|
|
Post by riley on Mar 6, 2006 14:38:34 GMT -5
Boy and October are two of the most underated albums of the 80's. Bono was still singing like he genuinely cared, often sounding like his voice had broken away from its leash. No one else sounded like U2 pretty much at all, largely due to The Edge's playing carrying some actual passion as well. They were raw and on the brink of chaos at most turns.
ATYCLB sounds like one long commercial for feminine hygene products. Put Bono on a horse or a diving board in a woman's one piece bathing suit and the soundtrack still works. Awful awful album. I'll give you "Beautiful Day" as a pleasant reminder of capability, albeit still peppered with with radio at the front of the radar rather than an afterthought.
Achtung Baby sounds like money, but at least there's an interesting/innovative spin on the sound of cash. The Eno/Lanois combo works probably better here than on any other release. My preference is still the reckless abandonement of the first three, which even trickles onto TUF pretty effectively.
Modest Mouse post 1998 stills sounds fresh and hungry. U2 post 1998 sounds like Jettas and J Crew khakis (both of which I own, and like better than U2)
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 6, 2006 14:44:39 GMT -5
Yeah yeah commercialism bad...I know...their early stuff was better...whatever...
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Mar 6, 2006 14:47:08 GMT -5
their early stuff sold lots of albums too. fuck sell millions. who cares. just try to sound fresh while doing it. they sound tired. sorry. to my ears they just sound worn out.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Mar 6, 2006 14:52:15 GMT -5
look at Sonic Youth. i don't even really like Sonic Youth, but I can guarantee their next album will sit nicely alongside Evol or Murray Street, whether it's good or whether it's shit. i'm not saying it has to do completely with cash, but when you release music with any notion that you might like some hits, you tend to forfeit some of the fresh factor.
i like Coldplay, and they've been re-working The Unforgettable Fire for three albums now, with the sole intent of making cash and writing radio songs. good for them. it appeals to my ears where U2 doesn't anymore. it's not fresh either, which means I've lost the handle on my point...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Mar 6, 2006 14:53:26 GMT -5
I agree with Riley that U2 were on the brink of chaos a lot on Boy and October and obviously, from past comments, that ATYCLB is a bad, bad record. AB as the sound of money, though - no. If all they'd wanted was sure fire hits, they could have just continued making more and more polished versions of The Joshua Tree for the next 10 or 12 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 6, 2006 14:53:27 GMT -5
I'm just messing with you...I just think the tendency to dismiss more commercial albums based solely on that commercialism is pretty high in these parts sometimes...I still believe that period is better but I understand why you'd like the early stuff better too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 6, 2006 14:58:08 GMT -5
look at Sonic Youth. i don't even really like Sonic Youth, but I can guarantee their next album will sit nicely alongside Evol or Murray Street, whether it's good or whether it's shit. i'm not saying it has to do completely with cash, but when you release music with any notion that you might like some hits, you tend to forfeit some of the fresh factor. I disagree with this completely, it completely ignores the SR series. Sonic Nurse was different then any of the other albums and the fact that they'd add a guy like Jim O'Rouke the mix this late in the game shows they're more then willing to change. Yeah those guys like to pay the bills but they're still doing alot of experimental, different stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Mar 6, 2006 15:00:18 GMT -5
Doc - the AB thing may have been a bit flippant. I agree it was risky enough, especially after that whole Americana Rattle & Hum thing they went through where Bono wore a lot of hats. I guess slick is a better description, and I mean that in an absolutely positive way.
The funny thing is, I used to say how I thought it was time they took a break from Eno/Lanois in the hopes they might rekindle some of that War and earlier zap. Then they rehire Lillywhite, make a rock album , and it sucks as much or more than the one that came before it. Shows how much I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 6, 2006 15:02:37 GMT -5
As Type O' Negetive once said "Don't confuse lack of talent for genius"...Indeed Boy & October are on brink of chaos but they're extremely inconsistant, they sound like a band searching for their sound...which they found on War.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Mar 6, 2006 15:03:04 GMT -5
look at Sonic Youth. i don't even really like Sonic Youth, but I can guarantee their next album will sit nicely alongside Evol or Murray Street, whether it's good or whether it's shit. i'm not saying it has to do completely with cash, but when you release music with any notion that you might like some hits, you tend to forfeit some of the fresh factor. I disagree with this completely, it completely ignores the SR series. Sonic Nurse was different then any of the other albums and the fact that they'd add a guy like Jim O'Rouke the mix this late in the game shows they're more then willing to change. Yeah those guys like to pay the bills but they're still doing alot of experimental, different stuff. I think you just made my point buddy  , since maybe wasn't clear in my post amidst the U2 slagging. Sorry. I can take or leave SY, but I would consistently hold them up as one of the most interesting and evolving bands of the last 25 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 6, 2006 15:07:05 GMT -5
Haha I read the first post wrong...you're right this shit is delicious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 6, 2006 15:12:38 GMT -5
I just don't see any problem with trying to write a hit...especially if you're actually successful at it. Brn To Run is a fastastic example, it's an album specifically with radio hits in mind. The title track is a blatant attempt to write a hit and boy howdy was it ever successful. I just don't see why a band has to be accidently popular...in fact that almost never happens. Show me a band you've ever heard of outside of local bands and I'll show you a band that's compromised artisticly.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 6, 2006 15:13:46 GMT -5
Show me a band you've ever heard of outside of local bands and I'll show you a band that's compromised artisticly. Jandek. Does that count? Not really a band, just one guy...but he's held pretty strong to his values without compromise. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 6, 2006 15:17:14 GMT -5
Show me a band you've ever heard of outside of local bands and I'll show you a band that's compromised artisticly. Jandek. Does that count? Not really a band, just one guy...but he's held pretty strong to his values without compromise. I don't know enough about Jandek to really say one way or the other...there are a few exceptions...what I do know about Jandek I'd bet more people like the idea of liking someone like Jandek more then they actually like his music. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 6, 2006 15:18:26 GMT -5
...in any case holding every band to the same standards that you would Jandek or even Fugazi is just not reasonable.
|
|
, since maybe wasn't clear in my post amidst the U2 slagging. Sorry. I can take or leave SY, but I would consistently hold them up as one of the most interesting and evolving bands of the last 25 years.