Author Topic: The little things that give you away  (Read 63167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline This Dave

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 772
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #120 on: May 14, 2017, 06:23:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's ok.

I like that it goes places at the end, but does sound like it's a bit of a work in progress in the jamming part.  Not a huge fan of the edge sound at the end, very reminiscent of the cobl guitar part (and probably hundreds of others). The electric beat, bass and keyboard in the main body of the song would have allowed this to take flight in a different sonic direction and try something a bit different, so a shame they didn't.

Like others have said, a studio version is likely to have good potential.

This song is like the reverse image of Volcano, where I thought the band was doing some interesting things sonically while Bono half-assed the lyrics. This time, I think he's working hard to get into some uncomfortable territory while  simultaneously being blunt and poetic. The band, on the other hand, sound like someone pushed the "generic U2-ish sounding backing track" button on a Casio. And melodically, Bono was just as guilty. There was more of interest melodically in Numb, and I'm not kidding about that. This was really paint-by-numbers and needs a lot of work.

Offline This Dave

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 772
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #121 on: May 14, 2017, 07:09:14 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My first thoughts are that it sounds like where they left off with SFS and EBW, but then the song moves more uptempo in the second half.  Would like to see footage from open stadium (am I right in thinking the roof was closed at BC Place?) from one of the next few dates to really try and appreciate it.  I think that it might 'carry' better outside as it does have a kind of 'swirling' feel to it through drums, guitars and vocals - particularly as the song progresses.
As for 'the end' stuff. I panicked.  And then read the lyrics.  It's about Bono having writers block and thinking that's it, no more.  But the last lyric is Bono. Teasing. The. Listener. (and maybe himself)
Not yet, Bono.  Please.

It's not yet, but let's not kid ourselves that he's talking about writer's block. I think we all know that the end is in fact near. I guess never say never, but if you were given a choice between U2 calling it quits in the next few years, or U2 becoming what amounted to the worlds' most successful U2 tribute band, which would you pick?

Yes, the Stones are still around, and Half Of The Who still plays from time to time, but...are they really? If you used to see them back when they really mattered, is that really who you see now on stage pumping out the crowd favorites?

I've seen our boys do a lot of interviews over the years where they talk about how important the sense of mystery, of "anything can happen", etc. is to a Rock n Roll show (whatever that is nowadays) vs a choreographed pop act hitting their marks.  It's time to acknowledge that some of that is fading, not only through the forces of time, but due to moves the band itself has made.

I have long been an opponent of the "they're too old" argument, especially since I've been hearing it since the 90's. And while age itself isn't an issue for me, there ARE things which have changed over time for the band. There the tangibles, such as Bono not being able to hit certain notes, but then there are the more subtle things (little things?), like the guy who used to summon a force of nature inside himself to get a feeling of wild abandon across to the audience substituting a bunch of "Yeah yeah yeah yeah" shouts like something out of your grandparents' idea of what "the rock music" sounds like. Maybe being a kid who yearns to escape a routine life and wakes up to nightmares of his mother dying makes for better artistry than a schedule of private-jetting from the French Mediterranean to a dinner at the Clinton Foundation to Davos.

Is it fair to suggest that, despite assurances to the contrary, maybe this has had a negative impact after all? Is it then fair to suggest that as they (and of course Bono especially) get further from the one and deeper into the other, it's finally time to admit that things have not changed for the better? And if that's true (obviously a matter for debate), is it better of they call an end at some point, rather than rely more and more heavily on the artists they were in the past, rather than what they are doing as artists at this moment?

I used to dread the thought that someday they would be done, but my opinion has drifted over the past few years for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say that I want to believe they have more great albums and tours in them, but what I want and what I'm seeing aren't matching up.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 07:50:46 PM by This Dave »

Offline mrsamrocks2

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 965
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #122 on: May 14, 2017, 07:39:25 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My first thoughts are that it sounds like where they left off with SFS and EBW, but then the song moves more uptempo in the second half.  Would like to see footage from open stadium (am I right in thinking the roof was closed at BC Place?) from one of the next few dates to really try and appreciate it.  I think that it might 'carry' better outside as it does have a kind of 'swirling' feel to it through drums, guitars and vocals - particularly as the song progresses.
As for 'the end' stuff. I panicked.  And then read the lyrics.  It's about Bono having writers block and thinking that's it, no more.  But the last lyric is Bono. Teasing. The. Listener. (and maybe himself)
Not yet, Bono.  Please.

