U2 Experience + Innocence Tour **Discussion Only // No Ticket Sales or Requests**

eviltimeban

Tomas White Suspect wrote: »

Not really. Makes no sense. That's a very lazy summarisation tbh. You telling me people only write, record, produce and play music only for money?
It is one of the factors but, it's certainly not the most important or only one.

Rory Gallagher wanted to play blues rock. He was offered several times to have a "hit single" produced for him. He declined. Because it's not what he wanted and he didn't want to steer away from the music he wanted to write and play.

You could say AC/DC never changed their formula because of money....No! They never changed because it was music they loved writing and playing.

U2 did not sit down, write these songs, with the mindset being, "Ugh we hate all these songs but, it'll make us loads of money so who cares"
I highly doubt Bono decided to write The Little Things because he saw dollar signs.

That's just rubbish talk. As an artist, it is the last thing that comes into it. There is an insecurity in every performer and artist, which dollars cannot fill

OK, maybe not just dollar bills, but that had to be part of it. They saw the half empty stadiums on the Popmart tour and realised that this wasn't the way they were going to sell tickets. So they "reapplied for the job as the biggest band in the world" - their words, in 2000.

Ego had a big part to play as well. They WANTED to be the biggest band in the world, not in an Oasis / cocaine fueled way, but to satisfy their own egos because they believed they WERE the biggest band in the world. So in that situation, you could argue that they were more interested in their status than making in interesting / groundbreaking music.

They are extremely talented musicians and writers, and perfectly capable of pushing the boundaries again. But they don't want to go through the fall out again when it doesn't resonant with middle America. So they are playing it relatively straight.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

eviltimeban wrote: »

OK, maybe not just dollar bills, but that had to be part of it. They saw the half empty stadiums on the Popmart tour and realised that this wasn't the way they were going to sell tickets. So they "reapplied for the job as the biggest band in the world" - their words, in 2000.

Ego had a big part to play as well. They WANTED to be the biggest band in the world, not in an Oasis / cocaine fueled way, but to satisfy their own egos because they believed they WERE the biggest band in the world. So in that situation, you could argue that they were more interested in their status than making in interesting / groundbreaking music.

They are extremely talented musicians and writers, and perfectly capable of pushing the boundaries again. But they don't want to go through the fall out again when it doesn't resonant with middle America. So they are playing it relatively straight.

Nailed it in one word, ego!

They want to play the best shows, to the most people. They want to write the best song ever. Everyone in that industry does. It's what drives you to do it. That feeling when it all comes together in the studio or on stage and you feel invincible and unbeatable

I want that and that's what pushes me. Certainly ain't money.

In terms of the ticket sales, bands get a fixed rate from the promoter

eviltimeban

bclar12 wrote: »

Nailed it in one word, ego!

They want to play the best shows, to the most people. They want to write the best song ever. Everyone in that industry does. It's what drives you to do it. That feeling when it all comes together in the studio or on stage and you feel invincible and unbeatable

I want that and that's what pushes me. Certainly ain't money.

In terms of the ticket sales, bands get a fixed rate from the promoter

But that's my point. They wouldn't be able to command the big fees from the promoters if they weren't selling enough tickets to fill the big stadia. They'd be downgraded to an arena band.

And not everyone wants to play to "the most people". In fact, the bigger the gigs you get, the further away (literally and figuratively) you feel from your audience.

No, what U2 were able to do in the 90s is experiment but be good enough at it that their fans stayed with them, and made new ones (holding my own hand up here - hated 80s U2. Loved 90s U2). They had one hiccup with the Pop project and they gave it all up and went "oh well". Back to Edge's infinite delay pedal on every bleedin' track and songs like "All Because of You".

I would say that without Larry pushing away from experimentation, they may have carried on. But he's such a traditionalist, a plodding drummer who always plays the same beat (there's more than just sixteenths on the hihat you know, Larry) that there's no way he'd have stayed in that band.

What would be really interesting would be an Edge / Bono solo album. Bono certainly did some interesting jazzy stuff on the Million Dollar hotel album, and Edge would break out some of those 90s guitar pedals. He's a great singer too.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

eviltimeban wrote: »

But that's my point. They wouldn't be able to command the big fees from the promoters if they weren't selling enough tickets to fill the big stadia. They'd be downgraded to an arena band.

And not everyone wants to play to "the most people". In fact, the bigger the gigs you get, the further away (literally and figuratively) you feel from your audience.

No, what U2 were able to do in the 90s is experiment but be good enough at it that their fans stayed with them, and made new ones (holding my own hand up here - hated 80s U2. Loved 90s U2). They had one hiccup with the Pop project and they gave it all up and went "oh well". Back to Edge's infinite delay pedal on every bleedin' track and songs like "All Because of You".

