Author Topic: a point about revisionist u2  (Read 3442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2009, 12:39:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
that's quite a fickle attitude to making music. if you believe in what you're writing and believe the end product is good, then you should stand by what you have written. if your opinion changes because of someone else's ears, that doesn't bode too well for future projects. it seems you will be constantly criticising and developing your own music through other people's ears. maybe some will argue that's what happened to u2 circa atyclb/htdaab. authenticity is needed when making music.

on the other hand, maybe u2 didn't feel authentic when making POP. who knows ;D

Has your opinion of any of your art changed over time?


Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2009, 12:48:40 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
It's no coincidence the band looked palest during the early part of this decade; they bled themselves dry with apologies.

As well they should. It's a poor & trendy record. Songs took a backseat to trendy production and flashy presentation.


You should try listening to the lyrics.

Why? The music is as trendy as could be. A bunch of 39 year olds dig club culture. Spare me. the whole era just screams
mid-life crisis. Pop is the musical version of sports cars and younger women.

Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2009, 12:53:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
those adjustments to a couple of their singles were very minor indeed and basically smoothed over the "unfinished" aspects from the album versions. on the other hand, the changes to discotheque and gone on the greatest hits album, which they tweaked much later, were wholesale. that was when they realised america didn't "get" the concept of POP and therefore decided to replace these 2 classic songs with bastardised, mutated, boring replacement versions. 

Minor?

The single version of "Please"is a COMPLETELY new recording. And "LNOE" has a different intro, chorus vocal and bridge.

Why make any changes to material they really thought was their best ever?

Boom Cha!

  • Guest
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2009, 01:41:56 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
It's no coincidence the band looked palest during the early part of this decade; they bled themselves dry with apologies.

As well they should. It's a poor & trendy record. Songs took a backseat to trendy production and flashy presentation.


You should try listening to the lyrics.

Why? The music is as trendy as could be. A bunch of 39 year olds dig club culture. Spare me. the whole era just screams
mid-life crisis. Pop is the musical version of sports cars and younger women.

Why? Because if you listened to the lyrics you'd discover that it's some of U2's best.

Also, the only songs that really feature any "club culture" are Discotheque, Do You Feel Loved, and Mofo. That's only 3 songs out of 12. I also fail to see how being creative screams mid-life crisis.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2009, 01:44:31 PM by Boom Cha! »

Offline DGordon1

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,199
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2009, 01:44:33 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
It's no coincidence the band looked palest during the early part of this decade; they bled themselves dry with apologies.

As well they should. It's a poor & trendy record. Songs took a backseat to trendy production and flashy presentation.


You should try listening to the lyrics.

Why? The music is as trendy as could be. A bunch of 39 year olds dig club culture. Spare me. the whole era just screams
mid-life crisis. Pop is the musical version of sports cars and younger women.

There was a large degree of p***-taking from the band in terms of their image on that record. They didn't actually think the Discotheque video made them look cool.

Offline emalvick

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,367
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2009, 02:52:44 PM »
In reading U2 by U2 (and it has been a while now), I was always under the impression that it wasn't that they really disliked Pop as much as they disliked the rushed feel of it.  It seems that at least Bono recognizes that they wrote some of their best songs there (at least from that book) but that they didn't get produced the way they would have liked.

For my own listening, my biggest gripe with Pop is the inconsistent production.  The album is fantastic, and I actually like every song on the album.  Yet, it ends up being my least listened to, and all I can figure is that it just doesn't sound great all together.  At the same time, I do think the underlying song order works well, and I am learning to listen past the production issues.  Given the subsequent albums, it really is the creative climax of U2 as we know them, although I feel like No Line may be the beginning of a new climb towards a new climax... One can only hope.

InThisHeartland

  • Guest
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2009, 05:46:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Why? Because if you listened to the lyrics you'd discover that it's some of U2's best.


Definitely agree--Playboy Mansion is killer! The lyrics are some of their best i think

Offline nolinehere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,109
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2009, 06:20:04 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
It's no coincidence the band looked palest during the early part of this decade; they bled themselves dry with apologies.

As well they should. It's a poor & trendy record. Songs took a backseat to trendy production and flashy presentation.


You should try listening to the lyrics.

Why? The music is as trendy as could be. A bunch of 39 year olds dig club culture. Spare me. the whole era just screams
mid-life crisis. Pop is the musical version of sports cars and younger women.

There was a large degree of p***-taking from the band in terms of their image on that record. They didn't actually think the Discotheque video made them look cool.

Those songs are as "rock" as they come.

People with ears can actually tell the difference between the club/electronic/clubculture/whateveryouwanttocallit frosting and the actual rock song underneath.




Offline Mr. T

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2009, 08:24:11 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Those songs are as "rock" as they come.

