Has U2 Peaked?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I disagree about Vertigo- at the very least, joy is a major part.

I don't want to get too much in individual song interpretations, but I think you're dead wrong with this one. If you've ever had Vertigo you know it's not pleasant. The song is about temptation and the trappings of...

But like Disco, the light-hearted delivery of the song takes away from the content.
 
You missed my point completely. I said nothing about the video taking away Numb's obscure sound. My point was that Numb wouldn't have gotten much play anywhere if it wasn't for the video.

Isn't that the point? I mean, the debate is whether or not U2 care about their size (they do), and whether they always have or not (they have), but also to what degree do they/would they compromise in favour of it, or take a risk against it.
 
Many times lately I have thought about addressing this topic on here, but I'm glad the rest of you have articulated it so well. It saves me some time and typing. I was hesitant to do it, because U2 fans don't come bigger than me. I ate, lived and breathed U2 for most of my life. I was full-on obsessed. And live shows used to be some magical, mystical experience for me.

However, something started to change around the time of Elevation. After the critical backlash to Popmart in the U.S., the band seemed to totally lose their nerve and return to playing it extremely safe. Not that ATYCLB doesn't have great songs. But it's a very safe play. And coupled with a stripped down stage show, a worn Bono voice, and a very safe, familiar and static setlist, it lost something for me.

Since then, despite me waiting with baited breath and hanging on every move they make, the band seemed to have lost their edge, no pun intended. Consistently since the turn of the century, their releases have been good, not great. And they seem to be incapable of consistently writing material that is innovative and catchy which was their hallmark. It's either obvious cheap riffs like All Because of You, or fairly boring, sedate paint-by-numbers U2, like (forgive me) Walk On.

There have been some great tunes in there (Moment, Original of the Species, Vertigo, No Line, etc.), but they seem to completely lack the confidence that made them great. With AB and JT they were bold and brave. Now, they seem to turn and run at the first sign of trouble.

And nothing spells this out more than the setlists which are my biggest disappointment. Frankfurt's is a classic example. Keep ditching anything new and exciting, like the title track off NLOTH or any new tracks and replace them with stagnant New Year's Day et al.

And I realize they must play hits for the masses, but does it always have to be the same hits, with the same arrangements, in the same spots in the setlist, and always at the expense of tunes everyone here seems to want?

I'll always love the band, but I can't hide my feelings and the bottom line is that for the first time in my life, I'm actually ho-hum about seeing their concert next year. Don't get me wrong, I know there are a million people who would tell me they'll take my ticket or not to go. It's still the best show I'll see all year. It just doesn't hold the mystique it once did. Way too much "been there, heard that" for me.
 
Isn't that the point? I mean, the debate is whether or not U2 care about their size (they do), and whether they always have or not (they have), but also to what degree do they/would they compromise in favour of it, or take a risk against it.

But I don't think it was that big of a risk. They had huge clout, they made a very low budget video, it was fun and throw away. They didn't spend anytime promoting the single on rock airwaves, and the album itself still had songs like Stay, Dirty Day, and Zooropa that could appeal to fans of 80's and AB.

The single was minimal risk, especially given the climate of music then.
 
Not that ATYCLB doesn't have great songs. But it's a very safe play. And coupled with a stripped down stage show, a worn Bono voice, and a very safe, familiar and static setlist, it lost something for me.

Since then, despite me waiting with baited breath and hanging on every move they make, the band seemed to have lost their edge, no pun intended. Consistently since the turn of the century, their releases have been good, not great. And they seem to be incapable of consistently writing material that is innovative and catchy which was their hallmark. It's either obvious cheap riffs like All Because of You, or fairly boring, sedate paint-by-numbers U2, like (forgive me) Walk On.

I have a question. I hear this term a lot; "Safe". I keep hearing that ATYCLB was safe, what does that mean?

They had a whole decade of fans that they won over with their experimental, I guess you would call non-safe music. They lost some of their 80's audience that just wanted more JTs and didn't get the 90's, so how was ATYCLB safe from that perspective?

Also by the year 2000, you had post-punk U2, delay heavy U2, trip hop U2, distorted U2, R&B influence U2, country inspired U2...

What made Walk On "paint by numbers"? I hear this term overused ALL the time in here.
 
They probably lost some 90's fans with ATYCLB but they won back more 80's and new fans.
 
