This should have been the album after Pop

[digitize]

The eleven worst songs of 2004.

As long as NLOTH doesn't get this treatment, I think we can conclude that it is a good album.

 

[Zoots]

That page is still hilarious!

 

[U2DMfan]

-- There are a lot of us (including me) who think that ALYCLB and HTDAAB are both better than either of Pop or NLOTH. .

 

[U2DMfan]

I was digging for another thread but found this one, zoots.

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...owed-pop-in-my-alternate-universe-143672.html

I wonder how we think our 'mythical' line-ups fare against NLOTH.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

Wasn't there a critic who wrote a review of NLOTH and said something along the lines of "this is the album they tried to accomplish with POP" ?

 

[65980]

i don't know if you were around these forums or really paying attention when HTDAAB came out, but it got slammed not only here, but in the public eye. yes, it may have won a Grammy (which was still a make up for them not winning for AB and ATYCLB), and had a hit, but it doesn't change the fact that HTDAAB is widely considered U2's weakest album since Rattle & Hum.

Well, it's a bit pointless of you to say it's "widely considered" something without any evidence. I mean, I could say you're widely considered a Jewish Rabbi, and how can you argue?

On Metacritic, HTDAAB received 79 out of 100.
NLOTH received 72 out of 100.

I was not only paying attention when HTDAAB came out, I was paying attention when The Joshua Tree came out, and the critical affection for NLOTH is nothing special by U2's standards. If anything, the critical reception has been more mixed than the previous album, and the sales are likely to be lower. Certainly none of the singles have been big hits.

How you can conclude that HTAAB got "slammed" in the public eye is beyond me, but if it makes you happy to believe a falsehood, then don't let me stop you.

 

[mikal]

Well, it's a bit pointless of you to say it's "widely considered" something without any evidence. I mean, I could say you're widely considered a Jewish Rabbi, and how can you argue?

On Metacritic, HTDAAB received 79 out of 100.
NLOTH received 72 out of 100.

I was not only paying attention when HTDAAB came out, I was paying attention when The Joshua Tree came out, and the critical affection for NLOTH is nothing special by U2's standards. If anything, the critical reception has been more mixed than the previous album, and the sales are likely to be lower. Certainly none of the singles have been big hits.

How you can conclude that HTAAB got "slammed" in the public eye is beyond me, but if it makes you happy to believe a falsehood, then don't let me stop you.

i don't know what Metacritic is, and don't really care. i'd debate this topic further, but to be honest, i don't care enough about it, lol. i like NLOTH more than HTDAAB. my opinion is considered fact here at Interference.

 

[Zoots]

I was digging for another thread but found this one, zoots.

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...owed-pop-in-my-alternate-universe-143672.html

I wonder how we think our 'mythical' line-ups fare against NLOTH.

Oh wow! Thanks for digging it up. That was a fun read.

 

[bram]

While immediate reviews from "legitimate" critical sources have become an increasingly widespread and powerful phenomenon, at the end of the day/10 years these opinions are mostly worthless. There are plenty of classic albums that received so-so reviews or worse, including some of U2's, which are now regarded in a much better light. I'm too lazy to look up examples right now, but I don't think anyone would argue that this is a rare occurrence. The immediacy of ATYCLB and HTDAAB (and perhaps just as importantly--the immediacy and uber-popularity of their kick-off singles) unsurprisingly led to strong reviews, which are mostly released the same day as the albums. To me, it seems almost obvious that NLOTH would be less well-received by critics, fans, and the public upon its release given the less instantly-pleasing nature of most of the tunes (and the utter failure of GOYB as a first single). It also appears that many of the people most critical of NLOTH summarize the album in terms of only one or two of the songs, and that any argument they make falls flat once you consider the other 80% of the album. Granted, this is true for many of the harsh criticisms of other U2 albums (i.e. Pop, ATYCLB).

And while the critical response and sales numbers indicate that ATYCLB and HTDAAB are "better" than NLOTH, everything I've seen in this forum (which is probably as good a barometer for "hardcore U2 fans" as any) over the past 5 years indicates that Pop and NLOTH are held in much higher esteem than ATYCLB and HTDAAB at this point in time. I add that last bit only to make the point that it takes a long time for U2 albums to "settle" into their oeuvre, and while ATYCLB seems to be getting there, we still have a long way to go before determining where HTDAAB and especially NLOTH will end up in the big U2 picture. Subsequent albums also have an effect. For example, Pop has been somewhat rehabilitated due to the starkness of contrast between it and the two albums that followed. There's also a chance that the straightforwardness of HTDAAB will be better-appreciated if U2 actually delivers on its promises of what SOA will sound like.

