I’ve just spent the afternoon listening to Songs Of Surrender, the latest release from U2.
When I say ‘spent the afternoon,’ that’s an accurate summation:
Given the 2 hour 46 running time.
I actually could have flown to Dublin, drunk a pint and paid reverence to the statue of Phil Lynott and still made it home in that time.
In retrospect, it’s around 2 hours 30 minutes longer than necessary.
The album grew from a Covid lockdown project led by The Edge that then tied into Bono’s memoir; Surrender: 40 Songs, One Story, and got out of hand with each member selecting 10 tracks for reworking.
Anyone else have a band that they’ve been in a long term relationship with that just isn’t working anymore?
It’s not that it’s got ugly. But you’re left thinking that the good times are someway back in the distance even though you cling to the hope that next time round will be the one to rekindle the passion.
U2 formed in the year of my birth so there’s a lot of shared history.
They first properly entered my consciousness with The Joshua Tree when I was 11 and they’ve been there ever since.
And yes, I know that Bono is a polarising figure. I never said I wanted to be best mates with him. I imagine he can be a bit much.
Larry looks the right sort though.
I reckon you could depend on him.
There’s a lot of great songs and albums.
Personal favourite? I go with Achtung Baby. I even like Pop. I might be the only person that does.
But this is nothing compared to the thrashing that the “Amazon Basics Light Bulb Value-Pak” received. It was a bloodbath..
It’s been a while since there was an essential U2 album. Perhaps How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb?
I’ve given the ones since a cursory listen and they haven’t grabbed me. They’ve become a legacy artist to me: I can still go back and enjoy a rich history and pretend that the (unforgettable) fire never went out.
All the while, they kept doing their best to wind people up. Songs of Innocence caused fury with its method of release as people woke up to find U2 had inserted themselves into the world’s iTunes libraries.
Dear Diary:
Today I woke up to find that my entire archive of The Essential Mr. Blobby has been deleted.
To make room for this?!?!?! ”
I actually didn’t have that problem. For some reason, my iTunes account remained free from this tyranny. I didn’t know whether to be thankful or indignant at being singled out for special treatment. OK, so I hadn’t been frothing with rabid praise for No Line On The Horizon. But I don’t think that justified the cold shoulder.
Such is the cooling of passion that it was only last week that I saw there was a new album on the horizon.
An intimate, acoustic reimagining of their back catalogue. An intriguing prospect, the chance to hear the songs that I love in a new and less bombastic light.
Well… that didn’t turn out so great.
Track one:
One.
One word; lacklustre.
Still, we’ll carry on and hope that was just a mis-step.
Track two:
Where The Streets Have No Name.
Now, I’m worried, taking in the enormity and commitment of that run time and thinking that its gonna be a long afternoon.
Its not that it’s actively bad. Its that there are no active ingredients to it whatsoever, passing me by in a blur of beige. If this is intimacy, I’m considering celibacy as a viable alternative.
That’s 2 for 2 on reducing their classics to aural wallpaper. What have you done, boys?!
We get deeper into their history mixing the big hits with album tracks. The stripped back arrangements remove any sense of forward momentum and time slows down.
Its not until track 8; Every Breaking Wave from Songs of Innocence, that a song focuses my mind and the approach makes sense.
The irony doesn’t escape me that it takes a lesser known song from the latter period malaise to have a positive impact. This is just temporary relief though, we’re soon back to wall to wall tedium.
Some might call 40 tracks value for money.
I call it torturous self-indulgence.
I’m sure there must be the odd piece of gold in there, and I’m no quitter. So I’m in for the long haul.
But as each track slips by, the fact that there’s almost three hours of this to wade through is prejudicing me against what’s to come.
At least these arrangements are a reminder by omission of what I like about U2.
It’s interesting to see what they’ve picked. Or rather what they’ve left out.
Turns out that October, No Line On The Horizon and the Passengers: Original Soundtrack 1 experiment are the runts of the litter with nothing selected from any of them. The best represented albums with four selections each are The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and surprisingly, Songs Of Innocence.
Determined to have that one reappraised after its difficult birth.
