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

I find the album generally pretty dire and a difficult listen. As a fan I want to like it. No doubt some of the songs will grow legs and mature as they play them live, that's what U2 does best these days. The album just feels like they're going through the motions, meeting contract obligations and churning out whatever ideas they have. It's a shame; they are still capable of great things. If they had released SOI+E as a single album, it would have had far less (probably no) filler.

phonypony wrote: »

Especially when it's used wrong as it has been in this thread. It does not mean a hugely successful group, it's intended to describe a group comprised of previously successful artists; Wilburys, Mike & The Mechanics, etc... U2 ain't a supergroup.

I know supergroup means more Wilburys etc. But just what I was trying to draw attention that U2 are the last massive rock group in the vein of Pink Floyd Led Zepplin The Who REM The Stones The Beatles. Groups who produced some all time classics albums that conquered the world. Sold albums by 10s of millions. Had critical acclaim. World breaking tours. And everyone knows each member of the bands name. The first was the Beatles the last one was U2. Nirvana were probaly the last American group in this league. Radiohead are probaly the last British group. But I would question if Radiohead ever were as big as U2 or The Who in America. They weren't.

Coldplay are probaly the only band at the moment that would have similar sucess to the above mentioned. But they have yet to produce a stone cold classic album like Sergeant Peppers Who's Next Led Zepplin The Joshua Tree Dark Side of the Moon or Automatic for the People. You cannot mention them up with the above artists.

U2 are last of these type of groups. The Rolling Stones also but the Stones haven't produced a great album since early 70s and have been a greatest hits touring group since. Will we ever see a Led Zepplin or U2 again conquering both sides of the Atlantic. That's what I meant. But I understand why anyone would say that supergroup means Wilbury. It does. I used it wrongly. I just wanted to use a term to group all these massive iconic bands together. U2 would be the last great big massive iconic band in the mould of the Who or Pink Flyod or The Police even.

phonypony wrote: »

I find the album generally pretty dire and a difficult listen. As a fan I want to like it. No doubt some of the songs will grow legs and mature as they play them live, that's what U2 does best these days. The album just feels like they're going through the motions, meeting contract obligations and churning out whatever ideas they have. It's a shame; they are still capable of great things. If they had released SOI+E as a single album, it would have had far less (probably no) filler.

I think also you could be right if SOI +E where a single album it would have been better. There is overlap with America Soul/Volcano and 13/Song for Someone. Some of the songs on Innocence are poor. Some good tracks like Every Breaking Wave Volcano and the excellent California. But the best song on the album ( one of U2 best since in 2000) is the The Troubles. For me The Troubles and Moment of Surrender would fit in with their 80s and 90s work. SOI AND SOE together could been seriously good. But I'm overall happy with SOE.

Gonna wait for the Guilty Tour.

Sonny678 wrote: »

Stick with it. It's a grower. There's not enough Edge on the album. But the thing that surprises me about the album is it has allot of strong melodies. U2 in the 80s wouldn't have been able to write a song like The Showman. It's an 80 pop song in the mould of the awful Duran Duran or the underrated Mental as Anything. The Sweetest thing the original b side of one of the Joshua Tree singles was the closest they came to a pop song in the 80s. But now hitting near 60s and since 2000 they have become better at writing these type of songs. Now that might be a good thing for some but I would say people who like War U2 and 80s U2 would find that a bad thing. But for me writing a good pop song is very hard thing to do. And I think it's shows the talent U2 still have. But it is a diminishing talent .

Overall the album is a grower. It's gets better with every listen unlike songs of Innocence. And is one of their best since 2000. But the underrated No line on the Horizon probaly has better songs. And U2 sound like a rock band on that album. This album the production is minimal . Meaty rock songs like Breathe and NLOTH would be much superior then anything on the current album. And Moment of Surrender is one of U2 best songs since 2000. And would have walked on to their 80s or 90s albums. Magnificent is the last proper U2 style rock athnem. It should have been lead single. The problem was U2 never recovered from releasing the God awful mess of a song called get on your sexy boots or whatever it was called. One of the worst U2 songs ever. Eno thought Moment of Surrender was one of their best songs ever. Yet U2 wanted to re write Vertigo and ended up writing a messed up song , basically 3 songs stuck together in 1. This gave NLOTH a bad name , a bad impression . Undeservedly so.

Agree 100 per cent with your thoughts on NLOTH. I've been listening to it a hell of a lot in the last week (a new album will always send me on a listening binge!) and it absolutely didn't get the credit it deserved at the time. Take out Boots, Stand up Comedy plus I'll Go Crazy and there's very little wrong with it actually.

And that's not taking into account the bizarre decision to leave Winter off the album. What were they thinking of?? It's a fantastic song...the strings at the start...the operatic vocals at the end are hairs on the back of your neck stuff. They've done it again with Book of your Heart. What did that great piece of music do to be relegated to a bonus track?

