dondoboy Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Myspace has the whole album up now.No Line On The Horizon Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 You're not the only one. I like that song also. Although apparently I may be among the few here who also likes How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. I don't get all the hate for it but whatever. I've only listened to the new album a few times but so far I'm really liking it, especially the first three tracks which deliver a strong opening. "Magnificent" is my favorite song off of NLOH right now. It's funny - The Unforgettable Fire is my favorite U2 album, but I actually prefer U2 songs that feature guitar, and not keyboards or loops, or whatever. That is why I love Rattle and Hum. Hey Analogman, Do you have room for a new friend who also likes A Man And A Woman? It isn't my favorite song, but when I heard what U2 was doing in between records using Middle Eastern styles supposedly I immediately thought of this song. It definitely is more memorable than something like Trip Through Your Wires. Kristofor As I said, I like the acoustic guitar, and the vibe of the song. I have not yet bought the re-masters either - except for The Joshua Tree. The re-master boxset is 70 bucks at Amazon.com - I figure I will get it eventually. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigideas Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 hasting's already had a display with a list of prior U2 albums - if you trade in two on the list you get Horizon free. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
auctioneer69 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Just listened to the album on myspace. First thoughts: weak. Too many familiar U2 elements without anything being that bold or interesting. This album had a long gestation and it shows. It sounds like they tinkered for a long time looking to come up with something that enough "U2" elements to fill the stadiums this summer and enough innovative elements to satisfy those people who thought the last two albums were too trad. And last but not least Bono's voice continues it's sad downward trajectory. The one mistake they have kept making for the last 10 + years it stoking the pre-album hype to a ridiculous level. That said having not seen U2 since the War tour I might just go and see them in the summer outdoors and enjoy the day and the experience. I must be getting old and sentimental. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Myspace has the whole album up now.No Line On The Horizon Supposedly the reason why: U2 Album Leaks, Gets Streamed On MySpace February 20, 2009 03:22 PM ETJonathan Cohen, N.Y. and Lars Brandle, Brisbane Following a widespread leak earlier this week, U2 is streaming its new album, "No Line on the Horizon," today on its MySpace page. The move comes after staffers at Universal Music Australia inadvertently made "No Line On the Horizon" available digitally more than a week before its release. The album was briefly available for sale on the Universal-affiliated Getmusic.com.au and was promptly uploaded to P2P sites the world over. Universal and U2's management had taken extensive steps to keep "Horizon" under wraps. Critics weren't sent review copies, but were invited to listening parties where recording devices were banned. The legendary Irish rockers' manager Paul McGuinness sent shockwaves rippling across the music and telecommunications industries when he delivered a speech at the MidemNet conference in 2008 in which he urged ISPs to take responsibility for copyright violations. What's the deal with those chorus/background vocals in Unknown Caller? They sound like shit. The beginning piece of music in I'll Go Crazy reminds me of a song - but I can't think of it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LenF Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Just listened to the album on myspace. First thoughts: weak. Too many familiar U2 elements without anything being that bold or interesting. This album had a long gestation and it shows. It sounds like they tinkered for a long time looking to come up with something that enough "U2" elements to fill the stadiums this summer and enough innovative elements to satisfy those people who thought the last two albums were too trad. I know where you are coming from here and while I think it's fair, I also think it's just inherent to a pretty unique set of circumstances. Is there any other rock band that you can think of that's been around for over a quarter of a century that has never once changed members? I can't think of one off the top of my head. You can bring in any producer you want or incorporate any musical influences that are new or different to try to be bold or interesting, but in the end it's the same four guys and their styles are going to come through and much of it will sound familiar. What's truly amazing to me is that they have created (in my opinion) three superb albums already (War, Joshua Tree, and Achtung Baby) that represent three different periods in their career. I don't expect U2 to ever produce another one. One of the unfortunate reasons is that they have such a legacy that it bogs down anything they create with a "baggage" that makes it extremely difficult to objectively assess it... at least for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I don't hear Will.I.Am at all on this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
