I’m off to see U2 in Montreal. Back in three days with details.
Update:
excellent conversation, pseudo-review, and setlist
34 thoughts on “off to U2 – back in 3 days”
Comments are closed.
I’m off to see U2 in Montreal. Back in three days with details.
Update:
excellent conversation, pseudo-review, and setlist
Comments are closed.
Steven,
we’ll compare shows, how about that?! i recall our not-so-shared opinions about Everclear in Halifax so it will be interesting to see our versions of how Bono treats the Americas vs Europe (as i will see them in Vienna on july 26) turns out. if he comes into THE hotel again i will ask him where he prefers touring. this should solve things suitably… or, of course, cause more problems. as usual.
As a former fan, I’d have to say the modern U2 are astonishingly lame. And the lyrics in that new single — “You make me feel like I can fly/So high” or “A mole/diggin’ in a hole” — have they givin’ up on saying anything?
I will say that the show here in Toronto was well-received, though.
Funny. They talked about fans like that in the last interview of theirs I saw. heh.. Don’t worry Kirby, they love you just the way you are.
Fans like what? What did they say?
As far as geriatric-rockers who’ve long since lost any relevance they once had, I’d take the Rolling Stones any day over U2.
Speaking of old and boring: I heard the new REM album, or about half of it, the other day. Extremely boring. Only a band with an established name and pedigree like REM could get away with an album this tedious. I’d rather listen to Britney – at least her songs are catchy and vaguely memorable.
The only great album in recent memory from an aging “star”, or group thereof, was Dylon’s “Time Out of Mind”. But that’s not exactly fair, seeing as of the artists mentioned above, only The Stones are in the same league as Dylon.
I think what you are calling old and boring is really just mature and evolving. Most bands never get to the point of U2 or REM or The Stones, or Dylan, or Neil Young.
The Stones have certainly made their share of shity albums, and so have Dylan and Young. I think the U2, and to a lesser extent REM are still at least worthy of a few spins b/c of their enormous repetoire. They have few bad albums between them, old and new. I wonder how Nirvana would be viewed now, what kind of music they would be making (the real loss there). I think this speaks to a lack of respect for age, growth in us all (just in refernace to music by the way). Indie is always better. Pop should continue Eating Itself.
The new album I think is not great U2, if by that you mean Unforgettable Fire, War, Rattle and Hum, but it is much better that the lion’s share of the new mainstream stuff. It is just so polished, been around so long, it is easy to hate it. Especially when you realize they have been doing it so long, have had so many faces and moments.
It is also easy to hate Hunter S. Thompson’s work now, by way of analogy, b/c it pales so badly in comparison to his prime. He writes about things like Patrick Roy now. But b/c it is informed by the past it is still interesting and worhty of consideration. And it is still the same guy/band. Fitzgerald wrote some shitty books too.
Same thing with websites.
Some of you may have seen the metafilter thread on how {fray} is past its prime. Maybe. But for my money it is still one of the best pure sites out there because it has so much depth.
So, tho I think there are more vibrant and interesting indie bands everywhere (Eyes, Slowcoaster, Windom Ealre in Charlottetwon alone) I think in terms of mainstream stuff, U2 is still as good as there is (as good as that is).
I disagree with a lot of what you said, Kent. Most of the acts you mention (Young and Dylan are exceptions, even though I think both are enormously overrated) are merely good craftsmen. And saying something is good for the mainstream is very faint praise — meaningless even.
There’s loads of great music out there being created by people over 35. They’re just not on the radio. I could go on, but I’ll spare you all.
Discussion point: If anything, older artists in other mediums usually create superior work to their early stuff. Why is rock so different?
P.S. to AOV’s creators: I think this reply box I’m typing into should be bigger.
Longevity in rock and roll is not a common thing. Maybe there is only so much you can do with a red guitar, three chords and the truth?? When you think about it, the genre itself is barely 50 years old, so for a band to have been around for 20 years is a pretty amazing thing. And if that band is putting out music that one can actually listen to and find some sort of meaning in then wow, thats even more amazing! Very few artists have been around as long as U2, that are still putting out even half decent stuff, so who are we supposed to compare them to? Dylan and Young? Definetly great, though recently, both are more about consistency than creativity. The Stones dont cut it in my books. If you want boring, check out anything they released in the 90’s. Who else has been around that long? Sting? Phil Collins? Fleetwood Mac? The Eagles? Lets not even start down that road. “All That You Cant Leave Behind” is not U2’s best work by far, but it is a decent album that stands up to anything else any 20+ year old band has put out. Heck, in my opinion, “Beautiful Day” is one of the best singles released by any band in recent memory!
