Which is better -- 90s' U2 or 00s' U2?

[65980]

Well, as you said, we knew the end result of this thread before it began. The 1990s wins.

One thing I find odd about this forum (as opposed to every other music forum I've visited) is that so many people here want to make U2 a Premier League team. The idea that one group of songs "wins" over another group is absurd. By pointing out at the onset that I KNOW most of you prefer the 90s already, I was hoping you would take that as a hint not to simply state which decade is better and then sign out, but rather to engage in a stimulating discussion about the relative merits / characteristics of each decade (of course, you can feel free to state which you like better, which is how I -- perhaps awkwardly -- phrased it in the thread-title).

I guess I would have had more luck if I'd started a thread like this: "How much do you HATE "One", the worst song ever written???"

 

[Galeongirl]

Perhaps you'd have more luck if you started a thread titled:

Which era do you prefer, 90s or 09s?

Or any other form of opinion thread rather than a 'which is superior' thread.

 

[LemonMelon]

The idea that one group of songs "wins" over another group is absurd.

Which is better -- 90s' U2 or 00s' U2?

Guh

 

[indra]

Why do we have to compare this stuff?

Actually you don't have to. You didn't have to even open the thread. You didn't have to post a reply. You chose to do both. You knew from the thread title that you would be asked to compare the band's output from these two decades.

So why did you open the thread and why did you reply?

I'll take a stab at the answer to that: Because you wanted to. And that answers your question -- people compare the various output because they want to.

 

[Screwtape2]

In my own subjective opinion, this question is an insult to U2's work in the 90's. U2 were at their creative and adventurous peak. The 2000's body of work is full of uncertainty and stripping away the creative aspects. Sometimes that has worked to create good songs but as a whole this decade feels like a giant step backwards.

 

[popacrobat]

This thread is pure and utter bullshit. Why do we have to compare this stuff?


There is no such thing as better U2. There's no such thing as best song or era. It's all down to personal opinion.

okay, and he wants us to share our opinions so I don't see the bullshit or problem? whats the point of anything on this forum if we're not giving and discussing our opinions? then we'd just be presenting sets of facts to each other which would just be ticket, CD and single sales. fun forum..

 

[Niceman]

One thing I find odd about this forum (as opposed to every other music forum I've visited) is that so many people here want to make U2 a Premier League team. The idea that one group of songs "wins" over another group is absurd. By pointing out at the onset that I KNOW most of you prefer the 90s already, I was hoping you would take that as a hint not to simply state which decade is better and then sign out, but rather to engage in a stimulating discussion about the relative merits / characteristics of each decade (of course, you can feel free to state which you like better, which is how I -- perhaps awkwardly -- phrased it in the thread-title).

I guess I would have had more luck if I'd started a thread like this: "How much do you HATE "One", the worst song ever written???"

Hmm..... I kinda thought that that was exactly what I was doing........

 

[david]

It's all pretty subjective really. But you know, if you try, you can really enjoy both decades of output.

 

[Saracene]

I've become a U2 fan with ATYCLB so for me it's impossible to compare the two decades, because no matter how cool the 90s era was it feels a tad too distant for me, especially considering how firmly entrenched it is in its time. Many things about it in fact feel more dated to me than U2's 80s stuff. Purely in terms of music, I think both decades have roughly the same amount of hits and misses.

 

[BVS]

One thing I find odd about this forum (as opposed to every other music forum I've visited) is that so many people here want to make U2 a Premier League team.

I don't belong to a lot of other forums, but I visit a lot of other forums and I don't find this to be true at all... Every forum that I've visited has a majority that believe that artist to be the greatest of their kind.

 

[65980]

Guh

The point I'm trying to make -- as if you didn't know -- is that I hope people can make interesting commentaries rather than just stating that one "wins" over another.

(There are only so many characters allowed for the thread-titles -- I tried putting "Pithily analyze, dissect, and comment upon the relative characterisitics, merits, and flaws of these two decades, in a spirit of playful gamesmanship", but the forum limits didn't allow it.)

 

[VintagePunk]

It's all pretty subjective really. But you know, if you try, you can really enjoy both decades of output.

Both decades fulfill different needs for me.