They probably lost some 90's fans with ATYCLB but they won back more 80's and new fans.

True, but how is that safe?

The 80's fans that they might win back are getting older and probably don't buy music anymore(from a demographic standpoint), and they aren't guaranteed new fans, so I'm trying to understand this "safe" argument.
 
I'd say having the guitarist chanting nonsense in a deadpan style over an industrial soundscape is at least, to be fair, just a tad risky and brave?

And having your lead singer using mostly Falsetto to drive a warped disco tune for the second single?

There's no denying the creative freedom and alternative movement of the early 90's , but still...U2 could've just recorded some more "One"s and "Even Better"s. They could've released Stay as the first single and left Numb and Lemon as obscure album tracks. The fact that HMTMKMKM was left off Zooropa and songs like Daddy's Gonna Pay and Babyface made the cut says a lot.

You could argue that U2 were big enough to do whatever they wanted, and continued to do so until the (minor) backlash of POP, but if that's the case...why didn't they shake things up a bit after ATYCLB took off? Why did they follow up one of their greatest successes with one of their safest sounding albums?

I'm not saying U2 never wanted to be big. I'll just echo what someone else suggested: that they ALWAYS wanted to be big, the difference being to WHAT EXTENT. In what era did a desire to be big and relevant seem to affect a certain creativity in the music?
 
You could argue that U2 were big enough to do whatever they wanted, and continued to do so until the (minor) backlash of POP, but if that's the case...why didn't they shake things up a bit after ATYCLB took off?

You nailed it on the head, they could have gotten away with almost anything. I honestly think Lemon was riskier than Numb. Numb was playful and they knew the video would drive it, and if it didn't then who cares. But Lemon was a little risky because they treated it like a real single, and honestly it didn't real have a home on the radio back then, it didn't fit on the rock stations, yet not quite on the pop stations either. But it got a lot of play on MTV and in the clubs that's for sure.

They didn't have the clout after ATYCLB like they had in the 90's, not even close.
 
I have a question. I hear this term a lot; "Safe". I keep hearing that ATYCLB was safe, what does that mean?

They had a whole decade of fans that they won over with their experimental, I guess you would call non-safe music. They lost some of their 80's audience that just wanted more JTs and didn't get the 90's, so how was ATYCLB safe from that perspective?

Also by the year 2000, you had post-punk U2, delay heavy U2, trip hop U2, distorted U2, R&B influence U2, country inspired U2...

What made Walk On "paint by numbers"? I hear this term overused ALL the time in here.

To me, "safe" is worrying too much about radio play and mass appeal and letting that affect your writing. And it's hard to argue that wasn't the case with ATYCLB and Bomb. I'm not saying they had no creative attempts in there, just more mis-guided ones than ever before.

And the "paint by numbers" statement is one I fully stand by. I realize it's my own opinion, but to me it's a watered down version of songs like Pride. It has a very familiar, U2 guitar figure and song structure and some fairly benign, upbeat lyrics. And yes, I get the message of it. It just does nothing for me as it comes across as a weaker take on territory they've already covered.

You can take or leave my opinion. That's fine. I can't help how I feel about it though.

For the last decade, I've seen U2 either:
a) stick to repeating themselves, or
b) parody their former cutting edge selves with the odd lesser attempt

And because they recognize the perils of b), they've mostly stuck to a).
Just my 2 cents.

(And I say that mostly about the setlists too. Hard to argue the setlists are very enthralling. Good tunes, but "done to death" starts to apply.)
 
To me, "safe" is worrying too much about radio play and mass appeal and letting that affect your writing. And it's hard to argue that wasn't the case with ATYCLB and Bomb. I'm not saying they had no creative attempts in there, just more mis-guided ones than ever before.

You're not really answering my question though.

Why not just re-write AB? That album had huge hits and it was still in their fans minds... It would have been much safer.


And the "paint by numbers" statement is one I fully stand by. I realize it's my own opinion, but to me it's a watered down version of songs like Pride. It has a very familiar, U2 guitar figure and song structure and some fairly benign, upbeat lyrics. And yes, I get the message of it. It just does nothing for me as it comes across as a weaker take on territory they've already covered.

Ok, I sorta see the similarities with Pride and Walk On, but it still doesn't say "paint by numbers" to me. I could understand that comparison if U2 had writen 5 or 6 Prides, then that comment would make sense.
 
