Get Out of Your Own Way

[Nick66]

Well BVS, the only "argument" I backed up was the one I quoted. I can't say I feel personally responsible for, or the need to defend, every comment in this thread.

 

[BVS]

The criticism in the early 90s pertained to change not quality. Zoo era had high quality songs that didn't sit well with long time fans because they didn't endorse the traditional, beloved U2 sound. However, they were great songs that appealed to new and even broader fanbase. The criticism today pertains to quality not change, in fact we've had the same music since 2000. More particularly, the criticism today pertains to uninspired song writing.

Not exactly. I knew a lot of fans that were put off by the change of AB, finally came around to it, but threw their hands up and said they were done once Zooropa came out. And for them it was quality; Numb was embarrassing, production on this song sucked, lyrics were terrible in this song, a has been is singing the closer, and where’s the guitar? It wasn’t only about change with them.

 

[kiwilad]

My only issue is the stupid and embarrassing things they keep putting in their songs, an issue that was only prominent since Vertigo IMO (and Miami as an isolated case, but all of Miami sucks for me anyway).

All this talk of Some Days lyrics is not the same as what I mean. The whole song is like that.

I feel frustrated because I know U2 are still capable. I think they've still got it. Which is different from the arguments of those who say they haven't got it anymore. But U2's decisions are what frustrate me. They end up ruining their own songs. GOOYOW with the preach at the end, The Blackout with the rhyming names. Things like these really don't need to be there.

I know I could edit GOOYOW myself to snip off the last 30 seconds or so, but the fact that I'd have to do that just because U2 decided to put something truly stupid in their song... People may like it, but I don't, and people should be allowed to voice their opinions on here without getting snapped at constantly.

This band still have it, GOOYOW is a good song but it's ruined by the preach, Blackout is a good song but the rhyming names pisses me off. Things like that!

Furthermore, they make great songs that don't even make albums, which further frustrates me! I know it's all opinion, but adding The Crystal Ballroom and Lucifer's Hands to SOI wouldn't have harmed anything, and for me would have brought the album up loads.

Yes I may 'obsess', but that's ok, or should be. I'm quite analytical with certain things, actually have OCD and aspergers diagnoses too, as fans we should be allowed to question U2's decisions.

And for the record, I am not one of these "old U2 is amazing and new U2 sucks" people - in my case, all throughout their career, I have liked U2 songs here and there - chunks from each album, but things on each album I don't like. October never did it for me, War is half and half, TUF is half and half for me. I don't really like Zooropa, and Pop has some good stuff but also some real flaws. I love ATYCLB except the last 2 tracks, and for the most part I like Bomb. I love AB, not crazy about Zoo Station or The Fly though (they're ok). TJT is probably the only album where I like every track on it. NLOTH is full of weird and questionable cringeworthy stuff for me, although oddly I like Crazy Tonight. SOI didn't have much embarrassment on, but was mostly meh for me.

So my point is, we all come from different walks of life and different tastes that nobody else can predict.

My favourite U2 song has always been Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, a song that is largely ignored by the band. Frustrating.

Great post

 

[kiwilad]

no disrespect to the two belligerents in said scuffle, but i think it's worth pointing out that you're perhaps poorly placed to adjudicate whether an argument has been won since you've only been seen on the losing side since you decided to grace us with your presence.

Though Haywayaway does have a point...

 

[kiwilad]

Not exactly. I knew a lot of fans that were put off by the change of AB, finally came around to it, but threw their hands up and said they were done once Zooropa came out. And for them it was quality; Numb was embarrassing, production on this song sucked, lyrics were terrible in this song, a has been is singing the closer, and where’s the guitar? It wasn’t only about change with them.

This isn't a subjective point. BVS is objectively correct. I experienced the same. And it wasn't just U2 fans. It was music critics, music fans in general, radio DJs etc etc.

I remember, the week before Zoo TV played NZ (first week of Dec 1993) a newspaper preview used the Australian setlists as an example of what we could expect. He said there were far more Achtung Baby songs in the set than Zooropa songs, which he said was the band admitting AB was quality and Zooropa, as everyone knew, was shit.

That was the general discourse.

 

[Nick66]

I feel frustrated because I know U2 are still capable. I think they've still got it. Which is different from the arguments of those who say they haven't got it anymore. But U2's decisions are what frustrate me.