I would say that without Larry pushing away from experimentation, they may have carried on. But he's such a traditionalist, a plodding drummer who always plays the same beat (there's more than just sixteenths on the hihat you know, Larry) that there's no way he'd have stayed in that band.

What would be really interesting would be an Edge / Bono solo album. Bono certainly did some interesting jazzy stuff on the Million Dollar hotel album, and Edge would break out some of those 90s guitar pedals. He's a great singer too.

Bono and The Edge have both said recently they have no interest in solo albums, with The Edge even going as far as saying he would never want to be a solo artist.

A plodding drummer? The same Larry Mullen who every single drummer I've worked with, talked to and hung out with have raved about and labelled him, "the heartbeat" "Magnificent" "Immense"

That same plodding drummer?

The same Larry Mullen, who worked outside of the band during the 90's, on various different projects, to get more experimental with his playing for the POP album....

That Larry Mullen? The same one who drummed on Alice Cooper's albums and other artists?
Plays the same beat?!

Delay pedal? You mean their signature sound?

If that's the case, may as well tell every band to ditch what makes them who they are so

tritriagain

I think what they have done in their 40 years together is amazing . They have been the sound track to my life since I first heard war. I was 11 and it blew me away. I would much prefer the band to be content with their output than trying too hard to be experimental . That can only last so long and then what. Give me soi and soe with great f##king songs ( my opinion) and great gigs. Was at 4 gigs last tour and 2nd night in Glasgow was just magical . That was just raw emotion served up to us and everyone dined well that night. Long live u2 . Plenty of other arthouse and experimental bands To checkout if thats what you're into. Me I'll take the boys everytime.

Sonny678

I'm been reading all the comments today. I have to say they have been very interesting and riveting to actually read. But I think there is one massive flaw in this arguement that U2 should reinvent themselves as they are nearly pension age. That's the flaw. To expect a group nearly 60 to push the boundaries of their music reinvent themselves when they are nearly 60 is not credible or not rationale. Why? Simple
No band their size in thr history of rock music and at their age ( nearly pension age) have reinvented themselves push the boundaries, made new innovative sounds and done it really well. It has been done before.
Actually no band their size and age ( nearly 60) have produced a great album.
If you disagree. Name the band U2 size at their age . Any band in the last 50 years that produced a great album in their 60s even in their 50s.
Name if any group any size an indie group not a famous group. But any group that produced a great album when they were near 60 or in their 50s.
It's impossible. Never been done before.

U2 are one of the greatest rock bands of all time. Their place in rock history is ensured. To expect another Achtung Baby Zooropa or even Pop or Passengers is not credible. Never been done before. Did you hear The Who's last record. Average at best. The Rolling Stones last 10 records . Piss poor. Did you hear the dreadful songs The Stone Roses ( All for One or whatever it was called) or Blur ( Meet me Halfway or whatever it was called) released in the last few years. Both bands members r much much younger then U2. Their songs were appalling.
That U2 are still writing great tunes eg The Troubles, Moment of Surrender and The Little Things when they are nearly 60 is unreal. An achievement in itself.

Sonny678

This idea of reinventing oneself musically. Is not an easy process. It's not like a career path. Ok a band makes a great records let's now change our sound and reinvent ourselves. U2 are one of the few groups or artists that did reinvent themselves. So many great artists find a sound. And keep playing that sound over and over again. Reinvention of a bands sounds successfully is very rare.
Look examples

Springsteen has been doing the same thing since 1975 Born to Run. He makes the odd quite album eg Nebraska, The Ghost of Tom Joad. And then a rock album. His first album he was copying Dylan. Second album he copied Van the Man. And by third album he found his sound. And has pretty much kept to that template for nearly 40 years. You don't hear people saying. I wish the boss would do a goth or a drum or bass album.

Paul Mcartney a man who was in a band who did the greatest Reinvention ever. Since he left Beatles. He has done the same thing over and over again.

Neil Young releases a quite acoustic album. Then he releases the rock album. He's done this for nearly 50 years. You don't hear people saying why is Neil Young not changing his sound sonically. You don't hear people say Neil Young should be doing grime on his next album with Stormzy.

What about Dylan . Dylan has been doing the same musically since 1965. And every album he releases is the album of the year for the critics. Yet he has done the same thing musically over and over again for a half century.

Johnny Cash never changed his. Neither did Willie Nelson. The Rolling Stones have never changed their sound since early 70s. The Smiths never changed their sound. Neither did Nirvana. Will current bands like Arcade Fire and War on Drugs reinvent themselves. Unlikely.

That U2 did reinvent themselves is unique very few artists have successfully done this.

UsedToWait

Welcome back Sonny!