So making dance-music inspired two albums in a row after a HUGE (well...) dance-music inspired album and a HUGE tour is risky... ? But making a pop album when your competition is half your age and a completely different environment (less than huge album and tour critique) is safe ? If not for BD, I think ATYCLB would not be far better commercially than Pop, and if not for 9/11 Elevation would not be seen as a live comeback for the band.

Numb---at that point they could probably release that annoying siren sound at the end of the album and it would get airplay.
 
You could argue that U2 were big enough to do whatever they wanted, and continued to do so until the (minor) backlash of POP, but if that's the case...why didn't they shake things up a bit after ATYCLB took off? Why did they follow up one of their greatest successes with one of their safest sounding albums?
Because they got scared after Pop and Popmart.
If Achtung Baby had failed they wouldn't have made Zooropa, Passengers or Pop. They would have made a "safer album".
 
I have a question. I hear this term a lot; "Safe". I keep hearing that ATYCLB was safe, what does that mean?

They had a whole decade of fans that they won over with their experimental, I guess you would call non-safe music. They lost some of their 80's audience that just wanted more JTs and didn't get the 90's, so how was ATYCLB safe from that perspective?

Also by the year 2000, you had post-punk U2, delay heavy U2, trip hop U2, distorted U2, R&B influence U2, country inspired U2...

What made Walk On "paint by numbers"? I hear this term overused ALL the time in here.

I agree. ATYCLB was an incredible album that winked at the past while gazing into the future. The "touch me" part of BD had that signature Edge guitar that hadn't been heard since the 80's, but the rest of the song did sound like something new to me, the end result of a natural evolution of sound.

But that's the thing, there was a "hint" of U2's past, but overall, the songs were new, the themes were new, it was a deep mature record. Songs like Stuck, IALW, Wild Honey...these were (and are) inspired U2 moments.

Which made me even more unsettled when Bomb hit the airwaves, and instead of more deep mature tunes with a natural evolution of sound, we got a handfull of (IMO) wannabe U2 songs, overflowing with earnestness, oozing sooo much sincerity to the point of sounding insincere, little to no subtlety on any of the songs, and Bono turning in probably his worst lyrical efforts to date. To top it off, it was the first time Edge had failed to come up with any inspiring new sounds. Correction: he did introduce one new thing- the cock-rock single (Vertigo).

So, after ATYCLB's universal success, why would U2 release such a record? Maybe it's just me and I fail to see (or hear) the genius. But I don't think it's toooo far off the mark to suggest that maybe, just maybe...they were playing it (cough) a litttle, little, little bit too safe.
 
They probably lost some 90's fans with ATYCLB but they won back more 80's and new fans.
I can identify with this statement. I grew up with U2 always playing in my life, but I became somewhat of a mega fan when ATYCLB came out. It reminded my hubby and I a little of JT. I am not sure why people bash this album and the songs on it so much. They are decent likable melodies....after going back and revisiting AB and Zoo TV this is now a favorite era....but I will always love the Elevation era...it kind of bookmarked certain moments in my late 20's and of course 9/11

How can you truly analyze U2's career though at this point, they are still going strong? We are too close to our subjects and their careers have been an exceptional and unique case of stability and longevity......

Look at the Beatles, Abbey Road their last album was one of their best.....who can say if U2 has peaked yet until we look at their history as a whole.....
 
Because they got scared after Pop and Popmart.
If Achtung Baby had failed they wouldn't have made Zooropa, Passengers or Pop. They would have made a "safer album".

My point exactly.

ATYCLB was a monumental success. It could've given U2 leeway to shake things up as they always had done. But, like you said, fear of losing that "biggest band in the world" title became the main thing.

So, there you go. Being big and staying relevant post-ATYCLB has been of extreme importance to them, perhaps even more important than the pre-POP era because they've tasted (in their eyes) failure.

This does not make for good, inspired music. Blame the current musical climate, but if U2 are leaders, and if U2 are giants, and if U2 are the biggiest band in the world...they should lead...they should challenge listeners...they should follow their creative instincts, because what's one or two more Grammies really mean at this point? They've accomplished the "biggest band" thing so many times in their career, it's time to put the music first. If that's not possible, if it jeapordizes their "biggest band" status, then it's official: staying big and relevant is more important than the music. NLOTH is a perfect example of the band's hesitancy to put music first. That's why you get those bailout optimistic tunes that do not fit whatsoever in the album.