Hmmmm. I'd almost rather believe they no longer "have it." That, at least, would make it all more understandable.

Rockers typically don't get better with age past a certain point. There are some exceptions, mostly solo artists who have adapted, but by and large rock & roll is a young person's game. So it's understandable that U2 wouldn't be as good as they once were. The muse abandons you; it happens.

But your decision making and judgment is actually supposed to get better with age...yet you're arguing that they're making bad decisions. So what are we to conclude from that? Remember, as people get older they tend to get more conservative, and more risk averse. And that can result in better judgement, but risk adversity can be a recipe for failure for an artist.

I'm not sure what we expect U2 to do.

 

[Registered Dude]

Hmmmm. I'd almost rather believe they no longer "have it." That, at least, would make it all more understandable.

Rockers typically don't get better with age past a certain point. There are some exceptions, mostly solo artists who have adapted, but by and large rock & roll is a young person's game. So it's understandable that U2 wouldn't be as good as the once were. The muse abandons you; it happens.

But your decision making and judgment is actually supposed to get better with age...and you're arguing that they're making bad decisions. So what are we to conclude from that? Remember, as people get older they tend to get more conservative, and more risk averse. And that can result in better judgement, but risk adversity can be a recipe for failure for an artist.

I'm not sure what we expect U2 to do.

This might be the best post you've written here

 

[RoKKeR]

What can I say, this damn song has been stuck in my head all day. Even more of an ear worm than Best Thing I think.

 

[Nick66]

This isn't a subjective point. BVS is objectively correct. I experienced the same.

Sorry mate, but if you're talking about personal anecdotes, and that is by definition subjective, since other people's experiences may have been different from your own.

Anyway, I think the initial point was about Achtung Baby. In my experience, and lot of the fans who left after that record didn't like the change...they didn't like what U2 had become. Though again, I think this is all overblown a bit, because I think a lot of those fans eventually came around. At least that's what I saw at the time.

I think where BVS is right is that for many, the rejection of what the band was doing qualitatively occurred later...though IMO it was more Pop than Zooropa that caused this. I think people who didn't like Zooropa, but liked AB, just sort of ignored the under-promoted Zooropa b/c it felt like a coda, assuming that U2 would get back to "normal" soon. But then Pop doubled down, and then some, and that's when U2 lost a lot of people. And "normal" didn't come back for 3 more years.

And that's not subjective...the ticket and album sales (at least in the US) bear that out.

 

[corianderstem]

I'd love to see what they would come up with if they sat down and decided "Fuck hits and relevance, let's just go with our instinct and stop second guessing everything" ... but then of course held to that.

I think then we'd know if they have anything great left in them, or if they no longer "have it."

Part of me really wants them to do that, and if it fails, then go "Welp, okay. Time to call it a day." And I'd be okay with that, because they gave the "fuck it" route an honest try.

 

[kiwilad]

Sorry mate, but if you're talking about personal anecdotes, and that is by definition subjective, since other people's experiences may have been different from your own.

Quoting music critics/newspapers/DJs etc isn't my subjective opinion.

There does seem to be a misunderstanding of U2's early nineties appeal in this forum. With the benefit of hindsight we look back on Achtung, call it a classic (it is) and assume it was always seen that way. It wasn't.

U2 were huge in the 80s. Rattle and Hum got some stick but some of the new songs on it were even bigger than some of the Joshua Tree hits.
Achtung was a departure a huge amount of casual fans didn't like. Achtung Baby didn't make U2 cool with the kids. Mysterious Ways was about as uncool as it got in 1992. One was considered dad-rock by my teenage friends.

Zooropa, for many people, doubled down on the disappointment of Achtung. Now yes, history shows Achtung is incredible and people came around. But Zooropa, in terms of popularity, was a complete disaster.

The rest of your post I agree with.