That said, Bomb seems to be faring worse in 2009 than ATYCLB was in 2005 among fans and critics. One thing that struck me while reading NLOTH reviews in March is how many critics took the opportunity to take jabs at HTDAAB, as if that album was a weak point and an artistic step back. Based on this and the fan community's response, I have a feeling that history won't be particularly kind to this Grammy-winning album.

 

[U2DMfan]

Due to the fact that U2 have been around as long as they have and have been through so many lovefests, abuses, culture swings and incarnations, the fans who remain as 'hardcores' are primarily here for one thing in 2009. The music.

So in this sense, while we are predisposed to U2's sound, it could be argued that we are more objective about that sound than anyone 'in the mainstream'. Because all we are looking for in the music, is the quality of music. Not attachments to images and social significance that purport to say something about ourselves. No statements about current trends in either popular music culture or popular hipster scenes.

We're certainly not still here because liking U2 makes us cool.
We're not adhering to a 'standard' among U2 fans, there is no standard, not only is this hardcore fanbase diverse in demographics, it's certainly diverse in opinion and thought, across generations.

So in that light U2's hardcore fans>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any mainstream critic.
Therefore, NLOTH + POP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ATYCLB + HTDAAB

It's like, science.

 

[No spoken words]

due to the fact that u2 have been around as long as they have and have been through so many lovefests, abuses, culture swings and incarnations, the fans who remain as 'hardcores' are primarily here for one thing in 2009. the music.

So in this sense, while we are predisposed to u2's sound, it could be argued that we are more objective about that sound than anyone 'in the mainstream'. Because all we are looking for in the music, is the quality of music. Not attachments to images and social significance that purport to say something about ourselves. No statements about current trends in either popular music culture or popular hipster scenes.

We're certainly not still here because liking u2 makes us cool.
We're not adhering to a 'standard' among u2 fans, there is no standard, not only is this hardcore fanbase diverse in demographics, it's certainly diverse in opinion and thought, across generations.

So in that light u2's hardcore fans>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any mainstream critic.
Therefore, nloth + pop>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>atyclb + htdaab

it's like, science.

This.

 

[Zoots]

Due to the fact that U2 have been around as long as they have and have been through so many lovefests, abuses, culture swings and incarnations, the fans who remain as 'hardcores' are primarily here for one thing in 2009. The music.

So in this sense, while we are predisposed to U2's sound, it could be argued that we are more objective about that sound than anyone 'in the mainstream'. Because all we are looking for in the music, is the quality of music. Not attachments to images and social significance that purport to say something about ourselves. No statements about current trends in either popular music culture or popular hipster scenes.

We're certainly not still here because liking U2 makes us cool.
We're not adhering to a 'standard' among U2 fans, there is no standard, not only is this hardcore fanbase diverse in demographics, it's certainly diverse in opinion and thought, across generations.

So in that light U2's hardcore fans>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any mainstream critic.
Therefore, NLOTH + POP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ATYCLB + HTDAAB

It's like, science.

Wow. I think my mind has been blown.

 

[Salome]

we're more rabid about U2
not more informed
we just find our personal opinions about the band more important than other people do

 

[digitize]

While immediate reviews from "legitimate" critical sources have become an increasingly widespread and powerful phenomenon, at the end of the day/10 years these opinions are mostly worthless. There are plenty of classic albums that received so-so reviews or worse, including some of U2's, which are now regarded in a much better light. I'm too lazy to look up examples right now, but I don't think anyone would argue that this is a rare occurrence. The immediacy of ATYCLB and HTDAAB (and perhaps just as importantly--the immediacy and uber-popularity of their kick-off singles) unsurprisingly led to strong reviews, which are mostly released the same day as the albums. To me, it seems almost obvious that NLOTH would be less well-received by critics, fans, and the public upon its release given the less instantly-pleasing nature of most of the tunes (and the utter failure of GOYB as a first single). It also appears that many of the people most critical of NLOTH summarize the album in terms of only one or two of the songs, and that any argument they make falls flat once you consider the other 80% of the album. Granted, this is true for many of the harsh criticisms of other U2 albums (i.e. Pop, ATYCLB).

