U2 — Running to Stand Still
Album: The Joshua TreeAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 4290
Length: 4:02
Plays (last 30 days): 2
share
tweet
And so she woke up
Woke up from where she was
Lying still
Said I gotta do something
About where we're going
Step on a steam train
Step out of the driving rain, maybe
Run from the darkness in the night
Singing ha, ah la la la de day
Ah la la la de day
Ah la la de day
Sweet the sin
Bitter taste in my mouth
I see seven towers
But I only see one way out
You got to cry without weeping
Talk without speaking
Scream without raising your voice
You know I took the poison
From the poison stream
Then I floated out of here
Singing...ha la la la de day
Ha la la la de day
Ha la la de day
She runs through the streets
With her eyes painted red
Under black belly of cloud in the rain
In through a doorway she brings me
White gold and pearls stolen from the sea
She is raging
She is raging
And the storm blows up in her eyes
She will...
Suffer the needle chill
She's running to stand...
Still.
Woke up from where she was
Lying still
Said I gotta do something
About where we're going
Step on a steam train
Step out of the driving rain, maybe
Run from the darkness in the night
Singing ha, ah la la la de day
Ah la la la de day
Ah la la de day
Sweet the sin
Bitter taste in my mouth
I see seven towers
But I only see one way out
You got to cry without weeping
Talk without speaking
Scream without raising your voice
You know I took the poison
From the poison stream
Then I floated out of here
Singing...ha la la la de day
Ha la la la de day
Ha la la de day
She runs through the streets
With her eyes painted red
Under black belly of cloud in the rain
In through a doorway she brings me
White gold and pearls stolen from the sea
She is raging
She is raging
And the storm blows up in her eyes
She will...
Suffer the needle chill
She's running to stand...
Still.
Comments (350)add comment
best album to come out of the 80’s
The best album.
Add this song live ...
Add this song live ...
bev wrote:
Couldn't agree more - but a huge nod goes to Brian Eno for this album.
Joshua Tree was to my mind U2's grand achievement. The song flow is so seamless, the production so pure. Once in awhile when I hear a song from that album out of context from the rest of the album I am able to hear it as if for the first time. At those times I expect that the song will lose some of its luster. But it doesn't. They are all just beautful shining pop/rock gems!
Couldn't agree more - but a huge nod goes to Brian Eno for this album.
One of the best !
hellsgardener wrote:
Listing to RP is a constant reminder of just how old I am now.
How, just HOW is this 35 years old? It gave me goose-bumps then - still with the goosebumps.
This makes a 10 for me
Listing to RP is a constant reminder of just how old I am now.
How, just HOW is this 35 years old? It gave me goose-bumps then - still with the goosebumps.
This makes a 10 for me
This makes a 10 for me
garydgould wrote:agreed
peter19 wrote:
Stephen Stills' younger brother by a different mother?
Who's Stan?
Stephen Stills' younger brother by a different mother?
Such a beautiful and haunting album which ages like a fine wine. U2's zenith without doubt and I still imagine "I still haven't found" as a future church hymn.
On_The_Beach wrote:
Spare us your tedious whining and hit the PSD button.
Just as there is a PSD button, so there is a 1 button...
Spare us your tedious whining and hit the PSD button.
Just as there is a PSD button, so there is a 1 button...
Happy 35th birthday Joshua.
bev wrote:
Since I've pulled my CDs out of storage, I'll have to spin this again for the first time, thanks bev for the reminder.
Joshua Tree was to my mind U2's grand achievement. The song flow is so seamless, the production so pure. Once in awhile when I hear a song from that album out of context from the rest of the album I am able to hear it as if for the first time. At those times I expect that the song will lose some of its luster. But it doesn't. They are all just beautful shining pop/rock gems!
Reminds me of that Aimee Mann track Wise Up
I'd like to thank Bill for making it possible to listen to The Wall again. I had gotten so burned out on some of these songs getting overplayed on the radio that I reflexively change the station when they came on. A while ago this one came up on RP and I instinctively reached for PSD but paused. Then I remember WHY these songs get overplayed. They're that good.
Nice but the Elbow cover takes it to another level
alisathegreat wrote:
This is what I consider one of their masterpieces. From this album BACK, they had a lot of deep, beautiful songs like this. From this album forward, they sold out to pop, just like Coldplay.
