Article on Achtung Baby: A Question

[CWRickenbacker]

I came across an article on the Achtung Baby reissue. I'm wondering if you guys agree with the writer's premise that U2 isn't all that "original" on the album in comparison to what came before in the 1980s. Any thoughts? Here's the link:

Album of the Week: U2′s Achtung Baby: A Reissue of a Classic | Cultural Transmogrifier Magazine

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

 

[The Panther]

I came across an article on the Achtung Baby reissue. I'm wondering if you guys agree with the writer's premise that U2 isn't all that "original" on the album in comparison to what came before in the 1980s. Any thoughts?

I haven't read the article (yet), so I'm not going to agree or disagree with it, but here's what I think offhand on this topic:

I view U2's output from 1979 to 1987 as being very pure, by which I mean they came up with their own music and aesthetics by instinct. They themselves have often commented that their band emerged out of nowhere, in a rock wasteland (Ireland in the 70s), with no particular influences. They made it up as they went along.

That's obviously a slight exaggeration, because all of them were aware of rock culture and iconic artists' music BUT I think it's a significant point. They seemed to operate from a quite pure artistic point of inspiration from the late 70s up to The Joshua Tree.

So, in that sense, one could indeed argue that the early period is their most creative.

If you follow my logic, then Rattle & Hum is their first noticeably reactionary album, where they're trying to fit their music into a pre-existing style. (Of course, steps had already been taken in this direction on some earlier tracks, but it becomes really noticeable for the first time on R&H.)

Realizing they didn't want to go down that retro-rock cliche path anymore, they made Achtung Baby. The question then is -- is Achtung Baby a return to U2 creativity, or is it another genre exercise like Rattle and Hum?

It's neither. In my view, Achtung Baby is their first post-modern album. That is, it's the first U2 album where they collect samples and ideas of rock music of the past (all and sundry eras) and stick them all together into something that seems new, but isn't. It's also the first U2 album where they very consciously tried to let contemporary pop influences (Manchester baggy, industrial) into their sound.

So, from that perspective, Achtung Baby is indeed their least creative album -- well, maybe after Rattle & Hum -- up to that point.

But it depends on whether you consider the post-modern approach to art to be creative or not. Some do, some don't.

 

[The Panther]

OK, I read the article. Now I get it -- when you said "what came before in the 80s" you meant other artists, not U2. Please discount my entire post, above.

But seriously, the writer more-or-less agrees with me in that he's suggesting that the "style" of Achtung isn't anything new but rather an amalgam of American indie/college rock that came prior. I would generally agree, but I think there's also plenty of classic rock type-stuff on Achtung, as well.

I also agree that the triumph of the album isn't at all the style (which is successful enough in itself) but rather the quality of the songs (their most consistently strong set, ever), and in particular The Edge's stunning guitar work.

 

[subnet]

maybe there will be a part 2, when U2's next album is released

 

[j72]

I like the question posed here and the replies so far. I have more questions than answers but for me originality on this album comes from the mash up of cut and paste influences.
I had never heard U2 sound like this before and i embraced it and as has already been said even that sound has its influences.
It still sounds fresh and compelling to my ears, influences aplently yep, the whalloping groove of "Manchester" made me grin out loud when i heard mysterious ways but i still can't imagine any other band making the song like it it overall, it is U2 all over, not an echoed pastiche of someone else.

I am still stunned by Edges guitar on this album as well as bonos vocal, the whole band. I know of people who felt this was not the 'real' u2 and they were "selling out", which i felt was fair enough (such is the power and beauty of their preceding work) if that was their opinion except that some had never even listened to the whole album. The way it fed Zooropa was then quite a rush and trip for me too and No Line has evolved echoes of Achtung for me too. Feel free to say what a load of old codpiece but thats some of my thoughts and feelings.

 

[Popmartijn]

I came across an article on the Achtung Baby reissue. I'm wondering if you guys agree with the writer's premise that U2 isn't all that "original" on the album in comparison to what came before in the 1980s. Any thoughts?

I agree in that U2 built on what was happening before them and created Achtung Baby out of all those influences. This is also highlighted in the From The Sky Down documentary (adding the Madchester influence not mentioned in the article). I don't agree with some of the influences mentioned (Massive Attack? Their debut was also released in 1991, so I'm not sure they were much of an influence on the album.).

But this was nothing new for U2. They always soak up many influences and then mix them to the U2 flavour.

I view U2's output from 1979 to 1987 as being very pure, by which I mean they came up with their own music and aesthetics by instinct. They themselves have often commented that their band emerged out of nowhere, in a rock wasteland (Ireland in the 70s), with no particular influences. They made it up as they went along.

That's obviously a slight exaggeration, because all of them were aware of rock culture and iconic artists' music BUT I think it's a significant point. They seemed to operate from a quite pure artistic point of inspiration from the late 70s up to The Joshua Tree.