I'm not saying this is definitely what the case is...just an opinion.
 
I think that the band could combine artistic and commercial succes fine until Pop and since then they've tried to combine them but it's never really worked.

Of course this is all relative cos all U2 albums have been a commercial succes when compared to other artists.
 
You're not really answering my question though.

Why not just re-write AB? That album had huge hits and it was still in their fans minds... It would have been much safer.




Ok, I sorta see the similarities with Pride and Walk On, but it still doesn't say "paint by numbers" to me. I could understand that comparison if U2 had writen 5 or 6 Prides, then that comment would make sense.

I guess most of my "safe" comments are directing at the live show. It almost feels lazy lately. The tours are starting to blend into each other for that reason. The band seems to find it easier to just re-insert New Year's Day than actually get creative.
 
I think Tim made some good points here. Even though I quite like ATYCLB, I love HTDAAB (when I'm in the mood for it), and I like about half of NLOTH, I quite agree with all of his points:

Consistently since the turn of the century, their releases have been good, not great.

For me, I'm satisfied with the quality of their releases -- I like HTDAAB more than most people, and if you add on some of the quality B-sides and limited-release tracks and so on, there's actually lots of good stuff. But I certainly agree with you about the "playing it safe" angle.

It's either obvious cheap riffs like All Because of You, or fairly boring, sedate paint-by-numbers U2, like (forgive me) Walk On.

Well, I like both of those songs, but I still take your point. In fact, the moment I first heard "Walk On", in November 2000, was the first ever time I said to myself: "Okay, U2 are obviously trying to sound something like they did in the past." Still, I think it's fair-play given how long they've been at it.

Now, they seem to turn and run at the first sign of trouble.

Well, yeah, I think that is true.

And nothing spells this out more than the setlists... ...replace [new tracks] with stagnant New Year's Day et al.

Completely agree, but it's not only U2 that I have this problem with. It's all groups who go for a long time. With very rare exceptions, I am simply not interested in hearing any group play its greatest hits. I get bored listening to songs that are more than eight or ten years old (this is relative to the band). If I had my way, I'd drop every 80s and 90s song from the set. Of course, then they couldn't play stadiums... which might be good.


And I realize they must play hits for the masses, but does it always have to be... the same arrangements, in the same spots in the setlist...

I think this is a really key point that few people touch on. U2 are not very interesting in terms of how they interpret their own material. They tend to play a song over the course of a tour until they get a handle on it (or drop it), and then... they continue to play it exactly the same way for the next 10, 20, 30 years. It was thrilling to hear the new guitar-licks in "Bullet The Blue Sky" back in 1992 because it quite changed the song. But that's only the exception that proves the rule. Other than maybe Bono's voice being a bit less expressive and a bit smoother now, I would have trouble distinguising a 2010 performance of 'New Year's Day' from one in 1984. That is not a good thing.
 
I agree. ATYCLB was an incredible album that winked at the past while gazing into the future. The "touch me" part of BD had that signature Edge guitar that hadn't been heard since the 80's, but the rest of the song did sound like something new to me, the end result of a natural evolution of sound.

But that's the thing, there was a "hint" of U2's past, but overall, the songs were new, the themes were new, it was a deep mature record. Songs like Stuck, IALW, Wild Honey...these were (and are) inspired U2 moments.
Hey look we agree! :hyper:

Which made me even more unsettled when Bomb hit the airwaves, and instead of more deep mature tunes with a natural evolution of sound, we got a handfull of (IMO) wannabe U2 songs, overflowing with earnestness, oozing sooo much sincerity to the point of sounding insincere, little to no subtlety on any of the songs, and Bono turning in probably his worst lyrical efforts to date. To top it off, it was the first time Edge had failed to come up with any inspiring new sounds. Correction: he did introduce one new thing- the cock-rock single (Vertigo).

So, after ATYCLB's universal success, why would U2 release such a record? Maybe it's just me and I fail to see (or hear) the genius. But I don't think it's toooo far off the mark to suggest that maybe, just maybe...they were playing it (cough) a litttle, little, little bit too safe.
Well I'm not as harsh about Bomb as you are, I think it suffered from sounding like a collection rather than an album. I still think we got a few inspired songs from that time, unfortunately some of those didn't make it on the album :shrug:
 
I guess most of my "safe" comments are directing at the live show. It almost feels lazy lately. The tours are starting to blend into each other for that reason. The band seems to find it easier to just re-insert New Year's Day than actually get creative.