It's not yet, but let's not kid ourselves that he's talking about writer's block. I think we all know that the end is in fact near. I guess never say never, but if you were given a choice between U2 calling it quits in the next few years, or U2 becoming what amounted to the worlds' most successful U2 tribute band, which would you pick?

Yes, the Stones are still around, and Half Of The Who still plays from time to time, but...are they really? If you used to see them back when they really mattered, is that really who you see now on stage pumping out the crowd favorites?

I've seen our boys do a lot of interviews over the years where they talk about how important the sense of mystery, of "anything can happen", etc. is to a Rock n Roll show (whatever that is nowadays) vs a choreographed pop act hitting their marks.  It's time to acknowledge that some of that is fading, not only through the forces of time, but due to moves the band itself has made.

I have long been an opponent of the "they're too old" argument, especially since I've been hearing it since the 90's. And while age itself isn't an issue for me, there ARE things which have changed over time for the band. There the tangibles, such as Bono nor being able to hit certain notes, but then there are the more subtle things (little things?), like the guy who used to summon a force of nature inside himself to get a feeling of wild abandon across to the audience substituting a bunch of "Yeah yeah yeah yeah" shouts like something out of your grandparents' idea of what "the rock music" sounds like. Maybe being a kid who yearns to escape a routine life and wakes up to nightmares of his mother dying makes for better artistry than a schedule of private-jetting from the French Mediterranean to a dinner at the Clinton Foundation to Davos.

Is it fair to suggest that, despite assurances to the contrary, maybe this has had a negative impact after all? Is it then fair to suggest that as they (and of course Bono especially) get further from the one and deeper into the other, it's finally time to admit that things have not changed for the better? And if that's true (obviously a matter for debate), is it better of they call an end at some point, rather than rely more and more heavily on the artists they were in the past, rather than what they are doing as artists at this moment?

I used to dread the thought that someday they would be done, but my opinion has drifted over the past few years for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say that I want to believe they have more great albums and tours in them, but what I want and what I'm seeing aren't matching up.
Well I think the next album is probably the last one.

Offline This Dave

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 772
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #123 on: May 14, 2017, 08:54:06 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
My first thoughts are that it sounds like where they left off with SFS and EBW, but then the song moves more uptempo in the second half.  Would like to see footage from open stadium (am I right in thinking the roof was closed at BC Place?) from one of the next few dates to really try and appreciate it.  I think that it might 'carry' better outside as it does have a kind of 'swirling' feel to it through drums, guitars and vocals - particularly as the song progresses.
As for 'the end' stuff. I panicked.  And then read the lyrics.  It's about Bono having writers block and thinking that's it, no more.  But the last lyric is Bono. Teasing. The. Listener. (and maybe himself)
Not yet, Bono.  Please.

It's not yet, but let's not kid ourselves that he's talking about writer's block. I think we all know that the end is in fact near. I guess never say never, but if you were given a choice between U2 calling it quits in the next few years, or U2 becoming what amounted to the worlds' most successful U2 tribute band, which would you pick?

Yes, the Stones are still around, and Half Of The Who still plays from time to time, but...are they really? If you used to see them back when they really mattered, is that really who you see now on stage pumping out the crowd favorites?

I've seen our boys do a lot of interviews over the years where they talk about how important the sense of mystery, of "anything can happen", etc. is to a Rock n Roll show (whatever that is nowadays) vs a choreographed pop act hitting their marks.  It's time to acknowledge that some of that is fading, not only through the forces of time, but due to moves the band itself has made.

I have long been an opponent of the "they're too old" argument, especially since I've been hearing it since the 90's. And while age itself isn't an issue for me, there ARE things which have changed over time for the band. There the tangibles, such as Bono nor being able to hit certain notes, but then there are the more subtle things (little things?), like the guy who used to summon a force of nature inside himself to get a feeling of wild abandon across to the audience substituting a bunch of "Yeah yeah yeah yeah" shouts like something out of your grandparents' idea of what "the rock music" sounds like. Maybe being a kid who yearns to escape a routine life and wakes up to nightmares of his mother dying makes for better artistry than a schedule of private-jetting from the French Mediterranean to a dinner at the Clinton Foundation to Davos.

Is it fair to suggest that, despite assurances to the contrary, maybe this has had a negative impact after all? Is it then fair to suggest that as they (and of course Bono especially) get further from the one and deeper into the other, it's finally time to admit that things have not changed for the better? And if that's true (obviously a matter for debate), is it better of they call an end at some point, rather than rely more and more heavily on the artists they were in the past, rather than what they are doing as artists at this moment?

