― Mark Richardson, Wednesday, 28 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Luptune Pitman, Wednesday, 28 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Rebel Yellow Bleach Blondie Boy, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Kevin Enas, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Stephen, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― DG, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Shane Knepshield, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
I think they're a dud because of Bono's rather predictable vocal
stylings and with a handful of exceptions I've not seen much in the
songs to redeem that. But they were onto something production wise
with the Eno/Lanois sound on the Joshua Tree, a kind of stadium
artrock shimmer which was marred by Bono's OTT bellowing but made for
some grand rock singles anyhow. Since they discovered 'irony' they've
been utterly unbearable.
― Tom, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
1984 -- "What's this 'Pride' song on the radio? Hm, sounds nice."
1987 -- "This _Joshua Tree_ album is pretty good."
1988 -- "This _Rattle and Hum_ album is pretty shit, one or two tracks
Through to the present -- occasional good tune to the contrary, *snore*
At this point, seeing U2 would rank up there as a 'pleasure' for me in
the same way that seeing the Rolling Stones or Bruce Springsteen would.
I leave that kind of joy to the deadened, blinkered likes of Robert
Hilburn. Never has the continuing mainstream critical consensus been
ever so increasingly frustrating and obnoxious, but I suppose they make
a great band for somebody who buys one album a year.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
I thought they might be onto something with 'Achtung Baby', which I
don't mind, but then of course pomp and bluster took hold again, and
it's back to business as usual.
― Dr. C, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
the earnest stage, in, like the 80s, when they really meant it, and
they rocked and all that stuff, and i don't even remember, just some
ugly people on the tv. turn that over. boring. dud, of course they
were dud. the 80s were grey and horrible, and they were grey and
horrible for the simple reason that u2 were in them, dud dud dud.
the irony/postmodern thingy in the 90s, they didn't mean it anymore,
they're only playing! "oh, we were pompous in the 80s, how silly we
were' lets be as over the top as poss and subvert. irony, yeah!! no
no no, dud again. is this phase more or less dud than the initial
phase? can't decide.
now. they really mean it again. they're going to change the world
with their big tuneful rock thats a bit pop too. and the pope likes
them. and noel g too! dud, but not as dud as the other 2 phases. no
wait, more dud.
aaargh, u2! the biggest dud of them all. but funny i guess.
so, dud then
― gareth, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Musically, I think they go from Dud to Classic and back a lot, but
mainly I have a big U2 trauma, because they were by 10 miles the
favorite band of all obnoxious rich kids at school - "Sunday Bloody
Sunday" is their fucking "Stairway To Heaven" and it's ruined that
song for me.
I seem to prefer Under A Blood Red Sky, Rattle & Hum and Zooropa over
The Joshua Tree (too much bombast, "Where The Streets Have No Name"
has no discernible tune) Achtung Baby (half of it is undistinctive
atmospheric in-one-ear-out-the-other stuff) and the latest one
(hits-plus-filler), but that might be just a personal thing.
I have no opinion about Bono's personality, but I remember once kids
from my secondary school making some sort of amateur video,
lipsynching to some song or other - this would be in the mid-80's -
and halfway through it one of them starts brandishing a big white flag
around, not as a statement or anything, but 'cause that's what rock
bands do, right ? Bono does it !
They were a very pernicious influence at one point. They were one of
the bands that made it almost impossible at one point for mainstream
rock fans to enjoy music that isn't stadium-size. Plus almost every
goddamn new Canadian rock band around 1987-89 sounded like U2 and
― Patrick, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Nick, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Tim Baier, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Tim, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Michael Bourke, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Robin Carmody, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
ANYHOW, I apparently have to wave the flag nearly by myself but U2
are goddamned classics. Sure, Bono apparently has had sunglasses
surgically attached to his face, and sure he's annoying, and sure
Zooropa and Pop were piss, but no band who could put out something
the level of Achtung Baby! should ever, ever, EVER be referred to as
a dud. EVER. Their greatest hits album is just beautiful. I mean,
yes, Bono is a twathead at times. I WILL GIVE ALL OF YOU THIS FACT.
