![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bedsitter23Not that I need to, but being a huge U2 fan for many years, feel it necessary to blog about the new album.
Right? that's not neccesary, becuase you probably have access to it, and really don't need to know if it is any good from me.
Still, what's the point of having a blog, right, if you don't talk about such things.
Of course, right now, the actual music is besides the point. Google search "U2 New album" and you get links like CNET telling you how to remove the files from your device.
That said, Rolling Stone did give it five stars. Is it good?
I'm a fan and this is as much of a love-them-or-hate-them band as anyone. The Apple release (unlike In Rainbows which people mostly admired regardless of their views on Radiohead) pretty much falls down that divide- OMG! what a giving band or what an arrogant, self-serving corporate move.
I am generally always of the former, and appreciate the free music.
The album's concept itself falls very much into that dichotomy. it is a band that is paying homage to its influences and it's starts.
I appreciate that, but if you hate U2, it seems ham-handed. It's always been that way. "This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles.. we're stealing it back".
U2's influences are all ours. This album is dedicated and influenced by the Beach Boys, the Clash, the Ramones, and Patti Smith. These are all of our favorites. (I asked this when Luke Haines released his New York in the 70s earlier this year. Why can certain bands pay homage, and others do the same and look derivative). U2 has always worn its heart on its sleeve (Beatles, Elvis, Hendrix, Billie Holiday) and being the biggest band in the world has given them access to the most unbelievable icons of our time (Sinatra, Cash, Dylan, Mick n Keef, BB King, Burroughs, Lou Reed, Bukowski, Orbison). If you had the chance, how could you envy them.
So, the album is divisive in that respect already. It is fair, though, to say this is the same band that released Boy. It is their legacy. It may not be as exciting or feel as important as when Peter Hook plays a Joy Division song or Jah Wobble and Keith Levene tour together, but in some aspects it's not that much different.
Of course, the band never went away. That's the thing, right? I loved this band for many, many years, but eventually everyone reaches that point. To me, it was All that you can't Leave Behind. The previous two albums were a bit of duds commercially, but Behind (save the single) was the first time the band no longer sounded "new". They had been "big" for awhile, so I hesitate to say they were 'groundbreaking' in the 90s, but they were still pushing forward.
Behind sounded mature. Time has shown my initial disappointment in that album was unfounded. Circumstances made that album important. It may not be the U2 album you wanted, but it was the U2 album you needed. There was 9/11 of course that brought things into context, but the inward-looking album fit the lives of their fans who were raising children, getting divorced, moving away...
The 2000s however showed that bands can't always hit that amount of popularity and remain. U2 now as like the Stones, instead of caling it a day, they would churn out an album every few years and hit the road. We would be excited to hear new material, but nothing would ever be a surprise again. It's not that it was bad (Everybody has a favorite postTTattoo You Stones moment. For me, it's Steel Wheels, but I haven't played that album in literally years). Atomic Bomb is for lack of a better word, fine. No Line on the Horizon was going through the paces.
At that moment, U2 had been literally passed by the most recent group of graduates from their school of influence. Coldplay had started as a copy, but were now making more interesting music. The Killers had in three years gone from new wave popstar wannabes to brooding Joshua Tree arena rockers.
So, a change in the U2 camp is probably needed. Having largely ditched the long time braintrust of Lillywhite/Eno/Lanois/Flood, I was excited to hear that they were collaborating with one of my favorites Danger Mouse. The new camp also included Paul Epworth (most know for his work with Adele) and Ryan Tedder (mostly well known as frontman of One Republic, but responsible for dozens of hit pop songs in recent years, which include some of the very best to be played on the radio, as well some of the very worst).
I do think it is this crew that does elevate the album.
The bad: I give this group of songs the same label I gave Coldplay for many years. they are enjoyable, but largely forgettable. I have heard "The Miracle of Joey Ramone" maybe 100 times now (more with that Apple ad) and I couldn't tell you but one lyric besides the hook. It's a very good song, but it's not a great single (and the title is cheesy, but I will let it slide).
Even at the best moments, when U2 is cranking it up on songs lie "Volcano" and "Raised by Wolves" (these songs will sound great I am sure (and fit perfectly) on stage performed inbetween "I Will Follow" and "Sunday Bloody Sunday"), but would if I were to remake War would I leave off a song and replace it one of these. I can't say that I would (Or Boy for that matter (Or October really, really for that matter).
The good: I do like the album, and can't say there is any song on the album that I don't like. Like All that you... this is a solidly made album of good songs. There are no great lyrical moments for me, but the production team still takes that to the next level.
The songs do harken to 20th century U2, and as I said, I really enjoy that. I am surprised that "The Troubles" wasn't written by Ben Stiller, but it along with "Every Breaking Wave" and "Sleep like a Baby Tonight" would fit well on Zooropa or Pop. I appreciate the collaboration with Lykke Li, who I feel is a great new(ish) artist and in line with what they want to do in staying modern.
For the last 30+ years, people have been ripping off the Edge, and the music on the album is the best "Edge" homage I have heard in years. Better yet, the guy on this album who is blatantly playing an Edge (circa early 80s0 sound is the actual man himself.
The other: "This is where you reach me now" is supposedly inspired by the Clash. it sounds like the kind of a song a band who was opening for U2 in the 80s would have had a minor hit with.
Overall, I am happy with this album. I think Rolling Stone is being hyperbolic by giving it five stars, but it's a consistent album with a lot of good songs.
