Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:Good luck, Mecca. We've got you in our prayers, tonight.

They could not take my pride

Mecca wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Good luck, Mecca. We've got you in our prayers, tonight.

They could not take my pride

Start of every breaking wave sounds like with or without you..

they really have gone back to try find what they were good at..

Bono interview with the irish times

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/bono- ... -1.1927184

dimejinky99 wrote:Start of every breaking wave sounds like with or without you..

they really have gone back to try find what they were good at..

I disagree. The problem is that they'll never be able to reproduce what they were great at because Bono can't do what he once did. They can probably get close (City of Blinding Lights was the last time U2 tried to write a classic U2 song and hit the mark) but they'll never get there, and the music will suffer as a comparison. But they are still an extremely talented group of musicians, and if they try to do something new that can be judged on its own merits (as much as u2 can ever be given a blank slate) they can still be successful. it's not a coincidence that the songs people like the most tend to be the ones that sound the least like classic u2.

I'd argue they shouldnt be 'going back' at all, but the first and main thing people say about U2 is they prefer the old stuff, so they've clearly taken that on board...

Just reading some U2 forums and Dublin forums, one argument really struck home, about Pop, and how it crashed and burned so badly(mainly cos America didnt 'get it') but dance/club culture was so big here and in Europe at the time, they wanted to reference it, but because it failed in their main market, its prevented them from ever being that brave and experimental again...apparently the band were really freaked out by the negative reaction to it....i dont watch U2 that closely, so ill defer to their fans saying this.

So again, theyre in a lose/lose..cant go forward and be brave, cant go back to familiar touchstones..they et burned for doing either..

City of blinding lights is easily myfavorite U2 song..Stay faraway so close right behind it...

Stay is 20 years old

excited and intrigued about the songs of experience record

"As for those who crave acoustic U2, hold yer horses, the commercial release on October 13th will have up to 7 additional acoustic versions;

http://www.billboard.com/articles/bu...s-of-innocence

"There’s four brand-new songs, and Gary Kelly [Interscope’s head of retail sales] can tell you there’s a bunch of acoustic versions of songs from the album, too. So it’s probably gonna be anywhere between nine or 11 songs that were not on the standard."

By the way, what bands *do* pitchfork actually like or review favourably?

all the bands I like get absolutely slaughtered there...

I have to say that while there's good stuff on Songs of Innocence, nothing about that record has me excited about another album coming from those same sessions. I'd much rather have had them take the best stuff from both, and maybe they could have had a pretty strong record between them.

We'll see though. Maybe that one is awesome and this is the leftovers.

stip wrote:I have to say that while there's good stuff on Songs of Innocence, nothing about that record has me excited about another album coming from those same sessions. I'd much rather have had them take the best stuff from both, and maybe they could have had a pretty strong record between them.

We'll see though. Maybe that one is awesome and this is the leftovers.

That's usually the case with most double albums, though this technically isn't one per se, it is in spirit.

Mecca wrote:That's usually the case with most double albums.

It absolutely isn't.

I would bet that unless this album ends up being seen as a success, we won't get the quick follow up. Remember that every breaking wave was originally going to be part of a follow-up record to no line. That sure changed when the band saw the response that record got.

dimejinky99 wrote:I'd argue they shouldnt be 'going back' at all, but the first and main thing people say about U2 is they prefer the old stuff, so they've clearly taken that on board...

Just reading some U2 forums and Dublin forums, one argument really struck home, about Pop, and how it crashed and burned so badly(mainly cos America didnt 'get it') but dance/club culture was so big here and in Europe at the time, they wanted to reference it, but because it failed in their main market, its prevented them from ever being that brave and experimental again...apparently the band were really freaked out by the negative reaction to it....i dont watch U2 that closely, so ill defer to their fans saying this.

So again, theyre in a lose/lose..cant go forward and be brave, cant go back to familiar touchstones..they et burned for doing either..