 

[65980]

Anyway, it's clear that a lot of people have enjoyed the 00s. I do find that the studio tracks they produced in the 00s are quite consistent, as someone else pointed out. Although I'm not a big fan of some of the NLOTH songs, at least half of that LP is great, and I enjoy (in moderation, like Bailey's Irish Cream) all of the album tracks, B-sides, and rarities that surround the two albums before that.

In the 90s, they seemed to hit higher heights at the start of the decade, but thereafter I find the studio releases kind of inconsistent. Zooropa is more of a piece than a collection of superior songs, and Pop for me is still lacking something -- even though the songwriting was strong, it somehow adds up to less than the sum of its parts.

So, while they were more adventurous (that's pretty obvious) in the 90s, I do enjoy the consistency and listenability of the tasteful 00s stuff.

Will be extremely interesting to see how commercially compromised the next release is. Knowing U2, I have to assume that the response to NLOTH will directly affect the type of album they next release -- this sensitivity to the pop-side of the marketplace has been both a blessing and a curse for them, I think.

 

[65980]

I don't belong to a lot of other forums, but I visit a lot of other forums and I don't find this to be true at all... Every forum that I've visited has a majority that believe that artist to be the greatest of their kind.

Perhaps my metaphor was a little off. What I meant was that there's a great deal of discussion on this particular forum about ranking things and about who is bigger, U2 or Coldplay, etc. People post things like "Heartland is my #21 favorite U2 song". I personally find this a little strange, that's all I'm saying.

(Any kind of intelligent discussion -- including re: what is better or not -- is great, I think, but the key is that there's actually a discussion, as opposed to just listing numbers. For me, when people post their rankings of things withoutu any commentary, I just skip their posts and don't read them as I find them incredibly boring. So, when I respond to "ranking"-type threads, I like to write things about the songs or items on the lists to make it more conversational and interesting. In short, I couldn't care less how much you like something or not, but I'm fascinated by your thoughts and impressions.)

 

[BVS]

For me, when people post their rankings of things withoutu any commentary, I just skip their posts and don't read them as I find them incredibly boring. So, when I respond to "ranking"-type threads, I like to write things about the songs or items on the lists to make it more conversational and interesting. In short, I couldn't care less how much you like something or not, but I'm fascinated by your thoughts and impressions.)

Well we agree on this... I've always found ranking threads to be boring and usually don't even open them.

 

[shart1780]

I really like a lot of ATYCLB and NLOTH, but HTAAB sucks bad. The 90s were consistently awesome and interesting while the 00s were only occasionally awesome. Plus you can't forget Passengers.

 

[achtung_girl]

^ yes, I like that... the 00s were occasionally awesome.


the 90s!

 

[DondeEsta]

People seem to overlook 2000's U2 when really it is (for me) their only decade without a 'dud' album.

All That You Can't Leave Behind - easily their most tune-focused album. When it was released they said it had 11 potential singles on it, and they were right. The songs are full of great melodies and cleverly crafted instrumental arrangements. Their previous album was called 'Pop', This album is Pop, and that is far from a bad thing

How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb - okay, maybe not 'Album Of The Year' but still very good. If ATYCLB was a pop album, this is a rock album. Edge's guitar playing is in very good shape and here he lets rip some tasty riffs. Unfortunately there are (some) naff moments, most notably the bland 'Crumbs From Your Table' but overall it's another killer.

No Line On The Horizon - An excellent album which is possibly their most sonically diverse with U2 being as ambitious as they want. It has some of their most impressive musicicanship with some glorious guitar work from Edge, some great basslines from Adam and cool rhythms from Larry. Less tune-focused than their previous albums but the glorious melodies are still here, espicially on tracks like 'Breathe'.

 

[digitize]

Out of curiosity, what do you believe the dud albums of the 80s and 90s are? R&H and Pop, right?

 

[Harry Vest]

90's hands down!!!

 

[deep]

Lately they have been failing

I know because I read it on interference..

 

[phommel]

one of the easiest questions in the history of Interference Forum:

In spite of NLOTH, 90s !!!

 

[Galeongirl]

Woooo this thread is old.


Still. 90s. it had three awesome albums vs 1 in the 00's.

 

[Chill Mike D]

This doesn't even take a single synapse for me to process. 90s all the way. U2 was a band that was actually trying to make new music. In the 00s U2 is a band that's trying to make U2 music.