Obviously this is my subjective opinion. There are people who like it. Metacritic currently gives a score of 6.8 from 12 critic reviews, indicating generally favourable responses which is mirrored by user reviews.
For me though, is a soul sapping exercise in draining the life from some of the greatest songs of my formative years.
Having reached the end there are six songs I’ve cone away with a positive opinion of.
This is my revised, reduced, new and improved tracklisting;
If only they’d asked me first. I could have condensed this whole thing into an EP that leaves the fans wanting more. Whereas I very much want less.
Songs of Surrender is about right. I give in.
Despite it all…
I’m sure that as soon as the next album appears I’ll be giving it a listen…
In an act of hope over expectation that it provides the clichéd but elusive return to form.
Let the author know that you liked their post with a “Green Thumb” upvote!
Thank You For Your Vote!
Sorry You have Already Voted!
Views: 128
When these types of releases come about, I’d imagine that it’s because the artists want to frame it as a new point of view on legacy material; to show the modern relevance of the old stuff.
A serious question for you, and I suppose for all: do we need it? Should the older stuff stand for what it is, and “when it was”?
I can see why bands do it, maybe they don’t think material from earlier in the career had the right production or as they’ve grown as artists they would have done things differently. U2 have taken it a step further in that Bono has even rewritten some of the lyrics. I’ve seen in the Pitchfork review that The Edge said they saw some of the original versions as unfinished which will have come as a great surprise to the fans that have been singing them for 30 years.
To me it seems a case of that way madness lies if you feel you have to keep reworking the back catalogue.
To the question; do we need it? Not really but I suppose you could level that at their last few albums given that the majority of people turning up at their shows aren’t there for the new album. Staying relevant with their new material is a problem for any band that has been huge and keeps going for that long.
I’d say unless there’s anything off about the originals then they should stand as they were. By anything off I can’t think of a U2 song but along the lines of Brown Sugar by The Stones.
I guess it’s upto the band though and there’ll be plenty who think these 40 tracks are an essential listen. Ultimately we’ve still got the choice of whether to choose the originals or the new versions. I know what I choose.
There are some albums that have taken a few goes to get into (talking generally not specific to U2 here) but in this instance the run time means the chances of me revisiting it are slim to none.
In my book, U2 stopped being interesting very long ago… maybe since Zooropa or even Rattle and Hum. Early U2 had a passion and an energy that was palpable. Once they became very rich people having rich people problems, they had to fake the passion and energy. Plus Bono decided he was Desmond Tutu, predictably kind of a bad joke.
I thought Achtung Baby and Zooropa were where they really got interesting by moving on from their classic sound and they tried to take that further with Pop. When that didn’t work out in the way they wanted and they got a backlash from it, even if I like it, they retreated into a version of what they thought people wanted from U2. Which still produced some decent stuff but for me became diminishing returns.
The best I can say for Bono is he has good intentions. I wouldn’t have him round for dinner though.
I got 44 seconds into the new album and I had to quit. Nope. No thanks.
For the most part, albums of re-recorded songs are inessential. The better ones tend to be nice little variations that you entertain for a while before switching back to the originals (Kate Bush’s Director’s Cut, Patrick Wolf’s Sundark and Riverlight), while the rest are better left untouched (Songs of Surrender).
One notable exception that I can think of is Os Mutantes’ album Technicolor, which were not only English language versions of their older songs, but really dramatic reworkings. I still probably prefer the originals, but they’re so different and enjoyable in their own way that I regard that album as essential as well.
Also, David Bowie’s Toy is largely not necessary, but the song “Shadow Man” is a stunner, one that towers over the lukewarm Neil Young posturing of the original version. And the redo of his very first single “Liza Jane” is a fun Tom Waits-style romp.
As for U2 specifically, I guess I can’t blame a band for losing their magic after sticking it out for so long. They’re like the Rolling Stones of the 80s bands at this point. More of an institution than anything resembling a creative force.
Makes me appreciate someone like Nick Cave all the more, and marvel that he’s been astoundingly good at keeping things interesting from album to album. But he’s a freak exception, nothing close to the rule.
Nick Cave is a great example. I wonder if it’s because he’s at a more manageable level of fame so it doesn’t seem like there’s the pressure to chase sales and has freedom to go his own way whereas U2 and Rolling Stones are locked into a past of being the biggest band in the world which takes it toll in trying to maintain that?