 

[popacrobat]

why do we care so much how u2 go about writing new music, seriously?

i know the simple answer: because there's a general belief that if they said "fuck the hits," we'd get joshua tree part 2 or achtung baby part 2, or the next masterpiece in the vein of Stateless and Ground Beneath Her Feet.

i get that. i really do. but... who cares?

u2 are well past their expiration date. they've been living on borrowed time for awhile. if they want to chase relevance and make pure pop songs, whatever. so be it. if they want to be the Biggest First Bestest Ever Yet 50+ Year Old Rockers to have a hit on the top 100, sure. let them try. they probably won't, but if that's the route they want to go, who am i to say don't do that? they've earned the right to do whatever the hell they want.

i think headache said it in another thread: if you generally dislike post 2000s U2, you're probably not going to like these songs. which makes... perfect sense. there's probably going to be a couple of songs on the album that even the most ardent 2000+ haters like, which will just increase the frustration level i'm sure.

but as many have said: take what you can get out of the band at this point. if you love the music, great. I tend to fall on that side of things. (much like with star wars, if it's even a decent star wars movie, i'll probably like it more than others; same with new u2).

if you don't like the music, that's unfortunate, but i do understand why you'd be frustrated. hopefully you'll find something to really love on the album to make this whole 3-year cycle worth it.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

why do we care so much how u2 go about writing new music, seriously?

i know the simple answer: because there's a general belief that if they said "fuck the hits," we'd get joshua tree part 2 or achtung baby part 2, or the next masterpiece in the vein of Stateless and Ground Beneath Her Feet.

i get that. i really do. but... who cares?

u2 are well past their expiration date. they've been living on borrowed time for awhile. if they want to chase relevance and make pure pop songs, whatever. so be it. if they want to be the Biggest First Bestest Ever Yet 50+ Year Old Rockers to have a hit on the top 100, sure. let them try. they probably won't, but if that's the route they want to go, who am i to say don't do that? they've earned the right to do whatever the hell they want.

i think headache said it in another thread: if you generally dislike post 2000s U2, you're probably not going to like these songs. which makes... perfect sense. there's probably going to be a couple of songs on the album that even the most ardent 2000+ haters like, which will just increase the frustration level i'm sure.

but as many have said: take what you can get out of the band at this point. if you love the music, great. I tend to fall on that side of things. (much like with star wars, if it's even a decent star wars movie, i'll probably like it more than others; same with new u2).

if you don't like the music, that's unfortunate, but i do understand why you'd be frustrated. hopefully you'll find something to really love on the album to make this whole 3-year cycle worth it.

Click clack

 

[RoKKeR]

why do we care so much how u2 go about writing new music, seriously?

i know the simple answer: because there's a general belief that if they said "fuck the hits," we'd get joshua tree part 2 or achtung baby part 2, or the next masterpiece in the vein of Stateless and Ground Beneath Her Feet.

i get that. i really do. but... who cares?

u2 are well past their expiration date. they've been living on borrowed time for awhile. if they want to chase relevance and make pure pop songs, whatever. so be it. if they want to be the Biggest First Bestest Ever Yet 50+ Year Old Rockers to have a hit on the top 100, sure. let them try. they probably won't, but if that's the route they want to go, who am i to say don't do that? they've earned the right to do whatever the hell they want.

i think headache said it in another thread: if you generally dislike post 2000s U2, you're probably not going to like these songs. which makes... perfect sense. there's probably going to be a couple of songs on the album that even the most ardent 2000+ haters like, which will just increase the frustration level i'm sure.

but as many have said: take what you can get out of the band at this point. if you love the music, great. I tend to fall on that side of things. (much like with star wars, if it's even a decent star wars movie, i'll probably like it more than others; same with new u2).

if you don't like the music, that's unfortunate, but i do understand why you'd be frustrated. hopefully you'll find something to really love on the album to make this whole 3-year cycle worth it.

Another fantastic post, well said.

 

[Nick66]

There does seem to be a misunderstanding of U2's early nineties appeal in this forum. With the benefit of hindsight we look back on Achtung, call it a classic (it is) and assume it was always seen that way. It wasn't.

Rattle and Hum got some stick but some of the new songs on it were even bigger than some of the Joshua Tree hits.
Achtung was a departure a huge amount of casual fans didn't like. Achtung Baby didn't make U2 cool with the kids. Mysterious Ways was about as uncool as it got in 1992. One was considered dad-rock by my teenage friends.

Mate, this just isn't true. U2 lost a few disgruntled fans (the 'pop kids') and gained a lot of new fans. And a lot of the old ones came back.

Achtung Baby enjoyed near universal praise from the critics at the time, sold 18 million copies (four million more than R&H), and had an incredibly successful, sold out world tour. The record was huge and wildly successful by any measure. Yes, it sold less than JT (any record was going to sell less than that one), but was there a more successful rock record, or tour, that year?

