Red Mosquito

Kevin Davis wrote:I think the live versions of "Pride," "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," and "Bullet the Blue Sky" are great. The covers are terrible, though, and the interludes are dumb. I think it's a pretty good album overall.

I will definitely agree that the live version of Pride is pretty great. I've always vastly preferred the movie version of I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, which I think actually succeeds at what the album version fails to do. All of the intimacy and feel of "Man, here's the biggest band in the world stepping out of their element" that you get from them playing the song in the church with the gospel choir is completely lost and ground out of them song when the tables are turned and it's the gospel choir appearing with them at MSG (I believe it's MSG, at leat). And with how massively they ended up reworking Bullet the Blue Sky on Zoo TV and Popmart, the Rattle & Hum version now falls into some weird no man's land for me in between the 90's versions and the original studio version.

When I first got into U2, I really liked Rattle & Hum (it was the third album I had by them after The Joshua Tree & Achtung Baby). It just sunk hard and fast to the bottom of my personal preferences once I really got into the rest of the catalog. I will say this though, for how embarrassing and over-the-top some of the speeches and interludes in the movie are, I still very much enjoy it from time to time based solely on how searing some of the performances in it (especially Sunday Bloody Sunday, Pride, Exit, Bad, and Where the Streets Have No Name) are, and how beautiful a lot of the footage is.

Kaius wrote:I'm through The Unforgettable Fire and so far Boy/War>October>UF

Just started The Joshua Tree. One thing is for certain: they know how to do opening tracks.

UF is the first U2 album I really love. I never got into Boy. But Bad, Pride, Unforgettable Fire, Wire, and A Sort of Homecoming are all killer tracks.

stip wrote:

Kaius wrote:I'm through The Unforgettable Fire and so far Boy/War>October>UF

Just started The Joshua Tree. One thing is for certain: they know how to do opening tracks.

UF is the first U2 album I really love. I never got into Boy. But Bad, Pride, Unforgettable Fire, Wire, and A Sort of Homecoming are all killer tracks.

It's definitely getting another good listen. Half of the tracks I can't even remember as of now so..

Pop

verb_to_trust wrote:Pop

Pop was them speaking to their time. The growing wave of dance music and drug/club culture surrounding them at the time and its one nod to the big lights of the time, Oasis, in staring at the sun. It's a very easy record to dismiss but it debunks the idea that every U2 album has to be an event. I really don't think they did that intentionally. We just all found out that they're good at what they do, and they really should stick to that.
Though as tongue in cheek big camp send ups go, Discotech(sp?) was pretty successful.
It and get On your boots always sounded similar to me. Could just be whatever effect edge is using

I originally thought that about those two songs. But it turns out that Discotheque is a much, much better song.

Discotheque is a great song. I have fond memories of pop because it was the album that came out just as I was becoming a fan. It's probably in my top 5

Pop is a great album yeah...and Discotheque is awesome. I love how they remember the record as flawed for some reason.
Maybe because it wasnt a hit? The same with the last one.

I cannot believe that a thread about U2 has LESS posts than a thread about REM has... err wait!

<---ducks

Rem is the better band by a country mile, but U2 DOES have a new album coming out...

stip wrote:Rem is the better band by a country mile, but U2 DOES have a new album coming out...

Better at what?

Not trolling. Just wondering what you're referring to, specifically.

Bob Loblaw wrote:The new song is just lame, I'm sad to say. Still, like someone else said, I'm curious about the new album, but not very hopeful. I'll still try to catch them on tour because no one does live like U2.

Regarding Larry, here's a good story on his strongest suit:

"I was working with Larry Mullen, Jr., on one of the U2 albums," Eno [Producer Brian Eno] told me. " 'All That You Don't Leave Behind,' or whatever it's called." Mullen was playing drums over a recording of the band and a click track - a computer-generated beat that was meant to keep all the overdubbed parts in synch. In this case, however, Mullen thought that the click track was slightly off: it was a fraction of a beat behind the rest of the band. "I said, 'No, that can't be so, Larry,' " Eno recalled. " 'We've all worked to that track, so it must be right.' But he said, 'Sorry, I just can't play to it.' "

Eno eventually adjusted the click to Mullen's satisfaction, but he was just humoring him. It was only later, after the drummer had left, that Eno checked the original track again and realized that Mullen was right: the click was off by six milliseconds. "The thing is," Eno told me, "when we were adjusting it I once had it two milliseconds to the wrong side of the beat, and he said, 'No, you've got to come back a bit.' Which I think is absolutely staggering."

Bob Loblaw wrote:

stip wrote:Rem is the better band by a country mile, but U2 DOES have a new album coming out...

Better at what?

Not trolling. Just wondering what you're referring to, specifically.

I think that, if you were trolling, you'd probably do something like pop into a U2 thread and say "REM is the better band by a country mile."

stip wrote:Rem is the better band by a country mile, but U2 DOES have a new album coming out...

I would disagree and say U2 is the better band, but I legitimately love them both to the point of gushing at times.

Yeah, I don't think better applies to U2/REM, Stip. peers, certainly. But they're incomparable with regards output and overall effect.

Bob Loblaw wrote:

stip wrote:Rem is the better band by a country mile, but U2 DOES have a new album coming out...

Better at what?

Not trolling. Just wondering what you're referring to, specifically.

Probably everything but self-promotion. Better songwriting, better songs, better live shows (later in their career, anyway. U2 was better in the 80s). That's not a shot at U2. taking their career as a whole they're still great, and still a band where, even if I don't have high hopes for an excellent album (I don't) I still expect a few memorable songs and believe they COULD produce a great album.

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:Rem is the better band by a country mile, but U2 DOES have a new album coming out...

I would disagree and say U2 is the better band, but I legitimately love them both to the point of gushing at times.

did you know that if you said that in an REM thread you'd be trolling?

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:Rem is the better band by a country mile, but U2 DOES have a new album coming out...

I would disagree and say U2 is the better band, but I legitimately love them both to the point of gushing at times.

did you know that if you said that in an REM thread you'd be trolling?

that feeling you're feeling is just what some of us call a feeling.