People with ears can actually tell the difference between the club/electronic/clubculture/whateveryouwanttocallit frosting and the actual rock song underneath.

Why does "IGWSHA" have that dumb "WHOOSH" sound? It serves no purpose, except it's trendy.

Does "Discotheque" need a 2 minute intro with stupid dance sound after stupid dance sound? No. But, hey, they needed to sound "progressive."

Mofo? What didn't they put on Mofo? It's the most overproduced track U2 have ever recorded.

Please? Well, U2 were so happy with "Please" that they COMPLETELY RERECORDED IT 6 months after releasing the album.

What's funny is the best stuff on the record leans heavily on the "traditional" U2 sound, which so many here seem to hate.
Gone, SATS, LNOE all are firmly rooted in U2's traditional lexicon (with a few HowieB touches).

Beautiful Day was a shameless grab at past glories? But LNOE wasn't? Gone wasn't? 

Offline nolinehere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,109
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2009, 08:26:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Those songs are as "rock" as they come.

People with ears can actually tell the difference between the club/electronic/clubculture/whateveryouwanttocallit frosting and the actual rock song underneath.

Why does "IGWSHA" have that dumb "WHOOSH" sound? It serves no purpose, except it's trendy.

Does "Discotheque" need a 2 minute intro with stupid dance sound after stupid dance sound? No. But, hey, they needed to sound "progressive."

Mofo? What didn't they put on Mofo? It's the most overproduced track U2 have ever recorded.

Please? Well, U2 were so happy with "Please" that they COMPLETELY RERECORDED IT 6 months after releasing the album.

What's funny is the best stuff on the record leans heavily on the "traditional" U2 sound, which so many here seem to hate.
Gone, SATS, LNOE all are firmly rooted in U2's traditional lexicon (with a few HowieB touches).

Beautiful Day was a shameless grab at past glories? But LNOE wasn't? Gone wasn't? 

As i said, some people just live on frosting. Very unhealthy.


Offline Bads316

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,221
  • Ain't nothin' but a muffin
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2009, 08:41:46 AM »
Long live the whoosh

« Last Edit: November 19, 2009, 08:47:30 AM by Bads316 »

Boom Cha!

  • Guest
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2009, 10:36:32 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Those songs are as "rock" as they come.

People with ears can actually tell the difference between the club/electronic/clubculture/whateveryouwanttocallit frosting and the actual rock song underneath.

Why does "IGWSHA" have that dumb "WHOOSH" sound? It serves no purpose, except it's trendy. 

?

Are you complaining about a whoosh sound?

You could dissect any song and ask; why does this sound need to be there? It's really pointless to go so in depth like that.

Offline nolinehere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,109
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2009, 08:58:24 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

Those songs are as "rock" as they come.

People with ears can actually tell the difference between the club/electronic/clubculture/whateveryouwanttocallit frosting and the actual rock song underneath.

Why does "IGWSHA" have that dumb "WHOOSH" sound? It serves no purpose, except it's trendy. 

?

Are you complaining about a whoosh sound?

You could dissect any song and ask; why does this sound need to be there? It's really pointless to go so in depth like that.

Yeah, it's pretty stupid to nitpick to that level.

Beautiful Day, which I like, has about as many non-performed-live-pre-recorded-sounds as any other U2 song.


Offline Bads316

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,221
  • Ain't nothin' but a muffin
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2009, 02:30:37 AM »
Not to mention NLOTH is full of trendy studio sounds - the beginning of Magnificent being one.

Offline miami

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,397
  • here comes the car chase!
Re: a point about revisionist u2
« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2009, 03:36:25 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Those songs are as "rock" as they come.

People with ears can actually tell the difference between the club/electronic/clubculture/whateveryouwanttocallit frosting and the actual rock song underneath.

Why does "IGWSHA" have that dumb "WHOOSH" sound? It serves no purpose, except it's trendy.

Does "Discotheque" need a 2 minute intro with stupid dance sound after stupid dance sound? No. But, hey, they needed to sound "progressive."

Mofo? What didn't they put on Mofo? It's the most overproduced track U2 have ever recorded.

Please? Well, U2 were so happy with "Please" that they COMPLETELY RERECORDED IT 6 months after releasing the album.

What's funny is the best stuff on the record leans heavily on the "traditional" U2 sound, which so many here seem to hate.
Gone, SATS, LNOE all are firmly rooted in U2's traditional lexicon (with a few HowieB touches).

Beautiful Day was a shameless grab at past glories? But LNOE wasn't? Gone wasn't? 

LNOE certainly isn't rooted in the traditional u2 sound. the riff on that song is as original and unique as it can possibly be. and gone isn't u2 by numbers either, far from it.