I used to dread the thought that someday they would be done, but my opinion has drifted over the past few years for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say that I want to believe they have more great albums and tours in them, but what I want and what I'm seeing aren't matching up.
Well I think the next album is probably the last one.

Just thought I should add: There's greatness in that song, but it's buried.

Offline jjcruiser

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 496
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #124 on: May 14, 2017, 09:43:04 PM »
I have listened to it about five times now.  I want to hear the album version.  But I like it a lot. 

And it makes me wish for the SOE tour to come sooner rather than later, and hopefully get back to the 2000s+2010s catalog.  Frankly I think I'd be more excited to hear Cedarwood Road than WOWY for the 100th time.

Offline Clarky

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 875
  • I've got a head like a lit cigarette
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #125 on: May 15, 2017, 08:47:48 AM »
Upon having listened to this song a couple of times, it really strikes me as one of those quintessential U2 songs. The piano, the way Bono sings the lyrics, the song structure, the guitar coming in near the end. All that means that I do really like it, but at the same time it does feel very familiar and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. I fear that this may be one of those songs that I really dig early on but quickly becomes old after I've lived with it for a couple of months. I get that kind of feeling from it.

Offline bass slap

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,146
  • Hot as a hair dryer.. In your face!
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #126 on: May 15, 2017, 09:52:44 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's ok.

I like that it goes places at the end, but does sound like it's a bit of a work in progress in the jamming part.  Not a huge fan of the edge sound at the end, very reminiscent of the cobl guitar part (and probably hundreds of others). The electric beat, bass and keyboard in the main body of the song would have allowed this to take flight in a different sonic direction and try something a bit different, so a shame they didn't.

Like others have said, a studio version is likely to have good potential.

This song is like the reverse image of Volcano, where I thought the band was doing some interesting things sonically while Bono half-assed the lyrics. This time, I think he's working hard to get into some uncomfortable territory while  simultaneously being blunt and poetic. The band, on the other hand, sound like someone pushed the "generic U2-ish sounding backing track" button on a Casio. And melodically, Bono was just as guilty. There was more of interest melodically in Numb, and I'm not kidding about that. This was really paint-by-numbers and needs a lot of work.

Fair.

Offline tigerfan41

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,780
  • 2017 Concerts: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #127 on: May 15, 2017, 11:17:36 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
My first thoughts are that it sounds like where they left off with SFS and EBW, but then the song moves more uptempo in the second half.  Would like to see footage from open stadium (am I right in thinking the roof was closed at BC Place?) from one of the next few dates to really try and appreciate it.  I think that it might 'carry' better outside as it does have a kind of 'swirling' feel to it through drums, guitars and vocals - particularly as the song progresses.
As for 'the end' stuff. I panicked.  And then read the lyrics.  It's about Bono having writers block and thinking that's it, no more.  But the last lyric is Bono. Teasing. The. Listener. (and maybe himself)
Not yet, Bono.  Please.

It's not yet, but let's not kid ourselves that he's talking about writer's block. I think we all know that the end is in fact near. I guess never say never, but if you were given a choice between U2 calling it quits in the next few years, or U2 becoming what amounted to the worlds' most successful U2 tribute band, which would you pick?

Yes, the Stones are still around, and Half Of The Who still plays from time to time, but...are they really? If you used to see them back when they really mattered, is that really who you see now on stage pumping out the crowd favorites?

I've seen our boys do a lot of interviews over the years where they talk about how important the sense of mystery, of "anything can happen", etc. is to a Rock n Roll show (whatever that is nowadays) vs a choreographed pop act hitting their marks.  It's time to acknowledge that some of that is fading, not only through the forces of time, but due to moves the band itself has made.

I have long been an opponent of the "they're too old" argument, especially since I've been hearing it since the 90's. And while age itself isn't an issue for me, there ARE things which have changed over time for the band. There the tangibles, such as Bono nor being able to hit certain notes, but then there are the more subtle things (little things?), like the guy who used to summon a force of nature inside himself to get a feeling of wild abandon across to the audience substituting a bunch of "Yeah yeah yeah yeah" shouts like something out of your grandparents' idea of what "the rock music" sounds like. Maybe being a kid who yearns to escape a routine life and wakes up to nightmares of his mother dying makes for better artistry than a schedule of private-jetting from the French Mediterranean to a dinner at the Clinton Foundation to Davos.

