SOE
Active topics
U2 - American Soul
 Album:
Songs Of Experience (2017)
  1. Subtlety? Forced? The album titles tell you all you need to know about the thematic connection.

    It's obviously self referential. They've done it in the past; Sunday Bloody Sunday & "40"; Please and Sunday Bloody Sunday. Nothing wrong with it.

    Anyway, why the hell not reuse the lyric? It's art. It's rock and roll! Why must there be so many rules? Why must a song have a solo?

    Many may not like it, but that doesn't mean the band are guilty of breaking some sacred rock music rule that thou must not re-use lyrics in different tracks. Van The Man did it. Bruce has done it. No harm done.
  2. Originally posted by iTim:If they popped this album out in 2015, I think we’d have less of an issue with it. Three years on it just seems a bit forced.

    This is a good point.

    And none of the examples being named are the same as this. Having a part of a lyric or even just a riff isn't the same. This is an entire section. The guitar, the bass, the drums, the lyrics, the melody, etc.

    Like I said before, there isn't a point of reference for this so there's no sense in saying "if you're mad at this why not mad at this?" There is no past "this".
  3. Originally posted by TheRefugee:Subtlety? Forced? The album titles tell you all you need to know about the thematic connection.

    It's obviously self referential. They've done it in the past; Sunday Bloody Sunday & "40"; Please and Sunday Bloody Sunday. Nothing wrong with it.

    Anyway, why the hell not reuse the lyric? It's art. It's rock and roll! Why must there be so many rules? Why must a song have a solo?

    Many may not like it, but that doesn't mean the band are guilty of breaking some sacred rock music rule that thou must not re-use lyrics in different tracks. Van The Man did it. Bruce has done it. No harm done.


    thats a good point.
  4. You seem to be taking the lack of precedent as an argument for why it shouldn't be done. If that's a rule that is to be imposed on the band, well that is your position and you probably cannot be convinced otherwise.

    So, taking precedent as the important aspect, then I would respectfully suggest that the fact these (I&E) albums are manifestly companion pieces is also without precedent and hence the band may be forgiven for taking the artistic licence (of which they are inarguably entitled) in this exceptional instance of re-using elements of Volcano.
  5. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]

    This is a good point.

    And none of the examples being named are the same as this. Having a part of a lyric or even just a riff isn't the same. This is an entire section. The guitar, the bass, the drums, the lyrics, the melody, etc.

    Like I said before, there isn't a point of reference for this so there's no sense in saying "if you're mad at this why not mad at this?" There is no past "this".
    You seem to be taking the lack of precedent as an argument for why it shouldn't be done. If that's a rule that is to be imposed on the band, well that is your position and you probably cannot be convinced otherwise.

    So, taking precedent as the important aspect, then I would respectfully suggest that the fact these (I&E) albums are manifestly companion pieces is also without precedent and hence the band may be forgiven for taking the artistic licence (of which they are inarguably entitled) in this exceptional instance of re-using elements of Volcano.
  6. Apologies. I meant to quote RattleandHum 1988's post.
  7. Originally posted by TheRefugee:You seem to be taking the lack of precedent as an argument for why it shouldn't be done. If that's a rule that is to be imposed on the band, well that is your position and you probably cannot be convinced otherwise.

    So, taking precedent as the important aspect, then I would respectfully suggest that the fact these (I&E) albums are manifestly companion pieces is also without precedent and hence the band may be forgiven for taking the artistic licence (of which they are inarguably entitled) in this exceptional instance of re-using elements of Volcano.
    i can't argue with that, but a blank slate still means that people can dislike it or not, too. I just think it's kind of whack to criticize either disliking it or liking it rather than just critically looking at the subject itself, that's all.

    What I'm saying is, people shouldn't have their opinion passed off as "overreaction" when they're criticizing something they're not used to. There's more than enough reason for people to not like it, because something this conceptual isn't something U2 fans aren't used to. Furthermore, those that are used to this tactic with other bands, can criticize it for not being performed in a cool enough way. As in I think there were far better parts of SoI that could've been used as links to a companion album that are better than this. To me, only was the "you are rock and roll" part shit in the first place, it was already something we'd heard before. Granted, Glastonbury was never put to record so with Volcano it was kind of like "yeah okay it's cool they finally 'finished' that tune". But now it's like "okay give it a fucking rest it was never that great a part to begin with".
  8. So is this the second single now instead?
  9. It seems to me that the criticisms focus on a) the re-use of a previously realised song and b) the "you are rock and roll" lyric specifically. I don't mean to offend by suggesting the criticisms are invalid, so I withdraw the 'ridiculous' word. It was stated with exasperation, I guess at the repeated apparent suggestion that re-using or sampling your own work is a crime against music.

    I suppose my labelling the above particular criticisms as an overreaction per se may seem unfair. Apologies. Debate is good. Different view points welcome. However, I don't accept, as some posters have stated, that there is a definitive view or received wisdom that the lyric is crap or doesn't work. Even reading the Mojo review, there is another voice in the wilderness who thinks the lyric works.

    Also, stated criticisms apart, I like so much else going on in the track. It has energy and great hooks. I suspect it will work well in the context of the album as a whole.
  10. AS is awesome !!!
  11. I will just insist in my previous point:

    American Soul didn't borrow anything from Volcano, is the other way around: Volcano borrowed a small part of American Soul (previously known as Glastonbury) as a reference.

    It's not lazy or lame, since this song existed before SOI.

    American Soul is not a rehash on Volcano.
    American Soul IS Glastonbury, just like Vertigo is Native Son, 11 O'Clock Tick Tock is Silver Lining, and Fire is Saturday Night.
    Volcano is the one briefly referencing the whole chorus of American Soul, not viceversa.

    [edit]
    In other words, pretend for a second that they didn't change the name of the song and kept it as "Glastonbury". I honestly don't think people would've had that much problem with it having the "you are rock n roll" bit (which is basically all there is as controversy.
  12. Originally posted by blink:[..]
    If they really wanted to draw this connection between SOI and SOE then its not exactly subtle lol

    Like iTim mentioned, it seems a bit forced?

    My opinion at least


    I get that. They ideally should have just put out a double album.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.