Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
‘Most songs are better live‘ is completely relevant. Like most of U2’s work I enjoy the album versions but prefer the live versions. So the songs sounding slightly inferior on the album doesn’t put me off it because I feel that way about most of U2’s work and I think most fans do. I still stand by my praise. I really don’t think there’s a bad song on it. In terms of production the only songs I’d particularly agree on are elevation and in a little while not sounding quite right on the album. The rest of the album is a very good listen from production to just overall song quality. I also stand by my point that a good bit of its dislike is from people who don’t like the fact a new u2 song/album gains more success and popularity than older stuff they were into. You might find it hard to believe how much praise I give ATYCLB, I find it hard to believe how people can rate any of the first 4 albums amongst the bands best stuff. Maybe Boy at a push for being consistently strong but the next 3 albums all have so many average/poor moments compared to the bands later work. I say that as someone completely unbiased. I just don’t think it’s fair some of the criticism towards songs like grace and wild honey when you’ve got some absolute stinkers on some of the early work. But it’s just all opinions and I think fans that got into u2 in the early days find the more rock star and commercially successful image of the band not as appealing as when they first got into them and it all has an impact on how they view the music.
Originally posted by melon51:It's a great song I think, just very weirdly produced? Ground beneath her feet is the opposite, one of the best sounding tracks from U2 ever imo..
Originally posted by germcevoy:I have always felt that this album sounds like 128kbps mp3. Beautiful Day in particular. I don’t rate anything on the album. Beautiful Day was the killer hit single they so dearly craved. The tour was a hit and was elevated even further post 9/11.
Originally posted by germcevoy:I have always felt that this album sounds like 128kbps mp3. Beautiful Day in particular. I don’t rate anything on the album. Beautiful Day was the killer hit single they so dearly craved. The tour was a hit and was elevated even further post 9/11.
Originally posted by KieranU2:[..]
I said "most songs are better live" is irrelevant in this context. My reasoning being that you're going by the logic that all U2 songs sound better live. By and large, maybe, but I look at a song like A Sort of Homecoming or Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses and I think the studio versions are better. So who is to say Grace or When I Look at the World would have a better reputation if they were played live? I just think that is flawed logic.
But looking at the picutre, we have valid points. I think on the whole that people romanticise ATYCLB so much because it's the first U2 album they listened to that brought them onto bigger things, which gives them a glorified opinion of the album. It's a sentimental attachment because it essentially changed your life. And I don't understand that because we're (presumably) coming from similar introductions to the band where ATYCLB was the first.
I think Unforgettable Fire is a far better work than ATYCLB. War, I agree, has moments of dross, but, to me, has the same flaws as ATYCLB. Someone said on here today or yesterday that suffers from an inconsistent flow, which I totally agree with. The reason why the first four albums - aside October - get such a glowing reputation is because of how U2 steadily climbed the commercial ladder. If War was shit, Island would have dropped them, but they proved with hit singles that they were a force to be reckoned with. They were also extremely young and these were the songs that formed their foundations. I mean, to be that young and write New Year's Day - one of the best songs of all time? I'm not saying that it's right, but when there's loads to lose as a young band more respect is garnered when you come out with hit after hit on each album.
But your last point stands, but even still when you compare the start to ATYCLB - former period they were a post-punk desire for change and hungry for success; the latter they had been round the block loads and people started to see them as just a stadium rock band. That's why people prefer the early days. But I don't think they were acting ignorant to "the new U2".
Originally posted by Alvin:The Hands is better than majority of songs on ATYCLB and HTDAAB. Same goes with Electrical Storm and The Ground Beneath Her Feet...
Originally posted by KieranU2:[..]
That should have finished the album instead of Grace. I wouldn't have been delivering paragraphs on here the last two days if Ground Beneath Her Feet concluded the album.
Bonus track, my arse. Movie track, my arse. Finish it.
Listening right now Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
I’m confused about what context we are talking about regarding songs being better live. I’m not saying songs that weren’t played live would have had a better reputation if they had been although they quite possibly would have done as it would have exposed them to more people. What I mean is you’re saying there’s production issues. I’m saying I don’t have an issue with the production but that the songs that were played live sounded better live. If I viewed most of U2’s work as sounding better in the studio then I could maybe consider there was production issues with ATYCLB but as I and many others view most of U2’s work better live, the album versions not being as good isn’t a big deal, it’s the norm for the band. TUF album as an example of studio work probably features the worst version of Bad there is, that’s bad production.
Originally posted by georgemccauley:[..]
Electrical Storm should have been on the album and should have been a lead single