g friday talks about new u2 album

[DGordon1]

How were the songs on The Unforgettable Fire related? Or Achtung, for that matter? The only U2 albums that approached having a central theme or concept were Zooropa and October, if you ask me.

I would say that U2 albums usually have a certain type of sound, and that ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and NLOTH all had a certain sound to them as well.

In fairness I think Zooropa's a pretty disjointed album. A few recurring themes but it doesn't flow particularly well as an album to me - you can tell it's been rather spliced together.

[Droo]

The disjointedness is the point, I would say.

[doctoru2]

Oh my gosh. I just realized something. Everyone who slags on the last three albums and worships Pop is just as bad as all the old people who only like everything up to Rattle and Hum.

Brilliant post.  I edited it only for brevity.

I don't post here often, but the utter nonsense that people were saying in this thread motivated me.

What the heck is "artistic integrity"?  That is such an ambiguous subjective term that it should be banned from usage.  Furthermore, what is so glorious about "Pop"?  It has a few exciting moments, but I don't find it to be this "brilliant" album - in fact, I find it a bit musically boring.  There are highlights, of course, with the exploration of techno.  But even on a song like "Staring at the Sun", Edge is just doing classic George Harrison.   Bono's lyrics were great, but his voice was shot.  And I can't stand songs like "If God Will Send His Angels" or "Playboy Mansion".  If you say that you love NLOTH, save for GOYB and "Crazy", then doesn't that make it rather equal to "Pop"?   

Furthermore, I can challenge the "artistic integrity" of songs in older albums.  "Pride" was U2's direct effort at creating a hit song.  "With or Without You" was a slow love song - the type that always shoot to the top of the charts.  "Desire" is a classic 4/4 rhythm that has been a hit many times before.  "Mysterious Ways" is  perhaps U2's best pop song ever.  "One" is another slow love song.  These are all great songs, but one could readily question U2's "integrity" writing material that would definitely appeal to the masses.

Therefore, I'd rather people say, "This doesn't appeal to me" than spew nonsense about how U2 lost their "integrity".  That means little.

With regards to the actual topic of this thread, I will say this - I hope U2 do release "something different".  Have some fun with the music.  They've tried so many styles already - punk, folk, gospel, rock, pop, techno, contemporary, ambient, etc.  I'd love to see what they have left that is truly "different" without worrying about whether it's a hit. 

[EnduringChill]

I just have to say, I think Zooropa is one of the most cohesive U2 albums and it flows extremely well. That's all...

[Allie79]

Oh my gosh. I just realized something. Everyone who slags on the last three albums and worships Pop is just as bad as all the old people who only like everything up to Rattle and Hum.

Brilliant post.  I edited it only for brevity.

I don't post here often, but the utter nonsense that people were saying in this thread motivated me.

What the heck is "artistic integrity"?  That is such an ambiguous subjective term that it should be banned from usage.  Furthermore, what is so glorious about "Pop"?  It has a few exciting moments, but I don't find it to be this "brilliant" album - in fact, I find it a bit musically boring.  There are highlights, of course, with the exploration of techno.  But even on a song like "Staring at the Sun", Edge is just doing classic George Harrison.   Bono's lyrics were great, but his voice was shot.  And I can't stand songs like "If God Will Send His Angels" or "Playboy Mansion".  If you say that you love NLOTH, save for GOYB and "Crazy", then doesn't that make it rather equal to "Pop"?   

Furthermore, I can challenge the "artistic integrity" of songs in older albums.  "Pride" was U2's direct effort at creating a hit song.  "With or Without You" was a slow love song - the type that always shoot to the top of the charts.  "Desire" is a classic 4/4 rhythm that has been a hit many times before.  "Mysterious Ways" is  perhaps U2's best pop song ever.  "One" is another slow love song.  These are all great songs, but one could readily question U2's "integrity" writing material that would definitely appeal to the masses.

Therefore, I'd rather people say, "This doesn't appeal to me" than spew nonsense about how U2 lost their "integrity".  That means little.

With regards to the actual topic of this thread, I will say this - I hope U2 do release "something different".  Have some fun with the music.  They've tried so many styles already - punk, folk, gospel, rock, pop, techno, contemporary, ambient, etc.  I'd love to see what they have left that is truly "different" without worrying about whether it's a hit. 

Maybe they can do dubstep :-)

[jacob]

Oh my gosh. I just realized something. Everyone who slags on the last three albums and worships Pop is just as bad as all the old people who only like everything up to Rattle and Hum.

Brilliant post.  I edited it only for brevity.

I don't post here often, but the utter nonsense that people were saying in this thread motivated me.