I might not always agree with you, but your passion, particularly for placing things in order in the pantheon of greatness, is clear, and is enjoyable to read

UsedToWait

Sonny678 wrote: »

No band their size in thr history of rock music and at their age ( nearly pension age) have reinvented themselves push the boundaries, made new innovative sounds and done it really well. It has been done before.
Actually no band their size and age ( nearly 60) have produced a great album.
If you disagree. Name the band U2 size at their age . Any band in the last 50 years that produced a great album in their 60s even in their 50s.
Name if any group any size an indie group not a famous group. But any group that produced a great album when they were near 60 or in their 50s.
It's impossible. Never been done before.

I'll name you one - and suggest you really check out their catalogue: James

Sonny678

This idea of reinventing yourself, changing your sound. Is very unique. It's not like a band is sucessful. They go. Let's change our sound. It rarely happens. It's not as common as people think. Most bands become sucessful. They get the money and the fame. And just keep rehashing the same sound sonically over and over again. Even the greats do it.

Like everything in music. Theirs a backstory. Great art usually come from negatives. Bad experiences. Not all but allot. I think reinvention is much more complex then people think. Ok I will show what I mean with examples of great reinvention. Yes every artist that reinvented themselves had talent intelligence and ambition. But their was also underneath complex negative factors at play.

Ok 1 The Beatles. The Beatles are probaly the greatest example of band changing everything eg sound image everything. The change from love me Do to I am the Walrus from She loves You to Come Together is unbelievable. Yes they had great talent and intelligence. But at the heart of their changes was a basic negative human feeling . That was jealously. Lennon would write a great song. Then Mcartney would try and better it. Then lennon would try and better Mcartney. This rivalry, this competition between these two great artists drove the beatles throughout their career and in the end led to their break up. A rivalry was at the heart of the Beatles sucess story of renovation and reinvention



2 Another Artist who reinvented himself was Paul Weller. I think it had more to do with mid life crises and other negative factors then anything else. Yes Weller is a great songwriter and talent. But by his early 20s he had written allot of his greatest songs with The Jam. The Jam had reached its natural end of its life cycle. It just happened that Weller was still in his early 20s. What was he going to do next. He tried a more polished 80s pop sound with The Style Council. That reached its natural end of life cycle. His marriage breaks up. And again in the early 90s he reinvents himself with Stanley Road and become almost the godfather of Britpop. So Weller changed as he got older. Mid life crisises with bands break ups all led him to reinvent himself.

Bowie. Probaly the greatest Reinvention artist of them all. Changed his sound with Heroes and Low in Berlin. And of course he changed his image yearly from Ziggy to the thin White Duke. Yes he had talent and intelligence. I know people probaly wouldn't agree with this but I think his personality and other factors had a role.

Bowie most important relationship was with his mother. His mother was Irish. (Like so many great British artists he was first generation Irish). His mother was schizophrenic and so was his brother. Bowie all his life was afraid he had issues mentally also. I think his changing his image was almost schizophrenic but also it was kind of he was hiding behind the images. Hiding from the real Bowie. I don't know. I'm not explaining that real well. But I do think this had an impact. .

Now we come to U2 reinvention. It was down to one thing. Criticisim the backlash after Rattle and Hum.

Sonny678

UsedToWait wrote:

I'll name you one - and suggest you really check out their catalogue: James

Thanks for the above comments. I like James. Sometimes is one of my favourite songs and the video is brillant. I likd James. Underrated band. But their not on the level of U2 The Who Led Zepplin these massive rock bands. And don't think their reinvention was really ground breaking. But also have they written great songs in their 50s plus. I like them though. Songs like Laid are terrific.

Sonny678

U2 reinvention came out of the backlash after Rattle and Hum. Yes they had great talent and intelligence. But U2 have always been obsessed with greatness. Always interested in critics reaction. Most artists are. U2 particularly. I remeber Paul McGuiness gave out to the music writer in the RTE Guide for writing a bad review of Zooropa. These things mattered to U2. U2s road to greatness was up and down. And by sheer will power talent intelligence they joined the greats. But it was a long and winding road. Let me explain. Where and why U2 reinvented themselves.

U2 releases their first three album. They are a good rock band. Better then The Alarm and Wire and Simple Minds. But Bands like The Smiths and Joy Division and Echo and the Bunny men where better in 1983 1984. U2 first sign of greatness was The Unforgettable Fire. Bringing Lanois and Eno on board as producers and sometimes co songwriters, even was a masterstroke. Watch a video on U2 , a doc on recording of the Fire album. Watch how Lanois and Eno transformed Pride from U2 demos. The Unforgettable is U2 third masterpiece. The flawed one. It's the one music critics like best. It's the one where they are most U2 sounding. But it is a band find themselves. But it was not till their 5th album. U2 achieved true greatness and really found themselves, with The Joshua Tree. Unlike today back then bands like U2 and REM where given time to develop as bands.

