Weatherman

I love that John Mellencamp actually charted in 2010 with an album recorded in MONO. He put a huge middle finger up to the loudness wars. It's called No Better Than This. From Wikipedia: "Mellencamp recorded the album using a 1955 Ampex portable recording machine and only one microphone, requiring all the musicians to gather together around the mic. The album was recorded in mono, the same manner as the classic folk and blues recordings of the 1930s and 1940s."

I was born five months before 2112 was released. So they were literally part of my entire life, kind of like the sun, moon, stars. Just a constant, always there, thrumming quietly just offscreen from the mainstream for all 44 years of my life... That's why I'm still dealing with his death. It's like coming home to find out that my favorite 67-yr-old tree in the front yard had been cut down. We had no notice whatsoever. Those trees are all kept equal...

Great, now I have to go listen to the album for the first time.

Yeah those lyrics are wicked sharp. So are the lyrics of Anagram, and Dreamline, and The Weapon, and The Camera Eye, and SOOOO many others. Peart was a real poet, equal to Dylan. That's going a little far. I don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows...Peart had his moments, but he wasn't Dylan's level. Peart liked wordplay more than Dylan. Dylan liked topicality and abstruseness more than Peart. It matches their personalities. Don Henley and Bono are both very, very good too.

Yeah those lyrics are wicked sharp. So are the lyrics of Anagram, and Dreamline, and The Weapon, and The Camera Eye, and SOOOO many others. Peart was a real poet, equal to Dylan (fortunately less obtuse). In English class in high school, I turned in the lyrics from "The Pass", explaining that Peart was an obscure poet who I enjoyed, and got an A. Someone should bind together a "collected lyrics of Neil Peart". I'd buy it.

Here's a quote from Edge two years ago: But I think we’re also wary of the fact that that [classic U2] sound is associated with 20, 30 years ago. We need to make sure, as we always have done, that we are part of a current conversation that’s going in music culture in terms of production, songwriting, melodic structure, all the things that keep the culture moving forward. What we don’t want to be is caught in what I describe as a cultural oxbow lake where others are moving forward and you’re still faithfully doing what you’ve always done, but now you’re anachronistic and part of a historical form rather than what’s actually pushing the boundaries forward, the flow of where it’s going. We’ll usually try to have our cake and eat it. We want it both: the hallmarks of the classic band, which is becoming more and more rare, but we also don’t want to be perceived, and we don’t want to be, a veteran act out of touch with the culture. Just because the Edge knows what U2 aught to be doing doesn't mean they've been doing it. All right. You can stop polling your 22-yr-old roommates now. Evidently the first band to score FOUR #1 albums in FOUR different decades is not relevant to you, or your barely legal friends. But the thing is, lots of us are older than 22. In fact, the vast majority of humans in the US and Canada are older than 22. So maybe we ought to define our terms: What does relevant mean to YOU, as a 22-yr-old person? How do YOU define relevant?

I used to get into arguments with my first guitar teacher about who we'd rather have backing us up on drums. I said Neil; he said Bonzo. We never resolved the disagreement.

Here's a quote from Edge two years ago: But I think we’re also wary of the fact that that [classic U2] sound is associated with 20, 30 years ago. We need to make sure, as we always have done, that we are part of a current conversation that’s going in music culture in terms of production, songwriting, melodic structure, all the things that keep the culture moving forward. What we don’t want to be is caught in what I describe as a cultural oxbow lake where others are moving forward and you’re still faithfully doing what you’ve always done, but now you’re anachronistic and part of a historical form rather than what’s actually pushing the boundaries forward, the flow of where it’s going. We’ll usually try to have our cake and eat it. We want it both: the hallmarks of the classic band, which is becoming more and more rare, but we also don’t want to be perceived, and we don’t want to be, a veteran act out of touch with the culture.