Is it fair to suggest that, despite assurances to the contrary, maybe this has had a negative impact after all? Is it then fair to suggest that as they (and of course Bono especially) get further from the one and deeper into the other, it's finally time to admit that things have not changed for the better? And if that's true (obviously a matter for debate), is it better of they call an end at some point, rather than rely more and more heavily on the artists they were in the past, rather than what they are doing as artists at this moment?

I used to dread the thought that someday they would be done, but my opinion has drifted over the past few years for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say that I want to believe they have more great albums and tours in them, but what I want and what I'm seeing aren't matching up.
Well I think the next album is probably the last one.

I don't think so. I think the next album might be the last one for a while (probably another several year stretch of no new music) but I think they're far from hanging it up entirely. Yes, there's comparisons to the Stones and the Who, but let's be real: U2 is in another category entirely. Those two bands have gone through line up changes, those two bands have had health issues (resulting from rampant drug use during the 60s/70s), those two bands have been slowing down for a long time. The Rolling Stones formed in 1962 and by their 40th anniversary, they were already taking 8 year stretches between albums. The Who formed in 1964 and by their 40th anniversary, they had already disbanded once and have only released one album since 2006--their first in 24 years.

U2, on the other hand, have had a steady pace of a new album every 4-5 years since 2000, tour more frequently than those other two bands, the members themselves seem to be in pretty solid shape and they're all under 60. If they wanted to, they could easily continue to make albums or tour on/off into their 70s. Will they? Who knows. But to compare them to those other bands....well, it's not really an equal comparison. There hasn't been another band with U2's longevity without huge stretches of inactivity.

SoI was an album with a lot of potential and some truly great tracks. Ditto for NLOTH. The problem is, they've been chasing pop relevance for the last 12 years, hoping for another "Beautiful Day" and it's just not going to happen. If they got back to making music that they care about (not that they're trying to score a hit with), this is a band that could continue to make great music for a long time. Tracks like SLAABT prove this. Even this new track has a lot of potential which makes me optimistic about the new album.

I'm just saying, it's way too soon to read too much into this track and assume the guys are close to retiring. It'll happen some day, of course, I just don't think it's quite yet.

Offline This Dave

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 772
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #128 on: May 15, 2017, 11:29:50 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My first thoughts are that it sounds like where they left off with SFS and EBW, but then the song moves more uptempo in the second half.  Would like to see footage from open stadium (am I right in thinking the roof was closed at BC Place?) from one of the next few dates to really try and appreciate it.  I think that it might 'carry' better outside as it does have a kind of 'swirling' feel to it through drums, guitars and vocals - particularly as the song progresses.
As for 'the end' stuff. I panicked.  And then read the lyrics.  It's about Bono having writers block and thinking that's it, no more.  But the last lyric is Bono. Teasing. The. Listener. (and maybe himself)
Not yet, Bono.  Please.

It's not yet, but let's not kid ourselves that he's talking about writer's block. I think we all know that the end is in fact near. I guess never say never, but if you were given a choice between U2 calling it quits in the next few years, or U2 becoming what amounted to the worlds' most successful U2 tribute band, which would you pick?

Yes, the Stones are still around, and Half Of The Who still plays from time to time, but...are they really? If you used to see them back when they really mattered, is that really who you see now on stage pumping out the crowd favorites?

I've seen our boys do a lot of interviews over the years where they talk about how important the sense of mystery, of "anything can happen", etc. is to a Rock n Roll show (whatever that is nowadays) vs a choreographed pop act hitting their marks.  It's time to acknowledge that some of that is fading, not only through the forces of time, but due to moves the band itself has made.

I have long been an opponent of the "they're too old" argument, especially since I've been hearing it since the 90's. And while age itself isn't an issue for me, there ARE things which have changed over time for the band. There the tangibles, such as Bono nor being able to hit certain notes, but then there are the more subtle things (little things?), like the guy who used to summon a force of nature inside himself to get a feeling of wild abandon across to the audience substituting a bunch of "Yeah yeah yeah yeah" shouts like something out of your grandparents' idea of what "the rock music" sounds like. Maybe being a kid who yearns to escape a routine life and wakes up to nightmares of his mother dying makes for better artistry than a schedule of private-jetting from the French Mediterranean to a dinner at the Clinton Foundation to Davos.