Then there’s the example of Johnny Cash. I’m not an expert on country music but it seems like for a long time he wasn’t hitting the heights critically or commercially only to have a very late end of career renaissance having found the right producer. Bowie as well who came through a rough patch but ended his career with an acclaimed pair of closing albums. Suppose that’s what I’m hoping for with U2 that at some point they’ll find the right formula again.
Fame must be part of it, though being a “maverick” artist vs a populist favorite might be more important. Obviously that correlates with how famous one will be, but for instance, Radiohead got fairly famous being more maverick types, and they never felt compelled to give the people what they think they want.
Of course, both Nick and Radiohead have also benefitted from shaking things up in terms of who they play with. Nick had a long collaborative bromance with Mick Harvey, then started to pair more closely with Blixa Bargeld, and now he’s mostly with Warren Ellis. Radiohead members all put out solo stuff, and Thom&Jonny are touring and recording together doing their own thing.
I feel like with U2, there’s a pressure to always be U2. As far as I know, they don’t do many collaborations and side-projects, and their line-up has been pretty damn steady, save for Larry Mullen’s absence due to health problems. Perhaps that lack of flexibility adds to the growing stodginess in their art?
With Bowie, I guess you could say his late 80s and 90s output was a bit like Zooropa and Pop: efforts where he was trying, but critics complained that he was trying too hard, and that he had jumped the shark. That was his rough patch, one that’s praised much more now in hindsight for unappreciated gems. His early to mid 00s releases were kind of like their albums of that time: tasteful approximations of a classic sound. And then he came back and reclaimed his legacy.
Successful or not, Bowie was always trying new things, even if some of those things involved retro classicism. Whereas with U2, they just continue to be slaves to their own inertia. Maybe they can put out something great. But they really need to shake themselves out of their torpor to do so.
Oh, and I also like Pop too. #WeExist
Justice for Pop!
“Pop” is all right, as was “All That You Can’t Leave Behind” – all downhill after that, though.
I heard a radio spot with the Edge talking about this release. I commend them for trying something a bit different in terms of the process, but as everyone seems to agree, the results are underwhelming at best.
Artists reworking their old material is always going to be a crapshoot. I think if the results are gripping in some way, then it’s a valid approach. Otherwise…
U2’s level of fame over the years definitely seems to be a factor here, relative to someone like Nick Cave. Johnny Cash, IIRC, had a LONG fallow period – as in several decades – but his “street cred” was slowly building during that time. Then when he teamed up with Rick Rubin, everything fell into place.
It’s possible that U2 are in a similar position that the Beatles were in, and they need a Billy Preston-like figure to work with – someone who can come in and brighten things up some and shake them out of their rut.
If anyone’s keeping score, I checked out on U2 after hearing POP. I thought ACHTUNG BABY was magnificent, but hearing the Edge “sing” more or less put them out of the running for me. That, and the Frank Sinatra duet – lordy, that was hard to listen to.
Numb, featuring Edge on vocals, is actually one of my favourite U2 songs. I wouldn’t really call it singing but for me it fits the song.
Maybe they’re put off the thought of getting someone else in like The Beatles did with Billy Preston by their 90s experiences with the Passengers side project and then with Pop with producers from outside their usual circle. Definitely needs something to freshen things up.
Probably the best example of this for me is Chicago. I know their 70s and early 80s stuff backwards and forwards, even if they aren’t my favorite anymore. But anything after 1990? Just not interested. I know they even put out an album of re-recorded early songs sometime in the last ten years. I don’t mind them doing it, but I don’t feel any reason to invest time in it.
Sounds like the way to go, retiring gracefully from the need to keep up with an ever expanding discography and settling instead for the ones you know deliver.
I love U2 unconditionally.
These days, Bono may be going through the motions. (Actually, I have no proof of this.) But Bono, circa Under a Blood Red Sky, still had the eye of the tiger. He cared deeply about what he sang. Bono made me curious about other people.
Early period U2 gave birth to a generation of neo-hippies.
