Were the last 2 albums too contrived?

[If you shout...]

This is a serious question. Given your argumentative strategies (I use the term as generously as I can, for your benefit) and general lack of rhetorical knowledge (or at least appropriate use thereof), I'm curious--how are you?

That's not supposed to be too much of a dig or anything. I'm honestly curious, though. If you don't want to answer for any reason, that's fine. But I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's wondering.


An example of the insanity, in condensed form...

You: "Another thread of my opinion of music versus your opinion of music.

Can you people at least try and bring something else to the table?"

You again (later): "Every album has had a throw away [sic] or simple song."

Me: "You realize, of course, that this is merely your opinion? ...And by the way--relativism is not a valid 'argument.' That was proven back when people spoke a language called Latin." [This, for the benefit of readers at home, IS a fact. It is, in large part, the basis of Western thought.]

You: ""


Though you seem to think you have proved something by ignoring/laughing at/re-questioning, rather than answering, other posters, I hope this can better illuminate that particular fallacy. I'm throwin' you a bone, here--feel free to give it a chew or even send it back after a while. That's what we're all here for. Not to be assholes. Get with the game and give the rules a try. It can be enjoyable, believe it or not, rather than incendiary or rude.

 

[JCOSTER]

Maybe if everyone could stop bashing each other and read the following it would help in understanding the at least HTDAAB.

READ!

What’s eminently meaningful about this new album are the lyrics. Bono has come full circle with his writing. He has grown up. There is a spiritual maturity infused here that surpasses any of U2's other work (even if some of the rhymes are poor). The themes are at once inspiring and cleared-eyed. They offer a sober yet hopeful vision of reality, and they have the feel and texture of a man who’s learned from failure, someone who’s willing to make mistakes and who trusts God to be patient with him.

There is no failure here sweetheart
Just when you quit… "Miracle Drug"

Bono noted recently that U2's first album was called Boy and that this one could have aptly been titled Man. The songs on Bomb resonate deeply with a human spirituality that's hard fought, consoling and mature. These are songs written by a man who is coming to grips with losing a father, a father who he's only just now beginning to understand ("Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own"). These are songs written by a man who is tempted by the lure of romantic relationships with countless beautiful women but has chosen instead commitment to his wife ("A Man and a Woman"). Most importantly, these are songs steeped in a deep and abiding faith in God; songs written by someone who's not afraid to question, to doubt, to fail and to act.

 

[catlhere]

JCOSTER

Don't even bother, this site is impossible to deal with. Any signs of logical affection and well thought-out defenses for these last two albums are met with disregard. While any criticism of AB/Zooropa/Pop are met with "Omg how could you not like this? This is far superior to ______"

Opinion is thrown around here like it's Fact. I feel like suiciding my account, these threads are getting rediculous. It's almost like I'm beginning to become ashamed of liking the last two albums because so many people are condecending about it with their "god this is shit because I find it too commercial" "god the lyrics stink because I dislike them" "god can't they go back to good ol' days according to me" While there are few things all U2 fans agree on (I would go as far to say NOTHING) one thing a majority of fans would agree on, not necessarily on this site, is that the last two albums have really shown how well the boys can still create beautiful/relevent/fun/rocking/incredible music and how much their fans enjoy it too. It makes me feel confused, as a U2 fan, why no one wants to recognize that fact. People lately have been dragging these albums through the mud. Even after winning countless grammys, critical acclaim, hoards of new fans, massive ticket sales, inducted into R'N'R Hall of Fame, tons of people signing up for One, billions in aid going to africa, person of the year for bono. It's just not good enough, it's just not been a good enough year for some people. Nothing pleases them. What will please you people? Do they have to come out dancing in village people outfits again or what? I just don't get it anymore.

 

[U2girl]

I never, ever said anything about sales or Grammys in my post.

I seem to recall you were very persistent in claiming the last two albums were aimed at and designed for radio airplay, sales, (awards, as a consequence of new popularity?) - isn't that what you meant by "commercial shit"?

