1. Interesting to see someone with a hip hop/rap background reviewing SOI

  2. Just bought this
  3. I've just out of the blue been thinking more about this album and having been released more than 2 and a half years ago I think it's still as strong as ever. It doesn't displace my top 3 u2 albums but I think it's a serious contender for most underrated u2 album, maybe not with fans but definitely to the general public. I guess pop always comes into that question too but it did have a number 1 single on it. I reckon EBW and SFS could easily have been hits 15 years ago, but I think where the music industry is at just now along with where u2 are at in there career works against them despite the quality they're producing.
  4. I'm actually not sure how I feel about SoI at this point. I don't think I've listened to it since before I saw them on tour, but it's not because I don't like it or anything.

    I will say that I think the songs are too....structured? Not from a song-writing point of view, but just in the sense that they're predictable I suppose. The album is very mathematic to me, like you can hear that the band was deciding on things more than they were just letting things happen.

    But certainly, any artist's biggest enemy is their previous selves. Not only because all of their work will be compared to what they've done in the past, but because that past work has the benefit of time on its side. Albums like the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby aren't just taken for what they are, people have spent years attaching emotions, memories, etc. towards them, and those all get thrown in the mix when you're comparing as well.
  5. You've definitely hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph. As much as I try to embrace newer albums from bands I've been listening to for decades (!) now (U2, Pearl Jam, Radiohead...), they'll never be able to reach the same level for me as some of the earlier work. Sure, I can still have an opinion if one recent album is better than another - both within a particular band (e.g, Songs of Innocence is a more cohesive album than No Line on the Horizon) or between them (e.g., Songs of Innocence is way better than PJ's Lightning Bolt but might not be on the same level as Radiohead's A Moon Shaped Pool - of course, I reiterate, it's all a matter of opinion) but there's absolutely no way I could objectively (or even subjectively) compare any post-2000 U2 album to JT or AB.
  6. Originally posted by RUMMY:You've definitely hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph. As much as I try to embrace newer albums from bands I've been listening to for decades (!) now (U2, Pearl Jam, Radiohead...), they'll never be able to reach the same level for me as some of the earlier work. Sure, I can still have an opinion if one recent album is better than another - both within a particular band (e.g, Songs of Innocence is a more cohesive album than No Line on the Horizon) or between them (e.g., Songs of Innocence is way better than PJ's Lightning Bolt but might not be on the same level as Radiohead's A Moon Shaped Pool - of course, I reiterate, it's all a matter of opinion) but there's absolutely no way I could objectively (or even subjectively) compare any post-2000 U2 album to JT or AB.
    I think that's where the band themselves to continue to miss the boat. They are on this endless quest for relevance and reaching the repetitive generic pop chart ears, when their bread and butter are their die hard fans who just want to hear raw, emotional, passionate U2 (i.e pre-2000) The irony is, until Pop, they were never afraid to fall on their faces in the name art and the unknown territory - which is exactly what Pop was, in a sense, for them... And when that bombed for them, it seems ever since they've gone the safe route... And that's not saying that I dislike the post 2000 material, but it is definitely vanilla when compared to pre 2000. Does that make any sense or is it total psychobabble?
  7. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    I think that's where the band themselves to continue to miss the boat. They are on this endless quest for relevance and reaching the repetitive generic pop chart ears, when their bread and butter are their die hard fans who just want to hear raw, emotional, passionate U2 (i.e pre-2000) The irony is, until Pop, they were never afraid to fall on their faces in the name art and the unknown territory - which is exactly what Pop was, in a sense, for them... And when that bombed for them, it seems ever since they've gone the safe route... And that's not saying that I dislike the post 2000 material, but it is definitely vanilla when compared to pre 2000. Does that make any sense or is it total psychobabble?
    Not psychobabble at all - it makes perfect sense and I completely agree, even as one who didn't become a real fan until 2004 with HTDAAB.
  8. Originally posted by bpt3:[..]
    Not psychobabble at all - it makes perfect sense and I completely agree, even as one who didn't become a real fan until 2004 with HTDAAB.
    And I do think that ATYCLB and HTDAAB are great effin' records. And I'm even a fan of NLOTH, but in different ways than post 2000. But I'm so stuck in the past, Boy and October are still my go to's.

    But look at the past, TUF was a complete departure from the 1st 3 records, and then TJT and then they hit us with AB and continued through the 90's journey with ease and experiment... and then Pop. They hit a wall... That's when the endless gaps between albums really started... and the fear of failure...
  9. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    I think that's where the band themselves to continue to miss the boat. They are on this endless quest for relevance and reaching the repetitive generic pop chart ears, when their bread and butter are their die hard fans who just want to hear raw, emotional, passionate U2 (i.e pre-2000) The irony is, until Pop, they were never afraid to fall on their faces in the name art and the unknown territory - which is exactly what Pop was, in a sense, for them... And when that bombed for them, it seems ever since they've gone the safe route... And that's not saying that I dislike the post 2000 material, but it is definitely vanilla when compared to pre 2000. Does that make any sense or is it total psychobabble?
    ATYCLB is one of my favourite albums but I have to agree it's been a safer route for u2 from that album onwards. I don't mind that to an extent because with the exception of NLOTH I think the post 2000 work has still been good but I'd also have to acknowledge that it doesn't get close to achtung baby for me so a more experimental route would maybe be the way for them to find another masterpiece. I think a heavier less produced sound would be the way to go.