Is it fair to suggest that, despite assurances to the contrary, maybe this has had a negative impact after all? Is it then fair to suggest that as they (and of course Bono especially) get further from the one and deeper into the other, it's finally time to admit that things have not changed for the better? And if that's true (obviously a matter for debate), is it better of they call an end at some point, rather than rely more and more heavily on the artists they were in the past, rather than what they are doing as artists at this moment?

I used to dread the thought that someday they would be done, but my opinion has drifted over the past few years for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say that I want to believe they have more great albums and tours in them, but what I want and what I'm seeing aren't matching up.
Well I think the next album is probably the last one.

I don't think so. I think the next album might be the last one for a while (probably another several year stretch of no new music) but I think they're far from hanging it up entirely. Yes, there's comparisons to the Stones and the Who, but let's be real: U2 is in another category entirely. Those two bands have gone through line up changes, those two bands have had health issues (resulting from rampant drug use during the 60s/70s), those two bands have been slowing down for a long time. The Rolling Stones formed in 1962 and by their 40th anniversary, they were already taking 8 year stretches between albums. The Who formed in 1964 and by their 40th anniversary, they had already disbanded once and have only released one album since 2006--their first in 24 years.

U2, on the other hand, have had a steady pace of a new album every 4-5 years since 2000, tour more frequently than those other two bands, the members themselves seem to be in pretty solid shape and they're all under 60. If they wanted to, they could easily continue to make albums or tour on/off into their 70s. Will they? Who knows. But to compare them to those other bands....well, it's not really an equal comparison. There hasn't been another band with U2's longevity without huge stretches of inactivity.

SoI was an album with a lot of potential and some truly great tracks. Ditto for NLOTH. The problem is, they've been chasing pop relevance for the last 12 years, hoping for another "Beautiful Day" and it's just not going to happen. If they got back to making music that they care about (not that they're trying to score a hit with), this is a band that could continue to make great music for a long time. Tracks like SLAABT prove this. Even this new track has a lot of potential which makes me optimistic about the new album.

I'm just saying, it's way too soon to read too much into this track and assume the guys are close to retiring. It'll happen some day, of course, I just don't think it's quite yet.

My comparison wasn't meant to be about things like time between albums. I meant that when you see the stones, for example, Jagger doesn't seem "authentic" in the way you'd want out of Bono; he seems like the world's greatest Jagger impersonator. And I think Bono gets into that more often these days.

Offline 73October

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,373
  • Joy is an act of defiance
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #129 on: May 15, 2017, 11:36:40 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My first thoughts are that it sounds like where they left off with SFS and EBW, but then the song moves more uptempo in the second half.  Would like to see footage from open stadium (am I right in thinking the roof was closed at BC Place?) from one of the next few dates to really try and appreciate it.  I think that it might 'carry' better outside as it does have a kind of 'swirling' feel to it through drums, guitars and vocals - particularly as the song progresses.
As for 'the end' stuff. I panicked.  And then read the lyrics.  It's about Bono having writers block and thinking that's it, no more.  But the last lyric is Bono. Teasing. The. Listener. (and maybe himself)
Not yet, Bono.  Please.

It's not yet, but let's not kid ourselves that he's talking about writer's block. I think we all know that the end is in fact near. I guess never say never, but if you were given a choice between U2 calling it quits in the next few years, or U2 becoming what amounted to the worlds' most successful U2 tribute band, which would you pick?

Yes, the Stones are still around, and Half Of The Who still plays from time to time, but...are they really? If you used to see them back when they really mattered, is that really who you see now on stage pumping out the crowd favorites?

I've seen our boys do a lot of interviews over the years where they talk about how important the sense of mystery, of "anything can happen", etc. is to a Rock n Roll show (whatever that is nowadays) vs a choreographed pop act hitting their marks.  It's time to acknowledge that some of that is fading, not only through the forces of time, but due to moves the band itself has made.

I have long been an opponent of the "they're too old" argument, especially since I've been hearing it since the 90's. And while age itself isn't an issue for me, there ARE things which have changed over time for the band. There the tangibles, such as Bono nor being able to hit certain notes, but then there are the more subtle things (little things?), like the guy who used to summon a force of nature inside himself to get a feeling of wild abandon across to the audience substituting a bunch of "Yeah yeah yeah yeah" shouts like something out of your grandparents' idea of what "the rock music" sounds like. Maybe being a kid who yearns to escape a routine life and wakes up to nightmares of his mother dying makes for better artistry than a schedule of private-jetting from the French Mediterranean to a dinner at the Clinton Foundation to Davos.