As for U2 Climax, a part of U2 style. Do you hate Stay, Who's gonna ride..., Bad, AIWIY, WOWY as well?
Why is it such a crime for U2 to sound like U2, after running away from it for the last decade?

 

[Zoots]

tons of people signing up for One, billions in aid going to africa, person of the year for bono. It's just not good enough

Don't be silly!!! That has nothing to do with the quality of music/lyrics on the last 2 albums and you know it! I appreciate Bono for the above quoted things. I wear the ONE wristband too, you know.

 

[STING2]

The last 2 albums were too commercial. I'm so sick of Vertigo, Elevation, Beautiful Day, and most songs on HTDAAB.

Give me;

With or Without You
One Tree Hill
Unforgettable Fire
Like A Song
Heartland
All I want Is You
Bad
I Will Follow
Out Of Control
So Cruel
Gone
Please
If God Will Send His Angels
God Part II

Maybe I've just heard the newer songs too much over the last few years. But I hope they put together the next album rather quickly. The last 2 seemed too polished. They need to just get together and jam.

The last two albums did not receive as much radio airplay as the POP album, so I think the claim that they were too "commericial" is rubbish. The band has made two fantastic albums far supperior to most of their previous work and I hope that will see that level of quality on the next two albums.

Miracle Drug and Sometimes.... beats out most of the songs in your list in terms of quality.

 

[STING2]

Ok DoubleU

How about tha fact that the last 2 albums were commercial icons. But Pop was better that both of them.

How about the fact that POP received more radio airplay than either of the past two albums!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

So name the "throw away" song in their first 9 albums!

I bet you can't cause the "throw away" song didn't start until All That You Can't Leave Behind, Such as:
Beautiful Day
Elevation
Walk On
THE REST OF THE ALBUM IS GREAT!!

And:
How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb:
Vertigo
Miracle Drug
City Of blinding Lights
All Because Of You
Original Of The Species

If they continue to make this music, forget about it.

Why even bother coming here if your that upset with the past two albums? I certainly don't spend my time visiting a bands fan website to slag off their current work. If I don't like something, I move on to something else I do like.

 

[catlhere]

Don't be silly!!! That has nothing to do with the quality of music/lyrics on the last 2 albums and you know it! I appreciate Bono for the above quoted things. I wear the ONE wristband too, you know.

It may not have to do with their music. But it deals with their position in pop culture. do you think most of those things would have happened as quickly as they did if ATYCLB had been received less than Pop and u2 faded out of the limelight? I'm not saying the great music is what brought about those things. But the ability U2 had to make albums that once again pushed them into the forefront with more accolades than critcism is something that should be noted. And i'm not directing the angst at you. You're good poster and make valid points. I'm directing them at people who don't give anything U2 has done in the new milennium a chance because their so obsessed with thinking that U2 has gone "pop" "safe" "commercial" rather than admitting its the slightest bit possible that U2 is having more fun now than they did during their "experimental stage". I think it's possible.

 

[Utoo]

JCOSTER

Don't even bother, this site is impossible to deal with. Any signs of logical affection and well thought-out defenses for these last two albums are met with disregard. While any criticism of AB/Zooropa/Pop are met with "Omg how could you not like this? This is far superior to ______"

Opinion is thrown around here like it's Fact. I feel like suiciding my account, these threads are getting rediculous. It's almost like I'm beginning to become ashamed of liking the last two albums because so many people are condecending about it with their "god this is shit because I find it too commercial" "god the lyrics stink because I dislike them" "god can't they go back to good ol' days according to me" While there are few things all U2 fans agree on (I would go as far to say NOTHING) one thing a majority of fans would agree on, not necessarily on this site, is that the last two albums have really shown how well the boys can still create beautiful/relevent/fun/rocking/incredible music and how much their fans enjoy it too. It makes me feel confused, as a U2 fan, why no one wants to recognize that fact. People lately have been dragging these albums through the mud. Even after winning countless grammys, critical acclaim, hoards of new fans, massive ticket sales, inducted into R'N'R Hall of Fame, tons of people signing up for One, billions in aid going to africa, person of the year for bono. It's just not good enough, it's just not been a good enough year for some people. Nothing pleases them. What will please you people? Do they have to come out dancing in village people outfits again or what? I just don't get it anymore.