Mainly because it is a fact - I mean, he's like my dad's age and
running around in those ridiculous colored sunglasses and sparkly
shirts looking all the world like a glam-rock The Fly (thank god that
phase is over), but come on - Bad, With or Without You, One - these
are all fantastic songs.
You can't convince me you don't sing along with them in the pub. Not
a one of you.
― Ally, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― mark s, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― keith, Thursday, 29 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Anyhow, how is Achtung Baby the stupidest album title? It's just
there and bland, it's not like, say, Enter the Dragon. I still
haven't figured out what that means.
― Ally, Friday, 30 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
The music itself is a bunch of hammy guitar effects pedal tricks,
overlaid with a straining, toilet seat voice trying hard to be epic
and enigmatic but just ending up thoroughly, soddenly middlebrow.
However their first LP - although still ultimately crap - was a
leaner, artier thing, when they were grooving to northern soul and
joy division. Worth checking out, if only to confrim to yourself it's
a blind alley.
BTW where the fuck is the kudos attached to "meaning it"? Hitler
I read a funny story about John Lydon sacking his manager circa 1989
because he told him he should "try to be more like Bono". I wish I'd
been a fly on the wall when that conversation took place..
― DS, Friday, 30 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Dr. C, Friday, 30 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
i don't care how much joy division they listen to (i mean, so does
mogwai from all accounts). the overcooked grandiose "epic" vocals
and cornball lyrics ("we eat and drink while tomorrow they die"
*slap*) and totally nondescript rhythm section ruin very promising
guitar parts and eno's production. i'd at least listen to an
instrumental album by the edge.
search: "new year's day"
― sundar subramanian, Friday, 30 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― keith, Friday, 30 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 31 March 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
if one doesn't like bono's voice or even bono himself, then there's
not much you can do. though if you can dislike the band just because
of bono, you probably don't much like the music in the first
place. for example, i hate thom yorke. truly and thoroughly. but when
the music's fine, i can put that aside. (stunning revelation: i quite
like "pyramid song.")
i'm arguably the most classic rock person on this board, so it should
be no surprise that i'm a sucker for their grandiose arena rock.
here's a question: how many of you that rate the rolling stones a
classic, rate u2 a dud?
― fred solinger, Sunday, 1 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Robin Carmody, Sunday, 1 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Omar, Tuesday, 3 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― gareth, Tuesday, 3 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― michael dieter, Tuesday, 3 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Tom, Tuesday, 3 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Michael, I don't understand your argument. Is it of '50 000 000 Elvis Fans
Can't Be Wrong!' variety? The majority is always right, huh? Not that it even
is a majority.
― Nick, Tuesday, 3 April 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
But I won't use the argument that U2 has millions of followers around
the world, because so do NSYNC and Britney Spears, and we all know
how talented (gag) they are. Instead, think about their 20+ year
career history, and the number of hits they've produced. Whether
someone likes U2's music or not should not be criteria in considering
a group to be a classic. I'm not a Rolling Stones fan, but I have to
admit, they are a classic, whether I like their music or not. U2 is
in the same category- despite personal musical preference, they
supercede personal taste because, in essence, THEY ARE A CLASSIC! You
do not need to be a fan of U2's music to realize that they are a
classic. Besides, how many are involved with Greenpeace, Amnesty
International, etc etc and donate countless hours and money to
causes, such as relieving 3rd world debt? Too many other rock groups
are too high on coke and are too self-involved to partake.
Many of the previous arguments I've read are hardly convincing and
seem petty, "U2 = dud, their music sucks and it's for old people and
like, Bono's a twat and egomaniac...blah blah blah" So what if Bono's
a drama queen? It's all part of the Rock act and makes it more
interesting to the fans and followers (of which, you all know, they
have millions). The group isn't just about Bono, come on, it's the
entire package. U2 is without a doubt, a classic, and an undeniably
― V. MacManus, Monday, 11 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― tarden, Monday, 11 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Oh, that's a completely rubbish argument. Why is wrong for people to
consider things on their own terms, and not accept pronouncements
from Rolling Stone, Q et al at face value? I rather like the idea of
people actually thinking for themselves instead of blindly
accepting what they are told.
