Author Topic: People on this forum have overblown POP  (Read 4064 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WookieeWarrior10

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,739
  • Every Artist is a Cannibal, Every Poet is a Thief.
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2017, 04:12:02 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
... all I've ever heard is disgusting negativity towards any new material.

... they want more expiementation like U2 did with Pop, but not like they did with No Line on the Horizon becuase they expierementaion on No Line "sucked".

... those same people who say U2 needs to be more expieremental always rank SOI better than No Line which is just hypocrital because No line was a risk with some safe songs like Crazy. There was nothing but safe songs on SOI.

I can't speak for anyone else, but from where I sit those of us who prefer experimental U2 don't insult everyone else on this forum with sweeping generalizations about what "they" always say or think, especially not when brand new to the group.

Your first impression is lacking.

Hope you realise Achtung Baby's songs are all basically three chord songs....

What relevance does that have? I have never mentioned whether I like or dislike three-chord songs. The question is too broad, like asking whether I like tall people. Swing and a miss.

You said you wanted experimental and adventurous U2.
Status Quo's, AC/DC's, Rory Gallagher's material are mostly 3 or 4 chord songs.

Just saying because they added an effect to the drums on Zoo Station doesn't make it any way more or less artistically great or "adventurous" as those artists I mentioned. Still a great song though mind, especially live

Isn't trying new things what makes music more adventurous? Zoo Station is vastly different than anything U2 had created before it.

Bono's vocals on this song are much more effect-heavy compared to his performances in the '80s, which featured more subtle and natural-sounding changes. The bit-crush effect on Larry's drumming you mentioned was also very musically adventurous for U2.

All of the impressive production aside, the actual playing of the band was also relatively experimental. Edge's sweeping "riff" to start the track, Adam's funk-driven bassline, Bono's low register singing... how is Zoo Station not an adventurous song?

But it has 3 chords, so it's the same as Pride.
I mean, it is practically an AC/DC song already so...

Offline Spaderholic

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 480
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2017, 04:18:26 PM »
All I know is I can still listen to U2's 90's work regularly today and the songs still sound fresh, exciting and full of life to me every time. They have never dated or become boring for me at all. Whereas SOI (apart from the excellent The Troubles) I just can't listen to. It already sounds dated to me and incredibly bland. Just leaves me cold and I hate that one of my all-time favourite bands makes me feel like that with their newer music! I feel the same about The Little Things That Give You Away and I haven't even heard the studio version yet, just the live version a few times! I listened to it again (via Mixlr) at their Barcelona concert and, musically, I find it quite a chore and quite monotonous! I wish I DID like their more recent stuff, and I'm not even talking about wanting the band to be more "adventurous" or "experimental". I just want to hear songs that (in my opinion) are well written and that move me in some way. I get an emotional response listening to their mid/late 80's and 90's work, but I don't with the majority of their more recent stuff. I know a lot of fans like their 2000's/2010's work, for me it's just very bland and dull and MOR, apart from a few songs here and there. No Line On The Horizon is definitely my favourite of their last 4 albums. I'm still hoping there will be stuff on SOE that I like but I know not to let myself get too optimistic as I've been disappointed with each of their last 4 albums. I hope I like some of their new songs though, as I want to carry on loving what the band release. I never want to give up on them. I'm always hopeful that they'll release something new that (to me) I think sounds alive and exciting and vibrant again! I'm sure they still have it in them!

It's funny but the song I like most of theirs since 2000 isn't on any of their studio albums - it's the William Orbit version of Electrical Storm. I think that is a beautiful song. Wonderfully sung by Bono and the WO version has a real dream-like quality to it. Great melody and wonderfully performed with a sweeping, epic sound, especially as the song builds up. I don't expect the band to return to doing stuff as amazing as Achtung Baby or Zooropa, but I would sure love more songs of the quality of Electrical Storm, Original Of The Species or No Line On The Horizon (title song). Btw, I don't think Pop is some great masterpiece but (imo) compared to the 4 albums that followed it, it almost is! I don't like every song on Pop, by any means, but some of my all-time favourite U2 songs are on it (Discotheque, Mofo, Gone, If You Wear That Velvet Dress, Please) and, as I said, along with their other 90's work it still sounds fresh and exciting to me. :)

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,783
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2017, 04:18:32 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Clearly I've touched a nerve or you're going through your teenage years....Either way, your post did make me smirk.

I never said anything of the kind that you're accusing me off.
I said it's a good song, which it is. It's not sh**, it's got a good structure and hook, a good melody and a good chorus, therefore, it's a good song. I just stated that people on here pulled it apart because it wasn't some sort of challenging, artistic adventure. Which is actually a fact.