Gee tell me how you really feel:)
This is what I consider one of their masterpieces. From this album BACK, they had a lot of deep, beautiful songs like this. From this album forward, they sold out to pop, just like Coldplay.
Gee tell me how you really feel:)
Gut punch every time.
Nice song!
this Beato clip is a great explanation of why even haters should appreciate U2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
after all these years - that song is still SO AMAZING
Hearing this song immediately after "Please Be With Me" by Eric Clapton off the 461 Ocean Blvd album is pure bliss.
U2 + Daniel Lanois = a masterpiece
Whole album is amazing...
Whole album is amazing...
Still such an amazing song
Superbe chanson
Saw this album performed live Singapore 2019. So good.
alisathegreat wrote:
This is what I consider one of their masterpieces. From this album BACK, they had a lot of deep, beautiful songs like this. From this album forward, they sold out to pop, just like Coldplay.
I really don't get this notion that making pop makes you less of a band. If you really think Actung Baby is a bad record because it is pop (caveat: it is pop as in popular for me, not as a in pop music), it is your lost. Such a great album. There is good music and bad music, good bands and bad bands. Some make rock, punk or jazz while others pop, regueton and salsa. No need to disqualify one or the other for the genre they play.
This is what I consider one of their masterpieces. From this album BACK, they had a lot of deep, beautiful songs like this. From this album forward, they sold out to pop, just like Coldplay.
I really don't get this notion that making pop makes you less of a band. If you really think Actung Baby is a bad record because it is pop (caveat: it is pop as in popular for me, not as a in pop music), it is your lost. Such a great album. There is good music and bad music, good bands and bad bands. Some make rock, punk or jazz while others pop, regueton and salsa. No need to disqualify one or the other for the genre they play.
phlattop wrote:
And then are those of us who say Achtung Baby was just as good. I find U2 fans fall into two camps. You either love Achtung or not. I love both.
And there also those of us that, while we love both those, also consider Unforgettable Fire their best. All said, quite a run of three albums there...
And then are those of us who say Achtung Baby was just as good. I find U2 fans fall into two camps. You either love Achtung or not. I love both.
And there also those of us that, while we love both those, also consider Unforgettable Fire their best. All said, quite a run of three albums there...
On_The_Beach wrote:
Spare us your tedious whining and hit the PSD button.
On the other end of the spectrum, I never ever tire of any song on this album. Raising my 8 to a 9, to offset your 1.
Spare us your tedious whining and hit the PSD button.
On the other end of the spectrum, I never ever tire of any song on this album. Raising my 8 to a 9, to offset your 1.
peter19 wrote:
This deserves more thumbs up, but I'm not going to be the one to explain the pun...
Who's Stan?
This deserves more thumbs up, but I'm not going to be the one to explain the pun...
peter19 wrote:
Im your biggest fan, this is Stan
Who's Stan?
Im your biggest fan, this is Stan
Who's Stan?
haunting.
jp33442 wrote:
This is what I consider one of their masterpieces. From this album BACK, they had a lot of deep, beautiful songs like this. From this album forward, they sold out to pop, just like Coldplay.
Never heard this u2 song before. Bill love when you do these deep dives
This is what I consider one of their masterpieces. From this album BACK, they had a lot of deep, beautiful songs like this. From this album forward, they sold out to pop, just like Coldplay.
Never heard this u2 song before. Bill love when you do these deep dives
Allah allah elhamdülillah
peter.gerzner wrote:
And then are those of us who say Achtung Baby was just as good. I find U2 fans fall into two camps. You either love Achtung or not. I love both.
No LP was as good as "The Joshua Tree"
And then are those of us who say Achtung Baby was just as good. I find U2 fans fall into two camps. You either love Achtung or not. I love both.
Grayson wrote:
Hardly the most loyal U2 fan on the planet, but NO one, and I mean no one, has ever climbed a speaker bank like into the freakin' rafters & sh*t at the Fox Theater (Atlanta) the way Bono once did. It was a magical music moment I am thankful to have been there for... then.
I went to see U2 in 1984, knowing their music very little - only what I may have heard on the radio from time to time. I still remember what it was like to watch Bono and how it felt to be there even though I went with no sense of anticipation. They were impressive.