I disagree here in that U2's output wasn't as pure as you might think it was. Those early albums also clearly show their influences like Television, The Skids, Public Image Ltd., The Clash, The Jam, etc. The rock wasteland out of which U2 emerged might mean that they thought there weren't any Irish (rock) influences, but there was still plenty of British and American punk/new-wave to be found in their music. One listen to Television's Marquee Moon (the album, but certainly the song) should tell you that (though Edge never played guitar solos/patterns that long ).

 

[Nick66]

Nothing on Achtung Baby, or anything U2 has done, is particularly original. Well, it may have been "original" for U2, but there was really nothing new on that album that hadn't been done before.

U2 hasn't really broken any new ground, or defined the genre. Now, no band is completely original, they all have built on what has come before. But some bands are more groundbreaking, and genre defining, then others. Don't get me wrong, U2 does what they do very, very well (better than almost anyone), but I'm not sure I can think of much of what they've done that I'd call particularly groundbreaking or original.

 

[LadySpinHead]

As is the case with any creative process- you learn from and try to improve on or creatively adjust those who came before you, whether consciously or not.

Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief. AB pulled heavily on earlier influences, still, like the article said, it was an amazing piece of work.

 

[doctorwho]

I view U2's output from 1979 to 1987 as being very pure, by which I mean they came up with their own music and aesthetics by instinct. They themselves have often commented that their band emerged out of nowhere, in a rock wasteland (Ireland in the 70s), with no particular influences. They made it up as they went along.

That's obviously a slight exaggeration, because all of them were aware of rock culture and iconic artists' music BUT I think it's a significant point. They seemed to operate from a quite pure artistic point of inspiration from the late 70s up to The Joshua Tree.

So, in that sense, one could indeed argue that the early period is their most creative.

If you follow my logic, then Rattle & Hum is their first noticeably reactionary album, where they're trying to fit their music into a pre-existing style. (Of course, steps had already been taken in this direction on some earlier tracks, but it becomes really noticeable for the first time on R&H.)

Realizing they didn't want to go down that retro-rock cliche path anymore, they made Achtung Baby. The question then is -- is Achtung Baby a return to U2 creativity, or is it another genre exercise like Rattle and Hum?

It's neither. In my view, Achtung Baby is their first post-modern album. That is, it's the first U2 album where they collect samples and ideas of rock music of the past (all and sundry eras) and stick them all together into something that seems new, but isn't. It's also the first U2 album where they very consciously tried to let contemporary pop influences (Manchester baggy, industrial) into their sound.

So, from that perspective, Achtung Baby is indeed their least creative album -- well, maybe after Rattle & Hum -- up to that point.

But it depends on whether you consider the post-modern approach to art to be creative or not. Some do, some don't.

While I feel your post is well-presented, I disagree with your views on 80's U2.

U2 may have at some point claimed they "came out of nowhere", but that's clearly not true. There are many more quotes by U2 members that say the opposite. U2 have stated they were influenced by punk, post-punk, 60's music (especially The Beatles), early 70's music (T-Rex), and lots of folk music.

While Prince and Bono are friends, at one point Prince was irate at U2's JT winning the Grammy stating he could make a "folk music album" too if he wanted - and be better at it! Randy Newman joked that he never thought of "saving the world" before U2.

In other words, nothing U2 did in the 80's was that "original" either. In fact, U2 collaborating with Dylan and King on R&H was almost a way for them to respect the people who had so heavily influenced them on their past albums.

What made 80's U2 stand out is the same thing that made AB stand out - it was U2's interpretation of those sounds. There are many artists who did the "industrial" sounds found on AB - and did them better than U2. But U2 were able to combine pop, rock, synth, industrial, God, religion, relationships, etc. and make a brilliant album.

And that is the key element - U2's sound. What makes one artist stand out from another? What makes one rap artist rapping over a 70's disco beat better than another? What makes one pop song stand out above the rest? It's the style, the lyrics, the image, the zeitgeist, etc. U2 have always been able to present a certain image and sound that fit perfectly with the times. JT was great because it was a bit counter-culture. In an era of "more more more" and big hair bands and Debbie Gibson, U2 stood out as one of the few voices that said "give back". That's hardly original - Lennon did that for decades. But in 1987, it was "fresh". In 1991, U2 turned "industrial" into mainstream by combining it with pop-rock and giving it a fresh spin. U2's image also worked. Not only did U2 stand out from their former 80's selves, but they also were fresh in an era of flannel-shirted head-bangers that started to blend all together.

Therefore, calling AB "unoriginal" when compared to 80's work is inaccurate. It's as original as any other U2 release - heavily influenced but has the unique U2 sound. And that's what makes it great.

 

[The Panther]

Okay, some of you are taking issue with what I wrote about 80s U2. As I stated in my first post, I am of course aware that music doesn't come from a vacuum and that of course U2 were aware of famous and iconic artists who preceded them. I am aware that they weren't raised in the forest with wolves and then thrown into a room together and locked in with some instruments.