Is it fair to suggest that, despite assurances to the contrary, maybe this has had a negative impact after all? Is it then fair to suggest that as they (and of course Bono especially) get further from the one and deeper into the other, it's finally time to admit that things have not changed for the better? And if that's true (obviously a matter for debate), is it better of they call an end at some point, rather than rely more and more heavily on the artists they were in the past, rather than what they are doing as artists at this moment?

I used to dread the thought that someday they would be done, but my opinion has drifted over the past few years for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say that I want to believe they have more great albums and tours in them, but what I want and what I'm seeing aren't matching up.
Well I think the next album is probably the last one.

Just thought I should add: There's greatness in that song, but it's buried.

Don't know about anyone else, but for some reason for the last few years I have kind of seen them change tack in due course.  They are still in the cycle of stadium/arena tours.  But this is U2 and I hope they *just might* break the mould and do something different to their peers (if Rolling Stones, The Who are their peers).  I know it's harder for a band rather than a solo artist to try and break the mould (Van Morrison played on Cyprus Avenue) but for some reason, I can see the band going more theatrical, maybe with a big band / classical arrangement.  I don't know if it is because there have been hints of a direction on the I&E tour - theatrical choreography was apparent.  I don't know if I can see something with a hint of 'Last Night of The Proms' (but obviously totally reimagined and turned on its side - something more intimate, less bombastic - but yet informative (visuals & spoken word - we know what this means!). 
I don't know if it is because artists like Radiohead have gone this way and still pull in punters, and there's also newer stuff like Clean Bandit that sound/look great with orchestral/big band backing.  Just watching a clip of last night's performance of Little Things in Seattle & people are moving away - leaving?  There is a paradox - look what happened when I Will Follow was played right afterwards.  The audience just changed.  More recently the band have produced slower ballad-y songs (nothing wrong with that), but it seems like some of us (I mean this in the collective sense here) want either the hits or the old live favourites.  Others of us (again collectively) are open to whatever is next. 
Is there a die-hard core that would buy U2 stuff/go to shows regardless of what is put out and how it sounds, or is there an audience that will only partake if it sounds like 'classic U2'?
Personally, I'd be content with standing/sitting in the likes of the Royal Albert Hall watching the band with orchestra or whatever else they do collaborating in a really artistic, theatrical way.  They and we are not getting any younger.
The thing is, I just don't see it yet.  Maybe one day - whenever it is that they see that trying to make another 'hit' record is no longer relevant.
And I just can't see U2 playing on Cedarwood Road.

Offline mrsamrocks2

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 965
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #130 on: May 15, 2017, 11:58:43 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My first thoughts are that it sounds like where they left off with SFS and EBW, but then the song moves more uptempo in the second half.  Would like to see footage from open stadium (am I right in thinking the roof was closed at BC Place?) from one of the next few dates to really try and appreciate it.  I think that it might 'carry' better outside as it does have a kind of 'swirling' feel to it through drums, guitars and vocals - particularly as the song progresses.
As for 'the end' stuff. I panicked.  And then read the lyrics.  It's about Bono having writers block and thinking that's it, no more.  But the last lyric is Bono. Teasing. The. Listener. (and maybe himself)
Not yet, Bono.  Please.

It's not yet, but let's not kid ourselves that he's talking about writer's block. I think we all know that the end is in fact near. I guess never say never, but if you were given a choice between U2 calling it quits in the next few years, or U2 becoming what amounted to the worlds' most successful U2 tribute band, which would you pick?

Yes, the Stones are still around, and Half Of The Who still plays from time to time, but...are they really? If you used to see them back when they really mattered, is that really who you see now on stage pumping out the crowd favorites?

I've seen our boys do a lot of interviews over the years where they talk about how important the sense of mystery, of "anything can happen", etc. is to a Rock n Roll show (whatever that is nowadays) vs a choreographed pop act hitting their marks.  It's time to acknowledge that some of that is fading, not only through the forces of time, but due to moves the band itself has made.