Hardly the most loyal U2 fan on the planet, but NO one, and I mean no one, has ever climbed a speaker bank like into the freakin' rafters & sh*t at the Fox Theater (Atlanta) the way Bono once did. It was a magical music moment I am thankful to have been there for... then.
Will62 wrote:
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Pot, meet kettle...
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Pot, meet kettle...
Stephen_Phillips wrote:
Hardly the most loyal U2 fan on the planet, but NO one, and I mean no one, has ever climbed a speaker bank like into the freakin' rafters & sh*t at the Fox Theater (Atlanta) the way Bono once did. It was a magical music moment I am thankful to have been there for... then.
Hardly the most loyal U2 fan on the planet, but NO one, and I mean no one, has ever climbed a speaker bank like into the freakin' rafters & sh*t at the Fox Theater (Atlanta) the way Bono once did. It was a magical music moment I am thankful to have been there for... then.
Will62 wrote:
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
Proclivities wrote:
They may not have put forward something that you consider "musically novel" (which is completely different than "masterly"), but they certainly sounded different and "novel" to many listeners when they first came out. They don't compare to you to those other acts you mention "by rote" because you're thirty or forty years older than when you first listened to the acts . Of course the music that "captured your imagination" when you were a teenager will always be your favorite music and no subsequent act can ever replace them - that's standard confirmation bias for many people. I'm not a huge fan of U2 and don't find a lot of their work terribly exciting either, but they undeniably were catalysts for acts to follow, and to many of their fans they are "in the pantheon". There's no scientific method; it's a matter of opinion.
Too right Proclivities... whether someone likes U2 or not is a matter of subjective preference... and what you think about one of the members of the band... U2 and Bono specifically wrote many great songs with meaningful lyrics. What meaningful lyrics did Mick Jagger ever write... " I can't get no satisfaction" ? Yeah - right.
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
Proclivities wrote:
They may not have put forward something that you consider "musically novel" (which is completely different than "masterly"), but they certainly sounded different and "novel" to many listeners when they first came out. They don't compare to you to those other acts you mention "by rote" because you're thirty or forty years older than when you first listened to the acts . Of course the music that "captured your imagination" when you were a teenager will always be your favorite music and no subsequent act can ever replace them - that's standard confirmation bias for many people. I'm not a huge fan of U2 and don't find a lot of their work terribly exciting either, but they undeniably were catalysts for acts to follow, and to many of their fans they are "in the pantheon". There's no scientific method; it's a matter of opinion.
Too right Proclivities... whether someone likes U2 or not is a matter of subjective preference... and what you think about one of the members of the band... U2 and Bono specifically wrote many great songs with meaningful lyrics. What meaningful lyrics did Mick Jagger ever write... " I can't get no satisfaction" ? Yeah - right.
Will62 wrote:
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
They may not have put forward something that you consider "musically novel" (which is completely different than "masterly"), but they certainly sounded different and "novel" to many listeners when they first came out. They don't compare to you to those other acts you mention "by rote" because you're thirty or forty years older than when you first listened to those acts . Of course the music that "captured your imagination" when you were a teenager will generally be your favorite music and no subsequent act can ever replace them - that's standard confirmation bias for many people. I'm not a huge fan of U2 and don't find a lot of their work terribly exciting either, but they undeniably were catalysts for acts to follow, and to many of their fans they are "in the pantheon". There's no scientific method; it's a matter of opinion.
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
They may not have put forward something that you consider "musically novel" (which is completely different than "masterly"), but they certainly sounded different and "novel" to many listeners when they first came out. They don't compare to you to those other acts you mention "by rote" because you're thirty or forty years older than when you first listened to those acts . Of course the music that "captured your imagination" when you were a teenager will generally be your favorite music and no subsequent act can ever replace them - that's standard confirmation bias for many people. I'm not a huge fan of U2 and don't find a lot of their work terribly exciting either, but they undeniably were catalysts for acts to follow, and to many of their fans they are "in the pantheon". There's no scientific method; it's a matter of opinion.
stalfnzo wrote:
Obviously time for some self-reflection on several counts.
I have no idea why I rated this a 2. I must have been really wasted. It is obviously a 1.