― Nicole, Monday, 11 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
I can't hardly stand early U2 (whiny, monotonous, overblown), but
everything from Joshua Tree on I find to be real groovy. Even Rattle
& Hum. Achtung Baby is a great classic. The first side of Joshua
Tree is flawless. Am I crazy?
― brah gruplee, Wednesday, 13 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― tarden, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Early U2 is quite clearly the bomb. The first three albums are
glorious in their entirety. After that, they tend to be a mixed
affair (the sole exception being _Achtung, Baby_ which is pretty much
brilliant except for one song which is so dull that I can no longer
recall its name or tune).
― Dan Perry, Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Luke, Thursday, 21 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Are you sure you mean this? Though I entirely agree.
― Tom, Thursday, 21 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Omar, Thursday, 21 June 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Look guys, U2 is a powerful band. They inspire extreme hatred in some
people, but they inspire extreme love in far more. Regardless of how
much Bono offends you (I'm still unclear as to how that can happen...
he's quite harmless) the facts still stand: U2 is one of most
artistically and commercially successful bands of all time.
Many of you mantain that they were good in the 80's but sold out in
the 90's. I suggest looking up the word "irony" in the dictionary.
During their ZooTV and PopMart stadium tours they flat out refused
corporate sponsorship (unlike the Rolling $tones) and lost money as a
result. Just as you wouldn't assume that a battered old book is of
poor literary quality based on its cover, you shouldn't attribute
shallowness to a band just because they have video screens and flashy
And if U2 were a dud band, why would they go out of their way time
after time after time to change their musical style, often against
what is currently popular. 'War' was a big success, so why go do 'The
Unforgettable'? If 'The Joshua Tree' made them the most popular thing
to come out of Ireland since the potato, why do something
like 'Rattle and Hum'? And if their earnest, save-the-whales style of
the 80's worked so well, why in God's name would you go off with
something like 'Achtung Baby' and ZooTV? And why then change
into 'Pop'? Why?
Because they've got balls. U2 just keeps changing and growing,
usually with success (UF, JT, Achtung) but sometimes getting burned
(Rattle and Hum, Pop). Instead of choosing the quick and easy path by
just repeating a familiar sound over and over, U2 never let the
critics, the media, or any of you punks drag them down.
Because like the Beatles and the other established classic bands,
U2's twenty-year career has been a continuous growth process. U2 just
keeps evolving, so they ALWAYS HAVE SOMETHING NEW AND INTERESTING TO
And THAT is the critical component in seperating the wheat from the
chaff. THAT is what makes U2 a classic, and THAT is what makes the
Rolling $tones a dud.
― Sam Cunningham, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
classic in the sense that they came out with a few good pop songs and records
dud in the fact that they are absolute crap now, are absoulute hypocrites and sellouts (the abc documentry sponsored by McDonalds, ticket prices only the rich can afford, bono dissing the "violence" by anti-capitolist protestors in Genoa whilst he was on a luxury yacht with tony blair without one mention of that protestor who was shot twice in the head, etc), were influenced by punk and yet at the same time sneered at the genre, along with the fact that bono's ego is larger than the size of the american continent and believes that the world revolves around him
i also think they ripped off depeche mode-badly-when they came out with achtung baby, only a few good songs on that record, and pop was much, much worse
i no longer buy u2 albums anymore, not even used
― the walrus, Friday, 3 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
of all the tired zings about U2, edge can’t play is the most tired. one of the most influential players of his generation (hi dere worship players) but yeah, sure, he can’t play. good thing there are a million bar band guys who can hold down the blooz wank while we wait for guitar jesus.
― Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Sunday, 31 December 2017 16:58 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Me I am somewhere in between Josh and omar. Like anyone of my age and class and temperament I have a long history of listening to these lads. I still like some songs. "Pride," "One." A few more if I cared enough to think about it but I don't.