Fine, if you don't like it or not into it, more power to you. But, it's like I tell people who tell me they hate U2...You can hate them all you want but, they're not a sh** band...Like California, it's not a sh** song, it's just you don't like it or it doesn't tickle your pickle.

Believe me, we've all heard enough sh** songs to know the difference ....

1. Accusing anyone who dares to disagree with you as "going through their teenage years" does nothing to endear you to the forum. I've been around awhile. No idea how long you've been around, but posts like this don't inspire a lot of respect.

2. You greatly overestimate your ability to touch a nerve here. On the other hand, you seem a tad "touched" that someone could say California sucks, and mean it.

3. You contradict yourself when you say you "never said anything of the kind", and then go on to state that California is somehow objectively "good" based on it having a good melody and structure. By that measure, Justin Bieber has "good songs". By that measure, ANYTHING can be said to be a "good song".

4. Notice I never said I think California sucks? It's ok...derivative of Arcade Fire's No Cars Go, not great, but not bad. But I also recognize others might hate it, and others might love it. You're the one writing diatribes on whether it's objectively good or not, not me.

Smirk away, sport.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline the_chief

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 253
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #33 on: July 18, 2017, 04:25:19 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Clearly I've touched a nerve or you're going through your teenage years....Either way, your post did make me smirk.

I never said anything of the kind that you're accusing me off.
I said it's a good song, which it is. It's not sh**, it's got a good structure and hook, a good melody and a good chorus, therefore, it's a good song. I just stated that people on here pulled it apart because it wasn't some sort of challenging, artistic adventure. Which is actually a fact.

Fine, if you don't like it or not into it, more power to you. But, it's like I tell people who tell me they hate U2...You can hate them all you want but, they're not a sh** band...Like California, it's not a sh** song, it's just you don't like it or it doesn't tickle your pickle.

Believe me, we've all heard enough sh** songs to know the difference ....

1. Accusing anyone who dares to disagree with you as "going through their teenage years" does nothing to endear you to the forum. I've been around awhile. No idea how long you've been around, but posts like this don't inspire a lot of respect.

2. You greatly overestimate your ability to touch a nerve here. On the other hand, you seem a tad "touched" that someone could say California sucks, and mean it.

3. You contradict yourself when you say you "never said anything of the kind", and then go on to state that California is somehow objectively "good" based on it having a good melody and structure. By that measure, Justin Bieber has "good songs". By that measure, ANYTHING can be said to be a "good song".

4. Notice I never said I think California sucks? It's ok...derivative of Arcade Fire's No Cars Go, not great, but not bad. But I also recognize others might hate it, and others might love it. You're the one writing diatribes on whether it's objectively good or not, not me.

Smirk away, sport.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1. I don't really care if I have your respect or not tbh.

2. Hardly say I'm touched by it considering I said if people don't like it then fair enough. But, if you feel the need to clutch at straws to gain some sort of internet "I am putting you in your place" mentality then, go ahead. I also don't care.

3. Pretty much yeah.

4. I've no idea what you're on about here tbh. You didn't write about the song but I did....OK, that much is clear and very obvious. Ermmm well done?

5. You talk about respect? Works both ways, slick
The smirk is still on show

Offline podiumboy

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 346
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #34 on: July 18, 2017, 05:48:44 PM »
I was 15 when Pop was released.  It was the first album that was released during my fandom.  I waited for that album for a long time, and was so beyond thrilled when it finally came out.  All my friends were listening to Nirvana, Bush, Soundgarden, Green Day and many lesser bands, but this was the first album that really spoke to me.  I truly love everything about it.  Maybe it's nostalgia, maybe I go back to being an innocent 15 year old in my mind.  But I think it's more than that.  It's hard to say where I'd rank it, but always in the top 5 U2 albums. 

Offline DoYouFeelLoved

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 238
  • Holy Dunc Space Junk
People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #35 on: July 18, 2017, 06:01:13 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you really think that Pop was pandering for hits then you are missing the entire concept of the album. Them attempting to "fit into modern music trends" was done completely ironically.
+1
Plus in 1997 the subgenres of electronic music that inspired Pop (techno, trip hop, dub, etc) were still very much an european club culture thing, they had yet to become a worldwide phenomenon.
It's not like U2 were following the footsteps of Corona or Haddaway.

