GEN
Active topics
  1. Miami is not what U2 is good at. If I wanted to hear a song that's done well in a similar style, I would listen to Super Bon Bon by Soul Coughing. The problem with Miami is it's got a similarly great groove but Bono just doesn't have the rhythm chops to match Larry, Adam and Edge. It almost sounds like his vocal belongs in a different song. He's still trying to do his soulful poet schtick channeling Charles Bukowski and it buzzkills the funk. It could have been a great song.
  2. Originally posted by kezman:Mmm i've always liked the album,when i first heard it i thought it was way too ambient to enjoy but it's a grower. The 360 concept seemed like it was screaming out for a rock show and again i did (and still do) love that tour,it was a bit wierd having this monster of a rock stage and them playing stuff like Breathe and Unknown Caller.


    I see what you mean. Yeah, the tour didn't deviate from the earlier ones for Atomic and Leave Behind while the album was more trippy.

    Linear seemed like the right mood for the album - more arty than sexy.

  3. Well said.

    Originally posted by ap5:
    As mentioned it seems they got scared and felt they had to jam “radio friendly” tunes onto the album and the record lost its identity.


    Right. Boots and Crazy Tonight seem dropped in from some other album.

    Originally posted by ap5:
    Moody and atmospheric wasn’t going to fill stadiums around the globe in U2’s mind.
    I think NLOTH has some very high highs and some real crap. Maybe partly why I like Pop better than NLOTH. Band ran out of time to mess Pop up any more


    Good points. Seems like Brian Eno took them down the experimental route which yielded some unusual results for them. It became a fairly arty album but then right at the end they got nervous about the tour.

    Steve Lillywhite made an interesting point about No Line in an interview a few years back. I'll probably misquote it because I can't find the link. He said after he finishes a final mix, the band he's working with usually wants to listen to it repeatedly. He said it's even common for U2. But in the case of No Line, he had the sense that there was just a collective relief when it was finished but no real joy even from the band to hear the finished songs. He felt that they didn't *like* the songs. Which was an extraordinary thing to say.

    I guess it was borne about by the album sales but the 360 tour was record breaking so I guess it didn't impact their popularity. Maybe they're in the same territory as The Rolling Stones where they can afford to release crap albums and people will still pay top dollar to get into a show.
  4. Originally posted by BloodyValentine:
    ---

    I guess it was borne about by the album sales but the 360 tour was record breaking so I guess it didn't impact their popularity. Maybe they're in the same territory as The Rolling Stones where they can afford to release crap albums and people will still pay top dollar to get into a show.


    was that tour sold on the spectacle of the claw solely though?

    would people been as quick to attend if it was a standard rock show?

    and we have to take into account that it visited a lot of places so it was going to garner attention and ticket sales anyway

    personally, i thought the claw didn't work as you had to be in the gods to really appreciate it

    and no way was it a 360 experience - placing the stage in the centre of all stadiums would have been the best way to go for that

    the fans at the back of the claw still got a pretty shitty deal
  5. The back of The Claw wasn’t that bad. My first show was within the inner circle and, while it’s always great to be up close, it was uncomfortably packed and you didn’t get to fully appreciate the spectacle. My second show was from behind the stage and the tickets were super cheap. Sure the band predominantly faced the other way but they did approach the fans behind, the giant screen meant you didn’t miss anything and I was able to experience a full view of the colossal claw. Obviously, first preference is to be in front but it was far from a shitty experience for me.
  6. Originally posted by Sydney_MIke:The back of The Claw wasn’t that bad. My first show was within the inner circle and, while it’s always great to be up close, it was uncomfortably packed and you didn’t get to fully appreciate the spectacle. My second show was from behind the stage and the tickets were super cheap. Sure the band predominantly faced the other way but they did approach the fans behind, the giant screen meant you didn’t miss anything and I was able to experience a full view of the colossal claw. Obviously, first preference is to be in front but it was far from a shitty experience for me.
    i guess you pays your money you takes your choice

    looking at bono's ass for 2 hours might be fun for some but...

    didn't some elevation shows offer tickets for behind the band too?

    personally, i'd rather pay the extra if i'm bothering to go to a gig - by saving money, the day is going to be exactly the same except you're going see the band's backs for 90% of the concert but you'll have £50 in your pocket

    doesn't make sense - unless they were the only tickets you could get then fair enough better than nothing
  7. Originally posted by BloodyValentine:[..]

    Well said.

    [..]


    Right. Boots and Crazy Tonight seem dropped in from some other album.

    [..]


    Good points. Seems like Brian Eno took them down the experimental route which yielded some unusual results for them. It became a fairly arty album but then right at the end they got nervous about the tour.