What the heck is "artistic integrity"?  That is such an ambiguous subjective term that it should be banned from usage.  Furthermore, what is so glorious about "Pop"?  It has a few exciting moments, but I don't find it to be this "brilliant" album - in fact, I find it a bit musically boring.  There are highlights, of course, with the exploration of techno.  But even on a song like "Staring at the Sun", Edge is just doing classic George Harrison.   Bono's lyrics were great, but his voice was shot.  And I can't stand songs like "If God Will Send His Angels" or "Playboy Mansion".  If you say that you love NLOTH, save for GOYB and "Crazy", then doesn't that make it rather equal to "Pop"?   

Furthermore, I can challenge the "artistic integrity" of songs in older albums.  "Pride" was U2's direct effort at creating a hit song.  "With or Without You" was a slow love song - the type that always shoot to the top of the charts.  "Desire" is a classic 4/4 rhythm that has been a hit many times before.  "Mysterious Ways" is  perhaps U2's best pop song ever.  "One" is another slow love song.  These are all great songs, but one could readily question U2's "integrity" writing material that would definitely appeal to the masses.

Therefore, I'd rather people say, "This doesn't appeal to me" than spew nonsense about how U2 lost their "integrity".  That means little.

With regards to the actual topic of this thread, I will say this - I hope U2 do release "something different".  Have some fun with the music.  They've tried so many styles already - punk, folk, gospel, rock, pop, techno, contemporary, ambient, etc.  I'd love to see what they have left that is truly "different" without worrying about whether it's a hit. 

Couldn't agree more. both great posts. I'm a bit tired of all this "selling out" sh** as well. It ruines my listening pleasure as I keep seeing this band of cynical money-hungry hypocrits, painted by some people on this forum. 
Glad you guys (?) woke me up!  I like all u2 albums for there own atmosphere. (And i only need 1 Pop). 

[_acrobat]

Oh my gosh. I just realized something. Everyone who slags on the last three albums and worships Pop is just as bad as all the old people who only like everything up to Rattle and Hum.

Brilliant post.  I edited it only for brevity.

I don't post here often, but the utter nonsense that people were saying in this thread motivated me.

What the heck is "artistic integrity"?  That is such an ambiguous subjective term that it should be banned from usage.  Furthermore, what is so glorious about "Pop"?  It has a few exciting moments, but I don't find it to be this "brilliant" album - in fact, I find it a bit musically boring.  There are highlights, of course, with the exploration of techno.  But even on a song like "Staring at the Sun", Edge is just doing classic George Harrison.   Bono's lyrics were great, but his voice was shot.  And I can't stand songs like "If God Will Send His Angels" or "Playboy Mansion".  If you say that you love NLOTH, save for GOYB and "Crazy", then doesn't that make it rather equal to "Pop"?   

Furthermore, I can challenge the "artistic integrity" of songs in older albums.  "Pride" was U2's direct effort at creating a hit song.  "With or Without You" was a slow love song - the type that always shoot to the top of the charts.  "Desire" is a classic 4/4 rhythm that has been a hit many times before.  "Mysterious Ways" is  perhaps U2's best pop song ever.  "One" is another slow love song.  These are all great songs, but one could readily question U2's "integrity" writing material that would definitely appeal to the masses.

Therefore, I'd rather people say, "This doesn't appeal to me" than spew nonsense about how U2 lost their "integrity".  That means little.

With regards to the actual topic of this thread, I will say this - I hope U2 do release "something different".  Have some fun with the music.  They've tried so many styles already - punk, folk, gospel, rock, pop, techno, contemporary, ambient, etc.  I'd love to see what they have left that is truly "different" without worrying about whether it's a hit. 

Maybe they can do dubstep :-)

Or hardcore gangster rap 

[goldtoad]

"Beautiful Day" is a wonderful song. Goodness gracious, does a song have to be dark and brooding to be acceptable? If you listen to the verses, they're actually in quite a contrast to the chorus--it's far from a bubblegum song.

I strongly agree with this and most of Pocket Merlin's post.  "Beautiful Day" is a great song and ATYCLB is a very good album, not JT or AB level, but one of their best.  The theme of finding the faith to be thankful for a beautiful day despite the terrible things that happen in the world may not be ground breaking or daring, but it is a lot deeper than most of pop crap out there.  Bono's own review of HTDAAB is that it was a collection of mostly good songs.  It may not be a great album, but it contains some very good heartfelt songs after the death of his father.  NLOTH was a very good effort to do something different.  Sure, they may have chickened out because they had a huge tour planned in the middle of a deep economic recession, but it still was a good album. 

U2 will probably never be as daring as they were in the 90s, but they have produced some very good music since Pop. 

[Fist-O]

I just have to say, I think Zooropa is one of the most cohesive U2 albums and it flows extremely well. That's all...

Spot on.

[boom boom]

Slick keyboards are everywhere you look on those songs when really, there should have been tuneful electric guitars. But I guess U2 albums cannot be not commercial so something's got to give.