It was Madonna's "Ray of Light" in 1998 that made club electronic music accessible to the masses
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 06:06:30 PM by DoYouFeelLoved »

Offline THRILLHO

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,124
  • The sun won't melt our wings tonight
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #36 on: July 18, 2017, 06:38:41 PM »
David Bowie's Earthling has a lot in common with Pop. Never heard Ray of Light. I think the Fat of the Land comparisons are a lil overblown

Offline DK46

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 225
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #37 on: July 18, 2017, 06:51:46 PM »
Obviously, I'll speak for myself here, but yeah, I'm in the boat that post-2000s U2 is a bit of a bummer.  I try to be as fair a fan as I can be and not shower them with love nonstop, in fact I think I'm being a better and more honest fan by doing that.  They'll always mean a lot to me of course. Obviously, every great artist goes through phases, you can't necessarily make genius, beyond groundbreaking level material for 40 plus years straight.  The Stones, Dylan, Prince, R.E.M., Springsteen, Bowie, etc.  They've had their highs and lows, but unlike them U2, at least for now, have this insane desire (no pun intended) and obsession with relevancy that I find is hurting them more than helping them.

I get that they were the biggest band in the world for a long time and I'm sure it's hard to lose that, but their legacy is pretty much set.  It's not like they'll be forgotten anytime soon.  But for my money, I'm hearing a band making dull, MOR music as opposed to the music they really want to or could be making.  Of course, I could be totally wrong, maybe HTDAAB is exactly the kind of music they wanted to make and SOI is. 

To be fair, I don't think the spark is completely out as they are still capable of writing great songs, i.e. Winter, Soon, Cedars of Lebanon, The Crystal Ballroom, The Troubles, to name some.  For whatever reason, they just don't want to show off this side of themselves more often, and rather plague their albums with dull, lifeless & poppy hits.  I don't know why Brian Eno can't just say to them, "Guys, you just wrote Cedars of Lebanon, why the hell is Get On Your Boots worthy of being put on this album, let alone recorded?"  Who knows, maybe he did.  Hell, maybe Eno liked the song, to be fair, I have no idea.

I've heard it since by a number of people, but U2 sound best when they least sound like U2.  Sure, I love me some anthemic 80s U2, but I also like bold, adventurous U2.  U2 are one of the greats and why?  Well, because they kept evolving, just like one of their musical heroes, Bowie.  But when Bowie made Never Let Me Down and Tonight, because even he succumbed to the "chasing the hits" mindset in the 80s, he said, nah, that's not for me.  He then went on to make some interesting music in the 90s onward, maybe not everyone's favorite stuff (though I quite dig it), but he was pushing himself at least and trying new things.

I think it hurts more for me, because of the squandered potential.  These guys have shown they can still write great songs, but they're not exploring it fully.  Look, they'll sell out an arena anyday, why not make music you love?  The music market has changed, how it's consumed has changed, no. 1 albums and singles are a relic of the past.  Who listens to radio actively?  Also, considering what's on the top 40, why would U2 want to be associated with that?  Their 2000s music isn't unlistenable to me, in fact, I like some of it.  But I can't say I'd trade it for their 80s and 90s stuff (most especially 90s). 

Anyway, they're U2, so they can do whatever they like.  They do not owe me anything.  Of course, I'll give SOE a listen and catch them on the following tour, (they're still a great live act at least).  But, perhaps once the Livenation deal wraps in 2020, they'll rethink their work ethic and mindset to making music (especially if SOE tanks).  We will just have to wait and see.

Offline trevgreg

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,130
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #38 on: July 18, 2017, 07:52:23 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've heard it since by a number of people, but U2 sound best when they least sound like U2.  Sure, I love me some anthemic 80s U2, but I also like bold, adventurous U2.  U2 are one of the greats and why?  Well, because they kept evolving, just like one of their musical heroes, Bowie.  But when Bowie made Never Let Me Down and Tonight, because even he succumbed to the "chasing the hits" mindset in the 80s, he said, nah, that's not for me.  He then went on to make some interesting music in the 90s onward, maybe not everyone's favorite stuff (though I quite dig it), but he was pushing himself at least and trying new things.

Granted, Get on Your Boots isn't the best song ever, sure... but stuff like Cedars really isn’t the best example, imo. The most you ever hear about that "song" (if we can call it that) really is the lyrical content. Nobody brings up the music itself or the melody or that sort of thing.But if people like it, cool. I might say my piece on it, but theirs isn't any more or less correct either. I'm a guy that likes Beach Sequence, for example, so I'm not all about the "rock" or whatever else. I can like the ambient stuff too. I just don't think it's the only stuff they need to make all the time.

Kind of getting into what An Tha was hinting at earlier... being a good song does not mean it has to sound like one particular thing or another. Pop song, ambient song, alternative song, etc. "Good" is not mutually exclusive with one of those things and not the other. Just like how guitars are not always going to make a song, or trying to bring "new" effects to songs by a band that's already explored just about everything sonically either way. Yeah, Bowie certainly indulged a bit in one new form or another in his later years... but he also had no issues intentionally making the most commercial album possible (Let's Dance) right before that or having a straight-up rock album as his comeback (The Next Day). If U2 was still making the music they were making in the 90's or whatever, then people would be ripping into them for "sounding the same" and that sort of thing.