Forgive me for my lack of spacing.. i suck..
Good points, Dennis. However, while rock’n’roll is only about fifty years old, blues, folk and country — the ingredients of rock — date back about a hundred years. So to me, “rock” is older than film, yet remains largely adolescent in nature.
I was trying to come up with artists who’ve been around over 20 years and still seem capable of doing their best work ever — this is all I got: Tom Waits, Richard Thompson, Lucinda Williams, Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, George Jones, Bruce Springsteen.
Ixnay on Tom Waits and Johnny Cash. Tom’s early stuff is hands down his best work and he probably won’t beat that…
How’s that for ignorance?
Nick Cave is better than ever. Lou Reed, Robbie Robertson and Joni Mitchell are still pretty credible but won’t match early years.
Sorry for all the posts. What can I say? I’m bored.
I don’t buy the “mature and evolving” label for The Stones or, especially, for U2. Whether you like them or not, Young and Dylan have made different choices along the way, and so have the Stones and U2, just not recently.
REM’s album isn’t pop music, not exactly – it’s too dull to be pop. “Beautiful Day” is pure pop (pop, as in american pop, not british). It’s catchy, it’s been done a million times, and it doesn’t mean a damn thing. if it were another band, it might be a great song, but it’s U2, and you’d expect them to be a little braver.
While we’re on the topic, Guns n’ Roses have a new song and are currently touring.
Right the fuck on.
Sleep till three and you miss so much action.
I’ll give you that something that is good for the mainstream, is faint praise, and heading towards meaningless, but I listen to the radio a lot in Van. and finding something decentU2 falls in this categoryis a relief. And, wow, Kirby, Dylan (maker of the world’s finest album: John Wesley Harding) and Young overrated? Explain, please.
And, also of the acts you mention Kirby: Waits, Sprinsgsteen, Thompson (at least) are certainly on the downswing of their careers. There has been no: Born To Run, Rainddogs or Shoot Out the Lights emerging from them, nor should we expect it. But I think there work is in the same category as U2’s, and still worthy of consideration. That’s right, mature and evolving.
Other genres have the same problem. Miles Davis’ early work, (Kind of Blue, Round About Midnight) is clearly better (to me) than the fushion laced shit he did later and right up until his death, same for Coltrane.
I think the anger and snarling of R&R requires a kind of youth and brazenness that is hard to hold onto with age–most of the “Rock Stars” holding onto that anger and emotion seems more Spinal Tap parodies of themselves now.
Reed and Robertson will never touh The Band or V.U. but have gone the more quiet more logical move as they get older.
Matthew: I am wondering what a band like U2 should do now to not be boring (short of just going away) no one would buy Irish protest songs from them anymore, would they?
“It’s catchy, it’s been done a million times, and it doesn’t mean a damn thing” What is it supposed to mean? The quest for meaning in Pop music is a waste of time. What’s up Fatlip is a good song, even if you have no idea what it is about.
Okay, here goes, Kent. Dylan is someone with a fleeting interest in music — this became appararent in his later career. His music sounds like whatever the people around him make it sound like (so “Oh Mercy” sounds like a Daniel Lanois album, “Planet Waves” sounds like a Band album, etc.). I even remember Levon Helm telling a story about Dylan telling The Band to do whatever they wanted with the music — he didn’t care. Dylan doesn’t seem to command his music. There’s a randomness to the quality of it all. It was really Dylan’s seeming literary quality that made him a sensation, but I find most of lyrics embarassingly bad. Still, he wrote some good songs and produced some good albums because he worked with the right people. I’m not claiming Dylan (or Young) is bad, just overrated.
In my estimation, Neil Young is an interesting if limited guitar player, a bad singer, and a good but inconsistent songwriter. Combine all that and you’ve got somebody who is certainly good and has remained good for a long time, just not elite.
To me, Dylan and Young are simply not in the same league as the Beatles’n’Stones, the Band, Van Morrison, or plenty of R&B artists, like Aretha Franklin and Marvin Gaye.
I totally agree with your comment on Waits et al not doing anything as great as they have, but my point was that they still seem capable of it. They’re not mere shadows of their former selves, like, say, The Stones are. “Exile” may as well have been made by other people.