Edge shouldn't be judged as a guitarist vs. other guitarists, because he has never had to play guitar like anyone but himself. Which is an admirable position to be in. I will fully confess that I envy him. In various documentaries (as Josh notes) he gives a lot of information about his method, which I think is interesting. More an architect of soundscapes than a shredder or technician, blah blah blah.
I've said this elsewhere but will say again: at their best they are a pretty good rock band, but to think about them as a rock band you have to ignore so much music-adjacent bullshit that it becomes a very difficult mental exercise. I mean, what do we talk about when we talk about U2? Can we ignore mullets? Checkered pants? The World Bank? It's possible, but difficult.
― twas in the fleek midwinter (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 31 December 2017 16:58 (two weeks ago) Permalink
i can agree to an extent and refer to something he himself said once along the lines of him being more a technician than a musician, but i think at its peak his sound (if not his ability) has been more compelling than most major superstar guitar players.
― omar little, Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:01 (two weeks ago) Permalink
I am not doubting his influence at all! I like his playing, he's a cool guitarist with a lot of good ideas, and that's all you need, not technical prowess or anything. Like, he knows:
He's the absolutely right guitarist for U2. But I do think he's pretty limited and limiting.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:02 (two weeks ago) Permalink
i think him being a player who has experimented w/his sound to overcome his occasionally self admitted limitations has made him vv interesting and he was either crafty or lucky or both to hit upon a sound early on that really worked.
― omar little, Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:02 (two weeks ago) Permalink
I totally agree. It's key that he has never had to be anyone but himself. But I was just saying that the incentive to change when you're in such an enviable position is low. Change the Edge, you totally change U2.
The other argument of course is that simple works, which is one reason he's still playing stadiums and Andy Summers, John McGeoch, Will Sergeant or Stuart Adamson (RIP) aren't.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:06 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Or, you know, Michael Brook or even Daniel Lanois or any of the other guitarists who influenced him or who work in a similar sonic realm.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:07 (two weeks ago) Permalink
like marv levy used to say, it’s simple but it ain’t easy. really nail the riff from “Bad” and get back to me.
― Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:14 (two weeks ago) Permalink
complexity isn’t why andy summers stopped filling stadiums lol. I agree we’d be all be better off if more players listened to daniel lanois.
― Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:16 (two weeks ago) Permalink
And that clip JiC linked (where he plays the same thing clean) is EXACTLY what I think of when I think of him nowadays.
I will never call myself a U2 fanboi. But would still vastly rather see them than yr Bonnamasturbatur/Satriwanki/Malmsteen thingy or Phish/Rush/Yes/Tool/whatever.
And though I am not a global superstar (and never will be) I follow more of an Edgian ethos in my own music. Play exactly like yourself, and put yourself in situations where that makes sense.
― twas in the fleek midwinter (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink
For sure, doing even the simplest stuff he does while running around on stage in a stadium I imagine is really hard! Edge is the best Edge we will ever get.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink
I want to say achtung baby and zooropa was the last time he did anything that caught my attention. A song like Until the End of the World, he's moving around a lot more than usual, even has a guitar solo!
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Ok. I think there's at least an equally interesting debate about whether Adam Clayton can play bass or not.
Consensus in my youth was that Adam could not, in fact, play bass particularly well.
Consensus in their mid-career period was, who cares?
I don't know the current consensus. Still stuck on "don't care."
― twas in the fleek midwinter (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:24 (two weeks ago) Permalink
my relationship with U2 ends abruptly around Zooropa/Passengers so it’s possible my perspective is tainted.I think adam is okay - he doesn’t have jazz chops or anything but you can catch him bringing something to the song.as an aside, it’s probably a different thread really but I can’t understand bonamassa at all. he’s like a walking museum of ancient licks and he will influence no one.
― Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:29 (two weeks ago) Permalink
rogermexico, as an aside, there are actually two good bonamassa threads
thread for discussion of guitarists i have only heard of because i read guitar magazines in the late 90s
OFFICAL ILX JOE BONAMASSA CELEBRATION THREAD
― sympathy for the tasmanian devil (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:32 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Adam iirc couldn't even play bass when he joined up, they just thought he was a cool-looking dude and he happened to have a bass or something. i could be misremembering my U2 history. he's good, i think. he's had a lot of good bass lines in his career, memorable ones.