I have long been an opponent of the "they're too old" argument, especially since I've been hearing it since the 90's. And while age itself isn't an issue for me, there ARE things which have changed over time for the band. There the tangibles, such as Bono nor being able to hit certain notes, but then there are the more subtle things (little things?), like the guy who used to summon a force of nature inside himself to get a feeling of wild abandon across to the audience substituting a bunch of "Yeah yeah yeah yeah" shouts like something out of your grandparents' idea of what "the rock music" sounds like. Maybe being a kid who yearns to escape a routine life and wakes up to nightmares of his mother dying makes for better artistry than a schedule of private-jetting from the French Mediterranean to a dinner at the Clinton Foundation to Davos.

Is it fair to suggest that, despite assurances to the contrary, maybe this has had a negative impact after all? Is it then fair to suggest that as they (and of course Bono especially) get further from the one and deeper into the other, it's finally time to admit that things have not changed for the better? And if that's true (obviously a matter for debate), is it better of they call an end at some point, rather than rely more and more heavily on the artists they were in the past, rather than what they are doing as artists at this moment?

I used to dread the thought that someday they would be done, but my opinion has drifted over the past few years for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say that I want to believe they have more great albums and tours in them, but what I want and what I'm seeing aren't matching up.
Well I think the next album is probably the last one.

Just thought I should add: There's greatness in that song, but it's buried.

Don't know about anyone else, but for some reason for the last few years I have kind of seen them change tack in due course.  They are still in the cycle of stadium/arena tours.  But this is U2 and I hope they *just might* break the mould and do something different to their peers (if Rolling Stones, The Who are their peers).  I know it's harder for a band rather than a solo artist to try and break the mould (Van Morrison played on Cyprus Avenue) but for some reason, I can see the band going more theatrical, maybe with a big band / classical arrangement.  I don't know if it is because there have been hints of a direction on the I&E tour - theatrical choreography was apparent.  I don't know if I can see something with a hint of 'Last Night of The Proms' (but obviously totally reimagined and turned on its side - something more intimate, less bombastic - but yet informative (visuals & spoken word - we know what this means!). 
I don't know if it is because artists like Radiohead have gone this way and still pull in punters, and there's also newer stuff like Clean Bandit that sound/look great with orchestral/big band backing.  Just watching a clip of last night's performance of Little Things in Seattle & people are moving away - leaving?  There is a paradox - look what happened when I Will Follow was played right afterwards.  The audience just changed.  More recently the band have produced slower ballad-y songs (nothing wrong with that), but it seems like some of us (I mean this in the collective sense here) want either the hits or the old live favourites.  Others of us (again collectively) are open to whatever is next. 
Is there a die-hard core that would buy U2 stuff/go to shows regardless of what is put out and how it sounds, or is there an audience that will only partake if it sounds like 'classic U2'?
Personally, I'd be content with standing/sitting in the likes of the Royal Albert Hall watching the band with orchestra or whatever else they do collaborating in a really artistic, theatrical way.  They and we are not getting any younger.
The thing is, I just don't see it yet.  Maybe one day - whenever it is that they see that trying to make another 'hit' record is no longer relevant.
And I just can't see U2 playing on Cedarwood Road.

I really don't want to see them go down the road of orchestra/strings shows. They're usually quite boring. I want them to release new songs and tour behind new albums.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2017, 12:02:57 PM by mrsamrocks2 »

Offline tigerfan41

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,780
  • 2017 Concerts: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #131 on: May 15, 2017, 12:01:21 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
My first thoughts are that it sounds like where they left off with SFS and EBW, but then the song moves more uptempo in the second half.  Would like to see footage from open stadium (am I right in thinking the roof was closed at BC Place?) from one of the next few dates to really try and appreciate it.  I think that it might 'carry' better outside as it does have a kind of 'swirling' feel to it through drums, guitars and vocals - particularly as the song progresses.
As for 'the end' stuff. I panicked.  And then read the lyrics.  It's about Bono having writers block and thinking that's it, no more.  But the last lyric is Bono. Teasing. The. Listener. (and maybe himself)
Not yet, Bono.  Please.

It's not yet, but let's not kid ourselves that he's talking about writer's block. I think we all know that the end is in fact near. I guess never say never, but if you were given a choice between U2 calling it quits in the next few years, or U2 becoming what amounted to the worlds' most successful U2 tribute band, which would you pick?

Yes, the Stones are still around, and Half Of The Who still plays from time to time, but...are they really? If you used to see them back when they really mattered, is that really who you see now on stage pumping out the crowd favorites?

I've seen our boys do a lot of interviews over the years where they talk about how important the sense of mystery, of "anything can happen", etc. is to a Rock n Roll show (whatever that is nowadays) vs a choreographed pop act hitting their marks.  It's time to acknowledge that some of that is fading, not only through the forces of time, but due to moves the band itself has made.