Obviously time for some self-reflection on several counts.
bono being fab.
this one's rather Springsteen-like.
Off one of the best U2 albums. Blasted this out in the car whilst driving through the Joshua Tree national park earlier in the year.
u2 at their finest.
followed by my ultimate favourite U2 song...heaven
TheKing2 wrote:
Wow, I never noticed the similarity to Sunday Bloody Sunday before. Or Lemon.
all U2 songs sound the same.
Wow, I never noticed the similarity to Sunday Bloody Sunday before. Or Lemon.
all U2 songs sound the same.
Part of the great memories of college!
Elbow does a great cover of this song. Both versions are great.
No LP was as good as "The Joshua Tree"
stalfnzo wrote:
Spare us your tedious whining and hit the PSD button.
I have no idea why I rated this a 2. I must have been really wasted. It is obviously a 1.
Spare us your tedious whining and hit the PSD button.
I have no idea why I rated this a 2. I must have been really wasted. It is obviously a 1.
There are only 3 U2 songs that I really like, and this is one of them.
Thirty years on and when it plays I just stop and listen. Magical...
Marvelous...
Great song, even better album.
U2 have forgotten how to make good songs for a long long time.
Will62 wrote:
. . . . there are 26 people who think this song is ho hum?
As the 3 rating suggests
. . . . there are 26 people who think this song is ho hum?
As the 3 rating suggests
Get to see this on Wednesday!
CAN NOT WAIT!
CAN NOT WAIT!
Studying abroad in Galway, Ireland in 1987....and great memories of listening to this album (on a cassette in my Walkman) on the way to classes.
Kokoloco53 wrote:
What? What??
Absolutely Bill, great album, but......I thought I heard you say the album is 40 years old this month, but I think you meant to say 30 years.
But, my hearing is not so good at 63 years after high volume listening of so many hard rock songs. RP is keeping me young and mellow in my old age, thank you very much.
But, my hearing is not so good at 63 years after high volume listening of so many hard rock songs. RP is keeping me young and mellow in my old age, thank you very much.
What? What??
FeatFanMike wrote:
I already have too many lost decades, let's not rush it...
Bill, if this album was released in '87 then it is 30 years old, not 40.
You scared me for a minute. :D
Still loving this album and RP!
You scared me for a minute. :D
Still loving this album and RP!
I already have too many lost decades, let's not rush it...
Bill - that album is 30 years old, not 40 years old - great album
Absolutely Bill, great album, but......I thought I heard you say the album is 40 years old this month, but I think you meant to say 30 years.
But, my hearing is not so good at 63 years after high volume listening of so many hard rock songs. RP is keeping me young and mellow in my old age, thank you very much.
But, my hearing is not so good at 63 years after high volume listening of so many hard rock songs. RP is keeping me young and mellow in my old age, thank you very much.
Bill, if this album was released in '87 then it is 30 years old, not 40.
You scared me for a minute. :D
Still loving this album and RP!
You scared me for a minute. :D
Still loving this album and RP!
legacyofrob827 wrote:
How is that even possible? Were you born late yesterday afternoon?
holy crap, a u2 song i havent heard and it was superb.... 10
How is that even possible? Were you born late yesterday afternoon?
The sweet sounds of this song drifting from my work cubicle across the office.
Well done!
holy crap, a u2 song i havent heard and it was superb.... 10
After a morning of getting kids off to school, this is the perfect song to recalibrate.
Almost 30 years... and I'm still not sick of this song...
bluematrix wrote:
Well put. While I appreciate virtuosity and groundbreaking, music doesn't have to be either to strongly resonate you. Leo Kotke's skill blows me away... yet I own none of his records. I respect how the Sex Pistols broke new ground, but aren't particularly fond of their music. U2 on the other hand, at the right moment, particularly this cd, could elicit a strong emotional reaction, something I find rare in music.
Put another way, don't let your appreciation of champagne ruin your taste for beer! :)
And even then, what's the best champagne (or single malt in my case)? Depends on who you talk to and the mood they're in.
Well put. While I appreciate virtuosity and groundbreaking, music doesn't have to be either to strongly resonate you. Leo Kotke's skill blows me away... yet I own none of his records. I respect how the Sex Pistols broke new ground, but aren't particularly fond of their music. U2 on the other hand, at the right moment, particularly this cd, could elicit a strong emotional reaction, something I find rare in music.