Excellent post, catlhere! I know that you don't have to like all the albums in order to be a U2 fan, but I feel like so many people appear to really like two or three albums and memories of a single U2 era, as opposed to U2 as a whole.

 

[catlhere]

Excellent post, catlhere! I know that you don't have to like all the albums in order to be a U2 fan, but I feel like so many people appear to really like two or three albums and memories of a single U2 era, as opposed to U2 as a whole.

But you know what, even that is ok to me. It's fine if someone likes a certain era only. U2 is so different with all their music/sounds/albums that it's expected for a fan to hate at least 1 song they have done. So it's cool if someone likes only 80/90/00 music. But sheesh. Don't give reasons like "it's superior" "it's just better" "I=Actual and Factual" It makes people feel bad for liking something else that everyone seems to rag on. (i.e. me and my like for Wild Honey ) it's an internet forum, so I guess there are no rules, and it's perfectly ok for people to post whatever they want. I just figured people would be a little more open to opinions that aren't forced as universal beliefs.

 

[Bono's shades]

Maybe if everyone could stop bashing each other and read the following it would help in understanding the at least HTDAAB.

READ!

What’s eminently meaningful about this new album are the lyrics. Bono has come full circle with his writing. He has grown up. There is a spiritual maturity infused here that surpasses any of U2's other work (even if some of the rhymes are poor). The themes are at once inspiring and cleared-eyed. They offer a sober yet hopeful vision of reality, and they have the feel and texture of a man who’s learned from failure, someone who’s willing to make mistakes and who trusts God to be patient with him.

There is no failure here sweetheart
Just when you quit… "Miracle Drug"

Bono noted recently that U2's first album was called Boy and that this one could have aptly been titled Man. The songs on Bomb resonate deeply with a human spirituality that's hard fought, consoling and mature. These are songs written by a man who is coming to grips with losing a father, a father who he's only just now beginning to understand ("Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own"). These are songs written by a man who is tempted by the lure of romantic relationships with countless beautiful women but has chosen instead commitment to his wife ("A Man and a Woman"). Most importantly, these are songs steeped in a deep and abiding faith in God; songs written by someone who's not afraid to question, to doubt, to fail and to act.

I have no problem with the themes of HTDAAB. They are the perfect themes for Bono to write about at this point in his life. What I have a problem with is the cliched, contrived lyrics used to express those themes.

 

[doubleU]

This is a serious question. Given your argumentative strategies (I use the term as generously as I can, for your benefit) and general lack of rhetorical knowledge (or at least appropriate use thereof), I'm curious--how are you?

That's not supposed to be too much of a dig or anything. I'm honestly curious, though. If you don't want to answer for any reason, that's fine. But I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's wondering.


An example of the insanity, in condensed form...

You: "Another thread of my opinion of music versus your opinion of music.

Can you people at least try and bring something else to the table?"

You again (later): "Every album has had a throw away [sic] or simple song."

Me: "You realize, of course, that this is merely your opinion? ...And by the way--relativism is not a valid 'argument.' That was proven back when people spoke a language called Latin." [This, for the benefit of readers at home, IS a fact. It is, in large part, the basis of Western thought.]

You: ""


Though you seem to think you have proved something by ignoring/laughing at/re-questioning, rather than answering, other posters, I hope this can better illuminate that particular fallacy. I'm throwin' you a bone, here--feel free to give it a chew or even send it back after a while. That's what we're all here for. Not to be assholes. Get with the game and give the rules a try. It can be enjoyable, believe it or not, rather than incendiary or rude.

I laughed at you, because honestly you have very little credibility with me. I've seen enough of your posts to realize you often post just to get a rise out of someone.


But of course I know it's just my opinion. But a question was asked and I answered it. I'm not sure where your problem with that is.

 

[If you shout...]

I laughed at you, because honestly you have very little credibility with me. I've seen enough of your posts to realize you often post just to get a rise out of someone.