And while the critical response and sales numbers indicate that ATYCLB and HTDAAB are "better" than NLOTH, everything I've seen in this forum (which is probably as good a barometer for "hardcore U2 fans" as any) over the past 5 years indicates that Pop and NLOTH are held in much higher esteem than ATYCLB and HTDAAB at this point in time. I add that last bit only to make the point that it takes a long time for U2 albums to "settle" into their oeuvre, and while ATYCLB seems to be getting there, we still have a long way to go before determining where HTDAAB and especially NLOTH will end up in the big U2 picture. Subsequent albums also have an effect. For example, Pop has been somewhat rehabilitated due to the starkness of contrast between it and the two albums that followed. There's also a chance that the straightforwardness of HTDAAB will be better-appreciated if U2 actually delivers on its promises of what SOA will sound like.

That said, Bomb seems to be faring worse in 2009 than ATYCLB was in 2005 among fans and critics. One thing that struck me while reading NLOTH reviews in March is how many critics took the opportunity to take jabs at HTDAAB, as if that album was a weak point and an artistic step back. Based on this and the fan community's response, I have a feeling that history won't be particularly kind to this Grammy-winning album.

ATYCLB has vindicated itself more and more on Interference as of late... Bomb has gone in the opposite direction.

we're more rabid about U2
not more informed
we just find our personal opinions about the band more important than other people do

I'm not sure... I guarantee that the average Interferer is more 'informed' about NLOTH, and of its intricacies, than is the average critic who reviewed it.

 

[No spoken words]

we're more rabid about U2
not more informed
we just find our personal opinions about the band more important than other people do

I actually would argue that a lot of the diehards here are more informed about the band than the average critic. I'd bet on it, actually.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Also, remember that of late, the majority of these early reviews, particularly with U2 and their mix of leak-paranoia and “this is a big deal” theatrics, are written after only one listen in a label boardroom full of people over champagne and a cheese platter. You scrawl a few notes, get back to the office or your home and then flesh it out mostly from memory. I’m sure a chosen few trusted long time friends – who are therefore also the most likely to give a glowing review regardless – still get the opportunity to spend a week with it before writing it up, but for 98% of the reviews, it’s a one listen job in rushed, unnatural circumstances. It’s no surprise that immediate, hookfest albums fare better under those circumstances.

 

[xaviMF22]

U2 sucks

 

[LemonMelon]

ATYCLB has vindicated itself more and more on Interference as of late... Bomb has gone in the opposite direction.

Give it another 4 years.

 

[Zoots]

Give it another 4 years.

I really don't think so. ATYCLB grew on me around 2005 or 2006 when I could see all the flaws on Bomb clearly. That's 5 or 6 yrs after release. Whereas Bomb has still not even begin to grow on me. In fact, I go back and listen to ATYCLB much more than I do with Bomb. Maybe it's an Eno/Lanois thing. ATYCLB at least had some atmosphere and subtlety. Bomb only had loud chimes and extremely over-the-top theatrics.

 

[mikal]

I really don't think so. ATYCLB grew on me around 2005 or 2006 when I could see all the flaws on Bomb clearly. That's 5 or 6 yrs after release. Whereas Bomb has still not even begin to grow on me. In fact, I go back and listen to ATYCLB much more than I do with Bomb. Maybe it's an Eno/Lanois thing. ATYCLB at least had some atmosphere and subtlety. Bomb only had loud chimes and extremely over-the-top theatrics.

agreed. plus, ATYCLB had a gem in WILATW.

 

[Saracene]

And while the critical response and sales numbers indicate that ATYCLB and HTDAAB are "better" than NLOTH, everything I've seen in this forum (which is probably as good a barometer for "hardcore U2 fans" as any) over the past 5 years indicates that Pop and NLOTH are held in much higher esteem than ATYCLB and HTDAAB at this point in time.

On this forum, yes, but whether it reflects the attitudes in the larger world is arguable. I think, in general, that internet often makes the world seem smaller than it is, and makes some things seem larger than they really are. It's especially noticeable with the whole blog music culture - you'd think from reading them that some bands/albums are just about the biggest thing in the world, when outside of it 99 out of 100 people you stop and ask on the street would have absolutely no clue of their existence.

I also doubt that our views are more objective than those of non-hardcore fans. Emotional attachment to the band, their music and particular albums/eras makes for a rather tinted view.

 

[Niceman]

I really don't get why this board seems to love ATYCLB so much! half of the album should have been B-sides! (IMHO)

New York should not have been allowed to be on a U2 album. Worst lyrics EVER in Bono's history.
WILATW - B-side
POE - B-side
Elevation - The album version is tinny hollow crap.
Walk On - I don't like this song.
Kite - A good song, with a crap final verse.
Wild Honey - The song is dear to me, but a B-side.
Ground Beneath Her Feet - NOT ON THIS ALBUM. A track from MDH stuck on at the end of some country's copies.
Grace - B-side

Beautiful Day, Stuck, In a Little While - Really good songs!

