Wednesday, October 11, 2017

I hope U2 is not in a "finishing mood"

U2 apologizes too often that they needed more time to finish the "Pop" album.
                              But they needed less time, not more.

 Some of the best  U2stuff floating around the interwebs are early demos/versions before they got too polished/"finished."

I wish they would take some advice from their friend Charlie,
who sang "I'm not in a finishing mood." (I'm glad Charlie never "finished" that song).

On the atu2 forum,"an tha" says, "I am 100% certain in my belief that the minute and half or so of mofo on that video {first video below} is the greatest bit of recorded u2 available anywhere ever!"

Wookie Warrior said:

  I've always wondered what exactly U2 meant when they were talking about finishing Pop. Like Larry saying, "If we had two or three more months to work, we would have had a very different record. I would like someday to rework those songs and give them the attention and time that they deserve." How different would Pop have sounded if the band had been given another couple of months to "finish" things? I don't see why U2 looks down on this fantastic record so much, it's easily one of their very best albums and it certainly is one of the greatest I've ever listened to. Perhaps it's because of poor sales and the mixed reception, so the band claims that the finished product is... Not finished.
     If you read up on it, that claim could be justified as being true. The album was being worked on until the very last moment. According to Wikipedia, the chorus to Last Night On Earth wasn't even written until the night before the album's release. Edge was also still recording back-up vocals, Howie B. was still adding effects to Discotheque, and there was no definitive version of Mofo. Additionally, Larry's back was injured for months, forcing the band to work on the songs without his assistance. Maybe U2 did work on a tight schedule, but Paul McGuiness still believes that there was plenty of time to finish Pop. First it was scheduled for a late-1996 release before being pushed back until March 1997, giving plenty of extra time to finalize things. From mid-1995 (when the band first began working on Pop) until March 1997, U2 had around 20 months to create the album. It seems like time was not the issue.
     It seems as if U2 had plenty of time to record, produce, mix, master, and release Pop. I do believe claims that the album was unfinished are just excuses to answer why it was so heavily criticized. But maybe they really do believe the record isn't finished. Read what Bono said about If God Will Send His Angels: "Bono originally thought the song was too soft and asked to 'f*** it up,' saying, I thought, this is, like, pure. Now drop acid onto that.'"
     That doesn't sound at all like the Bono we know now, does it? Interesting that of all people, Bono would be the one to call out a song as being "too soft." Keep in mind, this man wrote songs like Beautiful Day like a couple of years later... Anyway, do I agree? Absolutely. Although the track does give off this, mysterious, eery feeling when featured on an LP with numbers like Discotheque and Mofo on it, If You Wear That Velvet Dress serves the same purpose (and does it better). I'm Not Your Baby or Holy Joe could have easily taken its place on the record and made a great album even better... But now I'm getting sidetracked. Bono obviously pushed for a darker album, which explains the second side of it. I remember him once saying something like, "the album begins at a party and ends at a funeral." Very insightful comment.
     Had U2 been given just three more months to work on Pop, how different would the record have sounded? Maybe the album would feel even darker, delving even deeper into their experimentation. What does everyone else think?  link
Click this if first video doesn’t work :

1 comment:

  1. aren't U2 the faggots who sing that song "imagine there is no heaven"? Fuck them. "and no hell beneath" that's where they're going.


Hey, thanks for engaging the conversation!