    Steve Lillywhite made an interesting point about No Line in an interview a few years back. I'll probably misquote it because I can't find the link. He said after he finishes a final mix, the band he's working with usually wants to listen to it repeatedly. He said it's even common for U2. But in the case of No Line, he had the sense that there was just a collective relief when it was finished but no real joy even from the band to hear the finished songs. He felt that they didn't *like* the songs. Which was an extraordinary thing to say.

    I guess it was borne about by the album sales but the 360 tour was record breaking so I guess it didn't impact their popularity. Maybe they're in the same territory as The Rolling Stones where they can afford to release crap albums and people will still pay top dollar to get into a show.
    I find it interesting that Eno was able to do artsy pop with Coldplay just a little while after and it was very commercially successful.
  8. Originally posted by kris_smith87:[..]
    I find it interesting that Eno was able to do artsy pop with Coldplay just a little while after and it was very commercially successful.


    At least we agree that Vida and No Line couldn't be further apart but not sure how Viva qualifies as arty. It sounds to me more like an Abba or Paul McCartney pop extravaganza. It certainly doesn't bear much resemblance to Eno's typical fare.

    Eno worked on Vida with Coldplay from 2006 to 2008. No Line came out in 2009. If anything, he might have needed an "experimental" fix with U2 after working on that crap for so long.
  9. Interesting thread (even if it is three years old).

    Apart from the confused mess that this is album is, it's also a really meaningful album for me in that it marks the final point in the timeline of my U2 fandom where I last felt like a fan in the moment instead of a fan of their past glories which is what I now consider myself to be.

    After the white hot fever of super fandom cooled slightly after the 90's and then cooled considerably more after HTDAAB, I was incredibly excited for the 'experimental' album that we were promised next. Ok, they had proved they could still write anthems for the masses with those first two albums of the 00's. Window in the Skies was a great closing song for that chapter. Surely now they had nothing left to prove and it was time to return to what they did best and make really interesting music again...!?

    Obviously, this didn't happen and we didn't get an album that was remotely 'experimental'. BUT half of that album did still contain some good/great songs and in my (humble) opinion, THE very last ever great U2 song in the shape of Moment Of Surrender. But the other half of that album contains some really unforgivably bad horrors which I could not and will not ever be able to understand or indeed listen to.

    And then practically everything they've released since has meant almost nothing to me. I can't find a hint of what used to make that band so special in any of it (with the sole exception of Sleep Like a Baby Tonight). I haven't felt any urge at all to see the band live sine 2009 which used to be what I lived for. And I guess the culmination of the 14 years since that album was released is this Vegas residency without Larry. A sad, sad decline to witness indeed...
  10. Originally posted by ric:Interesting thread (even if it is three years old).

    Apart from the confused mess that this is album is, it's also a really meaningful album for me in that it marks the final point in the timeline of my U2 fandom where I last felt like a fan in the moment instead of a fan of their past glories which is what I now consider myself to be.

    After the white hot fever of super fandom cooled slightly after the 90's and then cooled considerably more after HTDAAB, I was incredibly excited for the 'experimental' album that we were promised next. Ok, they had proved they could still write anthems for the masses with those first two albums of the 00's. Window in the Skies was a great closing song for that chapter. Surely now they had nothing left to prove and it was time to return to what they did best and make really interesting music again...!?

    Obviously, this didn't happen and we didn't get an album that was remotely 'experimental'. BUT half of that album did still contain some good/great songs and in my (humble) opinion, THE very last ever great U2 song in the shape of Moment Of Surrender. But the other half of that album contains some really unforgivably bad horrors which I could not and will not ever be able to understand or indeed listen to.

    And then practically everything they've released since has meant almost nothing to me. I can't find a hint of what used to make that band so special in any of it (with the sole exception of Sleep Like a Baby Tonight). I haven't felt any urge at all to see the band live sine 2009 which used to be what I lived for. And I guess the culmination of the 14 years since that album was released is this Vegas residency without Larry. A sad, sad decline to witness indeed...


    I think we've all experienced variations of the disappointment you have expressed in some form over the years. "Fandom" changes over time - I'm certainly a very different kind of fan today than when I was younger. What keeps me around is the promise contained in U2's greatest work from the past. I'm forever hopeful that that promise will be re-fulfilled in the future in some new form of expression. It sounds like they went a bridge too far for you though.
  11. Originally posted by BloodyValentine:
    I think we've all experienced variations of the disappointment you have expressed in some form over the years. "Fandom" changes over time - I'm certainly a very different kind of fan today than when I was younger. What keeps me around is the promise contained in U2's greatest work from the past. I'm forever hopeful that that promise will be re-fulfilled in the future in some new form of expression. It sounds like they went a bridge too far for you though.


    was this the bridge