That proportion kinda sucks.....

HTDAAB - I call it the Best of 2001-2004. It isn't an album, more of a collection of recent work. I like all 12 songs, just wish they'd released the 3 or 4 albums they wrote instead of the best-of.

Oh, and the production for both of them was seriously lacking.

NLOTH on the other hand.... production could still be better, but I think it's probably their 3rd best album...

 

[mikal]

I really don't get why this board seems to love ATYCLB so much! half of the album should have been B-sides! (IMHO)

New York should not have been allowed to be on a U2 album. Worst lyrics EVER in Bono's history.
WILATW - B-side
POE - B-side
Elevation - The album version is tinny hollow crap.
Walk On - I don't like this song.
Kite - A good song, with a crap final verse.
Wild Honey - The song is dear to me, but a B-side.
Ground Beneath Her Feet - NOT ON THIS ALBUM. A track from MDH stuck on at the end of some country's copies.
Grace - B-side

Beautiful Day, Stuck, In a Little While - Really good songs!

That proportion kinda sucks.....

HTDAAB - I call it the Best of 2001-2004. It isn't an album, more of a collection of recent work. I like all 12 songs, just wish they'd released the 3 or 4 albums they wrote instead of the best-of.

Oh, and the production for both of them was seriously lacking.

NLOTH on the other hand.... production could still be better, but I think it's probably their 3rd best album...

my take is a little different. i think songs 1-6 are strong. i know people like to hate on Elevation, but i think it's a good album track, and a much needed upbeat song for the first half.

i do see where you're coming from about the 2nd half of the album, though i'm not sure how you could dislike WILATW. that guitar solo is one of U2's finest moments this decade. otherwise, the rest of the 2nd half is pretty weak and probably could have been improved by a finished version of Levitate, Summer Rain, Stateless, and TGBHF.

 

[Niceman]

my take is a little different. i think songs 1-6 are strong. i know people like to hate on Elevation, but i think it's a good album track, and a much needed upbeat song for the first half.

i do see where you're coming from about the 2nd half of the album, though i'm not sure how you could dislike WILATW. that guitar solo is one of U2's finest moments this decade. otherwise, the rest of the 2nd half is pretty weak and probably could have been improved by a finished version of Levitate, Summer Rain, Stateless, and TGBHF.

Elevation live is great, but on the album version was so thin and empty...

WILATW... It's not that I don't like it, but U2 is so much better than that... It's a good B-side, but I like every song on POP, HTDAAB, and NLOTH better. Maybe a live performance could have helped? But the Elevation tour was basically a 19-song best-of show.... I saw, I think, 3 shows? The weakest U2 tour I've seen as well. Bono's voice was it's weakest, they played very few new songs, and the shortest set-lists ever as well. Elevation was a great opener, but after that.... I was very disapointed by that tour....

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

it's amazing how everyone has a different opinion...

We're ONE but we're not the same - We get to carry each other - CARRRRY EACH OTHER!

 

[Niceman]

it's amazing how everyone has a different opinion...

We're ONE but we're not the same - We get to carry each other - CARRRRY EACH OTHER!

We Huuuuurt each other and we do it again!

 

[Salome]

I also doubt that our views are more objective than those of non-hardcore fans. Emotional attachment to the band, their music and particular albums/eras makes for a rather tinted view.

yeah, that's basically what I meant to say

 

[bram]

I actually would argue that a lot of the diehards here are more informed about the band than the average critic. I'd bet on it, actually.

Definitely. Based on how many errors come up in "professional" reviews, this seems like a very safe bet.


Also, my money is on ATYCLB finishing in the high-middle range of fan polls from now on, while HTDAAB will always be in the bottom third.

Saracene, I agree that the general public would rank U2's albums differently. But on the other hand, the general public only knows 4-5 U2 albums, so it's not really fair to let them judge. I think the important demographic is the people who have spent a lot of time with every U2 album. Of course there will be tons of individual variation, but the same albums always settle to the top (and bottom)--that's not coincidence obviously.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

With the exception of Beautiful Day and Kite ATYCLB sucks. Bomb is much better.

 

[bram]

Well, obviously there are many people who think Bomb is better than ATYCLB. But if I had to make an educated guess based on polls and time with the blue crack, it's probably 2:1 in favor of ATYCLB.