And you've been here less than two weeks. Case closed. I win. Time to move on.

Sting2--you actually make a good point about Pop and radio airplay. At the same time, though, I think it's worth noting that only two of the singles from the album really garnered any kind of substantial play at all in America. Of course, that's an inherently US-centric reading of the situation and therefore a flawed one...either way, it is pretty interesting.

A question worth asking, though, might concern the relative "value" of radio airplay. I can't say that I'm masochistic enough to listen to any radio, these days, but am I not at least partially correct in thinking that, as a medium, it doesn't have the cache it had even just a decade ago?

And while I definitely prefer Pop and basically the entire back catalogue to the last two albums, several posters have done well to point out that the album was just as, if not more, "commercial" (whatever that really means...it's all very complicated) than each of the most recent two.

I guess my personal problem has less to do with commercialism/commercialization than with the commercialization of what I regard as an inferior product in terms of lyricism, musicality, and production savvy. I feel like the "message" of the music has overwhelmed the music itself and that this has also spilled over into the structures informing the dissemination of this music-message.

Still, I'll hold hands and skip with catlhere any day of the week--I think that "Wild Honey" is an eminently listenable tune no matter how you slice it. What's wrong with Bono hybridizing Bryne and Van Morrisson every now and again? Nada, as far as I'm concerned. That shit, for the record, was about as un-commercial as you can get. Come what may.

 

[doubleU]

Case closed. I win. Time to move on.

I have to admit that was funny.

 

[If you shout...]

I have to admit that was funny.

I'm told that being able to laugh at oneself is one of the more admirable qualities an individual can possess, so good for you.

But in fairness and so you know where I'm coming from, in the remark you quoted I was only referring to your retarded claim that you know who I am, as a poster. I mean, you just can't. I would be just as foolish to claim that I know who you are and how you think--you haven't been here long enough, you know? It'd be unfair and silly of me. That's all I was talking about. I wasn't trying to attack any of your arguments or anything like that.

In further fairness, however, I see that you haven't actually made any traditional arguments in this particular thread. You made some statements (interesting ones, perhaps, had they been argued) about so-called contrived or throwaway (you use the terms interchangeably on multiple posts about that list and in reference to "Even Better Than the Real Thing") songs on previous albums, but that's it. There's not much for me to attack on those grounds, for better or worse or otherwise.

So I'll just ask, even though I guess it's not important to the thread: what have you against "Scarlet"? I know that I'm one of a VERY small number who love the song (it's ehtereal, metallic tone make it one of my U2 faves, actually), and I'd love to hear the majority opinion here or in a more apt thread. No matter what, the song is CLEARLY not too commercial, which is what the original poster ended up talking about in his/her actual post.

I dunno. I'm obviously talking to much, here. Giddyup.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

'like a covers band doing a U2 moment' ...totally spot on IMO.

I'll give it to you that Wild Horses stands out on Achtung in a way. Not necessarily in sound, but certainly the structure. The lyrics/theme fit with the album, it's just the structure. That Temple Bar mix is definitely to me the radio-hit attempt, and I find it painfuly dry. In the end though, I think that quote is a pretty good summation of what a lot of people feel when they hear certain parts of the past two albums. I don't like when these threads tumble into HTDAAB vs Pop, or arguments over mainstream or Grammys or sales or airplay or whatever, or whether one album was contrived and produced via blueprint and manufacturing line and another placed on record directly from the God of Genius Creativity. I know I get suckered in and fight on those lines more than most, but I don't like it. I think in the end it is all down obviously to personal opinions, and those opinions on these albums are clearly about what it is you love to hear in U2's music, and whether or not you are finding it on these albums or not. Myself and many others simply are not. It is false and simplistic to lable those who don't find it in U2's 00's music as disgruntled 90's fans. Achtung Baby is my clear favourite U2 album, but JT, UF, Zooropa, Pop and War are all virtually an interchangeable 2nd place to me depending on my mood on the day. The 90's just happen to be the decade before the 00's, and are perceived as being U2 at their most "throw caution to the wind", while the 00's are perceived as being U2 at their most "take no risks whatsoever", so they are compared, usually unfairly and without any reason or basis.