Put another way, don't let your appreciation of champagne ruin your taste for beer! :)
And even then, what's the best champagne (or single malt in my case)? Depends on who you talk to and the mood they're in.
Ditto. God how I loved that album when it came out, and for years after. Haven't listed to it in a while. I'll have to pull it back out.
easmann wrote:
easmann wrote:
Still stops me in my tracks after all these years.
Still stops me in my tracks after all these years.
Only 3 hours after One Tree Hill? Great. 
buddy wrote:
Of many great ones.
One of my favorite U2 deep cuts.
Of many great ones.
Still blows me away, after all this time. I had just driven like, 19 hours or so from Boulder, over the snowstorm-blasted Rockies, to hang at the bro's pad in Redondo Beach for my Spring Break, and my bro, who was out of town, had left this on his living room coffee-table. I'd heard "Bullet The Blue Sky" on KBCO, but... I was still kind of disappointed with this album. I had seen them JAM in '83, and I was familiar with their earlier stuff, which I noticed, this did not sound like at all... So I went and got my fix of beach and sun. But then, the next few days were rainy, cool, and gray, so I hung out and listened to this record until I was utterly smitten with it. I am grateful and inspired by their courage to evolve!
One of my favorite U2 deep cuts.
ginger wrote:
Ha ha! It seems I don't have the CD. I must have it on vinyl! While I could rig things up and duplicate it, maybe I'll just spring for a re-purchase of the digital download. It's worth it.
I'm going to dig out this CD and rip it to my iTunes. It's been so long since I heard this particular track. Now I need to hear it more!
Ha ha! It seems I don't have the CD. I must have it on vinyl! While I could rig things up and duplicate it, maybe I'll just spring for a re-purchase of the digital download. It's worth it.
I'm going to dig out this CD and rip it to my iTunes. It's been so long since I heard this particular track. Now I need to hear it more!
TEG wrote:
Relaxed, wan' a Beamish?
Spot on...
Sit down and relax...
Listen to this gem.
How are U feeling now?
Sit down and relax...
Listen to this gem.
How are U feeling now?
Relaxed, wan' a Beamish?
Webfoot wrote:
I understand that you are answering a specific question, but I would add that there is more to music than novelty and mastery. Music can be many things to different people. This song hits me in a visceral and emotional way which is what I like about it. It seems you don't have this same response, which is just fine. I think it's a 10.
Well put. While I appreciate virtuosity and groundbreaking, music doesn't have to be either to strongly resonate you. Leo Kotke's skill blows me away... yet I own none of his records. I respect how the Sex Pistols broke new ground, but aren't particularly fond of their music. U2 on the other hand, at the right moment, particularly this cd, could elicit a strong emotional reaction, something I find rare in music.
Put another way, don't let your appreciation of champagne ruin your taste for beer! :)
I understand that you are answering a specific question, but I would add that there is more to music than novelty and mastery. Music can be many things to different people. This song hits me in a visceral and emotional way which is what I like about it. It seems you don't have this same response, which is just fine. I think it's a 10.
Well put. While I appreciate virtuosity and groundbreaking, music doesn't have to be either to strongly resonate you. Leo Kotke's skill blows me away... yet I own none of his records. I respect how the Sex Pistols broke new ground, but aren't particularly fond of their music. U2 on the other hand, at the right moment, particularly this cd, could elicit a strong emotional reaction, something I find rare in music.
Put another way, don't let your appreciation of champagne ruin your taste for beer! :)
Will62 wrote:
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
They are average, but of all the average bands out there, they are probably the best of them. None of them are masters of their instruments, Bono's vocal abilities are decent, but he's no Freddie Mercury or KD Lang. It's easy to get tired of seeing him pop-up at every other event and cause, but he means well. And he does a whole lot of other good stuff with his time and money which the press do not report.
I haven't heard a very good U2 album in 23 years, but their latest album, Songs Of Innocence is as good as anything they have done. Even the shit songs are good, and all the other songs on the album are either beautiful, beguiling, or both.
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
They are average, but of all the average bands out there, they are probably the best of them. None of them are masters of their instruments, Bono's vocal abilities are decent, but he's no Freddie Mercury or KD Lang. It's easy to get tired of seeing him pop-up at every other event and cause, but he means well. And he does a whole lot of other good stuff with his time and money which the press do not report.
I haven't heard a very good U2 album in 23 years, but their latest album, Songs Of Innocence is as good as anything they have done. Even the shit songs are good, and all the other songs on the album are either beautiful, beguiling, or both.
Spot on...
Sit down and relax...
Listen to this gem.
How are U feeling now?
Sit down and relax...
Listen to this gem.
How are U feeling now?
One of the most beautiful songs U2 has ever written. And that's saying a lot.
kingart wrote:
Well put.
Downbeat but lovely and thoughtful. Good songwriting. Subdued as a funeral but soooooo passionate...and that's hard to beat, and it conjures up a lot for anyone whose heart has ever been broken by...you name it.
Well put.
Will62 wrote:
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
I understand that you are answering a specific question, but I would add that there is more to music than novelty and mastery. Music can be many things to different people. This song hits me in a visceral and emotional way which is what I like about it. It seems you don't have this same response, which is just fine. I think it's a 10.
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
I understand that you are answering a specific question, but I would add that there is more to music than novelty and mastery. Music can be many things to different people. This song hits me in a visceral and emotional way which is what I like about it. It seems you don't have this same response, which is just fine. I think it's a 10.
Will62 wrote:
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
As far as I'm concerned, The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby answer this question definitively. The whole "with effects" thing strikes me as particularly absurd. You mean like the cuckoo clocks and other sound effects on Dark Side of the Moon? The panning guitars on Whole Lotta Love? The wahwah Hendrix used? The farm animals and tape loops on Sgt. Pepper? Those examples are far more egregious than The Edge choosing to use digital delay.
Hey, you're under no obligation to like U2 but if you don't hear anything novel in their work you're missing out. They don't always hit the mark, few do, but they don't have to prove anything. They'll be in the "pantheon" whether the odd person dislikes them or not and the mere fact they've been around so long now suggests there is something you missing.
this song, FWIW, is stunningly beautiful and perfectly crafted songwriting, performance and production.
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
As far as I'm concerned, The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby answer this question definitively. The whole "with effects" thing strikes me as particularly absurd. You mean like the cuckoo clocks and other sound effects on Dark Side of the Moon? The panning guitars on Whole Lotta Love? The wahwah Hendrix used? The farm animals and tape loops on Sgt. Pepper? Those examples are far more egregious than The Edge choosing to use digital delay.
Hey, you're under no obligation to like U2 but if you don't hear anything novel in their work you're missing out. They don't always hit the mark, few do, but they don't have to prove anything. They'll be in the "pantheon" whether the odd person dislikes them or not and the mere fact they've been around so long now suggests there is something you missing.
this song, FWIW, is stunningly beautiful and perfectly crafted songwriting, performance and production.
Downbeat but lovely and thoughtful. Good songwriting. Subdued as a funeral but soooooo passionate...and that's hard to beat, and it conjures up a lot for anyone whose heart has ever been broken by...you name it.
Nice follow up
gjr wrote:
One of the best all-time.
best album of the 1980's. period
One of the best all-time.
Will62 wrote:
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
As with so many things, it probably depends on how old you are. Plus, "catalyst" acts mostly sucked. The difference with the Beatles, Zeppelin, and Stones (I guess... blech), is that they didn't.
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
As with so many things, it probably depends on how old you are. Plus, "catalyst" acts mostly sucked. The difference with the Beatles, Zeppelin, and Stones (I guess... blech), is that they didn't.
Will62 wrote:
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
Very well said. Mediocre, as I always say about them.
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
Very well said. Mediocre, as I always say about them.
KaraokeVox wrote:
Me, that's who. Every time I hear a U2 song I feel as if someone is rubbing me raw with sandpaper. And it is not a pleasant experience.
this a raw song about a raw moment someones life...we dunno whose.
Me, that's who. Every time I hear a U2 song I feel as if someone is rubbing me raw with sandpaper. And it is not a pleasant experience.
this a raw song about a raw moment someones life...we dunno whose.
DeemerDave wrote:
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
I don't get all of the U2 haters out there. What's the deal?
It is not so much a case of hating U2 - more likely (in my case anyway) that they are .............. average. They have put forward nothing that you could label as musically novel nor masterly. It is strum and drang with effects - nothing more, nothing less.
And yet we get a plethora of posters advancing the notion they are in the pantheon of musical acts. Not so. How can they be compared, by rote, with The Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Led Zepplin? Rock acts that not only captured imaginations but changed what we listen to and were the catalyst for so many acts to follow. Can you seriously include U2 in this under these guidelines? I fail to see how.
And don't get me started on Bono; self-absorbed, pretentious, hypocritical and not nearly as talented as portrayed.
Yes, I can understand people liking U2 - they have produced the odd good piece but fall far short of what I at least would deem 'Godlike'.
Great song from a great band! Thanks for the throwback...
Webfoot wrote:
You are quite welcome, Webfoot... hope life is grand for you right this minute...
love this song from a truly great album...
Thanks for the info. Great song.
You are quite welcome, Webfoot... hope life is grand for you right this minute...
love this song from a truly great album...
Streaming Lou
PSD TIME
easmann wrote:
I understand. I do. And RP has helped me deepen that understanding. U2 is one of my favorites, but I feel the same as you about a number of other acts.
Some of these artists are of such legendary status that I felt there must be something lacking in me that prevented me appreciating them. If so, whatever is lacking, I can neither find nor manufacture it.
Where RP comes into this is partly with these comments but more with the song ratings: No matter how God-like I might think a song there are many folk who hate it (some with apparent rage). And no matter how horrid I might think a song there are many folk who love it.
What's wrong with that? Nothing.
well said easmann...I don't get everything. Not everything rings my bell, and I don't need to apologize. Just because I don't get it does not mean it's a bad tune...I just don't get it. I am the issue, and there's plenty of music to love
I understand. I do. And RP has helped me deepen that understanding. U2 is one of my favorites, but I feel the same as you about a number of other acts.
Some of these artists are of such legendary status that I felt there must be something lacking in me that prevented me appreciating them. If so, whatever is lacking, I can neither find nor manufacture it.
Where RP comes into this is partly with these comments but more with the song ratings: No matter how God-like I might think a song there are many folk who hate it (some with apparent rage). And no matter how horrid I might think a song there are many folk who love it.
What's wrong with that? Nothing.
well said easmann...I don't get everything. Not everything rings my bell, and I don't need to apologize. Just because I don't get it does not mean it's a bad tune...I just don't get it. I am the issue, and there's plenty of music to love
Love it how Clayton stands at the back on the cover. Looks like he just done an air biscuit and they're all ignoring him! :)
DeemerDave wrote:
You know, It's weird. I love U2 stuff, but I don't go out of my way to listen to it. I'd rather be surprised when I hear it played by RP.
I don't get all of the U2 haters out there. What's the deal?
You know, It's weird. I love U2 stuff, but I don't go out of my way to listen to it. I'd rather be surprised when I hear it played by RP.
I don't get all of the U2 haters out there. What's the deal?
I try, I really do. But I just can't stand U2. PSD
Peter_Bradshaw wrote:
......... like it
or at least a play no more than 1 U2 song a day policy. Please.
......... like it
or at least a play no more than 1 U2 song a day policy. Please.
After all these years ... I cannot listen to this and not be completely taken by it.
Fucking brilliant song from a brilliant record.......10
...i can't decide whether this or bad is U2's greatest song; probably they both are...
danmaiullo wrote:
I don't hear that, but I like them both regardless.
This is just a ripoff of Peter Gabriel's Biko.
I don't hear that, but I like them both regardless.
This is just a ripoff of Peter Gabriel's Biko.
stalfnzo wrote:
MOST overrated band of all time; Bono is well and truly up his own arsehole.
U2 does absolutely NOTHING for me. I guess I just don't understand them, like others don't get my Phish addiction. Oh well. I only need to get through the next couple of minutes until RP gets back to good music.
MOST overrated band of all time; Bono is well and truly up his own arsehole.
U2 does absolutely NOTHING for me. I guess I just don't understand them, like others don't get my Phish addiction. Oh well. I only need to get through the next couple of minutes until RP gets back to good music.