Well I'm sorry, we'll never agree on this subject. I will agree some of the warhorses should be dropped, I'm looking at you WOWY since after ZooTV, but for the most part I think they're still giving us amazing shows. Static setlists argument will never fly with me unless you agree to go back to 87 and be consistent with your argument.
 
I think Tim made some good points here.

Thanks 65980. Obviously I totally agree with the points you made and I almost pointed out Bullet as the exception in my post as well. How refreshing it was that they actually re-invented that song a couple times without totally bastardizing it.

And BVS, my point about the set list has nothing to do with how many different songs are played on a tour at least once or what percentage change from one tour to the next. My point is two-fold:

1) U2 concerts have developed a rigid bone structure. There are some blanks they fill in and change, but the bones remain the same. eg. BD will be played early.... Streets/One will come at the end of the main set... WOWY in the encore, etc. And it's almost like they're going through the motions on those ones. And for a group that has probably 30 hits or more, it's odd that they stick to the same 11 or 12 all the time with not one creative twist.

2) As tours progress, the few tweaks the band seems to make are almost always dropping a newer or rarely played song for an old, tired standby.
 
My point exactly.

ATYCLB was a monumental success. It could've given U2 leeway to shake things up as they always had done. But, like you said, fear of losing that "biggest band in the world" title became the main thing.

So, there you go. Being big and staying relevant post-ATYCLB has been of extreme importance to them, perhaps even more important than the pre-POP era because they've tasted (in their eyes) failure.

This does not make for good, inspired music. Blame the current musical climate, but if U2 are leaders, and if U2 are giants, and if U2 are the biggiest band in the world...they should lead...they should challenge listeners...they should follow their creative instincts, because what's one or two more Grammies really mean at this point? They've accomplished the "biggest band" thing so many times in their career, it's time to put the music first. If that's not possible, if it jeapordizes their "biggest band" status, then it's official: staying big and relevant is more important than the music. NLOTH is a perfect example of the band's hesitancy to put music first. That's why you get those bailout optimistic tunes that do not fit whatsoever in the album.

I'm not saying this is definitely what the case is...just an opinion.

I would argue that while ATYCLB was definitely more "safe", it still had some experimental items on it (like "Wild Honey") and even a hint of "Pop" on hit (with "New York"). And it was more "pop" than past efforts (with songs like "Elevation"). That said, songs like "Beautiful Day", "Stuck..." and "Walk On" are more "classic" U2 and the album is a bit of U2 returning to what they knew worked well with not just fans, but the general public.

With HTDAAB, though, I'd argue U2 was already starting to become less "safe". "Vertigo" is a rocker that is a lot different than past songs. "Desire", "Pride" and "Mysterious Ways" are all rockers that would definitely find an audience. "Vertigo" was a bit more out there. The catchiness of the song combined with the ubiquitious iPod commercial helped propel that song, and the album, to great heights.

While HTDAAB did have some safe tracks ("City of Blinding Lights", "Sometimes...", "A Man and a Woman") there was some adventure with tracks like "Love & Peace" and "Fast Cars". So U2 already started pushing the boundaries.

With NLOTH, I'd say U2 are back to "Pop" like territory. No, the songs aren't like "Pop", but they definitely aren't "safe". One might argue that a few tracks, like "Crazy Tonight" are safe - but even "Pop" had some safe songs, with tracks like "If God Will Send His Angels" and even "Please", which fit into more classic U2. NLOTH, like "Pop", saw U2 explore some harder rocking songs (the title track) and different styles ("Moment of Surrender"). NLOTH also had more ambient sounds and music, the type we haven't heard from U2 in a while. Perhaps that is a nod to the past, but it's hardly a safe nod.

So while ATYCLB was U2 reclaiming the title, I'd say since then, they've slowly stopped being so safe and allowed themselves to explore. With the enormous commercial and critical success of ATYCLB and HTDAAB (huge sales, numerous Grammy Awards, etc.), U2 proved they can crank out the big albums. NLOTH was a bit like "Pop" in that it could have been big, but didn't have that one big hit to help propel it. GOYB was similar to "Discotheque" in that it caused a bit of an initial negative reaction to an otherwise good album. That said, if this were 1997, I have a feeling NLOTH would have still sold better than "Pop". Given how little people buy albums now, U2 are now fighting another battle (as is every other musician). Free music is good, but artists need to make some $$ to live.