It's not about the sound of the 00's music. It's not about the Edge covering more 'classic' ground on his guitar or anything simple like that. It's not about pop-singles. Beautiful Day is simply one of U2's greatest songs, ever. I'll fight that one to the death. I'm also more than happy to use it as an example, rather than falling into some 90's bullshit, of standing for absolutely everything I love about U2 in comparison to Vertigo standing for absolutely everything I hate about 00's U2. For whatever reason, way too much of their material (to me it's about 95% or higher) post 2000, is just lacking something. And whatever that is, it's exactly what I loved about all U2 previous. It's not experimentation, it's not whatever sound Edge is making, it's not marked by a degree of commercial success or failure (I'm all for U2 having #1 albums, #1 singles, Grammys etc - shit, the kids should be listening to U2, not Maroon 5, I'm all for that, but then at the same time I don't care if they don't), it's not the slick over production, it's not the promotion, it's not Bono, it's not simply his lyrics either. However, somewhere in this music something that many of us absolutely adored has been left out. I personally can't put my finger on it, that's why I refer to it as the spirit. Miracle Drug has every ingredient of a big old grand U2 anthem filler. It does. It has every key ingredient. Yet it just leaves me completely blank. They've put out an 11/10 pop-rock record. It truly is an amazing album. If it were a debut album and you could buy shares in bands, I'd invest all my money in U2 stock. It's a freak album. But to me it just feels shallow. They're not songs I listen to late at night. They're not songs that do anything for me, or open up further and further years later. I just don't feel a thing from it. Again with Miracle Drug. Why is that? It's not the sound of it, it's not the structure of it, it's not the theme or the flow of it. It's not any individual part of it. Technically I should love it, but it all just seems so throwaway or formulatic or shallow or something. Not sure.

I think why all these threads pop up is more about people who are the same as me, feeling very disappointed by that. I think we feel like these last two albums have completely lacked that spirit, and we are more trying to put our finger on what that is. Sometimes it's obvious: songs like Elevation and Vertigo on one hand, or a song like Yahweh on the other. Mostly it's not. So most of our threads aren't fact or whatever, they are more us asking the questions, pointing our fingers around trying to find what it is to blame. For example: Are they too sensitive to commercial results now? Are they playing it too safe? Is that why? We don't know the answer, we suspect these things might be the case, but that thing is missing for us and thats the point. DON'T paint us as crazy 90's fans who need to hear machinery, distortion and an air raid siren on every track. I listen to and love The Unforgettable Fire more than Pop. DON'T paint us as anti-commercial alternative whatever who just think it's plain not cool to scale the charts, have pop singles and promote the hell out of a song or album. Beautiful Day is an incredible song. One of my distinct favourites. As someone who has worked in music marketing for a long time I'm certainly not someone to bag corporate links. The iPod/iTunes connection is genius on many levels. I think you are a monkey if you fell for forking out more just for a black and red iPod because it had U2's name on it, but I think U2 were right for making the deal. Like I said, I care not for Edge returning to an older guitar sound. It's his fucking sound, he can and should pull it out whenever he damn well wants. It's beautiful, the sound that got me into U2 in the first place. If it's natural and what the song needs, I'm all for it, in spades.

I'm not quite sure what it is. Maybe a combo of a few things, maybe just the band winding down in some ways. But plenty of us agree. Why does Bad sound so damn good every single time I hear it, make me really feel something even 20 years on, while the similarly paced and rambling Kite has only ever once made me go "oooh" (Slane DVD), and why does Sometimes regardless of album or live or wherever, just seem so completely cheesy and schmaltzy? They are all in a way close relatives yet it pains me, and I'm sure many others, to think that the same band that made Bad, made Sometimes. The answer we mostly settle on is that they've deliberately dumbed it down too far, and in the process of that, washed out the spirit of U2's previous works. But that isn't the same for everyone, because the spirit isn't the same for everyone.