The misunderstanding is among people who think that U2 lost any significant amount of fans during this period. What you experienced with your teenage friends is purely anecdotal and subjective. I know, because some of my friends abandoned U2 at the time as well. There weren't enough of those fans to matter, and most of them came back anyway.

I'm not saying there weren't a lot of disgruntled fans that couldn't adapt to change...like you I remember quite a bit of whinging about it at the time. I just think that whole thing has been overblown to more of a thing than it actually was. It's like the myth of the "failure" and rejection of Rattle & Hum...a few anecdotes, and maybe some stories in the media that turned into conventional wisdom that happens to be wrong.

 

[Jarvio]

Just throwing it out there, and it might mean bugger all, but here in the UK, the singles from AB didn't chart very high (except The Fly)

 

[super fly guy]

Just throwing it out there, and it might mean bugger all, but here in the UK, the singles from AB didn't chart very high (except The Fly)

Probably means feck all,as all they care about is America,refu-jesus Zach and the lads.

 

[LemonMelon]

At this current point in time, the narrative of "U2 stopped trying after Pop (or ATYCLB, or HTDAAB)" is much stronger and more prevalent than "the band got weird in the 90s but I like them again now," which was common from 2000-2005. Critical revaluation has been kinder to Pop (and especially Zooropa) than the initial wave of listeners were to NLOTH and SOI.

In that sense, I agree with Hollow Island that 90s U2 has earned a degree of respect that 21st century U2 largely has not. This is something only properly judged over the course of time, however, so we'll see how the new stuff holds up.

 

[BVS]

Mate, this just isn't true. U2 lost a few disgruntled fans (the 'pop kids') and gained a lot of new fans. And a lot of the old ones came back.

Achtung Baby enjoyed near universal praise from the critics at the time, sold 18 million copies (four million more than R&H), and had an incredibly successful, sold out world tour. The record was huge and wildly successful by any measure. Yes, it sold less than JT (any record was going to sell less than that one), but was there a more successful rock record, or tour, that year?

The misunderstanding is among people who think that U2 lost any significant amount of fans during this period. What you experienced with your teenage friends is purely anecdotal and subjective. I know, because some of my friends abandoned U2 at the time as well. There weren't enough of those fans to matter, and most of them came back anyway.

I'm not saying there weren't a lot of disgruntled fans that couldn't adapt to change...like you I remember quite a bit of whinging about it at the time. I just think that whole thing has been overblown to more of a thing than it actually was. It's like the myth of the "failure" and rejection of Rattle & Hum...a few anecdotes, and maybe some stories in the media that turned into conventional wisdom that happens to be wrong.

It wasn’t just the “pop kids”, I can’t believe people still fall for that narrative. They lost a lot of the rock “purists” too.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is if there was one it would be Nevermind.

But really this has fuck none to do with Hollow’s original argument that started this all.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

At this current point in time, the narrative of "U2 stopped trying after Pop (or ATYCLB, or HTDAAB)" is much stronger and more prevalent than "the band got weird in the 90s but I like them again now," which was common from 2000-2005. Critical revaluation has been kinder to Pop (and especially Zooropa) than the initial wave of listeners were to NLOTH and SOI.

In that sense, I agree with Hollow Island that 90s U2 has earned a degree of respect that 21st century U2 largely has not. This is something only properly judged over the course of time, however, so we'll see how the new stuff holds up.

See... I get people unhappy with the direction, but I take issue with the idea of them "not trying" or "mailing it in."

I mean... If they didn't care they wouldn't take so fucking long to put the albums out. They'd just toss it out, say fuck it, and do nothing but JT40 style tours.

That they don't shows that they still care. Whether anyone agrees with their direction or not is a different story.

 

[Nick66]

Just throwing it out there, and it might mean bugger all, but here in the UK, the singles from AB didn't chart very high (except The Fly)

According to Wiki, in the UK...

WOWY...4
ISHFWILF...7
Streets....4
In God's Country....48

The Fly.....1
Mysterious Ways...13
One....7
EBTTRT....8
WGRYWH....14

I'd say they're more or less comparable in terms of charting, especially given that The Fly went to #1.