Yeah, saying at your last show of 1989 "we're gonna take a break for a while" is not the same as mounting a massive Official Farewell Tour. FYI, Bono did the same thing at the last show of SoE tour in 2018. "We're gonna take another break now." (Side note: I look forward to seeing if they can reinvent themselves again. I dream about a bass-heavy, Adam-centric U2 album, where the bass drives the melody and the guitar is minimal.)

I'm a U2 fan who's been to every tour for the last 30 years. This is completely wrong. They've never, ever done a farewell tour. I don’t remember any farewell tour announcement by them either. Whatever the case, it’s all fair because bands are free to say and do that if they want. It’s kind of cheap to announce a farewell tour which ends up not being the end...over and over again. But again, it’s all fair game. Did you see what Motley Crue did? In 2015, they signed a cessation-of-touring contract, in public, stating that they would never, ever tour again. Then "The Dirt" was a hit - the movie - and interest in them skyrocketed. Their management told the Crue that they were leaving tons of money on the table. So they broke the contract, reformed, and were set to tour this year with Def Leppard and Poison, before the virus.

Interesting here -- Alex loves TFE. "I feel like we arrived with this record. There’s a particular feel that I don’t think we had before—a nice groove and a lot of really good Rush songs. I feel like we were all really together on this album." https://www.guitarworld.com/features/interview-alex-lifeson-dissects-11-key-rush-songs Weird. I've read Ged saying the opposite in the 2010s, that he felt they were running creatively empty at that time.

I'm a U2 fan who's been to every tour for the last 30 years. This is completely wrong. They've never, ever done a farewell tour.

I'm another fan here who disagrees with your basic contention. You are correct that many here see the later output as lesser, although the majority here believe that Clockwork Angels was an excellent album- and that sort of undermines that point. I would also argue that Rush worked very hard to remain relevant and interesting. Perhaps they failed in the eyes of many fans, but frankly I would guess that most here would hold their 21st century output higher than their 90's output. IMO Rush did start doing stuff outside the music to stay relevant. South Park, Kevin J. Anderson, the documentary, Hall of Fame, etc. It didn't hurt that all the people who grew up on their music began assuming powerful roles in media, so Rush was invited places they'd never been before. That was cool to see, at the end.

They did what with Zappa? I don't follow.

It's amazing to see a band like U2, which is still making great records (Songs of Experience) over 40 years after forming. In their case, they've started leaning on a huge team of younger producers to bring them new ideas. Bono and Edge also studied the Lennon/McCartney songbook in the late 00s, seeing it as more craft and less inspiration. That new emphasis, plus zero shame in bringing in new collaborators, has kept them relevant. I don't blame them one bit. Other older bands have too much pride to bring in outside help, or relearn songwriting. Rush, for example. It showed, unfortunately, in their songwriting the final 4 albums. I imagine that nobody here really disagrees. Pearl Jam refuse to learn how to write songs in a new way, and as a result they've been in a slow nosedive for the last twenty years. Rolling Stones have effectively given up songwriting. They've made exactly 2 new albums in the last 22 years. If you're gonna stay together as a recording unit for decades, your way of working has to change at some point. Otherwise, just go be a heritage act and play the outdoor sheds every summer like Jimmy Buffett. I'll take Rush's 00's output every day of the week over U2's. Not even close. I think on CA especially Rush refound whatever songwriting skills had drifted away since their golden age, but VT has a number of great songs as well, and SnA at least has Far Cry. I don't think U2 has had a relevant song since Vertigo. Songs Of Innocence got some fake relevancy out of the whole iTunes mishap. Had that album been released normally it wouldn't have made any more impact than NLOTH or SOE did (which is to say not much compared to the heights of Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree. I also don't think U2 have had a fresh idea since Pop, aside from some interesting experimentation on NLOTH which was so poorly received that they steered back away from it on SOI. If Bono andThe Edge studied Lennon and McCartney's songwriting they must not have gotten past Chapter 2. Not a single song on the last two albums I would take over Please Please Me. I haven't heard much of Pearl Jam's post Vitalogy catalogue, but I haven't disliked what I have heard. I did listen to Lightning Bolt a lot when it came out and I really enjoyed most of it. Sirens is a great song. The Stones are just on another level. By 1990 they already had more albums under their belt than most major rock bands will ever have. I'm not sure new music from them has ever been less necessary to their endurance as a live act and a rock icon. 3 things: 1) I wasn't comparing the bands to one another. I was comparing earlier versions of each band to later versions of themselves. 2) In 2009, U2 mounted the highest-grossing tour in the history of music ($736 million). In 2014, U2 won an Oscar for Best Original Song, "Ordinary Love". In 2017, Songs of Experience was the sixth-best-selling album in the world. You still gonna say they haven't been relevant since Vertigo? C'monnnn. 3) I guess you haven't read half the people on this forum remarking that the majority of Rush's music since TFE leaves them feeling flat. Your opinion may be different, but even many of the superfans here feel that Rush weren't living up to their previous heights. It happens to older people. I held up U2 as the one example of a band that has taken big steps, behind the scenes, to keep the nose of the plane from beginning its descent.