For me though, almost every song sounds like a covers band doing a U2 moment, because they lack exactly what it was that MADE a U2 moment.

 

[If you shout...]

WONDERFUL motherfucking post, Earnest. Thank you. Very much. Seriously.

GREAT post. I wonder if I even have to say anything, anymore...it has now been said. All of it. At last.

 

[doubleU]

I'm told that being able to laugh at oneself is one of the more admirable qualities an individual can possess, so good for you.

Thanks

But in fairness and so you know where I'm coming from, in the remark you quoted I was only referring to your retarded claim that you know who I am, as a poster. I mean, you just can't. I would be just as foolish to claim that I know who you are and how you think--you haven't been here long enough, you know? It'd be unfair and silly of me. That's all I was talking about. I wasn't trying to attack any of your arguments or anything like that.

I never said I knew you, just that I had seen enough of your posts. Looking back I shouldn't have gone that route.

But this thread started on the whole premise of relativism, so I found it interesting that you attacked me and not the author of the thread. But I guess since you agreed with them, it was easier to attack me.

In further fairness, however, I see that you haven't actually made any traditional arguments in this particular thread. You made some statements (interesting ones, perhaps, had they been argued) about so-called contrived or throwaway (you use the terms interchangeably on multiple posts about that list and in reference to "Even Better Than the Real Thing") songs on previous albums, but that's it. There's not much for me to attack on those grounds, for better or worse or otherwise.

Once again, look at the context of the thread as a whole. The author never defined what they found to be "contrived" about these songs, they just went on an attack. Concepts were being used interchaneably from the beginning. Since the author never has or probably never will define their original premise, thats how the thread is going to work.

So I'll just ask, even though I guess it's not important to the thread: what have you against "Scarlet"?

I have nothing against it. But in the realm of bitching about post 2000 lyrics, Scarlet has to be brought up.

 

[Zoots]

...about what it is you love to hear in U2's music, and whether or not you are finding it on these albums or not. Myself and many others simply are not.

It is false and simplistic to lable those who don't find it in U2's 00's music as disgruntled 90's fans. Achtung Baby is my clear favourite U2 album, but JT, UF, Zooropa, Pop and War are all virtually an interchangeable 2nd place...

It's not about the sound of the 00's music. It's not about the Edge covering more 'classic' ground on his guitar or anything simple like that. It's not about pop-singles. Beautiful Day is simply one of U2's greatest songs, ever. I'll fight that one to the death. I'm also more than happy to use it as an example, rather than falling into some 90's bullshit

For whatever reason, way too much of their material (to me it's about 95% or higher) post 2000, is just lacking something. And whatever that is, it's exactly what I loved about all U2 previous. It's not experimentation, it's not whatever sound Edge is making, it's not marked by a degree of commercial success or failure (I'm all for U2 having #1 albums, #1 singles, Grammys etc - shit, the kids should be listening to U2, not Maroon 5, I'm all for that, but then at the same time I don't care if they don't), it's not the slick over production, it's not the promotion, it's not Bono, it's not simply his lyrics either. However, somewhere in this music something that many of us absolutely adored has been left out.

I personally can't put my finger on it, that's why I refer to it as the spirit.

I think why all these threads pop up is more about people who are the same as me, feeling very disappointed by that. I think we feel like these last two albums have completely lacked that spirit, and we are more trying to put our finger on what that is.

So most of our threads aren't fact or whatever, they are more us asking the questions, pointing our fingers around trying to find what it is to blame. For example: Are they too sensitive to commercial results now? Are they playing it too safe? Is that why? We don't know the answer, we suspect these things might be the case, but that thing is missing for us and thats the point.

DON'T paint us as crazy 90's fans who need to hear machinery, distortion and an air raid siren on every track. I listen to and love The Unforgettable Fire more than Pop.

DON'T paint us as anti-commercial alternative whatever who just think it's plain not cool to scale the charts, have pop singles and promote the hell out of a song or album.

I'm not quite sure what it is. Maybe a combo of a few things, maybe just the band winding down in some ways. But plenty of us agree.