Larry is probably the best musician in the bunch.
Bono has been both great and terrible in terms of both singing and lyrics.
― omar little, Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:32 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Larry is p much unimpeachable, agreed
― sympathy for the tasmanian devil (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:34 (two weeks ago) Permalink
thanking u mad puffin
― Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:37 (two weeks ago) Permalink
For sure, doing even the simplest stuff he does while running around on stage in a stadium I imagine is really hard!
I prefer when he falls off stages in stadium, tbh, if only he'd do more of that I've have more respect for him. Seriously though I think he's always been the only interesting musician in U2 and still is.
― Whiney Houston (Tom D.), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:42 (two weeks ago) Permalink
my challenging opinion is that, in any creative field, if you don't think you're at least hypothetically capable of producing your very best work in the near future, you should just stop.
― Karl Malone, Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:45 (two weeks ago) Permalink
I'm sure they think they are but hasn't the Edge got some ridiculous clifftop mansion to maintain?
― Whiney Houston (Tom D.), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:48 (two weeks ago) Permalink
...And my counterchallop is that as long as someone wants to hear what you're doing now and where you're going next, you may as well continue exploring/experimenting.
No, most people don't go to see the Rolling Stones with a burning desire to hear them say "here's one from our new album."
But on the other hand, making Tom Rush or Bob Dylan slog around with the same ten songs they wrote when they were 20 seems cruel in a different way.
― sympathy for the tasmanian devil (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:49 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Oh right, he hasn't built it yet - well, as of May 2016 that is, an update would be appreciated...
― Whiney Houston (Tom D.), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:50 (two weeks ago) Permalink
IMO clifftop mansions are great for immensely rich older men with young, physically fit wives.
"Ooops, he slipped! There was nothing I could do!"
― sympathy for the tasmanian devil (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 31 December 2017 17:54 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Adam's bass playing is imo the highlight of "Pop." Adam, fwiw, also the only member of U2 to ever miss a gig (and, related, go to rehab).
I'd argue U2's major advances post Popmart have been stage design and presentation. The claw stadium stage, the Songs of Innocence set, even (in that context) the stripped down Joshua Tree redux stage.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 31 December 2017 18:04 (two weeks ago) Permalink
He's not too nimble on his feet either, as we have seen earlier.
― Whiney Houston (Tom D.), Sunday, 31 December 2017 18:05 (two weeks ago) Permalink
i heard American Soul off the new album on the radio recently and it reminded me that the way they've focused on 'rocking out' in the last 15 years or so, contrary to all their previous strengths, is so strange and i can't believe they're still at it
― ufo, Sunday, 31 December 2017 18:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink
um throwing Alex Lifeson in with Phish when he's probably the most economical guitarist of his generation is pretty bonkers
― Joan Digimon (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Sunday, 31 December 2017 18:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink
I think the new one "rocks" a bit more than the last one. The last one was also a better album.
― omar little, Sunday, 31 December 2017 18:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink
xpost Lifeson also clearly glommed on to what the Edge and cohort were up to.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 31 December 2017 18:21 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Bono thinks The Biggest Band in the World should record rock singles * shrug*
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 31 December 2017 18:23 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Edge should have just had them include this Bill Bailey clip in that doco
― shackling the masses with plastic-wrapped snack picks (sic), Sunday, 31 December 2017 18:30 (two weeks ago) Permalink
also Rush literally afaik has never jammed or improv'ed ever in concert
― Joan Digimon (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Sunday, 31 December 2017 18:31 (two weeks ago) Permalink
GUYS the distinction is "admired by chops-hungry muso types" / "reviled by chops-hungry muso types."
You can quibble all you like about who is included/excluded from each bucket, but it is a recognizable distinction.