It's amazing to see a band like U2, which is still making great records (Songs of Experience) over 40 years after forming. In their case, they've started leaning on a huge team of younger producers to bring them new ideas. Bono and Edge also studied the Lennon/McCartney songbook in the late 00s, seeing it as more craft and less inspiration. That new emphasis, plus zero shame in bringing in new collaborators, has kept them relevant. I don't blame them one bit. Other older bands have too much pride to bring in outside help, or relearn songwriting. Rush, for example. It showed, unfortunately, in their songwriting the final 4 albums. I imagine that nobody here really disagrees. Pearl Jam refuse to learn how to write songs in a new way, and as a result they've been in a slow nosedive for the last twenty years. Rolling Stones have effectively given up songwriting. They've made exactly 2 new albums in the last 22 years. If you're gonna stay together as a recording unit for decades, your way of working has to change at some point. Otherwise, just go be a heritage act and play the outdoor sheds every summer like Jimmy Buffett.

I would love to watch a reality TV series called "Looking for Another Neil". It would follow Ged and Alex as they audition new drummers, then shake their heads sadly after every audition.

The debut. When I want to listen to Led Zeppelin, I'll listen to Led Zeppelin.

All the World's A Stage is EXACTLY as old as I am. Weird. I haven't listened to it since maybe 1993. The earliest stuff is my least favorite era. Change my mind! I'm open to new ideas.

I disagree that Ged had bad moments of singing in the 70s almost as much as I disagree that Alex ever played anything bad. Ged and Alex weren't perfect. Ged admitted that he didn't know what he was doing vocally, in the 70s. They wrote their songs instrumentally, without thinking about the key for the vocals, or if Ged's range could fit it. They were kids, basically. Alex had his "bad" moments too. He had occasional spastic weirdo solos, wherein he ignores many of the basics of solo instrumentation -- pacing, cresendo/decrescendo, tension/release. I always point to Freewill but there are others too. So it's best to admit that they were terrific but not perfect.

His shrieking in the early/mid 70s was the only time his voice bothered me. He tamed it by Permanent Waves. By the 80s he'd learned how to sing very melodically. By HYF he'd really learned how to make a vocal earworm.

You're overthinking it. Some synth era albums were more artistically successful (Signals), while others were less so (PW).

Alex even said himself that the guitar was too much in the background on Signals and the keyboards took over in some spots, which is what he wanted to change for P/G. There are definitely more guitars on P/G than on Signals Yeah, the integration of keys with guitar was purrrrfect on MP and Signals. Then Ged and Alex started seeing things differently. Neil was the only one really pulling his weight on Power Windows, for example. The two frontmen didn't seem to recover a consistent balance until the Rupert Hine era.

This was a different thread somewhere. Subdivisions The Analog Kid The Weapon Red Sector A Afterimage Mystic Rhythms Time Stand Still Open Secrets Lock and Key Turn the Page I like Signals and HYF very much...

From the piece: "They always seemed to do things right. I can’t think of a time they made a wrong move." I can. The "Time Stand Still" video. :facepalm: lol