In regards to the last comment about pop music not being about meaning, I partially agree. Pop music can certainly work without meaning anything, but if none of it means anything, then it’s not art. Music has meant too much for me in my life to accept that it’s not art, and I suspect you’re the same. Most great pop music has been about something — that’s why it connects.
Guess it all depends on whether you prefer the Clash or the Ramones…
I saw U2. You can all kiss my ass.
(I’m back. Details soon.)
“What’s up Fatlip is a good song, even if you have no idea what it is about.”
But it’s a brilliant song when you do know. Pop can have meaning, but U2 lyrics now sound like Oasis. I like Oasis, but try explaining what one of there songs is talking about in more than a very general sense.
Matt, To say that U2’s songs have no meaning is ignorance in it’s purest form.
Not all lyrics are about drugs, girls or politics. Sometimes there is more substance; ie. It’s not all on the surface… But I know you know that.
No further comment.
When I look at the world, Grace (U2)
Lest i remind you all of another name to add to that list of artists who continue to be something – wheather you like him or not (I’m not the biggest fan) – David Bowie. He too, falls into that category of longevity, and i think the good side of it.
Granted, i think all the artists listed above have done a lot of crap in there careers, but they still put out amazing stuff now and then.
How do you define “meaning” in rock and roll or pop music?? Isn’t it a very subjective thing? Obviously you have the actual meaning of the song that the author intended, but everyone who listens to it might find that it means something different to them – according to what was going on in their life at the time etc. They might connect with the intended meaning of the song, or find their own.
How else do you explain the success of schlocky songs like “Butterfly Kisses” or
“Candle In The Wind”. We may not consider it to be good art, but it definetly makes a connection with some people, who obviously find some sort of “meaning” in it.
Can “meaning” in music be more than subjective?
Where to start? First of all, thanks for keeping the site interesting while I was away. Excellent discussion.
Kirby (and Matt) have requested larger text boxes for replies. I hadnt expected such intelligent conversations (long = intelligent). Done.
Melda, Bono told me that he hates Vienna and that the Monteal show would be the best of the tour. Sorry.
Kirby, your complaint about lame recent lyrics. I agree. “In the time when New Media, was the big idea”. I cringe every time I hear that. “If O.J. was more than a drink”. It’s far from a harbour in the tempest.
Matt, Bob Dylan sang Love Rescue Me with Bono on Rattle & Hum.
Last year a saw the smashing pumpkins. They were a huge band for me as a teenager and it was on my Oprah life-list. They seemed like a tired old band heavy-metal doing covers of their own songs.
I was worried that U2 would feel the same way. I had read about the concerts leading up to the Montreal show. I knew all of the setlists and the stunts. Still, it didn’t feel rehearsed. It was fresh. They had fun. Bono pulled a woman on stage and made love to her, Bono and The Edge had a guitar fight which ended with Bono making some cool noises by kicking The Edge’s Gibson, and Bono stuck himself to the video screens at the end of The Fly.
U2 felt like a real band, playing songs they loved. It was a good rock concert. They played six songs from the new record. Considering how many songs they have to play or fans will weep, I thought this was great. The setlist (below) had some great picks. Until the End of the World (speaking of great lyrics), Even Better Than the Real Thing, Stay, The Fly.
The concert reviews of this tour have called it ‘stripped down’ and straightforward. That’s sort-of true. But to me it felt more like a refinement of what they had learned from ZOO TV and POPMART. There were video screens, cameras, and lights, but it was all tasteful and complimentary to the performance.
Stay (Faraway, So Close!) was performed by Bono and The Edge alone with an acoustic guitar. Until the End of the World and The Fly were both standout performances.
These guys are old, but they are not tired and they are not bored. They did a remarkable job balancing being a rock band with new songs that are interesting to them and being a rock icon people have waited their entire lives to see. That can not be easy.
The setlist was as follows:
Elevation, Beautiful Day, Until the End of the World, Even Better Than the Real Thing, Mysterious Ways, One, Help / Stuck In a Moment, Kite, Gone, New York, I Will Follow, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Angel of Harlem, Stay (Faraway, So Close!), All I Want Is You, Where the Streets Have No Name, Pride (In the Name of Love)
encore: Bullet the Blue Sky / Young Americans (snippet), The Fly, I Remember You, Walk On
Meaning in pop music? What does that mean? These songs meant a lot to the 20,000 people in the Molson Centre. Walk On had seemed fairly meaningless to me while listening to the new record, but the live performace was very powerful.