Between March 1987 and September 1988 from the release of the Joshua Tree to the release of the single Desire. U2 where the hottest thing in rock (That's what time magazine called them. Up to that point only The Beatles and The Who were the only bands to grace the cover of Time).

U2 had number 1 singles in America. Thousands outside their hotel room. Seen as the band to save rock n roll. Over and over again you would hear in this period in America and even Britian U2 were the best band in the world.

And then there was the backlash. Rattle and Hum came out and the film and U2 for their first ever where heavily criticised. First time in America. There was always an undercurrent of criticism in the UK. The criticism was U2 where covering songs like All Along the Watchtower and hanging with Dylan to say they were up their with these bands.
They were being accussed of being bombastic pretentious and boring. By the end of the love town tour in 1989 U2 still had a massive fan base. But had received a massive backlash from the press.

Undeservedly so. I think the problem was Rattle and Hum was a bit messy. Was it a live album , was it a studio album. But I think when Bono said the line at the start of the album. "Charles Manson stole from the beatles. We r stealing it back". I think that's where the critics turned. It was like who do think you are Bono. Stealing from the beatles etc. And in the film they came across as po faced and very serious. That was the criticism.

For me undeservedly The film has dated well. It's a good doc of the band at the time. And Rattle and Hum is not a bad album. It would have been better as single album not a double. Because it had great songs eg Angel of Harlem God Part 2. But they did what all great artists do when they have a career high. They go over board with the next record. After Segerat Pepper The Beatles recorded The White album. After London Calling the Clash recorded a triple album called Sandinista. After a career high Prince produced the double album Sign of the Times. After Rumours Fleetwood Mac recorded the messy Tusk. All the records above had great songs. But would have been better as single albums. U2 did the same mistake. Also they were now writing blues country and western ( love Rescue me ) and soul songs ( Angel of Harlem). Really well. But the critics went for them.

But it was not just the critics . At the end of the 80s. Music was changing. With Madchester in England. Rave was exploding in the UK. Dance music was cool.and the new cool music on the block. It was fun and colourful. U2 looked boring dull and pretentious in comparison. The Stone Roses looked like a 90s Beatles. U2 looked like member of an Amish group in black strolling in thr desert. By 1989 U2 were almost a joke for many music critics in the UK especially. Within 24 months they went from been rocks hottest tickets to the uncoolest band .

That criticism and backlash is why they reinvented themselves. If U2 released a single album and no film. There would have been no criticism. And U2 would have continued to write songs similar to the Joshua Tree. Why would they have changed. They were a very sucessful act. It was the backlash that meant they changed. So Rattle and Hum was the best thing to ever happen to them.

So they went to Berlin with The Stone Roses Happy Mondays and My Bloody Valentine albums under their arms
. Into a cold damp studio where Bowie recorded Heroes and Low. And it was a disaster. They were fighting. No good songs. Verge of breaking up. Then they recorded One and the rest of history.

What happened was Mullins and Clayton started having more impact on songs. The grooves and rhythms where now influenced by early 90s rock that had a dance influence. Also Another factor in the albums creation was a personal matter. The Edges marriage had broke up. And if you listen to Achtung baby lyrics it was very dark and about failed romances Sex relationships ups and Downs. It was their Blood on the Tracks, it was their Tunnell of love

Lyrically Bono has never been better. Songs like So Cruel are outstanding songs. Overall the album created is U2 best album. Their second masterpiece. If you don't think it was made in response to critics . Well listen to Acrobat and the line Don't let the b#$$###ds drag you down". It's pretty obvious what he means.

Achtung Baby was released to huge sucess. Even their critics had to praise them. ZOO TV also was a sucess. They took what Pink Flyod had done with Stadium rock with The Wall.and with ZOO TV dragged live music into the 21st century along with Pop mart.

They still had their critics. And in 1992 93. They wouldnt have been considered one of the greats yet. Zooropa was released. Also got good reviews. At the time I did not know what to make of it. Now it's dated really well. It's experimental euro electronic almost futuristic. It's doesn't sound like U2. And that what U2 wanted in the 90s, they didn't want to sound like U2. Because of the backlash. They wanted to have fun. They were not as serious. Zooropa had great tracks eg Lemon The Wanderer Stay. Imagine Coldplay Oasis or Blur writing a song like Zooropa. There was also a few duds like the atrocious Numb.

Then they followed up with Passengers. Again it worked songs like your blue room were great.

However in the mid 90s something happened u2 where uncool again. Britpop bands where lining up to criticise U2. The gas thing was while British rock in 60s eg The Beatles The Who. Was forward thinking outward thinking and internationalist. Britpop was the opposite. Bands where slagging U2 . Even though U2 where been innovative and adventurous. Britpop bands were inward lookin, lack adventure, backward looking conservative and very nationalistic. You heard bands slagging U2 where going to make Dance record. In 1995 96 U2 where again uncool. Then they release pop.