Wooderson wrote: »

I’m not that interested in The Context which appears is the only thing that matters on this thread now. How “important” they are or aren’t isn’t important right now to me. I don’t get a shiver thinking where they compare. That’s not the love/fandom I engage in. It comes across cold, robotic and one dimensional to me.

I love the band. This record isn’t that great. It’s not a surprise. I don’t give a fiddlers where they rank in comparison to the ‘king Police.

Good morning.

Ahh Poor Woody did I upset you while your eating your Weetabix or Coca Pops or whatever you have breakfast ( Cornflakes is still the number 1 cereal in my book. Sorry I shouldn't say this as you don't like comparisons. ).

Firstly I didn't think you had to agree to a certain direction when you wrote on this forum. If you don't like the direction it has taken . Don't read it. Boards ie has many flaws. But one of it great strenghts is you can take any forum in what ever direction you want. Long may it continue.

Yes of course music is a gut feeling. It's spiritual. It's touchs one deep down in ones gut , soul , heart and spirit etc etc. Its all about emotions and feelings. Sometimes it make you feel happy . Sometimes it makes you feel sad. It might bring back a happy memory other times a sad memory. It is mysterious it is life affirming. It is fecking brillant in every way possible. But like everything there are many sides to music. The great thing about music you can take whatever you want from a song good bad or indifferent.

You might not like the competition side to music. That's your prerogative. But while we like to think of music as some sort of spiritual mystical thing , which it is. Other less mystical ideals have influence on artists like competition and rivalries.

When a band like U2 release anything it will be always compared to former albums. Go on to any U2 forums and you will see pages upon pages of U2 fans from Austin Texas to California to Budapest to Perth Australia ranking this album and comparing this album to past works. Every great artist with back catalogues , when they release new albums. Their current work is compared to past work. It ain't a crime to compare and contrast. It's fun actually.

Back to competition. One of the things that drives bands on since the beginning of time is competition. Not a cool thing to say. But it's true. Everytine U2 release an album Bono says its their best. They want to make an album better then Achtung Baby . U2 are in competition with themselves. To make another great album.

Look at the greatest band ever The Beatles. Yes they had great talent, great charisma, great manager and where at the right time and right place. But at the heart of the Beatles sucess was the rivalry between McCartney and Lennon. That ugliest of human emotions jealousy, drove the beatles on. Lennon would write a great song. This would spur Mcartney to write a greater song. Lennon would then try and better Mcartney with another song. And Mcartney would then try and better lennons effort. This rivalry, this competition led to the two of them creating rocks/ pops finest songbook. And in the end drove them apart.

At the start they were best friends . But by the end they hated each others guts. Just watch the the doc Imagine. Where lennon is recording How do you Sleep a song directed at Mcartney . Lennon sings How do you Sleep ye c@@##t while Harrison plays guitar. It's obvious who he is talking about. Even at the end of 70s when lennon came back to music. It wasn't because of some sort of creative reason. Other then as he said himself he heard the latest Mcartney song and he thought **** that's good I better getting writing again.

(That's rivalry drove them on. And led to the break up of their relationships. Behind the music the amount of court cases between band members was unreal. And even after lennons death it got worse if anything. And the reason they got together in the mid 90s was not for music reasons and try and write a song together out of lennons tape recording of free as a bird. It was because of the money. It's very sad to hear how court cases and money and rivalries drove the Beatles apart. But overall Mcartney / Lennon rivalry drove them on to huge sucess. )

It wasn't just the Beatles and competition with themselves. They had rivalries with other groups. Brian Wilson heard Revolver and his response was Pet Sounds. When Mcartney heard Pet Sounds this drove him to make Sergeant Pepper. When Wilson heard Segerat Pepper he was blown away. He tried to make a follow but ended up having a nervous breakdown which he never really recovered from. (Along of course with taking to much LSD.)

Of course the Stones and Beatles were in competition. Their was no love lost there. When The Beatles wrote Segerat Pepper The Stones wrote Their Satanic Majesties Request in complete response. When Jagger first heard Hey Jude as he was driving along in his car for the first time. When the song ended, instead of marvelling at 8 and half minutes of pop perfection, he said "how the f#$$#k are we going to better that". So the Stones went into the studio to attempt to their Hey Jude and their response to the Beatles song was a song called You cannot always get What you Want.

The 70s was a golden age for rock and pop music. And yet it was a very competitive time in music . I heard Don McLean just recently saying how competitive musicians where in thr early 70s. Think of the California scene in the 70s ,the singer songwriter scene . What drove that scene was great talent. But the two other factors in the background was cocaine and competition. Yes the sweet sounds of James Taylor and co.

Every band that begins wants to write great songs and great albums. But also they want to be the best band in their town , the best band in their region then the best band in their country and so on.
So music yes is a feeling. But competition comparisons and rivalries are all in the background playing a role. But in the end you can take whatever you want from a song or an album or any sort of music, that's the beauty of it. There should be no restrictions.

