SOE
Active topics
U2 - Songs Of Experience (2017)
 Tracks: 14
  3. I’ve just been posting on that songs thread saying I’m quite liking it now but no I’d still not say it’s among the best on the album. It still falls short of the majority of the album, a good song at the moment for me though.
  5. This might sound a bit silly but I’m being completely serious when I say if this is what they’re releasing when they’re 57 I can’t wait to see what they’ve got for us when they’re 67. I think they’ve got plenty more in store for us, doubt this band at the risk of looking dumb because just when you least expect it they do something like SOE. It’s quite ridiculous really in such a good way.
  6. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
    They're basically at a point where they can't really do anything that'll please all the critics.

    It's funny because I hear tons of 90's U2 on this album. Little Things could easily fit in Acrobat's spot on Achtung Baby, Landlady could fit in Trying To Throw Your Arms spot, Love is All We Have Left could easily fit on Pop, Showman could be from the salome tapes, etc.



    First off, they didn't used to care about the critics. They were above criticism coz they believed so strongly in themselves. That changed with Pop.

    Your second paragraph misses the point. Making songs now that could "fit" on one of those classic albums would be another way to play it safe.

    What made U2 so interesting in the late 80s and through the 90s was that they were constantly pushing their own boundaries.

    The change between War and UF is amazing and was actually a big risk at the time. They doubled down on it with the Joshua Tree.

    They were the next big thing with War and they risked it by changing their sound drastically.

    After the J-Tree, they were the biggest thing and they risked it once again with another radical change in direction and sound with Achtung.

    They got weird with Zooropa and then went off the deep end with Pop.

    Yeah, they took their lumps with Pop, but at least they went for whatever their vision was at the time.

    Since Pop, they've played it safe and close to the hip and essentially have made the same album 5 straight times now although Innocence almost broke out of the mold.

    They are at a point where they don't need to play it safe. They are secure, both financially and with their spot in the rock pantheon. They aren't just a band, they are a part of worldwide pop culture.

    So... speaking for myself only, I'd like to see them push the limits again. I don't want songs that could fit on Achtung Baby or Pop.

    I don't want Achtung 2 and no one else does either. I'd love to see them recapture the restless spirit, confidence and creativity that led to Achtung, but on a wholly new work.

    Sure, I'll keep checking out the new stuff regardless and find some things to like. Just don't expect me to be impressed by any band playing it safe.

    I remember when they didn't play it safe. It was a glorious ride and is why they are as big as they are now.
  7. Originally posted by gurtholfin:[..]



    First off, they didn't used to care about the critics. They were above criticism coz they believed so strongly in themselves. That changed with Pop.

    Your second paragraph misses the point. Making songs now that could "fit" on one of those classic albums would be another way to play it safe.

    What made U2 so interesting in the late 80s and through the 90s was that they were constantly pushing their own boundaries.

    The change between War and UF is amazing and was actually a big risk at the time. They doubled down on it with the Joshua Tree.

    They were the next big thing with War and they risked it by changing their sound drastically.

    After the J-Tree, they were the biggest thing and they risked it once again with another radical change in direction and sound with Achtung.

    They got weird with Zooropa and then went off the deep end with Pop.

    Yeah, they took their lumps with Pop, but at least they went for whatever their vision was at the time.

    Since Pop, they've played it safe and close to the hip and essentially have made the same album 5 straight times now although Innocence almost broke out of the mold.

    They are at a point where they don't need to play it safe. They are secure, both financially and with their spot in the rock pantheon. They aren't just a band, they are a part of worldwide pop culture.

    So... speaking for myself only, I'd like to see them push the limits again. I don't want songs that could fit on Achtung Baby or Pop.

    I don't want Achtung 2 and no one else does either. I'd love to see them recapture the restless spirit, confidence and creativity that led to Achtung, but on a wholly new work.

    Sure, I'll keep checking out the new stuff regardless and find some things to like. Just don't expect me to be impressed by any band playing it safe.

    I remember when they didn't play it safe. It was a glorious ride and is why they are as big as they are now.
    What makes you think the songs they’re putting out now aren’t pushing their own boundaries? Why does the music have to be sonically experimental to be considered “boundary pushing”? I consider Bono writing lines like “Jesus if you’re still my friend, what the hell have you done for me?” Boundary pushing in a lyrical sense.

    This is the OTHER problem, which is that a ton of U2 fans seemingly think they know exactly why U2 write and release the music they do. What makes you think this isn’t the music U2 wants to put out? That this album wasn’t pushing them beyond their limits? You don’t know, none of us do. This album to me sounds like a band in their 50s writing songs about things that their younger selves wouldn’t have been able to. What if they don’t necessarily have an interest in reinvention anymore?

    Many artists over the course of their careers strive towards honing in on what makes their art special. The goal becomes minimalism. Perhaps U2 are striving for that now. The song Little Things isn’t the weirdest sounding thing the band have put out, it’s no Mofo, but it’s a masterful U2 song as far as I’m concerned. I’d rather have a matured U2 writing a mature song and striving to hone their songwriting craft than sound odd for the sake of doing it. I don’t want another Achtung Baby either, but as far as I’m concerned, there’s a group of songs on this album that are unlike anything they’ve done before.
  8. I don't know, Summer of Love or Book of Your Heart seem very adventurous to me and they pushed their boundaries while still preserving their sound and identity.
  9. U2 are the iPhone. Hugely popular but hated by those who don’t ‘get it’. The media can’t ignore the U2 juggernaut and negative reviews or articles bring in way more clicks.

    It’s still way too early for me to digest this album. I worry about over analysing as I don’t think it will survive if I really go deep in my analysis. I hope I can continue to enjoy it.
  10. It’s a great body of work, full of heart and soul.
    Every second has had blood and guts poured into it and it shows. It’s remarkably fresh and direct.
  11. Originally posted by eddyjedi:It’s a great body of work, full of heart and soul.
    Every second has had blood and guts poured into it and it shows. It’s remarkably fresh and direct.
    Yes, yes and yes.
  12. Originally posted by germcevoy:
    It’s still way too early for me to digest this album. I worry about over analysing as I don’t think it will survive if I really go deep in my analysis. I hope I can continue to enjoy it.


    Same. Love a few songs, like others, dislike others, but the whole album is going to take a lot more listens.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.