Right? that's not neccesary, becuase you probably have access to it, and really don't need to know if it is any good from me.
Still, what's the point of having a blog, right, if you don't talk about such things.
Of course, right now, the actual music is besides the point. Google search "U2 New album" and you get links like CNET telling you how to remove the files from your device.
That said, Rolling Stone did give it five stars. Is it good?
I'm a fan and this is as much of a love-them-or-hate-them band as anyone. The Apple release (unlike In Rainbows which people mostly admired regardless of their views on Radiohead) pretty much falls down that divide- OMG! what a giving band or what an arrogant, self-serving corporate move.
I am generally always of the former, and appreciate the free music.
The album's concept itself falls very much into that dichotomy. it is a band that is paying homage to its influences and it's starts.
I appreciate that, but if you hate U2, it seems ham-handed. It's always been that way. "This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles.. we're stealing it back".
U2's influences are all ours. This album is dedicated and influenced by the Beach Boys, the Clash, the Ramones, and Patti Smith. These are all of our favorites. (I asked this when Luke Haines released his New York in the 70s earlier this year. Why can certain bands pay homage, and others do the same and look derivative). U2 has always worn its heart on its sleeve (Beatles, Elvis, Hendrix, Billie Holiday) and being the biggest band in the world has given them access to the most unbelievable icons of our time (Sinatra, Cash, Dylan, Mick n Keef, BB King, Burroughs, Lou Reed, Bukowski, Orbison). If you had the chance, how could you envy them.
So, the album is divisive in that respect already. It is fair, though, to say this is the same band that released Boy. It is their legacy. It may not be as exciting or feel as important as when Peter Hook plays a Joy Division song or Jah Wobble and Keith Levene tour together, but in some aspects it's not that much different.
Of course, the band never went away. That's the thing, right? I loved this band for many, many years, but eventually everyone reaches that point. To me, it was All that you can't Leave Behind. The previous two albums were a bit of duds commercially, but Behind (save the single) was the first time the band no longer sounded "new". They had been "big" for awhile, so I hesitate to say they were 'groundbreaking' in the 90s, but they were still pushing forward.
Behind sounded mature. Time has shown my initial disappointment in that album was unfounded. Circumstances made that album important. It may not be the U2 album you wanted, but it was the U2 album you needed. There was 9/11 of course that brought things into context, but the inward-looking album fit the lives of their fans who were raising children, getting divorced, moving away...
The 2000s however showed that bands can't always hit that amount of popularity and remain. U2 now as like the Stones, instead of caling it a day, they would churn out an album every few years and hit the road. We would be excited to hear new material, but nothing would ever be a surprise again. It's not that it was bad (Everybody has a favorite postTTattoo You Stones moment. For me, it's Steel Wheels, but I haven't played that album in literally years). Atomic Bomb is for lack of a better word, fine. No Line on the Horizon was going through the paces.
At that moment, U2 had been literally passed by the most recent group of graduates from their school of influence. Coldplay had started as a copy, but were now making more interesting music. The Killers had in three years gone from new wave popstar wannabes to brooding Joshua Tree arena rockers.
So, a change in the U2 camp is probably needed. Having largely ditched the long time braintrust of Lillywhite/Eno/Lanois/Flood, I was excited to hear that they were collaborating with one of my favorites Danger Mouse. The new camp also included Paul Epworth (most know for his work with Adele) and Ryan Tedder (mostly well known as frontman of One Republic, but responsible for dozens of hit pop songs in recent years, which include some of the very best to be played on the radio, as well some of the very worst).
I do think it is this crew that does elevate the album.
The bad: I give this group of songs the same label I gave Coldplay for many years. they are enjoyable, but largely forgettable. I have heard "The Miracle of Joey Ramone" maybe 100 times now (more with that Apple ad) and I couldn't tell you but one lyric besides the hook. It's a very good song, but it's not a great single (and the title is cheesy, but I will let it slide).
Even at the best moments, when U2 is cranking it up on songs lie "Volcano" and "Raised by Wolves" (these songs will sound great I am sure (and fit perfectly) on stage performed inbetween "I Will Follow" and "Sunday Bloody Sunday"), but would if I were to remake War would I leave off a song and replace it one of these. I can't say that I would (Or Boy for that matter (Or October really, really for that matter).
The good: I do like the album, and can't say there is any song on the album that I don't like. Like All that you... this is a solidly made album of good songs. There are no great lyrical moments for me, but the production team still takes that to the next level.
The songs do harken to 20th century U2, and as I said, I really enjoy that. I am surprised that "The Troubles" wasn't written by Ben Stiller, but it along with "Every Breaking Wave" and "Sleep like a Baby Tonight" would fit well on Zooropa or Pop. I appreciate the collaboration with Lykke Li, who I feel is a great new(ish) artist and in line with what they want to do in staying modern.
For the last 30+ years, people have been ripping off the Edge, and the music on the album is the best "Edge" homage I have heard in years. Better yet, the guy on this album who is blatantly playing an Edge (circa early 80s0 sound is the actual man himself.
The other: "This is where you reach me now" is supposedly inspired by the Clash. it sounds like the kind of a song a band who was opening for U2 in the 80s would have had a minor hit with.
Overall, I am happy with this album. I think Rolling Stone is being hyperbolic by giving it five stars, but it's a consistent album with a lot of good songs.