Pop is U2 last great record. It's not a bad record. Its a really good record. Full of top tunes eg Please Gone Staring at the Sun Discotheque Do you Feel loved The Playboy Mansion Wake up Dead man. There is very little filler on POP. The standout track for me is Mofo. It's basically the chemical brothers . And it's works. U2 where the only massive 80s band to incorporate dance music. While 90s bands like Pulp Blur Supergrass Oasis Ocean Colour Scene were conservative. U2 where being innovative. One of the few rock bands to successfully write good dance music. The aim of pop and most of U2 90s work was to be more fun eg Discotheque video pop mart Zoo TV and not sound like U2. The reason Pop did poor in America was because it did not sound like U2. Dance music only took off in the USA this decade with EDM.

U2 wanted to not sound like U2. So pop is the least Edge album. But for me it is Mullins and Claytons finest hour. They stole the show.

They went to America. It wasn't a failure. They were still playing to 40000 50000 people instead of 70000 or 80000. If all the Britpop bands came together they wouldn't have been able to bring 20000 to a show in the US. But there was glee in certain quarters in UK. U2 were not selling well in the USA.

Then something happened in September 1997. Oasis were at the height of the powers. Before Be Here Now and Da You know what I mean release. Oasis where called the best rock n roll band in the world. In the UK it was Oasis mania. In the USA it was who r Oasis. Oasis supported U2 in September 1997 in USA. Which surprised allot of U2 UK critics . But not only that Noel Gallagher said U2 were one of the greatest bands ever and he was a massive fan. This was first time I ever heard any indie group in UK come out say great things about U2.

The All sorts started name checking U2. Pretty much every sucessful band from UK from 97 onwards where either massive U2 fans and the vast majority influenced by U2 eg Oasis Coldplay Radiohead Muse Embrace Keane Snow Patrol Star Sailor Travis . Unnoticed to the critics while U2 where being the biggest band in the world and reinventing themselves. Young groups where not being influenced by the Stones Roses but by U2.

Also The Edges guitar sound was now very popular with indie bands. The amount of Indie bands I have heard on the last 20 years with the edge War guitar sound is unreal. U2 would have noticed this. So if everyone is sounding U2 and everyone is being influence by U2. Maybe U2 should sounds like U2.

So in the noughties U2 returned to their more traditional sound with allot of sucess. Singles like Beautiful Day and Vertigo were massive

Sonny678

Cont'd from above

After September 11th the artists America turned to were Springsteen (The Rising) and U2. Just check out U2 performance at the Super bowl in the early 00s. It is considered the best half time Super bowl performance of all time. ( Half time entertainment at the Super Bowl is an American Institution and is seen as the top gig for any artist to get in America in any given year.)

U2 where now been called by many as one of the greats. In the USA they were one of the greatest acts ever. Even in the UK they were being acknowledged as being great by many of their detractors . By live Aid 2 2006 U2 were cool again.

Then the tax story broke in 07 08..and it gave ammunition to their critics. It's been a criticism that has cont'd til today. Also given away the free album with Apple really annoyed allot of people. Also there has been more criticism in this decade of celebrities involved in charity or politics eg Matt Damon Sean Penn Geldof and Bono. I'm sure you will notice the criticisms mentioned above against U2 have nothing to do with their music. U2 critics focus on activities outside. Because of you look at their music and back catalogue without bias you have to admit they have one of the best and most diverse back catalogues in rock music history.

They are one of the great singles bands also. That is stopped. But overall they know there place in rock history is assured. Would you change your music when your 60 and each album you produce is still a big music event. And every tour you undertake is the most sucessful tour in music history. Would you change and give it up . I don't think so.

Sorry for all the rambling and going on and on again. But my main point was U2 reinvention in the 90s was a reaction to the backlash to Rattle and Hum.

eviltimeban

Tomas White Suspect wrote: »

Bono and The Edge have both said recently they have no interest in solo albums, with The Edge even going as far as saying he would never want to be a solo artist.

A plodding drummer? The same Larry Mullen who every single drummer I've worked with, talked to and hung out with have raved about and labelled him, "the heartbeat" "Magnificent" "Immense"

That same plodding drummer?

The same Larry Mullen, who worked outside of the band during the 90's, on various different projects, to get more experimental with his playing for the POP album....

That Larry Mullen? The same one who drummed on Alice Cooper's albums and other artists?
Plays the same beat?!

Delay pedal? You mean their signature sound?

If that's the case, may as well tell every band to ditch what makes them who they are so

Same beat, same fills, boring drummer. Now I mean. Back in the day he was alright. I play drums (though it's not my main instrument) and also work with drummers who don't particularly rate him as an interesting player. How many times has he done that "Beautiful Day" beat at this stage? It's on at least one song on the new album. And he's always doing sixteenths on the hats. Always.

