I don't disagree.
But there is a distinct difference between talking about having a certain goal and what you actually do to achieve that same goal. Meaning, there is a difference between 'conquering the world' by starting out playing bars and clubs and going on American Idol and basically 'auditioning' for millions and millions right out of the gate. There are different paths for different ambitions.
So I want to see someone argue that U2 has always taken the same path to that same ambition. Because they admit themselves (in U2 by U2) that it changed. I can find the direct quote later on this evening. The simple fact is this 'excuse' about 'U2 have always been the same' is usually used to deflect a criticism that U2 actually admits to.
They changed their M.O. after POP. So yeah, I think they've always wanted to be as big as The Beatles and conquer the world. But their creative whims changed to bend over backwards to achieve it - most recently.
As you started your post, I shall start mine. I also do not disagree.
However, I'm not quite on board with the "Pop" argument.
In today's world, I really don't envision U2 having anything more than a Double Platinum album in the U.S. With each passing year, less and less albums reach that status. NLOTH was one of 10 or so Platinum albums released in 2009. So in terms of album sales, U2 as well as their fan base have to adapt - we won't be seeing big sales any more.
However, U2 still may generate a big hit (downloads and/or radio). And I do think that is still a goal.
Also, since "Pop" suffered a backlash, U2 reacted the way they did when they received a backlash from R&H. R&H still had strong sales, but U2 responded to the criticism. I contend that even if "Pop" had sold well, U2 would have responded to the criticism there as well (in other words, ATYCLB may have still resulted).
Furthermore, R&H was about as far as U2 could take the UT/JT era sound. Similarly, I think "Pop" was about as far as U2 could take the AB/Zooropa sound. This is yet another reason for a transition.
It does make one wonder. If there was no backlash against R&H would we have AB? If there was no backlash against "Pop", would we have ATYCLB?
Lastly, the argument for ATYCLB and albums since is this is where U2 are at the moment. In 1996, they were still in that experimental stage. Come 2000, clearly U2 had shifted.
And this shift is most evident on NLOTH. I have not come across any statements that suggest U2 are disappointed with NLOTH other than it didn't sell as well as they hoped. But I don't hear them saying anything else negative. Why should they? They've created some true masterpieces. MOS is one of U2's most brilliant songs - even recognized by other artists as such. I put that song up there with anything from U2's past. But I also adore NLOTH, Breathe, Magnificent, White as Snow, etc. They tried to be a bit too cute with "Crazy Tonight" - the one true weakness on the album, IMO. But that was redeemed in concert.
To summarize, I don't think U2 shifted merely to have big sales. I think they did respond to criticism the way anyone might. If your annual evaluation is so-so, but you feel you did a good job, you might react in a way to change that. U2 did the same. Sales do play a role and U2 did try for something more commecially appealing in their last few albums. That said, not all songs are that commercial. NLOTH is hardly a commercial album despite a few songs that seemed to be thrown on in attempt to be hits. But when I listen to NLOTH, I don't hear a band desperate to make hits no matter what the cost. I hear a very mature band that made a very, very good album that had a few hiccups (as all U2 albums do).
Every album had its good and its bad sides.
I've been trying so hard not to be pedantic grammar nazi this time. And you steal my job anywayz? Not fair!
