pcfitz80

I think the analogy is apt. By U2 standards, Boy & October were very much alike when compared to most of the rest of their catalogue. War fits in pretty close and is still the third in a trilogy even though it’s a bit more experimental with some songs (Red Light / Surrender), a little bit more hard rocking, & uses some different instruments and sounds (electric violin, lap steal).

This is pretty much what you have with this decade. ATLYB & Bomb may be the 2 most similar sounding albums since the 1st two. Then we have NLOTH. Better, IMHO, than the last 2 and an album that after 7 months I still really like and listen to frequently. But its style is pretty much the same with a few exceptions just like war was. MOS, FEZ, and UC shake things up a bit but are the only songs I see as having more significant differences.

Despite my comments so far, however, I don’t completely buy the trilogy theory. The albums so far have a 3-1-2-2-1-3 pattern as I see it. What does that mean? The initial 3 were a trilogy. But then I see UF as more of a ‘bridge’ album between 2 periods. It has it’s own sound and can’t be lumped in with late 80s U2. It’s about as much like War ( especially songs like Wire, or even Pride) as it is to JT; but is also pretty different to both as well.

JT & RH are sister albums pretty much the way AB & Zooropa were. R.H draws upon the ideas & styles of JT but takes them a step further just like Zooropa did following AB.

I see Pop as a bridge album much the way UF was. Thematically & visually with the Popmart tour it fits in with the Zoo area. But sonically the album is in a category of its own. It does draw heavily on the electronic influences of AB & Zooropa but also hints at the return to more classic type U2 that would follow with ATLYB. Gone, LNOE, SATS, IYWTVD, WUDM are all at least as much like 2000s era U2 as they are to Zooropa. But more to the point, the album is pretty different than both.

So there you have it. Just my take. (3) the beginning trilogy; (1) bridge album; (2x2) 2 pairs of sister albums (1) another bridge album (3) 2000s trilogy. (3-1-2 2-1-3) It neatly makes a palendrome when you put in the natural split midway. Right when they went to dream it all up again!

And Yes. I know SOA will ruin this pattern since its going to probably add to the current trilogy; thus making it not a trilogy.

BVS

Trilogy theory

Don't beLIEve the hype!

__________________
my music

Music Facebook

^Apparently he did.

MyBloodySleeve

partygirl43

Its almost like math.

Math makes my head hurt.



but I do think you have some good points.

elevated_u2_fan

too many words...

__________________

mikal

well, you need at least 3 albums to be able to claim a trilogy theory. so U2 has that covered.

TM

If they decide not to record SOA, I'll blame you

65980

Hmm, this is an interesting theory that's been proposed. I commend pcFitz80 on noting some of the songs on Pop which wouldn't be out of place on ATYCLB (sacriledge though that is for some of you). "Gone" in particular is one of the more generic white-guys-play-rock songs U2 has ever performed.

I agree that it'll be interesting to see if NLOTH is the end of the era, a continuation of one (that is, maybe U2 won't have anymore "eras" at all), or the start of a new one.

U2girl

Yes, so the trilogies still work.

LemonMelon

I think the trilogies are a coincidence more than anything else, but it is undeniable that U2 gets bored/restless with a given direction very easily. More specifically, every few albums or so.

dan_smee

Trilogy theory is valid. Doesn't mean that they are delibrately making trilogies or anything. It also doesn't mean that the last album of any trilogy is completely different to the first album in the next trilogy. It just means that there is a noticeable and discernable change every three albums.

OP has a great point, and I think this can be applied to any of the trilogies (except maybe TUF>JT>R&H where it seems they rather deconstructed the development, rather than developed further)

But seriously, those who dont subscribe to the trilogy theory, can the honestly say there is no large stylstic jump between War and TUF or R&H and AB or Pop and ATYCLB? Yes there are aspects that stay the same, after all, its the same band, and I think each 'album 3' has clues to the next style (IE War had Drowning Man, R&H had God Pt 2, Pop had Gone, I tihnk NLOTH (hopefully) has Fez-BB as its clue).

coolian2

nloth is like atyclb and hutdab without actually sounding anything like them?

__________________
i like a lot of bad music

allbecauseofu2

oh. i thought this thread was trying to say NLOTH is the "best" of the current trilogy. As in war was the best of the early 80's trilogy. or that NLOTH was as good as war. I hope the latter is not the idea being expressed here. cause ya NO. no and no. I don;t even think NLOTH is the best album in this trilogy. And if thats not what this thread is about, it is now.

the tourist

How about the Quadrilogy Theory?

Boy, October, War, Under A Blood Red Sky

The Unforgettable Fire, Wide Awake In America, The Joshua Tree, Rattle & Hum

Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Passengers, Pop

All That You Can't Leave Behind, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb, No Line On The Horizon, Songs Of Ascent

the tourist

I reckon a few of the songs do. At least as much as a song like Surrender or Like A Song resembles anything off Boy or October.

bram

Great call.