And you've got it wrong about Pop - Larry came to that album after sustaining a back injury, which meant he couldn't play on the first sessions. So they had Howie B create loops, which Larry then had to play over. Which he hated. And he didn't even want to drum on Passengers, he hated that whole project. So not really much up for experimentation there.

A band's signature sound, or a trick to fall back on again and again? It's not a coincidence that their best regarded 90s work doesn't have this "signature sound".

eviltimeban

Sonny678 wrote: »

Paul Mcartney a man who was in a band who did the greatest Reinvention ever. Since he left Beatles. He has done the same thing over and over again.

Have you heard his last few albums, including the one he made that Nigel Godrich produced? Or his work with Youth as the Fireman? Or his classical work? Twin Freaks? The McCartney II album, and b-sides like "Secret Friend" and "Check My Machine"?

The Nal

eviltimeban wrote: »

Have you heard his last few albums, including the one he made that Nigel Godrich produced? Or his work with Youth as the Fireman? Or his classical work? Twin Freaks? The McCartney II album, and b-sides like "Secret Friend" and "Check My Machine"?

Yup. Idiotic statements from Sonny. Aside from the rambling tales of musical history as told by obvious street, stuff like the above re: Macca and then truly moronic statements like Neil Young doing the same thing for 50 years.

All in defence of U2s latest damp fart of an album. Genuinely find it sad.

johnpatrick81

The Nal wrote: »

All in defence of U2s latest damp fart of an album. Genuinely find it sad.

Which is sadder, defending something you love, or obsessing over something you hate?

Which is sadder, listening to a band you love, or listening to a band you haven’t enjoyed an album by in 20 years?

You win the saddest b&sterd award every time The Nal.

Now go back to the Star Wars thread telling off folk for b!tching about something they haven’t enjoyed in years.

Then look up irony.

Then realize you are the biggest joke of all, and Bono laughs his ass off at suckers like you on the one hand slagging him but on the other lining his pockets.

innuendo141

Nal I'm relatively new to the U2 threads, but do you always spend time knocking songs people like because you don't? I'm not bothered by anything you say, but would you not hang around a thread of an album you quite like?

Obviously, not telling you what to do, but it just seems odd is all. You've posted a lot about this album.

johnpatrick81

innuendo141 wrote: »

Nal I'm relatively new to the U2 threads, but do you always spend time knocking songs people like because you don't? I'm not bothered by anything you say, but would you not hang around a thread of an album you quite like?

Obviously, not telling you what to do, but it just seems odd is all. You've posted a lot about this album.

He hasn’t enjoyed a U2 album since POP.....yet he’s still here, like a tragic obsessed ex....the bad smell in the room....like he shat himself and doesn’t know what to do.

PTH2009

think I'll try and get a ticket for one of the Dublin shows next year after watching the BBC special. they sounded unbelievable

to me last summer's CP show was the pinnacle of a u2 live show and the I don't anymore of there shows could live up to it

it's very possibly the e&i tour will be a rehash of the i&e tour with different videos/effects on the screens and different setlists but the band have to realise they have to change it up a bit ??

Wooderson

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

Which is sadder, defending something you love, or obsessing over something you hate?

Which is sadder, listening to a band you love, or listening to a band you haven’t enjoyed an album by in 20 years?

You win the saddest b&sterd award every time The Nal.

Now go back to the Star Wars thread telling off folk for b!tching about something they haven’t enjoyed in years.

Then look up irony.

Then realize you are the biggest joke of all, and Bono laughs his ass off at suckers like you on the one hand slagging him but on the other lining his pockets.

I laffed at that also. Maximum trollage.

innuendo141

PTH2009 wrote: »

think I'll try and get a ticket for one of the Dublin shows next year after watching the BBC special. they sounded unbelievable

to me last summer's CP show was the pinnacle of a u2 live show and the I don't anymore of there shows could live up to it

it's very possibly the e&i tour will be a rehash of the i&e tour with different videos/effects on the screens and different setlists but the band have to realise they have to change it up a bit ??

Thats what Im seriously hoping for myself. Im quite surprised how much I love the new album. Arsing around at work today listening to a playlist someone made on Spotify with all the Innocence and Experience tracks with bonus ones. Its quite lovely.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

eviltimeban wrote: »

Same beat, same fills, boring drummer. Now I mean. Back in the day he was alright. I play drums (though it's not my main instrument) and also work with drummers who don't particularly rate him as an interesting player. How many times has he done that "Beautiful Day" beat at this stage? It's on at least one song on the new album. And he's always doing sixteenths on the hats. Always.

And you've got it wrong about Pop - Larry came to that album after sustaining a back injury, which meant he couldn't play on the first sessions. So they had Howie B create loops, which Larry then had to play over. Which he hated. And he didn't even want to drum on Passengers, he hated that whole project. So not really much up for experimentation there.