Again, great conversation. I should leave more often.
I think everybody is missing what is really important here.
Steven, did The Edge wear a tooque?
You know I am among the people who thought that U2 was never that lyrically amazing. Talk of embarrassingly bad lyrics makes me think of: “all I have is a red guitar, three chords and the truth”, or maybe “Am I buggin you? I don’t mean to bug ya. Okay Edge, play the blues”, or even, “Here’s a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles, now we’re stealing it back”, or even, “I still haven’t found what I am looking for” (Which granted is a fine song off an even finer album, but its not exactly William Blake, or Bob Dylan for that matter); pretentious quasi-anthemic poetry that made me and all my pals want to get black cowboy hats in the 11th grade, but sounds a little vapid now.
I also think this dovetails nicley into the conversation on meaning in pop music. For me, and for some reviewer somewhere that I read this from (maybe Griel Marcus from Rolling Stone) the true romantic in the band has always been The Edge. Still is. It’s his guitar that really matters, the lyrics are not near as important (just like Whats Up Fatlip is a great song with or without meaning; and that is the point. The meaning is not crucial for the enjoyment of the song).
That is why I think U2 are still worthy, still interesting, mostly because of him. Never in his career has Bono written anything approaching Bob Dylan’s “embarrassing” work like: “He not busy being born is busy dying” or “It’s alright ma, I’m only bleeding” or “It balances on your head just like a mattress balances on a bottle of wine (your leopard skin pillbox hat)”, or “Once upon a time you dressed so fine, threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn’t you?” but they have had some catchy riffs, and an interesting career.
And The Edge is like Jacques Fucking Cousteau; ain’t going nowhere without that toque. That’s for sure.
Yes Rob, The Edge did wear a toque.
Okay, okay… I coulden’t help but notice that “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for” was referenced as bad lyrics… Now, I will not defend U2’s lyrics accross the board and I would never rebuke someones right to dissent… But it seems to me that even that one simple line has a world of content in it. Sure, It’s nothing revolutionary but it is something I respect. A grown man who is willing to tell the world (and when Bono writes something… He is telling the world) that he is still looking, that he has struggles with accomplishment, love and God.
To believe in something and feel completely unworthy is definitly the stuff tht poetry is made of; whether you relate to it or not, it qualifies.
Here; this will take you by the hand…,
I will even specifically reference this.
And yes, this as a concept may be the anti-thesis of Dennis’ assertion above. But individually, it is a compliment to it.
The meaning of music is not merely about lyrics. Songwriters are not poets. It’s about the sound, the culture, the attitude, even the look. I mean, Leonard Cohen is much more poetically gifted than, say, Van Morrison, yet he still can’t compare.
Kent, two of your lyric examples are live chatter, man. Both are idiotic and obnoxious, for sure, but not really lyrics.
For evidence of Bob Dylan’s insanity, please click here
For evidence of Bob Dylan’s Genius, please see Visions of Johanna.
Some songwriters are actually poets before musicians (even in there music – see Leonard Cohen)
The problem here, aside from the fact that this conversation has devolved into a contest to see how can quote the worst lyrics, is that most lyrics don’t work seperated from the song (Leonard Cohen aside).
Jevon’s U2 quote is perfect:
Seperated from the song, which is brilliant, these lyrics become godawful (and it is next to impossible to seperate them from the song – for good reason). They are profoundly amateurish grade 10 poetry – cheap and unimaginative angst. But, (only) within the song they become memorable, meaningful and important.
I reference you to this and dissuade anyone, including myself, from the continued display of nescience in this forum, or anywhere for that matter.
But I will ask you specifically to suggest a collection of “fine”, “good” and “great” poetry and/or prose for me to pick up so that I may attempt to appreciate it.
Think hard, this is your chance to prove to me that I am missing out on something I have not yet discovered.
fine, good, and great poetry:
“beefchowmein”
thank you.
Steven,
When we get to the part in the show (the most comprehensive of the tour) when Bono says ‘I thought that it couldn’t get better than the show in Montreal but you guys are the best crowd yet,’ followed by Who’s Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, we’ll make sure to give you a call.
“Kent, two of your lyric examples are live chatter, man. Both are idiotic and obnoxious, for sure, but not really lyrics”
About all I can say to that Kirby is the gulf between us on this one is an ocean.
Yeah.