HOWEVER, I maintain that U2's artistic impulse and product was relatively unique. What I mean by that is that whatever their reference points were, they weren't ones that many if any of their peers had. For example, when he was still a teen, Edge said that he consciously rejected the entire blues tradition as something he didn't want to do (in doing so, he dismisses the backbone of 90% of rock history). Then, Edge also took the post-punk view that guitar solos were bad and regular chords and I-IV-V chord progressions were evil. At the same time, U2 also seemed to realize that punk rock was, as Bono once put it in the early 80s, "a box of tricks", sold to teens. It had a negative energy with nothing positive to fill the gap.

So, by rejecting both classic rock cliches and punk rock, U2 in the late 1970s were very much a post-punk band... but an Irish one, a country with no real rock'n'roll tradition. In addition, though, U2 didn't sound like other post-punk bands because their approach (and vocalist) was much more soulful and heart-on-the-sleeve than the cool, detached post-punk school (hence, part of the reason U2 appealed to Americans right away).

So, despite being a traditional rock 4-piece with standard rock arrangements, I maintain that U2's approach was fairly unique. We also know that for many years they wrote songs more-or-less by instinct, not by craft or careful composition. The records bear this out, certainly.

If you ask me for earlier famous bands that sound like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, R.E.M., or whoever, I can come up with dozens. But if you ask for me for pre-punk bands that sound like U2, I'm hard pressed. (Bono often talked up their attempt to sound like The Who -- I can hear it somewhat, but not a lot.)

So, that's one thing. Musically, they tried to be fresh, which served them well.


We could argue about those points, but aside from all that, the main point I was making was that their approach to music making was largely instinctive (in this they were not unique). They seemed to get together, jam, throw ideas into the pot, move the songs around as they went, and in the end something would emerge (again, I'm not saying they were unique in this). Where I do think they were a little bit unique is that I don't think they ever consciously tried to sound like anyone, or be part of any recognizable tradition.

This process starts to change a bit, as I mentioned in my first post, around 1986-87, when Bono and Edge began writing more at home and together, and then bringing more crafted songs to the band. They began to recognize traditional song patterns more, briefly embraced R&B / I-IV-V traditional rock/blues songs, and started actually trying to fit into an established discourse.

With Achtung Baby in 1990-91, the whole thing changed again. Having gone from instinct to embracing select traditions, they seemed to free themselves by embracing the totality of rock/pop history and picking and choosing whatever bits of it they wanted to use. That's postmodernism.

Again, whether you consider that kind of approach to be creative or to be the dead-end of creativity is up to the individual to decide. Embracing a postmodern approach was, I think, more a career move than an artistic one in U2's case. It changed the way the public perceived them a bit, which gave them more freedom to play with style and genres thereafter. But the triumph of Achtung Baby was the incredible songs, not the style.

 

[Nick66]

We also know that for many years they wrote songs more-or-less by instinct, not by craft or careful composition. The records bear this out, certainly.

We could argue about those points, but aside from all that, the main point I was making was that their approach to music making was largely instinctive

This part of your post is quite right.

 

[lemonfly]

U2 have never really been "pioneers" in the truest sense of the word. They have never made an album that (re)defined the musical landscape. Their strength has always been to soak up existing influences, put their own spin on them, and take it mainstream. As others have noted, Achtung Baby was quite revolutionary for THEM but not for the musical world at large. AB is primarily a triumph of song crafting and genre blending. A little bit of Madchester, a little bit of NIN industrial, a little bit of dark synth...and the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. But whether they were actually doing something that was truly innovative or forward thinking for the time - I would argue no, they didn't.

 

[j72]

Feel really interested in what different people are getting at here, Panther and lemon fly's in particular. I feel very much the same in many ways, one question i would go back to, i feel Edges guitar was very unique from the start of u2, i then was pretty mesmerized what he then did in this album.

I hear the influences in AB but THOSE guitar riffs and certain notes and tone still seems largely out on it's own and pretty pioneering to me! Despite all the music from others that bleeds it into it and the music, tone and rythmms through the albums sound. Any thoughts on this?

 

[LPU2]

I came across an article on the Achtung Baby reissue. I'm wondering if you guys agree with the writer's premise that U2 isn't all that "original" on the album in comparison to what came before in the 1980s. Any thoughts? Here's the link:

Album of the Week: U2′s Achtung Baby: A Reissue of a Classic | Cultural Transmogrifier Magazine

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Don't need to read the article to say that I agree that U2 wasn't all that original. Much of what they did had been done. They say this many times. But what U2 did was far far better.

 

[Nick66]

U2 have never really been "pioneers" in the truest sense of the word. They have never made an album that (re)defined the musical landscape. Their strength has always been to soak up existing influences, put their own spin on them, and take it mainstream. As others have noted, Achtung Baby was quite revolutionary for THEM but not for the musical world at large. AB is primarily a triumph of song crafting and genre blending. A little bit of Madchester, a little bit of NIN industrial, a little bit of dark synth...and the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. But whether they were actually doing something that was truly innovative or forward thinking for the time - I would argue no, they didn't.

Indeed.