Recently, he performed “Running to Stand Still” in a church. It reminded me of why I was a fan in the first place. Because No Line on the Horizon kind of sucks, in my opinion. “Get On Your Boots” is the worst song in their catalog.
The high point, in my opinion, is their live version of “Bad” from Wide Awake in America.
Songs of Surrender is “Don’t Stand So Close to Me ’86”.
I kind of live the reimaginings because some of those songs are indestructible.
I don’t know if I quite agree with Get On Your Boots as their worst song but on hearing it I did wonder what it was doing as the lead single and they’d forgotten something important, like melody.
Hot take: Ozu’s remakes were all worse than the originals.
Seriously, I almost choked on the mixed nuts from Costco that I use as a Greek yogurt topping.
I haven’t seen A Story of Floating Weeds.
I like Shohei Imamura’s The Ballad of Narayama slightly better than the Keisuke Kinoshita original.
Both versions, horrifying in its own right, which Midsommar brought to another level.
Shirley Jackson would have loved Midsommar.
There are days when I would say that A Story of Floating Weeds is my favorite Ozu film. Though on other days it’s Tokyo Story or Late Spring.
I never saw Kinoshita’s Narayama, but I love Imamura’s. Gotta take my Imamura in small doses, though, or else I lose hope for humanity. The Eel and Warm Water Under a Red Bridge excepted, of course.
I heard the couple of previews that were published on Stereogum, and they were so, so bad. I hate these kinds of projects – let me love the things you made the way you made them. Make new things. This is just musical necrophilia.
Heck, even a really bad “remaster” of some older albums is gross – clean things up – re-balance, but don’t go all “Star Wars Special Edition”** on me.
** The Special Edition of “The Empire Strikes” back is actually pretty great, as it does what it should have: cleaned up / enhanced effects, performed proper color balancing, and fixed mistakes. The other two movies? Good lord…
Han Shot Only!
U2 started out as a punk band, so their next project should be to redo all these same songs in full throttle punk mode. THAT I might listen to.
“The Brilliance (of Sounding Like the Ramones)”
Fascinating subject, JJ. It really is a total crapshoot how those things go. It’s like – is it an appreciation of the need for the band to be creative and take a fresh approach to an existing song of theirs? Is it a lazy rehash? Will it be a welcome change-up, or sacrilege?
I give U2 credit for trying to tackle such an ambitious rework, but sounds like they’d have been better off with a doing just a handful on an EP as a teaser first.
Is this what the Vegas residency is going to be based on? The appeal of doing it and hearing it live probably far outweighs the enjoyment of listening to it as studio recordings.
When Warren Cuccurullo officially joined Duran in the late 80s, he had fun there for a bit with a lot of different arrangements on their earlier songs. And I loved the surprise of hearing those different arrangements live. However, I only wanted them live – I didn’t want a studio rework of Hungry Like the Wolf, and I didn’t want them playing it that reworked way forever. The oddball change-up is always welcome though, because I’ve yet to be disappointed with the result. The best one was during their Astronaut tour in 2005, and they completely redid I Don’t Want Your Love. It was intoxicating for me, I loved what they did to it. But yeah, I can only take it in small doses. I think U2 totally went to far with this idea.
That said, I am TOTALLY stoked for the Def Leppard/Royal Philharmonic Orchestra collab coming out in May. It’s my dream of ‘Hysteria’ played with a full Symphony backing coming to fruition, squeeeeee!!!!!
I spied, with my little eye…
.
.
.
.
A Mr Blobby appearance, woohoo!
Oh yes, The Essential Mr Blobby; that one definitely has a shorter run time than Songs Of Surrender.
Great writing JJ, a couple of weeks ago, on a local radio show they played “One” (the re-recorded, that’s it), and even when I wasn’t paying much attention, I didn’t like it.
I don’t know if it’s a thing of mine, but I’ve never liked any re-recordings because I think that if there was an element that made a song good or great, it’s impossible to recreate if the artist does over, and the fact that you-know-who is making a huge deal of re-recordings, is somehow encouraging some artists to do so… and no, please.
Thanks Edith. I know that there have been some re-recordings that I’ve liked, I just can’t think of them right now. That probably tells you that even if they do turn out OK they aren’t likely to replace the originals.