U2start.com | Why No Line On The Horizon?

Originally posted by dylbagz:This thread should be about songs of innocence and then experience by association.

If you're going to force an album to be downloaded onto every ios product in the world, why use an album that has no meaning to anyone but u2 and the people who know their history? None of those songs resonate with the public because of it. They should have forced a real album on people.

The ideas resonated with a lot of people who have an average level of intelligence the only ones complaining were the self absorbed millennials who only listen to brainless music by manufactured Karaoke singers .

Welsh_Edge

5 years

Yeah well they fucked up with the SOI release after the trial run of the free Invisible release.

NLOTH showed a lack of direction, they wanted to do something different but then they got nervous and GOYB was on it and was the first single.

deanallison

5 years

It’s finding SOI so easy to connect with that made it one of my favourites. Yes its a personal album to the band, to Bono in particular perhaps but like a lot of great u2 songs you can have your own interpretation of them that makes them mean something more to you. Even in the songs though like cedarwood road and raised by Wolves which I can’t really relate to my life I’m completely into the vibe of they songs, what they mean to the band and I think musically they just sound great anyway. NLOTH however just doesn’t mean anything to me, I like listening to it occasionally I think highly of a few songs from it but they don’t really do anything to me. I used to put that down to the lack of an emotional attachment but I don’t think it is just that. An emotional attachment can help but it isn’t everything. Take Achtung baby my favourite album I don’t love zoo Station or the Fly because of there sentimental value I love them because they just sound incredible. When I listen to they songs I want to be physically playing them or singing them (if I could do either well enough) you can almost feel the music flowing through your veins, that’s not there in NLOTH, I can enjoy certain songs but nothing more than that. NLOTH falls short of u2 standards in both emotional attachment and/or just sounding great. I also don’t think the band really committed to NLOTH they were confused with what they wanted to do and it shows. Btw still think it’s a decent album in general but below par for u2 standards.

LikeASong

5 years

Originally posted by Welsh_Edge:Yeah well they fucked up with the SOI release after the trial run of the free Invisible release.

NLOTH showed a lack of direction, they wanted to do something different but then they got nervous and GOYB was on it and was the first single.

Yep. NLOTH's erraticism is mainly due to them being scared of straying too far off the "blockbuster path". A full-on experimental and anti-mainstream album a la Fez/BB or Cedars would have been much more welcomed among fans and would have morally enabled them to go full-on commercial again in the next cycle. But they chickened out and NLOTH didn't fully satisfy anyone, it was in the middle of every and nowhere, and all over the place actually.

CMIPalaeo

5 years

Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
Even if we're off topic: this is a very valid point, hadn't though of it that way. They should have chosen a less personal and more wide-scope album to force it down 500-million's throats. It would have been better received I guess (or at least, less bashed).

It wouldn’t have mattered what the released. They could’ve done The Joshua Tree and millions of people still would’ve hated it, millions of people still would’ve loved it, U2 would’ve still jumped back into the top 200, and every daytime talk show host and hip kid of twitter would’ve bashed them and every nighttime talk show host and old-time music writer would’ve praised them.

That said, I think SOI was a very accessible — it’s rewarding to know the history but I think it’s also an easy to get into album.

Anyway this is off-topic...

Why NLOTH? I imagine they just wanted to experiment. By the way they talk it was an album that really was going to be totally out of left field. BUT — as was established at the beginning — they were still feeling burned by Pop and had seen very widespread and public success with the preceding two albums and tours. They realize they’ve got an odd atmospheric record with no hits and no obvious live staples, and they feel they need to balance it. I’d expect that at the time of the album’s release, they felt that putting all the “radio” songs right there in the middle in a block made it an aspect of the album’s overall arc, and that adding those songs balanced the album out, not fractured it. Now, I really like NLOTH, poppy stuff included, but it’s definitely a weird dynamic with those songs sat in there. The Daylight and Darkness EPs route probably would’ve been better...

(Also, the album was widely disliked by fans, mainly on account of tracks 5-7, but how widespread was this? How many people didn’t like the album because it had too many weird ambient experimental excursions like Unknown Caller, Fez, or Cedars?)

Welsh_Edge

5 years

If they wanted to do a follow-up to HTDAAB with similar success, they should have released the material they recorded with Rick Rubin.

Sydney_MIke

5 years

I've always thought that the problems with this album can be traced back to Bono being too distracted by his advocacy work. His lyricism reached its peak with AB, although Pop almost matched it. But from there it went downhill and reached the bottom with his album.

Why No Line On The Horizon?

what they said

did you know

you

forums

U2start