Songs Of Experience - General album discussions

Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]


Definitely take your point, particularly re. the impact of the need to be relevant - I often wonder about what U2 unleashing themselves these days would sound like, and whilst I know what I'd want that to be like, maybe this is that?

Like you've said below, I think post-tour will be the best time to review. I couldn't begin to think where I'd place it in their canon, let alone post-2000, and with each of the last few albums, the songs in their live form definitely took different turns with the live performances.

Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
I think it's safe to say though that Achtung sort of hit right when Grunge was taking off, meaning they weren't writing and recording that album while grunge was becoming huge across the world. Not to mention that U2 themselves have said when making Achtung Baby they were trying to absorb everything that was happening in the European music scene at the time, it was their reaction to the reaction of Rattle and Hum, to "go back to Europe and see what's happening there" - pretty sure Adam said that. They did the same thing with Pop. The experimentation came from merging these trends WITH rock music, and I think that's where the magic happened.

I see tons of people saying "U2 are trying to sound mainstream these days" - speaking generally here, are you guys (general) sure you know what "mainstream" sounds like these days? As Kris has mentioned, it's pretty much dominated by dance music and hip hop, with a few pop singers like Sam Smith and Lorde thrown in here and there. The fact that U2 still has guitar prominent in their music already ages it by a ton. They're not really sounding mainstream at all, in fact that's why people don't think they're relevant anymore, because their sound is sort of old at this point.

My impressions of SoE is that they're still trying to get to the focal point of what makes "U2 music great", through great songwriting, BUT with modern producing techniques. So many little touches from the producers of this album are what make this album sound modern, but not necessarily mainstream to me. It does a great job of that IMO. The most obvious attempt at "mainstream success" was getting Kendrick to be on American Soul. Otherwise, this album doesn't really sound commercial at all to me.

Originally posted by germcevoy:I haven’t listened to any of it in days. Hmmm

Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]
Interesting you mention the production, squire. One of the things that I keep coming to back to, particularly with modern music, is the production and what feels to be the vogue production style. I understand this album had a lot of different bods take the production reins, but the thing that struck me with what I felt with SOI and SOE is how packed the overall sound feels (as well as the less interesting bits of NLOTH, which otherwise could have been their best thing since AB or Pop).

For one, the massive use of reverb that seems to be present these days makes everything feel... well, cold and shiny - trying to make a record sound physically big rather than letting the music speak for itself and fill the space naturally and *be* big.

I like sparse, I like abstract, I like visceral, I like fiddly electronic stuff - all within my own perception of what those things should be - but for me, the balance seems to have shifted towards making something *sound* good before nailing whether it *is* good, i.e. throwing all the 'right' ingredients in before wondering whether they're needed.

That's not to say I don't think SOE is good - as above, I really need to give it a few more spins before I can begin to tell you what I think - but on first impressions, I'm wary of the huge amount of production getting the way of the songs.

For balance, I like bods like Def Leppard and Mike Oldfield - man alive they produce the shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit out of their music. Another one is Haim - I love much of their music and their albums are fine, but I get a bit worn out by how sheen-ed everything feels, especially compared to their live style.

I'll also admit, in recent months I've been listening to old-school British folk (Maddy Prior, Steeleye Span etc.), African folk music, and classical/choral stuff, so I'm in what I'd consider to be a proper stripped-down mood, and thus my music gauge might be swung in a certain direction, but compared to music on the radio (and Christ alive I'm sounding like an old fart and not meaning to!), it has - what I feel to be - much a warmth and human weight to it.

(I think that all makes sense...)

Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]


This is a point I often make. Tons of people are always saying "I wish U2 would make music for themselves and for their fans" - who's to say that's not exactly what SoE is? A song like Little Things is clearly not meant for radio play. Songs that reference things only U2 fans would know are clearly for U2 fans in my eyes. I think people think U2 have some desire to make Passengers 2 when perhaps U2 want to make the music they're making and putting out. No one is telling U2 of all people what artistic direction to go in lol.

Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
Oh yeah, we can agree on that. Something like The Man by the Killers turned me off immediately because you can tell it's a song that wouldn't sound anything like that if performed by the four guys, alone.

SOE is has tons of sheen, but what I was saying is that's how they're making it sound modern, not through their songwriting or instrumentation IMO. I'd rather hear a new-sounding record than Bono try out hip-hop, know what I mean?

Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]

Well, I/we hope no one is!

I like the fact it often made me wonder whether I was still listening to a U2 record, but that can go two ways at least, and at times it wasn't always easy listening. Whether I'll like the album more or less with more listens and as time goes by, who knows - but I like that challenge.
[..]

Haha, I rather enjoyed The Man, but yeah it didn't last long in the memory. And shouldn't that be the two guys at this point?

Fair point re. the modern sound - I think I'm probably still trying to work out whether I like what modern sounds like or not!

My ONLY gripe of any substance - but this is so a longstanding one now - I really REALLY wish Edge would just let rip once in a while. The solo on Crystal Ballroom was like finding a map to the Holy Grail, and I wish he'd just... leeeeet it goooooooooooooooooooooo and follow the map. (Of course, that is to say, let rip in the way I want him to.)

Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
Agreed. It's been a while since he's let himself take center-stage for a change.

Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]


This is a point I often make. Tons of people are always saying "I wish U2 would make music for themselves and for their fans" - who's to say that's not exactly what SoE is? A song like Little Things is clearly not meant for radio play. Songs that reference things only U2 fans would know are clearly for U2 fans in my eyes. I think people think U2 have some desire to make Passengers 2 when perhaps U2 want to make the music they're making and putting out. No one is telling U2 of all people what artistic direction to go in lol.

Originally posted by TheRefugee:Great point. People need to accept that this IS the album U2 wanted to make, or at least it's the one Bono wanted to make. And let's face it, Bono is the driving force of U2 and his fingerprints are all over this album.

One of Bono's main heroes and influences was Bowie, music's greatest magpie or chameleon. So many U2 albums contain many different stabs at genres within the one record. There is no one set U2 sound. What links all their work is ambition, desire, curiosity, call it whatever you want. Pitchfork call it 'emulous', as if U2 wish to emulate others. Maybe they do, so fucking what. It might lead them down creative evolutionary cul de sacs, but what's the big crime in trying.

U2 have always been honest about where they come from musically speaking. Ireland had little rock heritage besides The Horlips (Celtic Glam fusion) Thin Lizzy (Hard guitar rock) or Rory Gallagher (blues based rock guitar). There was no template for U2 from the beginning, so they were going to be wide open for influences to the contemporary sounds that prevailed, e.g. post punk at the time. My point in short is: that the common accusation levelled at U2 by the critical consenus is that U2 are desperately trying to capture the zeitgest by clumsily aping current trends and sounds. But they have always sought to channel their creativity or give voice to Bono's muse by channeling various musical influences through their U2 filter, sometimes looking backwards (RnH), sometimes looking at current trends (Pop).

There is no pure sacrosanct U2 sound. They are magpies by nature, borrowing here, stealing there, but always there, surviving and often times annoying. On a separate note, I detect a touch of agism to many of the critics nastier reviews. Rock/Pop/whatever you call it may have its roots as a young person's thing, but setting rules that 50 year old men should not be allowed release music seems inconsistent with an art form supposedly with no rules or about breaking them.