You do realize U2 have heavily used keyboards during the beloved 90s era, right? Achtung, Zooropa, and Pop are awash with keyboards and synths. Also, several 80s songs use keyed instruments. New Year's Day, Scarlet, I Fall Down, The Unforgettable Fire, MLK, Streets, WOWY, etc. There's nothing wrong with keyboards. Their use is no less legitimate than guitar. In fact, I'd argue that U2 don't sound as good when they rely solely on guitar. Example: the lurching monstrosity that is most of HTDAAB.

I agree there is nothing wrong with keyboards, but also remember that monstrosity that you call HTDAAB won album of the year.  Sometimes for a change it's goood to see U2 just rock out-Vertigo, ABOY, nothing wrong with this either.

[JTBaby]

Slick keyboards are everywhere you look on those songs when really, there should have been tuneful electric guitars. But I guess U2 albums cannot be not commercial so something's got to give.

You do realize U2 have heavily used keyboards during the beloved 90s era, right? Achtung, Zooropa, and Pop are awash with keyboards and synths. Also, several 80s songs use keyed instruments. New Year's Day, Scarlet, I Fall Down, The Unforgettable Fire, MLK, Streets, WOWY, etc. There's nothing wrong with keyboards. Their use is no less legitimate than guitar. In fact, I'd argue that U2 don't sound as good when they rely solely on guitar. Example: the lurching monstrosity that is most of HTDAAB.

I agree there is nothing wrong with keyboards, but also remember that monstrosity that you call HTDAAB won album of the year.  Sometimes for a change it's goood to see U2 just rock out-Vertigo, ABOY, nothing wrong with this either.

Is there anything more irrelevant to artistic quality than a grammy ?

Just some perspective : Eric clapton unplugged beat Achtung Baby

HTDAAB WAS a monstrosity, and those songs are to "rock" what Bon Jovi is to Heavy Metal or what Vanilla Ice is to rap.

[MLP Midnight]

Slick keyboards are everywhere you look on those songs when really, there should have been tuneful electric guitars. But I guess U2 albums cannot be not commercial so something's got to give.

You do realize U2 have heavily used keyboards during the beloved 90s era, right? Achtung, Zooropa, and Pop are awash with keyboards and synths. Also, several 80s songs use keyed instruments. New Year's Day, Scarlet, I Fall Down, The Unforgettable Fire, MLK, Streets, WOWY, etc. There's nothing wrong with keyboards. Their use is no less legitimate than guitar. In fact, I'd argue that U2 don't sound as good when they rely solely on guitar. Example: the lurching monstrosity that is most of HTDAAB.

I agree there is nothing wrong with keyboards, but also remember that monstrosity that you call HTDAAB won album of the year.  Sometimes for a change it's goood to see U2 just rock out-Vertigo, ABOY, nothing wrong with this either.

Is there anything more irrelevant to artistic quality than a grammy ?

Just some perspective : Eric clapton unplugged beat Achtung Baby

HTDAAB WAS a monstrosity, and those songs are to "rock" what Bon Jovi is to Heavy Metal or what Vanilla Ice is to rap.

The end of Crumbs to be comes closest to this "rock" than anything else on the album.

[codeguy]

Hmmm....they haven't given a crap since POP? So all the following songs are crap?
* Kite
* Beautiful Day
* Elevation
* Walk On
* Vertigo
* Moment of Surrender
* Electrical Storm
* White as Snow
* City of blinding lights
* Mercy
* Sometimes you cant make it on your own
* Yahweh


I don't know about you, but I think they have done some pretty good work, especially considering they don't need to do this anymore. They have the fame, the money, why not live it up? U2 fans can be too hard on them sometimes. It's like U2 fans expect them to be something more than a rock band

[DGordon1]

Slick keyboards are everywhere you look on those songs when really, there should have been tuneful electric guitars. But I guess U2 albums cannot be not commercial so something's got to give.

You do realize U2 have heavily used keyboards during the beloved 90s era, right? Achtung, Zooropa, and Pop are awash with keyboards and synths. Also, several 80s songs use keyed instruments. New Year's Day, Scarlet, I Fall Down, The Unforgettable Fire, MLK, Streets, WOWY, etc. There's nothing wrong with keyboards. Their use is no less legitimate than guitar. In fact, I'd argue that U2 don't sound as good when they rely solely on guitar. Example: the lurching monstrosity that is most of HTDAAB.

I agree there is nothing wrong with keyboards, but also remember that monstrosity that you call HTDAAB won album of the year.  Sometimes for a change it's goood to see U2 just rock out-Vertigo, ABOY, nothing wrong with this either.

Is there anything more irrelevant to artistic quality than a grammy ?

Just some perspective : Eric clapton unplugged beat Achtung Baby

HTDAAB WAS a monstrosity, and those songs are to "rock" what Bon Jovi is to Heavy Metal or what Vanilla Ice is to rap.

Agree with the Grammy comments but the rest is slightly b*****ks. Not my favourite album by far, but pretty solid all the same.

[eddyjedi]

SUC is way better than people realise.