Author Topic: U2 = 6, not 4?  (Read 2244 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline adamsmark

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • "I believe in the atomic bomb."
U2 = 6, not 4?
« on: February 27, 2009, 12:17:03 AM »
Having been a fan of U2 since just after War, I was disappointed that Lillywhite was no longer producing U2's records. (I must confess that, even today, the first three albums are my favorites.) It would be more than a decade before I would appreciate the Unforgettable Fire, produced by Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois. What followed were some of U2's most powerful records: Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby! I even rank the Passengers album at the top of U2's catalog.

As the defining moments of U2's career center on the U2/Eno/Lanois collaboration, might one not consider U2 a group of six? (Or, at least, four with two satellites?)

I don't think I would say this if I didn't like No Line so much. For me this is the album I've been expecting ever since Passengers demonstrated what was possible for U2, which, though not the band's finest, showed moments of subdued greatness.



Offline Nagrom99

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 881
  • I'm 25, trying to stay alive.....
Re: U2 = 6, not 4?
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2009, 02:16:46 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Having been a fan of U2 since just after War, I was disappointed that Lillywhite was no longer producing U2's records. (I must confess that, even today, the first three albums are my favorites.) It would be more than a decade before I would appreciate the Unforgettable Fire, produced by Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois. What followed were some of U2's most powerful records: Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby! I even rank the Passengers album at the top of U2's catalog.

As the defining moments of U2's career center on the U2/Eno/Lanois collaboration, might one not consider U2 a group of six? (Or, at least, four with two satellites?)

I don't think I would say this if I didn't like No Line so much. For me this is the album I've been expecting ever since Passengers demonstrated what was possible for U2, which, though not the band's finest, showed moments of subdued greatness.

well said - although, I'm not getting the 'risk' or 'innovation' that everyone keeps referring to.  It's a good record - some real highlights....but, not as drastically different as I thought it was going to be.

Offline globaljosh

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 440
Re: U2 = 6, not 4?
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2009, 11:42:28 AM »
I like them better as four, without the other two. NLOTH is a great album, but hearing the songs live makes me think the album tracks were a bit overproduced.

U2 are best as a lean, mean four-piece! Period.

Offline aarond

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 715
  • What no man can own, no man can take.
Re: U2 = 6, not 4?
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2009, 09:24:22 PM »
Yeah, I'm not hearing the drastic new sound direction either. But honestly, I have no problem with that at all...I loved the last 2 albums...and this carries that positive mojo even farther!

Offline jick

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,754
Re: U2 = 6, not 4?
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2009, 08:38:53 AM »
If some were to have their way, it wouldn't be Eno, Lilywhite or Lanois driving U2's album but Howie B and Hopper would have made even better music had they stuck with U2 for 5 or more albums.

Cheers,

J

Offline macphisto96

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 192
Re: U2 = 6, not 4?
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2009, 09:03:02 PM »
Lanois and Eno certainly do add some ideas and help to push the band, but ultimately all the creative decisions come down to four.  I think Eno and Lanois are more collaborative than Lillywhite was and is, though Lillywhite often seems to create the album cut for so many of their songs.  Yet all of them ultimately work with the band and are given direction from the band. 

The big Eno and Lanois contribution has been extending the soundscape, but also it was the band that sought them out back in 1984.  They knew what they wanted and seemed to know that Eno was a guy they needed to work with.  I think that shows what a good sense the band has of itself.  Over 20 years on the top of the heap is quite impressive.  Had they stuck with War and not expanded I don't think they would've hit the same emotional depth.  I can't imagine a world without Where The Streets Have No Name.  Or Mysterious Ways for that matter, when they once again challenged themselves.