― sympathy for the tasmanian devil (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 31 December 2017 18:54 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Edge can't play
But hes read all the manuals of the post-playing equipment
This is not even up for argument tbh. He couldn't even figure out the chords for the weight ffs
― remember the lmao (darraghmac), Monday, 1 January 2018 00:56 (two weeks ago) Permalink
Quick note here that Bono, in his introduction to Tom Doyle's Billy Mackenzie biography The Glamour Chase, specifically admitted that they tried to rip off the Associates (and that he knew there was no way for him to rip off Billy's singing, a wise assessment). And as Doyle himself says in the book, I think you can pretty clearly hear it on the band's 1980 song "Paperhouse," from their debut The Affectionate Punch -- definitely a proto-Edge guitar break in there:
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 January 2018 03:41 (two weeks ago) Permalink
(Should add of course that said guitar is played by the other core member of the original band, Alan Rankine.)
so as ILM's likely most loyal U2 fan i feel the need to add my 2 cents about the new album. don't read if you hate them, or me i guess.
like all U2 albums, if you're a U2 fan you're probably going to enjoy it but it feels like only half their work, there are a lot of songs on here that sound very much unlike them. more generic. This one too often feels like the work of other parties in places (recognizing that U2 has worked with other parties before of course but it felt a lot more collaborative in those instances.) though in a few cases on this album it works, the song w/Haim and a couple of the tracks with Andy Barlow from Lamb are nice.
But this is down there with Rattle and Hum and How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb but where the former fell flat on its face sometimes bc of miscalculation and the latter was U2 settling into a very by-the-numbers groove, at least in R&H there were some genuinely outstanding songs and in HTDAAB they nailed a classic U2 sound and there are a couple of genuinely rousing tracks.
(also: after sitting with it for awhile i think Songs of Innocence is the better album and actually winds up in the middle of their discography quality-wise for me. upthread i complained about it but i think it's actually very good and sounds like a very heartfelt U2 album -- similar to No Line on the Horizon, albeit not nearly as great.)
my updated, subjective album rankings:
Achtung BabyThe Joshua Tree ZooropaWarUnforgettablePassengersPopBoyNo Line on the HorizonSongs of InnocenceAll That You Can’t Leave BehindOctoberRattle and Hum/How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb/Songs of Experience
― omar little, Friday, 5 January 2018 17:35 (one week ago) Permalink
Probably wouldn't quibble with that ranking, even if I might shift a couple of the top ones around. Haven't even bothered with the new one.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 January 2018 17:57 (one week ago) Permalink
clicked this What's Going On cover expecting it to be disastrous, to my surprise it is not horrible https://open.spotify.com/track/5CPWcXuqQ2QSXJmc1sT19u
― niels, Friday, 5 January 2018 20:29 (one week ago) Permalink
WarThe Joshua TreeUnforgettableAchtung BabyNo Line on the HorizonRattle and HumPassengersBoyZooropaOctoberPopSongs of ExperienceSongs of InnocenceAll That You Can’t Leave BehindHow To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 5 January 2018 22:08 (one week ago) Permalink
one of us could win!
― sleeve, Sunday, 7 January 2018 00:51 (one week ago) Permalink
Just look at these two
― licorice oratorio (baaderonixx), Sunday, 7 January 2018 20:31 (one week ago) Permalink
Putt on your boots
― failsun ra (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 7 January 2018 20:35 (one week ago) Permalink
Just-For-Men-Gel of Harlem
― attention vampire (MatthewK), Sunday, 7 January 2018 21:12 (one week ago) Permalink
where the geeks have no shame
― pee-wee and the power men (bizarro gazzara), Sunday, 7 January 2018 21:14 (one week ago) Permalink
i still haven't found what i'm looking for, which is my golf ball, so i'll have to take a two stroke penalty
― omar little, Sunday, 7 January 2018 21:19 (one week ago) Permalink
how long, how long must we play this hole
― failsun ra (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 7 January 2018 22:08 (one week ago) Permalink
Before and after hairplugs.
― MaresNest, Sunday, 7 January 2018 22:38 (one week ago) Permalink
Stuck in a sandtrap you can't get out of.
― Whiney Houston (Tom D.), Sunday, 7 January 2018 22:45 (one week ago) Permalink