I didn't realise (or had forgotten) looking at this chart that they never released Zoo Station as a single. I think that's their best song of the 90's.

 

[Nick66]

It wasn’t just the “pop kids”, I can’t believe people still fall for that narrative. They lost a lot of the rock “purists” too.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is if there was one it would be Nevermind.

I'm somewhat sardonically quoting Bono with the "pop kids" thing. Don't take it so seriously BVS.

Though you're probably right about Nevermind.

 

[Hollow Island]

Yeah, time plays a role. I think Pop and Zooropa will continue to rise, ATYCLB & HTDAAB fall. NLOTH will be acknowledged as have some brave and excellent late career moments of adventure, and SOI a solid, unadventurous album that was unfairly maligned. All of which is coincidentally my opinion

 

[TinKnight]

I'm glad we're all starting to appreciate NLOTH more.

 

[Nick66]

Yeah, time plays a role. I think Pop and Zooropa will continue to rise, ATYCLB & HTDAAB fall. NLOTH will be acknowledged as have some brave and excellent late career moments of adventure, and SOI a solid, unadventurous album that was unfairly maligned. All of which is coincidentally my opinion

I agree with all of that, except ATYCLB. It's by far one of U2's most important albums, and Axver made the point the other day how resilient many of those songs have been in staying in the setlist. I think that record's legacy is pretty safe.

I'm glad we're all starting to appreciate NLOTH more.

There are a few of us who always defend it...I love that record, flaws and all. I think MOS is U2's best song since streets.

I do wish they'd stuck to their guns and showed a little more courage in seeing the original vision through. But it was at least an attempt by U2 to do the kind of adventurous record everyone here says they want U2 to do (but really don't).

 

[Jarvio]

According to Wiki, in the UK...

WOWY...4
ISHFWILF...7
Streets....4
In God's Country....48

The Fly.....1
Mysterious Ways...13
One....7
EBTTRT....8
WGRYWH....14

I'd say they're more or less comparable in terms of charting, especially given that The Fly went to #1.

I didn't realise (or had forgotten) looking at this chart that they never released Zoo Station as a single. I think that's their best song of the 90's.

That In God's Country position is an import, so can't compare that one. ISHFWILF is 6, not 7. And EBTTRT is actually 12. That #8 position was for its Perfecto Remix.

From looking at all their UK singles positions, it was very rare for U2 to miss the top 10 from TUF to HTDAAB. So I'd say the AB ones are slightly worse than usual during that run. Not terribly worse or anything, but definitely slightly lower.

But obviously, NLOTH was the start of their real decline in UK single chart positions, with the three singles getting to 12, 42, and 32 respectively.

Either way though, probably doesn't mean much seeing as the AB singles did really well in the US.

 

[redhill]

I'd love to see what they would come up with if they sat down and decided "Fuck hits and relevance, let's just go with our instinct and stop second guessing everything" ... but then of course held to that.

I think then we'd know if they have anything great left in them, or if they no longer "have it."

Part of me really wants them to do that, and if it fails, then go "Welp, okay. Time to call it a day." And I'd be okay with that, because they gave the "fuck it" route an honest try.

 

[DeVaul]

There are a few of us who always defend it...I love that record, flaws and all. I think MOS is U2's best song since streets.

I do wish they'd stuck to their guns and showed a little more courage in seeing the original vision through. But it was at least an attempt by U2 to do the kind of adventurous record everyone here says they want U2 to do (but really don't).

It showed they still have the ability but not the stomachs* for it. And yes, that's really the kind of record I want from U2.

*Insert fat Bono joke of your choice

 

[TheFox]

I'm glad we're all starting to appreciate NLOTH more.

Compared to the songs we have so far from SOE, it's like the Joshua Tree!

 

[LemonMelon]

See... I get people unhappy with the direction, but I take issue with the idea of them "not trying" or "mailing it in."

I mean... If they didn't care they wouldn't take so fucking long to put the albums out. They'd just toss it out, say fuck it, and do nothing but JT40 style tours.

That they don't shows that they still care. Whether anyone agrees with their direction or not is a different story.

U2 tries way too hard, if anything, I agree. But most people don't have the same insight into their creative process that we have, so this is what I read. Albums like SOI are seen as easy, which I agree they probably should be, but it feels like every album cycle drains the life out of them until they can go back out on tour.