auctioneer69 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I know where you are coming from here and while I think it's fair, I also think it's just inherent to a pretty unique set of circumstances. Is there any other rock band that you can think of that's been around for over a quarter of a century that has never once changed members? I can't think of one off the top of my head. You can bring in any producer you want or incorporate any musical influences that are new or different to try to be bold or interesting, but in the end it's the same four guys and their styles are going to come through and much of it will sound familiar. What's truly amazing to me is that they have created (in my opinion) three superb albums already (War, Joshua Tree, and Achtung Baby) that represent three different periods in their career. I don't expect U2 to ever produce another one. One of the unfortunate reasons is that they have such a legacy that it bogs down anything they create with a "baggage" that makes it extremely difficult to objectively assess it... at least for me. Agreed. But this is undeniable in the last ten years. Hype, up, way up. Bono's lyrics and voice -down, way down. Songs - far more formulaic than they have done in the past oftentimes. Despite their best attempts - they have become a contemporary version of the Rolling Stones. The albums are somewhat superfluous and it's all about the touring revenues. U2, love or hate em, were once an extraordinary band because of the combination of art and business. Now it's all business. Look at the incredibly overloaded promotion for this album. What other band could play a new song at the Grammies or the Brits despite not releasing anything new for close to 5 years? Who else could be on the front of Q - 3 months before the album release? Who else would get on Letterman for five nights? To sum it up the mullah has replaced the mullet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scribex6 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Agreed. But this is undeniable in the last ten years. Hype, up, way up. Bono's lyrics and voice -down, way down. Songs - far more formulaic than they have done in the past oftentimes. Despite their best attempts - they have become a contemporary version of the Rolling Stones. The albums are somewhat superfluous and it's all about the touring revenues. U2, love or hate em, were once an extraordinary band because of the combination of art and business. Now it's all business. Look at the incredibly overloaded promotion for this album. What other band could play a new song at the Grammies or the Brits despite not releasing anything new for close to 5 years? Who else could be on the front of Q - 3 months before the album release? Who else would get on Letterman for five nights? To sum it up the mullah has replaced the mullet. I don't know if you've seen U2 live on their last couple tours but they are hardly comparable to the Rolling Stones, whose shows are basically about playing the greatest hits. On both the Vertigo and Elevation tours, the shows featured a large portion of the new albums, at least five songs. The easy thing to do would be to just play the hits but it's evident to me they believe in the new material. Now whether or not it's any good, you can be the judge of that. But I think they've strived to be a band that makes music that is still relevant, and for me they are. And, yeah, they get a lot of promotion. They're a big band that wants to sell albums. They've never hidden that fact. But that doesn't mean it's at the expense of their music. Oh, and I think you mean moolah, right? Because a mullah is a Muslim religious leader and I don't think they're taking one on tour. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Is there any other rock band that you can think of that's been around for over a quarter of a century that has never once changed members? I can't think of one off the top of my head. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 There are a few - I think we had a thread about that once. I think both bands (U2 and The Stones) grossed over 300 million on their last tours. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
auctioneer69 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I don't know if you've seen U2 live on their last couple tours but they are hardly comparable to the Rolling Stones, whose shows are basically about playing the greatest hits. On both the Vertigo and Elevation tours, the shows featured a large portion of the new albums, at least five songs. The easy thing to do would be to just play the hits but it's evident to me they believe in the new material. Now whether or not it's any good, you can be the judge of that. But I think they've strived to be a band that makes music that is still relevant, and for me they are. And, yeah, they get a lot of promotion. They're a big band that wants to sell albums. They've never hidden that fact. But that doesn't mean it's at the expense of their music. Oh, and I think you mean moolah, right? Because a mullah is a Muslim religious leader and I don't think they're taking one on tour. Oops, you'll have to forgive the schoolboy spelling error on moolah. My better half was nagging me to get off the mac to help her move a couch:) That said, I stick by main assertion: the art of U2 has completely taken a backseat to the business of U2. "NLOTH" is an improvement on "HTDAAB". I think there is a song or two on it that will probably stand the test of time. "HTDATB" was plain awful. And what drives me nuts as I think it does a lot of people is the incessant and shameless over-promotion. It seems that someone in the U2 business machine has realised that like many blockbuster movies that fade quickly the key is to get a big opening sales to maximise revenue. The analogy to the Rolling Stones was meant in a business sense. The album biggest purpose is to promote the tour (the reverse of the old days). It's the tours that make the real money. I had tickets to the Elevation Tour (when you could get tickets through u2.com without paying $40 to be a member - what a rip-off) but had to sell them because I was skint. That sucked because by all accounts it was a brilliant show and tour. I am glad that I did miss the Atomic Bomb tour. In the live footage I saw Bono's proselytising was way over-the-top (even in relation to his past standards) and his voice (on songs like Bad and With or Without You) had withered to a thin whisper. I am a long-time U2 admirer who is sad that the distance between the myth and reality only seems to be betting bigger as the hype increases with each release. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