Do commercial instincts factor into things for them? Sure, but I doubt it's much different from nearly every other band out that way either. And I honestly don't think the songwriting process is really that different from what it was back in the day either. If it was, we would've had the R&B-tinged singles and guest appearances by this point. They haven't sit still on things, even in the past two decades or so. People might not like the results as much as before, but a lot of that might have to do with not having the attachment to songs that we did when we were younger. I think they are making the music "they want to make" right now, but it's just a bit cloudy due to what we personally want to see them make if we had the choice.

After all's said and done, I really just want to hear something that I enjoy. Being 'experimental' or 'adventurous', in itself being pretty vague, doesn't really mean anything unless the end result is something worth listening to. And even then, can someone explain to me how they're going to go about this in the studio? If I go in, do I scroll on the guitar knobs until I find an effect that I think no one's heard before? Do I put Larry on an electronic drum kit and have him do something monotone? Do we just say "screw the guitars and drums" and just write ambient stuff for the hipster cred?

That's sort of why I think there's not a real difference here in the whole songwriting thing. You just go in, plug in, and dig away until you get an idea and work on it. If they went in thinking that they're just going to make weird sounds the whole time and try to make songs out of them, that might even be more contrived than whatever else they might come up with.

Offline lucas.homem

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #39 on: July 18, 2017, 11:15:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've heard it since by a number of people, but U2 sound best when they least sound like U2.  Sure, I love me some anthemic 80s U2, but I also like bold, adventurous U2.  U2 are one of the greats and why?  Well, because they kept evolving, just like one of their musical heroes, Bowie.  But when Bowie made Never Let Me Down and Tonight, because even he succumbed to the "chasing the hits" mindset in the 80s, he said, nah, that's not for me.  He then went on to make some interesting music in the 90s onward, maybe not everyone's favorite stuff (though I quite dig it), but he was pushing himself at least and trying new things.

Granted, Get on Your Boots isn't the best song ever, sure... but stuff like Cedars really isn’t the best example, imo. The most you ever hear about that "song" (if we can call it that) really is the lyrical content. Nobody brings up the music itself or the melody or that sort of thing.

Cedars is very appreciated musically. The chord progression sounds very cold (which is emotionally compelling) and the whole arrangement is very beautiful (especially because they keep adding details that keep the song fresh despite never deviating from the same chord progression).
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 11:17:04 PM by lucas.homem »

Offline achtung child

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 345
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #40 on: July 18, 2017, 11:46:11 PM »
It must be that special time of the week to post five threads about Pop : )

Offline WookieeWarrior10

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,739
  • Every Artist is a Cannibal, Every Poet is a Thief.
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #41 on: July 19, 2017, 12:05:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It must be that special time of the week to post five threads about Pop : )
Let me ask, Pop or Pop?

Online an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,383
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #42 on: July 19, 2017, 01:04:12 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
David Bowie's Earthling has a lot in common with Pop. Never heard Ray of Light. I think the Fat of the Land comparisons are a lil overblown

Ray of Light is for my money the only Madonna album i would ever admit to liking and in all honesty the only one i could sit through....it genuinely has some really good stuff on it

Offline DoYouFeelLoved

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 238
  • Holy Dunc Space Junk
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #43 on: July 19, 2017, 03:20:46 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
David Bowie's Earthling has a lot in common with Pop. Never heard Ray of Light. I think the Fat of the Land comparisons are a lil overblown

Ray of Light is for my money the only Madonna album i would ever admit to liking and in all honesty the only one i could sit through....it genuinely has some really good stuff on it
80% of the merit goes to William Orbit.

His production on that album is a work of genius, still sounds fantastic after 20 years. I'm not afraid to say I absolutely love it.

I would argue that Madonna found her true voice there. Too bad she let it go shortly afterwards.

Offline the_chief

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 253
Re: People on this forum have overblown POP
« Reply #44 on: July 19, 2017, 03:29:52 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
David Bowie's Earthling has a lot in common with Pop. Never heard Ray of Light. I think the Fat of the Land comparisons are a lil overblown

Ray of Light is for my money the only Madonna album i would ever admit to liking and in all honesty the only one i could sit through....it genuinely has some really good stuff on it
80% of the merit goes to William Orbit.

His production on that album is a work of genius, still sounds fantastic after 20 years. I'm not afraid to say I absolutely love it.

I would argue that Madonna found her true voice there. Too bad she let it go shortly afterwards.


Slightly unfair imo.

She released some incredible pop songs in the 80s. Crazy For You is still one of my favourites. Great notation and use of inversions etc. Plus, it's catchy as hell :D