A band's signature sound, or a trick to fall back on again and again? It's not a coincidence that their best regarded 90s work doesn't have this "signature sound".

I know he didn't wanna do Passengers alright.

Erm, Zoo Station, Love Is Blindness (Live) Ultraviolet, If God Will Send His Angels, One (on the outro) TTTYAATW (live) Zooropa, all have the signature sound and songs that were on those albums

So they didn't get rid of it.

Sonny678

The Nal wrote:

Yup. Idiotic statements from Sonny. Aside from the rambling tales of musical history as told by obvious street, stuff like the above re: Macca and then truly moronic statements like Neil Young doing the same thing for 50 years.

The Nal wrote:

All in defence of U2s latest damp fart of an album. Genuinely find it sad.

Young has alternated between quite album and then the rock album. He has nearly 40 solo albums. Only about 2 or 3 where experimental. At the start of the 80s where he did 1 album with synths and 1 rockabilly album. This was not well received and he returned to more traditional Neil Young album with Harvest at the end of 80s. But 60s 70s 90s and 00s work has been the quite album followed by the rock album. Out of near 40 solo albums I would say 2 or 3 where he really experimented.

Listen Young is an All time great. And he went on a run of solo albums which were brillant one after another. But to say Neil Young has been very experimental artists would be wrong. An all time great artist, yes.

Mcartney ok yes has done a couple of orchestra albums and the Fireman collaboration but overall he has stuck very much to the same formula since 1970. No one really listened to the Orchestra stuff did. And people who know orchestra did not rate it. It was almost like Paul saying look at me I can do the orchestra. I don't think many would say McCartney has been very experimental since the Beatles. I can think of about 25 solo albums along with Wings since 1970 which have been the same formula. He did the same thing in the 70s and 80s. Early 90s and 00s a couple of side projects which were forgettable. McCartney is no Bowie.

He was in the greatest band ever. And formed the greatest songwriting partnership ever in 60s ( It was not really a partnership after 1965. Yes Paul is all time great because of his Beatles songs, but as George Harrison once said Lennon was a genius. Lennon was the true genius in the Beatles). But Pauls work since the Beatles has been patchy. The 70s of course Band on the Run was great and songs like Let me Roll it Maybe Im Amazed and Coming up where brillant. But his work in the 70s and 80s was patchy. The only time he got experimental during this period was with the bloody Frog chorus.

Yes he did the orchestra side projects (which no one listened to) and Fireman collaboration since 90s. But most of his 90s 00s and this decade have been the usual traditional McCartney musical output. Also pretty much patchy to say the least. Since Band on the Run there has not been one great McCartney album. As Noel Gallagher once said no one cares what Paul did solo after Band on the Run. It was average at best.

Overall you cannot say that Paul Mcartney had a massive sucess overhauling his sound since the Beatles. A couple of orchestra records that no one listens is not a great invention in the mould of Bowie. The same with Young when he experimented with 2 records in early 80s it was not a sucessful reinvention. Some of the videos from the time where a bit embarrassing. It was not til he found his Mojo again in late 80s when got back to doing what he does great. The quite acoustic followed by the rock album.

I don't think people would consider that Mcartney and Young as artist who reinvented themselves successfully. Bowie is an artist who reinvented himself very successfully. Paul Weller is an artist who reinvented successfully. And yes U2 are an artist who experimented successfully. Changing your whole sound in two years from playing blues ( When comes to Town) Soul ( Angel of Harlem) and Country music ( Love Rescue me ) to the more 90s groove rock music influenced by dance music of Achtung Baby which sold over 20 million records. And also sucessful follow up albums that sold by the millions. And groundbreaking concerts which also where some of the most sucessful of modern times. Now that's a sucessful reinvention.

eviltimeban

Tomas White Suspect wrote: »

I know he didn't wanna do Passengers alright.

Erm, Zoo Station, Love Is Blindness (Live) Ultraviolet, If God Will Send His Angels, One (on the outro) TTTYAATW (live) Zooropa, all have the signature sound and songs that were on those albums

So they didn't get rid of it.

Yeah, but you can't possibly say something like Zoo Station or Ultraviolet (don't really hear it in Zooropa, it's more a wah wah sound) sound anything like the way it is used in Unknown Caller, or All Because Of You, or Crumbs From Your Table, or Walk On, or You're the best thing about me. It's how it's used really.

Anyway, I will admit there's a clarity to the production of the new album that wasn't there before. And that's good. I know I have a personal preference as to how I'd like U2 to sound (take "Velvet Dress" as the template and go from there ) and if they never do another album like that again, well at least I have my Pop b-sides to keep me warm at night.

Saying that, a lot of SOI made me smile with pleasure, as they had revisited some things they hadn't done before, like effects on Bono's voice (e.g. "Volcano").

