Do you think/What if the album sucks?

[U2Fan101]

it was one of best.
50 Best Albums of 2004 - Rate Your Music
Maybe 9... 10 good albums, 3 of those probably better than HTDAAB, but that's all.

A lot of these 'best of' charts are based off of popularity contests and sales. I agree with Shart that there was so much more better music released in 2004, a lot of it not even making the list. The reason why it doesn't is because no one has ever heard of it before.

I suppose Bomb could be in the top 50 of 2004, MAYBE, but definitely not 13th. Of course, since I feel it was an ok album, the opinion of it being a good or great album can be had by others. I just don't see it.

 

[U2girl]

If you read this quote and don't feel your intelligence was just insulted, prepare to be disappointed by this album.

If you can see through the bullshit hyperbole, I think you are probably in the right frame of mind.

EIther way, the songs will be the songs, the album will be the album.
You can't gauge what these clowns say because it's all about hype to them.

Who cares about expectations anyways, right?
After week or a month, it'll all be about what the album is, not what you thought it would be.

So if you think the album sucks because it let down your expectations, then it's your own fault.

It is hype but when was the last time U2's producers talked so much about their albums, and in such glowing terms no less ? While I doubt it's true, Lanois will definitely be held accountable re: this album's hype.

It's just odd seing the relative quite on LP12 from Bono or Edge, and the delays and more writing.

 

[bathiu]

A lot of these 'best of' charts are based off of popularity contests and sales.

Most of those albums (artists/bands) are not on MTV, many of them sold just "thousands" not "millions" of copies...

I agree with Shart that there was so much more better music released in 2004, a lot of it not even making the list. The reason why it doesn't is because no one has ever heard of it before.

I agree, there was much more released in 2004. Better? Personal opinion.
...AND in this day and age when you don't hear about some albums, there's a reason, so maybe those albums were not so good after all.

 

[The Sad Punk]

it was one of best.
50 Best Albums of 2004 - Rate Your Music
Maybe 9... 10 good albums, 3 of those probably better than HTDAAB, but that's all.

Have you heard all of the albums on that list?

 

[pepokiss]

who watches MTV?

 

[zuropa_fit]

I personally will sit and listen to it about 100 times before I make any solid critiques on it.

.

100? Really? You must have more time than I do.

 

[purpleoscar]

Albums grow on you over time. Achtung is my favorite but that was out in 1991! Give me a few years of listenings so I can get tired of it and get excited again. AB has lots of sonic layers you can peel off over time. If this is just as layered....

 

[adam3000]

give me a break ... even bad U2 is better than no U2. if you don't like the new stuff, who cares. go back and listen to the old stuff. why complain? if you don't like the new music, why don't you go write some of your own or find a new album you do like.

 

[Zooropa man]

I think that they have delayed the album and have gone back to re-work some stuff because of the leaked tracks (beach clips). Being the perfectionist that they are... it makes sense.

 

[The_Edge89]

I think that they have delayed the album and have gone back to re-work some stuff because of the leaked tracks (beach clips). Being the perfectionist that they are... it makes sense.

U2 unconcerned about YouTube furore
19 Aug 2008

Hot Press understands that there’s absolutely no concern in the U2 camp over four tracks from the band’s new album which leaked onto YouTube over the areweekend.

Besides this has happened in the past as well, I don't think they are that nit-picky as they should be aware of the fact that there might be tapers on the beach. If they want to rewrite those songs, there's gotta be another reason to do so in my opinion. Perhaps they thought it over and decided they could be improved a little bit more. But obviously we can't tell which songs they have rewritten in New York unless they tell us via some interview or something.

 

[MrPryck2U]

I have faith in U2 that their new album won't be bad. As a matter of fact, I think its gonna be great! Meanwhile, I've been listening to other artists while I wait for U2's new album.

 

[bathiu]

Have you heard all of the albums on that list?

Most of them, yeah. Some just by released singles wich I didn't like and just a few wich I actualy never heard of.
Why?
Do I really (on a U2 Forum) have to apologize for thinking that a U2 album was one of the best albums released that year? Really?

 

[Moser]

Most of them, yeah. Some just by released singles wich I didn't like and just a few wich I actualy never heard of.
Why?
Do I really (on a U2 Forum) have to apologize for thinking that a U2 album was one of the best albums released that year? Really?

Of course you have to! You have to criticize everything U2 does, and then you have to speculate how bad the album will be by rumored song titles! And when someone tells you aren't a U2 fan, you have to spatter out things like "Does being a U2 fan mean I have to like everything U2 puts out?" or "Don't tase me bro!". Read the FAQ!

 

[popacrobat]

Most of them, yeah. Some just by released singles wich I didn't like and just a few wich I actualy never heard of.
Why?
Do I really (on a U2 Forum) have to apologize for thinking that a U2 album was one of the best albums released that year? Really?

you are only allowed to express negative opinions on How to dismantle an atomic bomb. don't you know?

 

[cseggleton]

ok here is what scares me. when i have to tell someone how great something is then a couple of things come to mind. 1) It really is that great and I am sooooooooooo excited and want everyone to know about it or 2) It is really not that great but i have a vested interest in it succeding so I will promote the crap out of it and hope that people buy it. on the latter if I am promoting something it better be good or great if i am putting my name behind it. i lose all credibility if i promote something for the sake of money and it turns out to be a turd. U2 has to know that a certain percentage of us will buy the album regardless. so who are they trying to hype this album to? I guess i am really confused as to what they are tyring to accomplish with all the talk about greatness....sorry for this mindless ramble.............