indy81 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Agreed. But this is undeniable in the last ten years. Hype, up, way up. Bono's lyrics and voice -down, way down. Songs - far more formulaic than they have done in the past oftentimes. You could have made this argument more easily with the last couple of albums, where they were clearly re-entrenching after "Pop" -- trying to both reclaim their fan base and appeal to a younger crowd. But this new album is much trickier. There are a few obvious commercial concessions (and they tend to be the weaker tracks), but there is some relatively weird stuff on this album, and a lot of people who loved "All That You Can't..." and "Atomic Bomb" are not going to dig "No Line." You can hear Eno all over the place. The closest comparison is with "The Unforgettable Fire" and "Zooropa." At least half the album will be a serious challenge to pull off live (in stadiums, no less.) It's a pretty bold move for such a mainstream band, although I think they're able to get away with it partly because iTunes/MP3 culture means people will simply junk the more experimental tracks. As far as Bono's voice, it definitely went south permanently in the mid-nineties. He lost his low register in particular. But I don't think it's gotten dramatically worse since then -- a bit more hoarse, but he uses this to good effect on the new album. I'm usually really critical of his singing (especially compared to its peak during ZooTV), but I think his performances on "No Line on the Horizon" (the song) and "A Moment of Surrender" are pretty phenomenal. Plus the guy is pushing 50, so I'm not expecting Red Rocks '83 anymore. Finally, the commercialization: seems like U2 has always been really aggressive (and generally successful) with marketing themselves. Their big weakness is their obsession with popularity and success. They released "Pop", a terrific album, then spent the next three years apologizing for it because Americans didn't like it. But I don't buy the argument that hype necessarily means something is lousy. Then again, I like the new album, and I recommend giving it a few more listens before dismissing it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LenF Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 There are a few - I think we had a thread about that once. Are you talking about bands that have been a round for 25+ years without changing members? If so, I'll have to search for that thread. I'd be interested in finding out who they are just for the trivial nature of it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Are you talking about bands that have been a round for 25+ years without changing members? If so, I'll have to search for that thread. I'd be interested in finding out who they are just for the trivial nature of it. Yes - short answer - ZZ Top, Rush, and I forgot who else. I don't recall what the thread was called. It may have just been some posts in another thread. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scribex6 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Oops, you'll have to forgive the schoolboy spelling error on moolah. My better half was nagging me to get off the mac to help her move a couch:) That said, I stick by main assertion: the art of U2 has completely taken a backseat to the business of U2. "NLOTH" is an improvement on "HTDAAB". I think there is a song or two on it that will probably stand the test of time. "HTDATB" was plain awful. And what drives me nuts as I think it does a lot of people is the incessant and shameless over-promotion. It seems that someone in the U2 business machine has realised that like many blockbuster movies that fade quickly the key is to get a big opening sales to maximise revenue. The analogy to the Rolling Stones was meant in a business sense. The album biggest purpose is to promote the tour (the reverse of the old days). It's the tours that make the real money. I had tickets to the Elevation Tour (when you could get tickets through u2.com without paying $40 to be a member - what a rip-off) but had to sell them because I was skint. That sucked because by all accounts it was a brilliant show and tour. I am glad that I did miss the Atomic Bomb tour. In the live footage I saw Bono's proselytising was way over-the-top (even in relation to his past standards) and his voice (on songs like Bad and With or Without You) had withered to a thin whisper. I am a long-time U2 admirer who is sad that the distance between the myth and reality only seems to be betting bigger as the hype increases with each release. Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. (Especially, since, as I've mentioned before, I quite like Atomic Bomb). We can debate all we want about their motives for why they continue to make music but at the end of the day it's just guesses based on our own biases and presumptions. Too bad you didn't see them on either tour. I've seen them on every tour since The Joshua Tree and I'd say they're just as good live as they've ever been and Bono's voice is as strong as ever. The Zoo TV tour is still probably them at their best but the Elevation and Vertigo tours came pretty close. On Vertigo, the setlist included songs like "An Cat Dubh" from Boy, a great version of "Miss Sarajevo" along with a lot of the new songs, and a bunch of their hits. If it was really all about business they could have easily just stuck to just the greatest-hits set. At the LA show I went, it happened to be Larry Mullen's birthday so it was an extra special show with a longer set with the band introducing themselves as the Larry Mullen, Jr. Band at the encore and bringing on a local all-female U2 cover band to play a song. That was a great night with a lot of spontaniety and fun. As for Bono's speeches, well, if you're not used to them by now, there's not much I can say to change that. That's just who he is and I don't mind it, especially as the causes he espouses are good ones. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
