Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The MB Reader > Album Reviews
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-03-2009, 10:21 AM   #31 (permalink)
marquee moon
 
Roygbiv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 764
Default

Sure, but it disrupts the flow of the album. It just comes suddenly after the soaring beauty of With or Without You.

On it's own it's a good song, but when judging the album in its entirety it's the weakest link.
Roygbiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 10:21 AM   #32 (permalink)
marquee moon
 
Roygbiv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
I don't think it throws album off balance, I think it works to break up the sound a bit.
I think it comes too suddenly. Maybe it's personal taste, then : P
Roygbiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 10:24 AM   #33 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

Here's an interesting bit of trivia regarding the order of songs :

Quote:
The order of the songs in the track listing was devised by singer Kirsty MacColl. MacColl, wife of producer Steve Lillywhite, was brought into the studio one day as the album was being mixed, and was asked to come up with an order for the songs on the album, beginning with "Where the Streets Have No Name" and ending with "Mothers of the Disappeared". She listened to the songs and created a track listing simply by putting the songs in order of her favourites. The band felt that her ordering of the songs, despite being a listing of her favorites, was an excellent sequence for the album.
This was found in the album's wikipedia article -> The Joshua Tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 10:33 AM   #34 (permalink)
marquee moon
 
Roygbiv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 764
Default

That IS interesting. However, Bullet The Blue Sky > Red Hill Mining Town AND One Tree Hill?
Roygbiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 10:39 AM   #35 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

I think my order would be .. Red Hill > Bullet > One Tree .. Sorry tree-huggers!

edit :

Actually, I've reconsidered. Red Hill > One Tree > Bullet.
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 10:48 AM   #36 (permalink)
marquee moon
 
Roygbiv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 764
Default

That's a good choice.

My Joshua Tree would look like this:

1 - Where The Streets Have No Name
2 - I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
3 - With Or Without You
4 - Running To Stand Still
5 - Red Hill Mining Town
6 - Bullet The Blue Sky
7 - In God's Country
8 - Trip Through Your Wires
9 - One Tree Hill
10 - Exit
11 - Mothers of the Disappeared

Not because I like Bullet the Blue Sky or anything, but because it would flow better that way.
Roygbiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2009, 12:31 PM   #37 (permalink)
marquee moon
 
Roygbiv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 764
Default

Rattle & Hum/Pop [Island; 1988/1997]


I decided to review these two albums at the same time because I found myself saying similar things about them when I tried reviewing them individually. There’s also no score because it’s pointless to score two albums that were clearly terrible.

Both Rattle & Hum and Pop share the unfortunate fate of being considered the worst albums of their respective decades. The reasons differ slightly, but they both arrive at the same conclusion. In Rattle & Hum’s case, fans had already listened to what most considered the pinnacle of U2’s 80s sound in The Joshua Tree. In Pop’s case, fans were no longer interested by the electro/dance gimmick that the band took to ridiculous levels by the time Zooropa came out. It didn’t help that Pop came out five years after Zooropa – by then I imagine fans were expecting something else from the band. You’d think that Rattle & Hum, which came out a year after The Joshua Tree, wouldn’t suffer from what Pop suffered from, but it did. Fans didn’t need another album after The Joshua Tree, not for awhile, especially because most of its singles were played on the radio in full force even a year later (and, heck, decades later).


Both albums also suffer from being too bloated. At 72 and 60 minutes respectively, they are U2’s longest albums. The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby, at over 50 minutes apiece, were allowed – and dare I say embraced – because there were hits all over them. Otherwise their albums are no longer than 42 minutes (Zooropa is the odd one out, running for 51 minutes).

There are some good tracks within both albums, namely within Rattle & Hum, which hosts my favourite U2 song, “Angel Of Harlem.” Pop has a much more forgettable set of okay songs, however – the only real highlight being Discotheque and maybe If God Will Send His Angels.

If there’s one really good thing to say about each of these albums is that they finalized a stage of U2’s sound. After Rattle & Hum, U2 would reinvent themselves with a distinctly 90s sound, and after Pop they would reinvent themselves by embracing an alternative radio, allowing U2 to adapt to the shifting tides.

Maybe after No Line On The Horizon, they’ll try going “indie.”
Roygbiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2009, 12:36 PM   #38 (permalink)
why bother?
 
Bulldog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,826
Default

Angel Of Harlem is a fantastic song - it'd be my favourite U2 one if it weren't for that one song off the Joshua Tree that I've mentioned before. Other than that, Rattle and Hum's pretty forgettable. Pop, on the other hand, is just absolutely terrible.
Bulldog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2009, 05:10 PM   #39 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

I agree that none of the albums are good, but I find enjoyable moments on both. On Rattle & Hum, I can sort of enjoy Desire, Hawkmoon, Silver & Gold, Heartland .. On Pop, Gone, Miami, Wake Up Dead Man. I don't think they're awful, but mediocre perhaps. But of course, mediocre albums from such a big band are gonna disappoint.
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2009, 09:35 AM   #40 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
kyleargyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 120
Default

I think Pop might just be U2's most underrated album.

Rattle and Hum was ****, though.
kyleargyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.