 

[Michael Griffiths]

ok here is what scares me. when i have to tell someone how great something is then a couple of things come to mind. 1) It really is that great and I am sooooooooooo excited and want everyone to know about it or 2) It is really not that great but i have a vested interest in it succeding so I will promote the crap out of it and hope that people buy it. on the latter if I am promoting something it better be good or great if i am putting my name behind it. i lose all credibility if i promote something for the sake of money and it turns out to be a turd. U2 has to know that a certain percentage of us will buy the album regardless. so who are they trying to hype this album to? I guess i am really confused as to what they are tyring to accomplish with all the talk about greatness....sorry for this mindless ramble.............

Relatively speaking (compared to past albums), there hasn't actually been that much hype. Most of the hype has been coming from Daniel Lanois simply because people are asking him while he is on tour.

I personally feel U2 and Lanois are simply genuinely excited about the record (your possibility #1), and they want to keep working on it until they give it everything it deserves. I would guess this record has such amazing potential that it simply demands the extra time to turn it into the masterwork it so wants to be.

 

[bathiu]

^

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Relatively speaking (compared to past albums), there hasn't actually been that much hype. Most of the hype has been coming from Daniel Lanois simply because people are asking him while he is on tour.

I personally feel U2 and Lanois are simply genuinely excited about the record (your possibility #1), and they want to keep working on it until they give it everything it deserves. I would guess this record has such amazing potential that it simply demands the extra time to turn it into the masterwork it so wants to be.

I wonder were they this much excited about the past 2 albums?

 

[pepokiss]

Most of them, yeah. Some just by released singles wich I didn't like and just a few wich I actualy never heard of.
Why?
Do I really (on a U2 Forum) have to apologize for thinking that a U2 album was one of the best albums released that year? Really?

who told you this is a U2 forum?

 

[bazza]

it wont suck...

 

[sue4u2]

ok here is what scares me.
if I am promoting something it better be good or great if i am putting my name behind it. i lose all credibility if i promote something for the sake of money and it turns out to be a turd.

You've lost all credibility anyway - if what you like depends on someone else or money to confirm it. And why would you promote something that is not your money involved anyway, and loose your credibility?
Sorry makes no sense. Too me anyway..

 

[U2girl]

Not that much hype ? I don't think Lanois ever hyped U2 that much...

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Not that much hype ? I don't think Lanois ever hyped U2 that much...

No one ever really asked him in the past either. He happens to be on tour this time, so he's answering a lot of questions about the U2 album. He's obviously very excited about the material. Of course he's going to say great things when asked about it! I also think he has more of a vested interest this time around, as he and Brian Eno were brought in as songwriters, not just producers.

 

[PowerSurge]

100? Really? You must have more time than I do.

1. I'm being a bit sarcastic with the number, but it will be a lot

2. I didn't mean all in one sitting, I've got a career, a family, and most importantly a LIFE outside of listening to their music

3. I'm pretty sure that over the next couple of years most die hard U2 fans will have listened to this next album in its entirety or in bits in pieces about 50-100 or more times. Certainly not out of the realm of possibility

I know what you are trying to say in your post, but I thought I'd clarify mine

 

[PowerSurge]

Not that much hype ? I don't think Lanois ever hyped U2 that much...

FWIW, its been Bono who has over-hyped the prior albums like this. Lanois has for the most part been fairly reserved when compared to Bono with his feelings about the record.

It seems like he's REALLY going out of his way this time for some reason, and I hope its a good one.

 

[bathiu]

^ he's getting "written by" credit this time, so he has to say "something"

 

[U2girl]

Michael Griffiths: I don't remember any quotes on ATYCLB except when he compared it to Rubber Soul, and Lanois was heavily involved in that one too. Yes, of course he will hype it but this is insane. Can any album live up to what he said ? Really ?

Ps333: while Bono has been known to use "our best work" for about the last 3 albums or so, I don't remember him saying "fantastically innovative" or "we're reinventing rock and roll". In comparison, the president of hype is relatively quiet. That strikes me as odd, along with the mystery delays.

 

[PowerSurge]

Michael Griffiths: I don't remember any quotes on ATYCLB except when he compared it to Rubber Soul, and Lanois was heavily involved in that one too. Yes, of course he will hype it but this is insane. Can any album live up to what he said ? Really ?

Ps333: while Bono has been known to use "our best work" for about the last 3 albums or so, I don't remember him saying "fantastically innovative" or "we're reinventing rock and roll". In comparison, the president of hype is relatively quiet. That strikes me as odd, along with the mystery delays.

Well, not to get off on a tangent...but I think Rubber Soul, although a hugely important album in the history of the Beatles and the progession of the new sounds of music during its era, is waaaaaaaay overrated. I know I'm going to get bashed for that, but IMO it is. IT seems very en vogue to name it as one of the greatest albums of all time during music debates by music snobs who like to be different and vear away from very obvious choices like "The White Album" or "Sgt.Peppers"...but I digress.

We can go back and forth on the whole Lanois thing. Bathiu makes a good point about Lanois getting written credit for the album, which could be the impetus for his uncharacteristically open and "honest" public comments about the album. In the end, I find it hard to validate the comments of anybody that is that entangled in the creation of an album. When you are that immersed in any project; be it music, painting, whatever...you tend to be riddled with bias. Its generally not till you step away from the final project and give it time to marinate that you get your most honest and genuine feelings for how it came out.

I'm hungry to hear what people OUTSIDE of the studio say about the work. Especially those who have been pretty consistent critics of their albums. IOW, not the people who have gushed over everything that the band has done, but those critics who have been pretty successful in "calling it like it is".

I'm sure Rolling Stone will automatically give it 5 stars like they do with everything U2...so their credibility is pretty much out the window.