auctioneer69 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. (Especially, since, as I've mentioned before, I quite like Atomic Bomb). We can debate all we want about their motives for why they continue to make music but at the end of the day it's just guesses based on our own biases and presumptions. Too bad you didn't see them on either tour. I've seen them on every tour since The Joshua Tree and I'd say they're just as good live as they've ever been and Bono's voice is as strong as ever. The Zoo TV tour is still probably them at their best but the Elevation and Vertigo tours came pretty close. On Vertigo, the setlist included songs like "An Cat Dubh" from Boy, a great version of "Miss Sarajevo" along with a lot of the new songs, and a bunch of their hits. If it was really all about business they could have easily just stuck to just the greatest-hits set. At the LA show I went, it happened to be Larry Mullen's birthday so it was an extra special show with a longer set with the band introducing themselves as the Larry Mullen, Jr. Band at the encore and bringing on a local all-female U2 cover band to play a song. That was a great night with a lot of spontaniety and fun. As for Bono's speeches, well, if you're not used to them by now, there's not much I can say to change that. That's just who he is and I don't mind it, especially as the causes he espouses are good ones. Fair enough. Makes shaking hands gesture. I think it says a lot that so many people still care an awful lot about u2. Hey and, at least, Bono has ditched the hairplugs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 The VocalEssence Ensemble did an arrangement of U2's MLK tonight on Prairie Home Companion (with nary a mention of U2, natch). I do think that the business side of U2 is ridiculous now (if it ever wasn't). I used to defend them quite a bit. To wit:Expensive fan club pre-salesThe ridiculous collector's edition packages they apparently now sell with every album. Bono stating that the band should quit if they ever put out 2 bad albums in a row, then signing a 20 year contract with LiveNation a couple years later. The first two seem to be blatant efforts to squeeze out the dollars from their most devoted fans. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Three dollars and 63 cents Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I've ranted at length in the past about what a bad taste U2 the business leaves in my mouth. I used to buy all of their albums, their singles, their videos, their DVDs, etc..... but I gave up. The Complete U2 on iTunes was my breaking point. I wasn't going to shell out $250 I didn't have when I already owned all of their albums. I gladly would've paid to buy just the new/unreleased material, but it was an all or nothing package, and somebody sent me the unreleased tracks. I've maintained my fan club membership for the last few years only because I'm hoping it will give me the chance to get pre-sale tickets. They've made it sound all along like they'll determine presale codes for the next tour based on membership numbers, to prevent scalpers from joining at the last minute and snatching up all the tickets like they did last time, though I'm skeptical that will actually work. Fanfire's customer service is atrocious, and the members-only parts of U2.com are a complete joke. I want to believe the LiveNation deal might help to make things better, but I know for sure they're not going to make them worse. I still like U2's music, but I don't care for their business practices, and I definitely don't defend the band the way that I used to. In a lot of ways, they've become what they used to make fun of during the Zoo TV era. They do seem greedy sometimes, and it does seem like they take advantage of longtime fans. I'm buying only the basic version of the new release, and maybe one of the versions on iTunes to get the bonus tracks, but there's no way in hell I'm coughing up $65 or $95 for the sooper dooper special deluxe edition. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNpsy_qBnoU The aforementioned MLK arrangement, althought this is performed by a different group. It's nice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Yes - short answer - ZZ Top, Rush, and I forgot who else. I don't recall what the thread was called. It may have just been some posts in another thread. Even shorte. Remove Rush from that list...don't forget John Rutsey (he counts for Yes...on the first album) and Jeff Jones (not sure if he really counts) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Even shorte. Remove Rush from that list...don't forget John Rutsey (he counts for Yes...on the first album) and Jeff Jones (not sure if he really counts) Are you talking about bands that have been a round for 25+ years without changing members? Neil joined Rush on July 29, 1974. Anyhow, back to U2 - great song: In God's Country I think I may like How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb better than the new one. The Ocean - Old Grey Whistle Test (1981). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I don't know if this can be considered 'good news for U2 fans'... U2 bringing Spider-Man musical to Broadway Bono and the Edge of U2 are the latest mainstream musicians to pen songs for a Broadway show. They have teamed up with visionary director Julie Taymor to bring "Spider-Man" to Broadway next year. The show — titled "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" — will tell the story of the superhero's origins. Beyond that there is no word as to which villains will appear, nor is there any official news of casting, though Evan Rachel Wood ("The Wrestler") may be starring.While this will be the first legit musical for these 22-time Grammy Award winners, they are in capable hands with Julie Taymor. Back in 1997, she transformed the Disney animated film "The Lion King" into a dazzling stage musical that is still running on Broadway. The show won six 1998 Tony Awards, including best musical, and Taymor became the first woman to win for directing a musical. I hope this is a put-on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I don't know if this can be considered 'good news for U2 fans'... U2 bringing Spider-Man musical to Broadway I hope this is a put-on. I kind of hope it isn't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
auctioneer69 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I kind of hope it isn't. Anyone remember that Supergrass song "In It For The Money". Don't know why: it just popped into my head for some reason:) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.