[email protected]
Mon, 23 Nov 1998 01:05:25 EST
The u2 of the 90's and the 80's for better or worse really isn't that much
different...w..if you took the electronic decorations off songs like one and
gone, yu would probably have that same athemic feel that songs like running to
stand still..etc have. What I saw in their 90's stuff was an attempt to not
make their music and message sound so obvious. They hid lyrically heavy songs
like Until the End of the World, Lemon and Mofo in distortion and electronic
bleeps and echos. This technique personally worked for me..until i got into
u2 I was very weary of grand sweeping message filled songs and songs that
sounded like they were preaching...their little tricks with disguising let me
let down my guard a bit that gradually i could take the messages and passion
in their music.
We might talk for ages about how u2 should have never "left" their classic
sound, but I think that might have been doing our world a disfavor. With
messing with their sound, they managed to attract people to their music that
might not have been grabbed by JT, and besides if they hadn't of changed I
doubt they would be the legends of rock that we know them to be now. I know i
am going to sound silly for saying this..but i am Very glad we still have a
group like u2 making music...their music seems to be very powerful, and I
think their presence in rock n' roll is definitely a good thing.
On this note, what do you guys think is next for our boys? The group has
been saying that pop was the end of the 90's irony/subversion era...and
ofcourse we all know what the 80's was about...what direction would you like
to see them go in next?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sun Nov 22 1998 - 22:07:49 PST