I’ve never been a huge U2 fan, but I’ve always enjoyed their music. I saw them twice on the Pop tour, once in the US and once in Europe. Both shows were pretty good, but the European audiences were way more into it and the venue was better. (The US gig was held in a football stadium that had a LOT of empty seats.) I saw them again in maybe 2005 or so. They’re a solid live band, but I’ve never been blown away by them in concert. Maybe I just caught them on off nights or something.

I give them a lot of credit for working really hard to make good albums. They never phone it in or put something out that they haven’t put some real effort and thought into. I can’t say the same for their live shows, which tend to stick to a very conservative playlist of megahits and rarely mixes things up. When you play football stadiums, that’s what you have to do, which is one reason they’ve never been in my top-whatever bands. They’re a great studio band and they deliver those songs very professionally in concert, but I’ve never felt any sense of spontaneity or that anything could happen at a U2 show. You see one show on a tour, you’ve pretty much seen them all. I guess they’ll throw in a rarity here and there. It was telling that they had their fans vote on songs for a fan club-only live album from the last tour and almost every winning song was a megahit. That’s who they’re catering to, unfortunately, but that’s the fanbase they’ve cultivated their entire career. When you aspire to be the biggest band on earth, you gotta play the hits every single night.

I was bummed when U2 abandoned their experimental phase and went back to their Joshua Tree sound. I suppose it was inevitable, but Achtung, Zooropa, and Pop and among my favorite U2 records. They were a much more interesting band during that era than they have been since. According to Wikipedia, Pop sold 8 million copies worldwide. (That’s a failure???) No Line on the Horizon sold 5 million worldwide, also nothing to sneeze at in the “music-is-free” era.

stip wrote:The problem is that they'll never be able to reproduce what they were great at because Bono can't do what he once did. They can probably get close but they'll never get there, and the music will suffer as a comparison. But they are still an extremely talented group of musicians, and if they try to do something new that can be judged on its own merits (as much as u2 can ever be given a blank slate) they can still be successful.

dime wrote:I'd argue they shouldnt be 'going back' at all, but the first and main thing people say about U2 is they prefer the old stuff, so they've clearly taken that on board...

mecca wrote:this album feels forced

PryTo wrote:I give them a lot of credit for working really hard to make good albums. They never phone it in or put something out that they haven’t put some real effort and thought into.

You guys are just baiting me to see if I'll make a Pearl Jam joke at this point, aren't you?

dimejinky99 wrote:By the way, what bands *do* pitchfork actually like or review favourably?

all the bands I like get absolutely slaughtered there...

If only there was a section on their website listing what they consider the best new music.

dimejinky99 wrote:Bono interview with the irish times

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/bono- ... -1.1927184

spike wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Bono interview with the irish times

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/bono- ... -1.1927184

I don't usually care much for artist interviews, but there was some interesting stuff here.

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:The problem is that they'll never be able to reproduce what they were great at because Bono can't do what he once did. They can probably get close but they'll never get there, and the music will suffer as a comparison. But they are still an extremely talented group of musicians, and if they try to do something new that can be judged on its own merits (as much as u2 can ever be given a blank slate) they can still be successful.

dime wrote:I'd argue they shouldnt be 'going back' at all, but the first and main thing people say about U2 is they prefer the old stuff, so they've clearly taken that on board...

mecca wrote:this album feels forced

PryTo wrote:I give them a lot of credit for working really hard to make good albums. They never phone it in or put something out that they haven’t put some real effort and thought into.

You guys are just baiting me to see if I'll make a Pearl Jam joke at this point, aren't you?

I've been biting my tongue this entire thread.

McParadigm wrote:

spike wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Bono interview with the irish times

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/bono- ... -1.1927184

I don't usually care much for artist interviews, but there was some interesting stuff here.

Brilliant move by Bono to break through the writer's block by tapping into his teen angst, but that probably signifies that the tank is now empty.