as a cohesive work. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll agree with this. Like A Song --> Drowning Man --> The Refugee --> THBAO? Could that possibly have any less flow or cohesion?
 
Many, many U2 albums suffer from lack of cohesion. Actually, very few have any texture at all. The only ones that really succeed in this regard are, to my ears:

Boy
UF
JT
Achtung
Zooropa

:shrug: The other albums just sound like collections of songs to me.
 
LemonMelon said:
Many, many U2 albums suffer from lack of cohesion. Actually, very few have any texture at all. The only ones that really succeed in this regard are, to my ears:

Boy
UF
JT
Achtung
Zooropa

:shrug: The other albums just sound like collections of songs to me.
Click to expand...

Really?

Boy, Pop and ATYCLB all have cohesion and Zooropa probably has the least.
 
Screwtape2 said:


Really?

Boy, Pop and ATYCLB all have cohesion and Zooropa probably has the least cohesion.
Click to expand...

:lol: ATYCLB? Really? The opening four kill any cohesion from the get-go. It's the band's fault for coming up with such awful sequencing. And really, New York--->Grace? No, just no.

Zooropa and Pop could both be considered cohesive or a mess depending on how you look at them (same with UF). The reason I consider Zooropa cohesive is because I love the sequencing, and because of the production, which gives the album a uniform creepiness (UF as well). Pop is just a bunch of songs really. It has a slight concept, but that's all. The only time the album really coheres is tracks 9-12. The rest is just a collection of singles.
 
LemonMelon said:
Many, many U2 albums suffer from lack of cohesion. Actually, very few have any texture at all. The only ones that really succeed in this regard are, to my ears:

Boy
UF
JT
Achtung
Zooropa

:shrug: The other albums just sound like collections of songs to me.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

War is probably my third favourite album, tied with UF.
 
LemonMelon said:


:lol: ATYCLB? Really? The opening four kill any cohesion from the get-go. It's the band's fault for coming up with such awful sequencing. And really, New York--->Grace? No, just no.

Zooropa and Pop could both be considered cohesive or a mess depending on how you look at them (same with UF). The reason I consider Zooropa cohesive is because I love the sequencing, and because of the production, which gives the album a uniform creepiness (UF as well). Pop is just a bunch of songs really. It has a slight concept, but that's all. The only time the album really coheres is tracks 9-12. The rest is just a collection of singles.
Click to expand...

ATYCLB's production gives it a uniform feel and clear feel. The start of the first five songs hurts the flow but listening to every track there is clearly cohesion. The middle specifically is one of the most cohesive stretches on any U2 album.

As for Zooropa, I don't see the "uniform creepiness." :shrug: No two songs sound alike from the production stand point. It is surprising that you would say Zooropa was cohesive with flow like this:
Stay-->Daddy's-->Some Days-->The First Time-->Dirty Day-->The Wanderer

I'd go into Pop but that would utterly derail this thread. :wink:
 
Screwtape2 said:

The First Time-->Dirty Day
Click to expand...

:drool: I LOVE that. I don't think we'll get anywhere arguing about Zooropa, because I happen to think it's perfect the way it is, and I don't hear that the songs really vary that much from a production standpoint. :shrug:
 
I have always felt war to be the first modern u2 album. I have always felt boy and october to be early u2 albums. I don't discredit those two albums and wouldn't be on this board if I didn't listen to them with as much regularity as the others but I still feel that way.

War sounds different from those first two. New years day and SBS obviously monopolize the album but, drowning man, like a song they are different in a way that's more than just a sound coming from your typical rock band. I don't know, I haven't listened to it carefully in a while but that's my reaction to this thread right now.

The band had matured, gained confidence and found their sound and I think that a lot of what happened on War solidified and became permanant in their process as a group.
 
I would like to respond to the cohesiveness issue, which I think would make an excellent thread by itself.

I think ATYCLB and ZOOROPA are probably u2's most similar albums in terms of full listening experience.

The first five tracks of both albums are the meat of the album and side two, if you will, is just a collection of what was left from the recording session. They don't seem to flow as well.

Sometimes it frustrates me but then I calm down and remember that both those albums followed a monumental album in the bands career and like rattle and hum go in that category of the bands out put. Those "aftershock" albums.
 
War is the album to which I listen at most, although some songs sound very dated, I love it, it has best Larry's drumming but unfortunately his last that are worth of mention. And also Bono's vocals have improved a lot on War
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Holy Joe Inspiration
Replies
1
Views
553
fresno dave
fresno dave
O
New to U2 - Would like to start collection.
Replies
4
Views
583
Registered Dude
Registered Dude
Digital Spy 2
I am back
Replies
2
Views
625
Digital Spy 2
Digital Spy 2
N
NBA 2024-25 Thread
2 3
Replies
79
Views
2K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
4
Views
2K
OWhatAThrill
O

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom