U2's New Single 'Get On Your Boots'

I hated it on first listen-- sounded like a bad mash-up of "Pump It Up" and "We Didn't Start the Fire." After a few more spins, it has grown on me. I really like the Queen-like vocals on the chorus.

Still, I certainly hope there are better songs to be found on the record.
 
The drums are really different; not your usual sound that Larry's known for. Almost reminiscent of "POP".

Edge still has some good riffs and his delay.

Not keen on the "synthesizer" sounds in the background.

Me thinks this will sound much better in concert once the boys clean it up for a tour. Sometimes they over produce songs that are much better stripped down.

But I like it. I look forward to the album.
 
I wound up loving most of How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, but I still think that Vertigo is their worst song. The same thing may happen this time around, since I think that this song sounds horrible.
 
I was recently talking to a guy 10 years younger than me about music and the subject of U2 came up. This guy, who has pretty good musical sensibilities, I think, tells me that for the life of him, he just can't get his head around why U2 gets to be hailed as one of the best bands in the world.

And I have to admit, if you're under 30, the U2 catalog of your musical lifetime (after, say, age 13) is pretty weak. I mean Boy, October, War, Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, Rattle and Hum-- that was a hell of a run. Not many rock bands in history put together a stretch like that. And they did it while their major-label peers were doing dreadfully cheesy 80's synth-pop and equally dreadful hair band cock rock.

But those records were a looooooooong time ago. I have been repeatedly disappointed with their recent releases. Rarely do I even like the singles, much less the whole record.

This song, to me, is more of the same. Some artist can use the studio as an instrument (e.g. Beck), and do things that are really creative and interesting. U2, when they try to do the same thing (like this song), abandon all the elements that made them so amazing, so unique, and so important.

There is nothing about this song that reminds me of early U2: soaring vocal melodies, great guitar riffs, great lyrics (sometimes political, sometimes romantic, but always deeper than they appear on first listen), simple chord structures, and maybe most importantly, relatively sparse arrangements that have texture and depth.

I had high hopes for this record because it was produced by Eno and Lanois, who tend to make sonically interesting records (i.e. textural, deep, often sparse). They worked on "Unforgettable Fire" and some of the tracks on "Rattle and Hum," btw.

This song has none of those characteristics. The vocal "melody" is boring and repetitive. The whole song is wildly overcompressed and has no dynamics whatsoever (full volume beginning to end). Sonically, it has a lot more in common with Nickleback than with their own early catalog.

Sad that I will have to keep digging out records that are 20-25 years old to explain to someone why U2 is such an important rock band.
 
I am a HUGE U2 fan, and just heard the song for the first time. After the first hearing.. .it sounds TERRIBLE.

And I should say I have loved just about every album from Boy through How To. I even love Pop. So I have liked their varying sounds, but that song just sounds weird and awful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top