To relate to my earlier post in this thread, I don't feel U2 are past their peak. But all artists slow down. Unless U2 can come up with a huge smash hit to dominate the download market (like the Black Eyed Peas do), they may have to settle for the more moderate success of NLOTH. Nothing wrong with a Platinum album. It really depends on what is U2's goal - to have that big smash hit or to produce music they love and hope the fans follow. Given the enormous success of the tour and the response to the new songs - even if the album hasn't sold well - clearly fans are following. :)
 
Thanks 65980. Obviously I totally agree with the points you made and I almost pointed out Bullet as the exception in my post as well. How refreshing it was that they actually re-invented that song a couple times without totally bastardizing it.

And BVS, my point about the set list has nothing to do with how many different songs are played on a tour at least once or what percentage change from one tour to the next. My point is two-fold:

1) U2 concerts have developed a rigid bone structure. There are some blanks they fill in and change, but the bones remain the same. eg. BD will be played early.... Streets/One will come at the end of the main set... WOWY in the encore, etc. And it's almost like they're going through the motions on those ones. And for a group that has probably 30 hits or more, it's odd that they stick to the same 11 or 12 all the time with not one creative twist.

2) As tours progress, the few tweaks the band seems to make are almost always dropping a newer or rarely played song for an old, tired standby.

Just a quick comment...

With the exception of the Love Town tour, U2 have always had a fairly static playlist. This is especially true from ZOO TV on, where video syncs are tied in. I say this respectfully, but just as you feel U2's setlist is getting old, I feel this complaint is also getting old. U2 have had static setlists for 20 years, encompassing 6 tours (if ZOO TV and Zooropa tours are counted separately), and this is how they operate.

Now that tour is underway again, U2 have now added some brand new songs to the set-list, something they haven't done before (or since their very early years or a token TV show). That alone is a significant change. Also, they added some older hits - not just the "usual". And when I saw them in '09, I noticed a few standards dropped from the playlist (like "Pride" wasn't always played). In other words, U2 are doing a better job at mixing now (they started this with the Vertigo tour).

Lastly, another classic point is that general fans want to hear those old songs. I took my sister to her first U2 concert last year. She was waiting for "With or Without You" to be played. While she loved a lot of new songs - including songs she hadn't heard (she loved the remix of "Crazy Tonight"), hearing that song was key. As a result, U2 really can't just drop all the old classics to please the die-hards. Because when there are 70,000 seats available, I can guarantee you the bulk of them are not for the die-hards.
 
I would argue that while ATYCLB was definitely more "safe", it still had some experimental items on it (like "Wild Honey") and even a hint of "Pop" on hit (with "New York"). And it was more "pop" than past efforts (with songs like "Elevation"). That said, songs like "Beautiful Day", "Stuck..." and "Walk On" are more "classic" U2 and the album is a bit of U2 returning to what they knew worked well with not just fans, but the general public.

With HTDAAB, though, I'd argue U2 was already starting to become less "safe". "Vertigo" is a rocker that is a lot different than past songs. "Desire", "Pride" and "Mysterious Ways" are all rockers that would definitely find an audience. "Vertigo" was a bit more out there. The catchiness of the song combined with the ubiquitious iPod commercial helped propel that song, and the album, to great heights.

While HTDAAB did have some safe tracks ("City of Blinding Lights", "Sometimes...", "A Man and a Woman") there was some adventure with tracks like "Love & Peace" and "Fast Cars". So U2 already started pushing the boundaries.

With NLOTH, I'd say U2 are back to "Pop" like territory. No, the songs aren't like "Pop", but they definitely aren't "safe". One might argue that a few tracks, like "Crazy Tonight" are safe - but even "Pop" had some safe songs, with tracks like "If God Will Send His Angels" and even "Please", which fit into more classic U2. NLOTH, like "Pop", saw U2 explore some harder rocking songs (the title track) and different styles ("Moment of Surrender"). NLOTH also had more ambient sounds and music, the type we haven't heard from U2 in a while. Perhaps that is a nod to the past, but it's hardly a safe nod.