I have long been an opponent of the "they're too old" argument, especially since I've been hearing it since the 90's. And while age itself isn't an issue for me, there ARE things which have changed over time for the band. There the tangibles, such as Bono nor being able to hit certain notes, but then there are the more subtle things (little things?), like the guy who used to summon a force of nature inside himself to get a feeling of wild abandon across to the audience substituting a bunch of "Yeah yeah yeah yeah" shouts like something out of your grandparents' idea of what "the rock music" sounds like. Maybe being a kid who yearns to escape a routine life and wakes up to nightmares of his mother dying makes for better artistry than a schedule of private-jetting from the French Mediterranean to a dinner at the Clinton Foundation to Davos.

Is it fair to suggest that, despite assurances to the contrary, maybe this has had a negative impact after all? Is it then fair to suggest that as they (and of course Bono especially) get further from the one and deeper into the other, it's finally time to admit that things have not changed for the better? And if that's true (obviously a matter for debate), is it better of they call an end at some point, rather than rely more and more heavily on the artists they were in the past, rather than what they are doing as artists at this moment?

I used to dread the thought that someday they would be done, but my opinion has drifted over the past few years for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say that I want to believe they have more great albums and tours in them, but what I want and what I'm seeing aren't matching up.
Well I think the next album is probably the last one.

I don't think so. I think the next album might be the last one for a while (probably another several year stretch of no new music) but I think they're far from hanging it up entirely. Yes, there's comparisons to the Stones and the Who, but let's be real: U2 is in another category entirely. Those two bands have gone through line up changes, those two bands have had health issues (resulting from rampant drug use during the 60s/70s), those two bands have been slowing down for a long time. The Rolling Stones formed in 1962 and by their 40th anniversary, they were already taking 8 year stretches between albums. The Who formed in 1964 and by their 40th anniversary, they had already disbanded once and have only released one album since 2006--their first in 24 years.

U2, on the other hand, have had a steady pace of a new album every 4-5 years since 2000, tour more frequently than those other two bands, the members themselves seem to be in pretty solid shape and they're all under 60. If they wanted to, they could easily continue to make albums or tour on/off into their 70s. Will they? Who knows. But to compare them to those other bands....well, it's not really an equal comparison. There hasn't been another band with U2's longevity without huge stretches of inactivity.

SoI was an album with a lot of potential and some truly great tracks. Ditto for NLOTH. The problem is, they've been chasing pop relevance for the last 12 years, hoping for another "Beautiful Day" and it's just not going to happen. If they got back to making music that they care about (not that they're trying to score a hit with), this is a band that could continue to make great music for a long time. Tracks like SLAABT prove this. Even this new track has a lot of potential which makes me optimistic about the new album.

I'm just saying, it's way too soon to read too much into this track and assume the guys are close to retiring. It'll happen some day, of course, I just don't think it's quite yet.

My comparison wasn't meant to be about things like time between albums. I meant that when you see the stones, for example, Jagger doesn't seem "authentic" in the way you'd want out of Bono; he seems like the world's greatest Jagger impersonator. And I think Bono gets into that more often these days.

Right, but Jagger and Bono aren't necessarily the same. Just because Jagger has turned into a....well, I guess a parody of himself...it doesn't necessarily mean Bono will do that.

Offline Airuarak

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 90
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #132 on: May 15, 2017, 12:54:46 PM »
There's an ear worm in there... found myself singing along. If it's similar to MoS type arrangements on album, could be a winner.

Offline georgemccauley

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 501
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #133 on: May 15, 2017, 04:01:44 PM »
They look and perform so well in Stadiums. It got me thinking, could this be the last time we see a stadium tour from U2?

Offline bass slap

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,146
  • Hot as a hair dryer.. In your face!
Re: The little things that give you away
« Reply #134 on: May 15, 2017, 04:37:09 PM »
Little things is ok, but does make me think they don't have a lot left in the barrel if this is the song they chose to showcase to a bunch of Joshua tree fans they're trying to reconnect with after 30 years..

The soe songs have probably been in progress for at least 4 years when you consider some interview comments made in the middle of 2014 bono advised their album is taking a long time but they're "working on 2 albums actually..."

If this is the case, I would expect something a bit more exciting. If this is their secret weapon in their unreleased repertoire, there's no wonder they keep putting the release date back. *should these articles be true