Sonny678 wrote: »

They have left many great tracks like Book before of their albums. Like The Beatles ( Rain ) The Jam ( liza Radley ) and Oasis ( Master plan, Rockin Chair) U2 are one of those bands that produce great B sides. The Smiths are another band who produced great B sides eg Asleep, Rubber Ring. Other great U2 B sides eg Luminous Tree and Lady with the Spinning head . Both should have been on albums. But that what's make them a great band. Another band would have released Asleep as a single. The Smiths put it on a b side.

Holy Joe is another gem of a B Side ,should have been on POP .

FFS.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Times are tough it seems so Bono and the Edge are back to busking,this time on the Berlin underground.

and still people have not learned how to capture videos correctly on their mobile phones

And I love Phil. Especially the Brother Bear s/t. That was his best since the Tarzan which was his last and at that point in time had been by a MILE the very best OST in the history of recorded music. The b-sides to the Tarzan OST were better than Star Wars too.

?

I love Phil Collins. Have you seen his sales figures? Sheesh. Phil's up there with the big boys. And you shouldnt sleep on that Brother Bear soundtrack either. Its as good as - if not better than - the Joshua Tree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD4PXEw8hxM

Missed opportunity to film that in Bahnhof Zoo from the lads.

Sonny678 wrote: »

Your right book of your heart should have been on the album as it is stronger then some of the tracks on the album. Book of your heart has that The Cure, Echo and the Bunny men feel to it, mid 1980s indie rock.

U2 have always done this. U2 and many great bands do this all the time. Leave some of their best songs of albums and instead the songs would have been placed as b sides on singles. Book of your Heart would have been kept as b side on a single in the past. But U2 r not really a sucessful singles band anymore.

They have left many great tracks like Book before of their albums. Like The Beatles ( Rain ) The Jam ( liza Radley ) and Oasis ( Master plan, Rockin Chair) U2 are one of those bands that produce great B sides. The Smiths are another band who produced great B sides eg Asleep, Rubber Ring. Other great U2 B sides eg Luminous Tree and Lady with the Spinning head . Both should have been on albums. But that what's make them a great band. Another band would have released Asleep as a single. The Smiths put it on a b side.

U2 greatest b side is love comes Tumbling Down. Which could be one U2 best songs ever. Other class U2 b sides are Hallelujah Here she comes, Walk to the Water, A Room at the Heartbreak Hotel and Blow your House Down. The second greatest B side ever is Rain by the Beatles. To this day it is pop guitar perfection. And Ringo sounds amazing on this song. The greatest b side ever has to I am the Walrus. Now that is a tune and a half. Other classic b sides would be The Beatles Revolution. And The Rolling Stones best b side was You cannot always get what you want which was the b side to the inferior Honky Tonk Woman . Three of my personal favs would be Gloria B Side from Vans first band Them ( It originally was a b side). And Ian Dury and The Blockhead b side to Hit me with your Rhythm stick the rather excellent There ain't half been some Clever Bastards. Oasis Fade Away b side to Cigarettes and Alcohol was great fun also.

In summary bands who have produced great b sides would have been U2 The Beatles The Jam The Smiths Oasis and also Pearl Jam have a few tasty b sides also. Radiohead also have some great b sides with the songs Fog and Talk show Host and Prince also has some great b sides eg 17 Days, Irresistible Bitch.

I know you meant Luminous Times! And that to me is one of U2's greatest songs, never mind their best B side. Only I can actually see why they didn't put it on the Joshua Tree. I don't think it would have been a natural fit. It's just out there on its own, bouncing around on the waves. This is what U2 were always so brilliant at. They painted these great images with their music. Soundscapes, if you will.

Tomas White Suspect wrote:

Sequencing an album is an art in itself.. Maybe that's why Book Of Your Heart is left off the latest? Disrupts the flow or something?

Tomas White Suspect wrote:

I don't know

That is true. Sequencing is important. U2 loading the Joshua Tree and All that you cannot leave behind with the singles at the start was masterstroke. I mean is their better opening to an album then the Joshua Tree.
Yep Luminous Times is excellent. But Bands like U2 and The Jam have always kept great songs as b sides. But personally I think you could have fitted Luminous Times Walk to the Water and even maybe The Sweetest Thing at the end of Joshua Tree. The Joshua Tree is very strong throughout with Bullet Running to a stand still In God's Country One Tree Hill and the brillant Trip through your Wires. But I think the last two songs are kind of filler. I know many wouldn't agree. Exit is a monster live. But I don't know on the album. And Mothers of the Disappeared has a great message but song wise I think it's weak. Luminous Times at the end would have been amazing. But I don't know if many will agree.

The Beatles if they put Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields on Segerat Pepper it would put that classic album on an even higher level. When I listen to Segerat Pepper I always put both songs on the album. And if the beach Boys placed Good Vibrations on Pet Sounds instead of Sloop John or whatever that song is called. It would have made Pet Sounds even more perfect.