Originally posted by vanquish:[..]
I don't know about that, I assess each song's merits individually, I don't usually listen closely to an entire album in one sitting, so I can't determine stuff like that.
And they've not always given their tracklisting much thought either, remember JT where they just let some woman arrange the tracks according to which ones she liked best in descending order.
Originally posted by MWSAH:[..]
That some woman was Edge's mother, according to U2 by U2. And she did a great job putting Streets, WOWY and ISHFWILF first in order.
Originally posted by vanquish:[..]
No it wasn't:
"According to Bono in a BBC TV documentary, the track order for the album was devised by singer Kirsty MacColl. She put her favorite song first, then her second favorite, and so on..."
And anyone could have put the best tracks first.
Originally posted by MWSAH:[..]
Yup, you're right. It was Steve Lillywhite's wife. Just checked it in U2 by U2, sorry.
And I agree there are hardly any weak songs on JT, but WOWY, ISHFWILF and Streets are quite classic. A start with Red Hill, Trip and Mothers would have been different.
Originally posted by TheLedge:To be honest, I could see even a deaf person bookending the album that way, but yeah she did a spot-on job with that running order. Shame there's no running order to make BOMB hang together better as an album as opposed to merely a collection of good to great songs. Try listening to it with ABOY after Vertigo, I think it supports the "MD kills the pace" argument above, though you're then kinda stuck as to where to stick all of the other tracks obviously.
My two cents on the topic at hand:
ATYCLB: Disappointing in that it was a big backwards step musically (though hardly a massive surprise as I consider POP a backstep from Zooropa & Passengers), but there's a few strong songs here, and a welcome bit of soul. Still, I'd rather this album had been literally built from "The Ground" up, and been born of the MDH Soundtrack sessions which yielded the killer "Ground Beneath Her Feet" which in my opinion is better than anything on ATYCLB (and no, it ain't PART of it, it's only a some-regions bonus track). I liked Stateless as well, there was an interesting shift to something a bit bluesey and smoky going on with the MDH stuff, whereas the MO for ATYCLB was basically just "classic" U2 - win back the fans who bailed because AB and Zooropa were too challenging for them.
The last two albums weren't poor by any means in my opinion, even comparatively I'd still stick them above R&H (not a "proper" album anyway), POP (too unfocused, unfinished-sounding, a few cringey lyric/vocal moments on Miami and Mofo, doesn't know whether to go backwards or forwards musically and is sometimes more simply the sound of U2 imitating their record collections - MOFO wishes it were Underworld/Prodigy, LNOE is Oasis' down-the-line "dad-rock", IYWTVD is their Wicked Game, etc. I'd also stick the last two albums ahead of October, even though I find October a lot more progressive than many and think there's some cracking little moments on there. And even though I liked Passengers, I still think only about 50% of it at best measures up to the consistent quality of the songs on the last two albums: but therein lies the problem - the last two albums come across more as collections of songs, almost as if the band are stacking up a pile of potential hit singles rather than creating a thematically involving, consistent and coherent album in the way which AB and JT worked so perfectly.
As an album, ATYCLB edges it (winding down with Grace seems more apropriate than revving back up with the false optimism of Yahweh for a start), but as a loose collection of songs, I find BOMB superior. I still long for a return to the "album first, singles second" approach of yore, hope we get it with NLOTH, signs are good as they didn't seem to give much of a s*** about the lead-off single.
Originally posted by haytrain:[..]
I still prefer ATYCLB to HTDAAB, but you make some very strong and valid points here.
