Anderson, Chris ([email protected])
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:59:18 -0500
>>
Alright...this isn't a flame but i am going to have disagree with alot of
things here.
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.
<<
Chris Anderson: I actually enjoyed reading this post. I kind of forgot to
mention
how The Joshua Tree might not seem as special (as it does to me now) without
U2 having gone through the 90's phase (Achtung/Zoo/POp). To address the
quote
I snipped above: I agree, some of the messages in the lyrics/songs are much
the
same but with the electronica added. I really like Zooropa the song, a lot.
I like
Zoo Station, a lot. The only reason I harp on the old songs and their
"supposed better value" is because listening to those songs from TJT and RH
got me, personally, into U2. I come from a rather religious background
anyway.
I will say this, I learned some lessons through the 90's U2 style. Number
one of these lessons could be to not look/act/"try - to - feel" righteous
and look
down on those who are "sinners." To me, that's what U2 pointed out with the
migration from TJT to Zooropa/POP. It all goes back to Bono's quote "I
aspire
to be a Christian, etc, etc, etc.' I don't want to get into that right now.
It's just time for many 90's U2 fans to be drawn in even closer to what
U2 is getting at. I am sure plenty of the 90's fans are sincere and try
to understand U2. However, many may not be at this point.
Bono and his Mr. MacPhisto suit. It's fine
for a bit, but these fans of Bono need to realize that he(Bono) is actually
trying to drive home a point in some obscure way (at least to these "fans").
Let's put it this way: there's a big difference between the Bono singing
WTSHNN and his parade in the Mr. MacPhisto suit. Often, I feel
torn between the two "paths", too....if you know what I mean...I think
Bono tries to portray the spiritually wayward/mislead and how they
CAN find salvation after trial and tribulation.....maybe.
>> 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?
<<
I hope my opinion is welcome. I think U2 will pick up with one more
song like "Sweetest Thing" (ie. a very light-hearted song). They will
also try to raise the spirit in all of us in more obvious, yet sublime ways.
By the way, give Brian Eno's solo work a listen.....it's interesting and
it often surfaces in u2's music in slight but telling ways.....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Nov 23 1998 - 22:00:34 PST