Sonny678

eviltimeban wrote:

Same beat, same fills, boring drummer. Now I mean. Back in the day he was alright. I play drums (though it's not my main instrument) and also work with drummers who don't particularly rate him as an interesting player. How many times has he done that "Beautiful Day" beat at this stage? It's on at least one song on the new album. And he's always doing sixteenths on the hats. Always.

eviltimeban wrote:

And you've got it wrong about Pop - Larry came to that album after sustaining a back injury, which meant he couldn't play on the first sessions. So they had Howie B create loops, which Larry then had to play over. Which he hated. And he didn't even want to drum on Passengers, he hated that whole project. So not really much up for experimentation there.

eviltimeban wrote:

A band's signature sound, or a trick to fall back on again and again? It's not a coincidence that their best regarded 90s work doesn't have this "signature sound".

I don't know much about drums. But Reni from the Stone Roses who would considered probaly the best British drummer of the last 30 years. I know some have said he was best British drummer since Keith Moon or John Bonham from Led Zepplin . ( I dont know if that is right. If Reni is or not ) . But Reni is definatly one of the best drummers and most famous recently. And Reni said he learned everything he knows about the drums from Larry Mullen. Reni said he has been copying Larry Mullen all his career.

PropJoe10

Larry Mullen is an excellent and underrated drummer. Not sure how anyone could say otherwise. His live work was always great - he's gone a bit safer in the last few years, but he really drives the band.

eviltimeban

Sonny678 wrote: »

I can think of about 25 solo albums along with Wings since 1970 which have been the same formula. He did the same thing in the 70s and 80s. Early 90s and 00s a couple of side projects which were forgettable. McCartney is no Bowie.

Thankfully! But look, if you wanna get into it:

McCartney doesn't sound like Ram.
Ram doesn't sound like Band on the Run.
Band on the Run doesn't sound a bit like London Town.
London town sounds nothing like McCartney II.
McCartney II sounds nothing like Flowers In The Dirt.
FITD sounds nothing like Flaming Pie.
Flaming Pie sounds nothing like Chaos and Creation in the Backyard.

And so on.

Sonny678 wrote: »

Lennon was the true genius in the Beatles.

No, he wasn't. And if you want to talk about patchy solo albums, listen to anything Lennon made after Imagine. In fact, there's some dodgy tracks on Imagine. Lennon only really made one good solo album. I know he didn't make as many as McCartney got to, but if "Double Fantasy" was any indication of where Lennon's 80s was going to go, it would've been very safe, MOR, stuff.

Sonny678 wrote: »

Since Band on the Run there has not been one great McCartney album.

McCartney II (not for everyone, but it's great)
Flowers In The Dirt
Flaming Pie
Rushes (Fireman, but he still made it)
Chaos and Creation in the Backyard
Electric Arguments
New

All great albums.

Sonny678

PropJoe10 wrote:

Larry Mullen is an excellent and underrated drummer. Not sure how anyone could say otherwise. His live work was always great - he's gone a bit safer in the last few years, but he really drives the band.

In the 80s and 90s every year in Rolling Stone magazine he was voted the best drummer in the world. I know Rolling Stone magazine doesn't have the influence or stature now it had in the 70s . But being voted year in year out the best drummer in the world in probaly the most famous and influential music magazine in the world in the 80s and 90s is pretty decent good going for Larry Mullen.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

eviltimeban wrote: »

Yeah, but you can't possibly say something like Zoo Station or Ultraviolet (don't really hear it in Zooropa, it's more a wah wah sound) sound anything like the way it is used in Unknown Caller, or All Because Of You, or Crumbs From Your Table, or Walk On, or You're the best thing about me. It's how it's used really.

Anyway, I will admit there's a clarity to the production of the new album that wasn't there before. And that's good. I know I have a personal preference as to how I'd like U2 to sound (take "Velvet Dress" as the template and go from there ) and if they never do another album like that again, well at least I have my Pop b-sides to keep me warm at night.

Saying that, a lot of SOI made me smile with pleasure, as they had revisited some things they hadn't done before, like effects on Bono's voice (e.g. "Volcano").

Yeah it's wah, mixed with the dotted 8 note delays that he's famous for. (I'm a guitarist ☺️)

As I said earlier, you have a view as to how you want U2 to sound. That's cool. Me, I just base it on if I like the song or not or if it connects with me. I'm not really too bothered on the genre or the style so to speak.

It's like California for example.. The time and place where it connected with me just was magical. One of the best and simplest of moments I've had(on shuffle on Spotify) and, for me, I'll always love that song.

As a musician and writer though, I'd sit down and analyse a song but, as a listener, I let go of that side of things

On a side note, I'm enjoying this discussion. Top posts all round. Apart Darth Troll obviously