So while ATYCLB was U2 reclaiming the title, I'd say since then, they've slowly stopped being so safe and allowed themselves to explore. With the enormous commercial and critical success of ATYCLB and HTDAAB (huge sales, numerous Grammy Awards, etc.), U2 proved they can crank out the big albums. NLOTH was a bit like "Pop" in that it could have been big, but didn't have that one big hit to help propel it. GOYB was similar to "Discotheque" in that it caused a bit of an initial negative reaction to an otherwise good album. That said, if this were 1997, I have a feeling NLOTH would have still sold better than "Pop". Given how little people buy albums now, U2 are now fighting another battle (as is every other musician). Free music is good, but artists need to make some $$ to live.

To relate to my earlier post in this thread, I don't feel U2 are past their peak. But all artists slow down. Unless U2 can come up with a huge smash hit to dominate the download market (like the Black Eyed Peas do), they may have to settle for the more moderate success of NLOTH. Nothing wrong with a Platinum album. It really depends on what is U2's goal - to have that big smash hit or to produce music they love and hope the fans follow. Given the enormous success of the tour and the response to the new songs - even if the album hasn't sold well - clearly fans are following. :)

I never said ATYCLB was a safe album. In an earlier post I said some of the songs had a 'hint' of old 80's U2, but for the most part it was inspired, new territory.

BOMB, on the other hand, is hands down, the safest album in their career. Here's where I strongly disagree with you. They've brought back the 80's earnestness, the sincerity, the optimism...except this time they didn't bring the inspiration, the mystery, or the songwriting talent. It's all manufactured sounding. Where a song like SYCMIOYO in the past would've had a rawer, more gutwrenching quality, on BOMB it's blown up American Idol style. It's like a Kelly Clarkson ballad, bloated and selfimportant. No emotion, just going thru the motions.

LAPOE is nothing new. It's a slowed down rootsy rock thing, played clumsily. They've conquered fare like this a million times better on Rattle And Hum. And the atmospherics are nothing special. Edge's solo? Two notes? That's all he could come up with? And the hippie protest lyrics? "We need love and peace?" Wow, way to rock the boat, Bono.

Vertigo might've been new ground for U2, but it's ground I wish they would've soared over and left untouched, because they're better than that. I mean, they can play dumbrock well, like in Holy Joe, or Big Girls Are Best. When it's done with a sense of humor, with a tongue in cheek quality it seems to work for them. But done seriously, mixing manufactured sincerity and earnestness with some kind of "look at us rocking hard" desperate approach and with Bono doing the Messianic savior thing...it's just laughable. It doesn't work.

So I really gotta disagree with you. The only song that sounded like some thought went into it was Fast Cars, both musically and lyrically. And it was left off the album. I guess it stood out too much as the only truly good song. Some songs I can sorta enjoy. I like Crumbs because it's one of the only tunes with an atmosphere, despite it's riff sounding all too familiar, and the abysmal lyrics. And OOTS has some pretty Beatlesque moments, but that's it, just MOMENTS, and the whole thing doesn't work as a whole.

NLOTH I agree has some flat out inspired and amazing fucking songs. But it's the two or 3 songs, and you know the ones I mean, that reek of safe U2.
 
Hey look we agree! :hyper:

Yes!!! Mission accomplished, now I can leave...:wink:


Well I'm not as harsh about Bomb as you are, I think it suffered from sounding like a collection rather than an album. I still think we got a few inspired songs from that time, unfortunately some of those didn't make it on the album :shrug:

It does sound like a collection rather than an album...and now I'm going to say something crazy. I think that BOMB is a more cohesive album than NLOTH! Ya see, BOMB's theme is that it has no theme, and it sticks to that theme! You could throw any kind of song on there, and it would've worked (especially Fast Cars, which is the best song out of this era). So whereas BOMB's theme was a collection of songs and total randomness, NLOTH is an album with a cohesive sound until it's hijacked a third of the way through. I do like NLOTH better, but BOMB does have one thing over it, an identity.
 
:doh:

Concede to what? That Bono writes about joy more than he did in the 90's? Well, of course, but that wasn't your argument. And so what if he does? Why do you hate joy?

I think the 00's have given us a very nice balance that the 90's didn't have, I do think Bono took a brave step to write more about joy, it's difficult. Have I always been pleased with the results? No. But I would have been bored too if Bono had stuck with his Pop writing mode...