The answer we mostly settle on is that they've deliberately dumbed it down too far, and in the process of that, washed out the spirit of U2's previous works. But that isn't the same for everyone, because the spirit isn't the same for everyone.

For me though, almost every song sounds like a covers band doing a U2 moment, because they lack exactly what it was that MADE a U2 moment.

This may very well be your best post ever! I took the trouble in seperating all the points I agree with so they stand out and it's easier to read. I don't wanna post a thousand bow smileys even though I feel like it.

 

[kakvox]

I'd have to agree as well. Give me The Unforgettable Fire anyday over U2's last 2 albums.

I guess I prefer "albums" compared to a group of great songs. It just so happens that The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby are both - great albums as a whole, with powerful songs to stand alone. AB, above all, is this, and that is why it is their strongest and best album. My fav is still TUF, though

 

[doctorwho]

Axver,

With or Without You was a huge hit but never thought of as a pre-made commercial song. The lyrics in that song are absolutely beautiful.

See the stone set in your eyes
See the thorn twist in your side
I wait for you

Sleight of hand and twist of fate
On a bed of nails she makes me wait
And I wait without you

With or without you
With or without you

Through the storm we reach the shore
You give it all but I want more


Or
You elevate my soul
I've lost all self-control
Been living like a mole
Now, going down, excavation
I and I into the sky
You make me feel like I can fly so high
Elevation

Comparing these two songs is improper - borderline ridiculous. One is purposely written to be a rompin' fun rock song about discovering God and the sheer joy of that discovery. As a result, it becomes a sort of euphoric simplicity - and that is reflected in the lyrics. The other is about what is becoming a lost love, a heartbroken acceptance of what has to be. That is not meant to be something simple or euphoric.

That said, I find the lyrics on WoWY to be cliched and simple. In fact, I think it's an example of Bono's worst writing. Yes, the song is beautiful - but not because of the lyrics per se. Rather, it's Edge's haunting guitar work, Adam's steady bass, and Bono's passionate, aching vocals. This is what made the song soar, not cliched lines like "and you give... and you give... and you give yourself away".

As for the topic of this thread, I can understand why you long for older songs - it's because the newer material has dominated radio when U2 are actually played on the radio (far too infrequently). In 1984, I actually grew tired of only hearing "Pride". In 1987, hearing WoWY and ISHFWILF repeatedly became annoying. Same in 1992 with MW and "One". These are great songs, but when radio focuses only on them, sometimes it becomes too much.

 

[Zoots]

Comparing these two songs is improper - borderline ridiculous. One is purposely written to be a rompin' fun rock song about discovering God and the sheer joy of that discovery. As a result, it becomes a sort of euphoric simplicity - and that is reflected in the lyrics. The other is about what is becoming a lost love, a heartbroken acceptance of what has to be. That is not meant to be something simple or euphoric.

That said, I find the lyrics on WoWY to be cliched and simple. In fact, I think it's an example of Bono's worst writing. Yes, the song is beautiful - but not because of the lyrics per se. Rather, it's Edge's haunting guitar work, Adam's steady bass, and Bono's passionate, aching vocals. This is what made the song soar, not cliched lines like "and you give... and you give... and you give yourself away".

I agree!

But what do you think about Earnie's post? The guy makes an excellent post and the people defending the 00s suddenly disappear. No comments 'for' or 'against'.

 

[doctorwho]

I agree!

But what do you think about Earnie's post? The guy makes an excellent post and the people defending the 00s suddenly disappear. No comments 'for' or 'against'.

Earnie's post, IMO, essentially feels that the last two albums are too, well, "pop". He feels they lack the depth of prior work. Feel free to correct me Earnie, but that's the message I received from your post.

And it's very tough to argue for or against this type of thinking.