Well you have acknowledged that joy matters more now than it used to, which is not a million miles away from what I have been saying. Of course, I would go further than you and say that joy has defined much of their 2000s work, but I am glad we are not poles apart. Your second point puzzles me. I have never said anything which implies that I 'hate' joy. For one who chooses his words so carefully; indeed for one who insists that others choose their words carefully, the word 'hate' is too strong. Joy has its place but in my view it works better as part of a complex whole. Take One for example. The element of joy in the line - 'we get to carry each other' strikes me as more authentic because it is surrounded with all of that murk and discord. It is probably nearer to real life, too.
 
Thanks 65980. Obviously I totally agree with the points you made and I almost pointed out Bullet as the exception in my post as well. How refreshing it was that they actually re-invented that song a couple times without totally bastardizing it.

And BVS, my point about the set list has nothing to do with how many different songs are played on a tour at least once or what percentage change from one tour to the next. My point is two-fold:

1) U2 concerts have developed a rigid bone structure. There are some blanks they fill in and change, but the bones remain the same. eg. BD will be played early.... Streets/One will come at the end of the main set... WOWY in the encore, etc. And it's almost like they're going through the motions on those ones. And for a group that has probably 30 hits or more, it's odd that they stick to the same 11 or 12 all the time with not one creative twist.

2) As tours progress, the few tweaks the band seems to make are almost always dropping a newer or rarely played song for an old, tired standby.

Yes, I agree with this. I thought the decision to replace North Star with a ragged, barely rehearsed version of NYD was bizarre.
 
My point exactly.

ATYCLB was a monumental success. It could've given U2 leeway to shake things up as they always had done. But, like you said, fear of losing that "biggest band in the world" title became the main thing.

So, there you go. Being big and staying relevant post-ATYCLB has been of extreme importance to them, perhaps even more important than the pre-POP era because they've tasted (in their eyes) failure.

This does not make for good, inspired music. Blame the current musical climate, but if U2 are leaders, and if U2 are giants, and if U2 are the biggiest band in the world...they should lead...they should challenge listeners...they should follow their creative instincts, because what's one or two more Grammies really mean at this point? They've accomplished the "biggest band" thing so many times in their career, it's time to put the music first. If that's not possible, if it jeapordizes their "biggest band" status, then it's official: staying big and relevant is more important than the music. NLOTH is a perfect example of the band's hesitancy to put music first. That's why you get those bailout optimistic tunes that do not fit whatsoever in the album.

I'm not saying this is definitely what the case is...just an opinion.

Yet another interesting post on this thread. I agree with you about ATYCLB. Having retrenched quite a lot (though perhaps not quite so much as people make out, I accept), they had a chance to push on out again, and on their own terms. For me, the fatal decision was to release the second Best Of . It dragged up the ghost of Pop again, which they tried to exorcise by re-recording several of its songs. And I think it hung over HTDAAB like some grim cloud formation. We now know about the uncertainties they went through between 2002 and 2004. First we heard Bono promising a hard rock album in 2003, then things went quiet, then Lillywhite came back and by late 2004, we got a rather confused album, that wasn't raw enough to work as a roots record and wasn't intricate enough to work as a studio creation.
 
I have a question. I hear this term a lot; "Safe". I keep hearing that ATYCLB was safe, what does that mean?
I think it's related to Bono's voice a lot. The Fly, Lemon, we had Numb, AB and Zooropa had some songs with a different style of singing and effects compared to the 80's big hits, i remember a friend jocking when HMTMKMKM was released "we'll never hear Bono again with his normal voice". Even Miss Sarajevo had an opera part, Slug and Blue Room were quiet, warm, relaxed, different. Two Shots was interesting too. Pop had some songs (Mofo, Miami) with curious vocals. It was like having a new singer every time. ATYCLB didn't have that, it stroke me the 1st time i listened to this album. Bono was singing the whole record without big effects and remember it was following the Best Of 80-90, so it created a sort of curious déjà-vu (déjà entendu, in fact :D) and something very "classic" or "steady" compared to the 90's material. Classic and steady so safe. That's what i felt.

---

Did they peak ? Probably if they keep their 97-06 logic, they take too much time between albums, i prefered the guerilla style of the 80-83 and 91-95 periods with many records on a short period of time, they should think doing that again instead of their 4 years cycles with big tours. And they can, funny alternative projects like a Passengers style album or EPs don't need a tour with 100 dates. I prefer a 10 songs album every 2 years with a couple of instrumentals rather than 12 finished, polished song every 4 years with the big promotion and the big tour.
 
Back
Top Bottom