I think JT is a great album - don't get me wrong. However, in the U2 world, I feel it's one of their weakest. Why? Because the songs all sound the same - and the few token exceptions that stand out aren't that good, IMO. Some love this atmospheric sound - clearly a heavily Eno influenced album. And there is something to be said about that. But even in 1987, I would only listen to a few token songs and turn the album off. I was thrilled for U2's success and loved hearing them on the radio. But I just like UF and "War" more. To me, JT lacked that "something" that other albums had - it seemed to focused on certain themes, too obvious with lyrics, to intent to create an image.

So the feelings I have for JT are what Earnie has for the recent work. I disagree with him, just as most would disagree with me on JT. But those are his views and it's tough to dissuade him otherwise.


P.S. I should point out that I'm not a "defender of the 00's work". I enjoy all U2, from the 80's, 90's and 00's (even some late 70's is interesting, even if not very good ). I just hate when someone selects one particular period and focuses on the vocals or Bono's voice or Edge's playing or U2's image or whatever as if other eras didn't have the same issues.

 

[Zoots]

Hmm, okay. I definitely disagree with you on JT but most people probably will too, like you said.

umm.. about Earnie's post, I liked how he made it clear that it's not really cut and right as to what some people find disappointing in the last 2 albums. We can't quite put a finger on it. We try to arrive at what's bugging us by starting numerous threads on the recent lyrics, the poppy sounds, the excessive hype... whatever! Don't know what it is. It's just that something doesn't quite sound right, compared to their past work. It feels like U2 could do so much better.. they are capable of so much more but for some reason they're not doing it. At least I feel that way.

 

[STING2]

I agree!

But what do you think about Earnie's post? The guy makes an excellent post and the people defending the 00s suddenly disappear. No comments 'for' or 'against'.

I think the main point of Earnie's thread is that 00s lack the "spirit" or special quality that much of U2's best work prior to 00s had. That is his opinion. I find the past two albums to have that quality in mass abundence. I think the band is playing better live and in the studio and have produced the best album of their career, with the exception of JT and Achtung, with HTDAAB.

In polls here, most people consider it to be their 4th best album behind UF, JT and Achtung. Bono considers BOMB to be the best 11 songs they have put on album, but is not on the level of JT and Achtung because the songs do not mix together as well as on those albums. That is what BONO said in the Rolling Stone interview. I know Edge stated at the time of ATYCLB that ATYCLB was their 2nd best album next to Achtung.

The reason there seems to be a large number of these threads recently is obviously because of U2's Grammy wins. What a wonderful night for the band. I would think most people would want to celebrate, but mysteriously, some people are very hostile to the fact that U2 won these awards. I sense that there are a group of people who come here for whom U2 is not their favorite band, which is a bit strange, but oh well. Perhaps the band they really love does not have such an active message board as this.

Steve Lillywhite actually says he checks the fan forums at various websites, so I guess he is very aware of some of these opinions. I think he was actually more excited than U2 was about winning Album of The Year! When the video cuts to looking at U2, they are all still sitting but Lillywhite is out of his seat already with his hands in the air as if he is about to fly towards the stage. Lillywhite did a great job on the album and I'm happy he was named producer of the year!

 

[Zoots]

I know Edge stated at the time of ATYCLB that ATYCLB was their 2nd best album next to Achtung.

What? The Edge said that? No way! He doesn't even play much guitar on ATYCLB. How can it be his 2nd favorite?

The reason there seems to be a large number of these threads recently is obviously because of U2's Grammy wins.

I disagree. What's so obvious? There have been threads criticizing 00s U2 ever since ATYCLB was released! And believe me I know. Because I had a different id here before Mar 05.

I think there are too many of these threads criticizing their recent work because enough people feel so on this board! Did you ever think of that? And don't say that it's probably people who like other bands and that they're just popping up here to dis U2. You don't know that and neither do I. All I know is that there's a handful of people here who feel the same way as I do... and they're not any less of a fan than the 00s defenders! And I also believe that there is no smoke without fire.

 

[GibsonGirl]

 

[VertigoGal]

have you guys ever tried debating religion with someone? just curious...

 

[Zoots]

Gibson Girl, stop yawning and tell me who you think makes more sense here!


VG, I'm not very religious. I'm more spiritual and believe in one God. So the answer is no.