1990s U2

[U2STEVE70]

Why are the 90s era dicussed more than any other era on this board? Don't get me wrong AB is my favorite CD and I like Zooropa and Pop alot, I'm just curious no more, no less.

 

[Ellay]

Probably because throughout the nineties they went through their most dramatic changes.

the Zoo era was a universe away from the joshua tree.

And POP was a world apart from AB (even though it kept it's cynisism)

the Zoo and Popmart tours were also some of the most impressive kick in the face concerts the world has ever seen.

They also did other unexpected things like passengers and the zooropa album

The eighties was all about improvement rather than deliberate change, (sorry, that comment might get a few people's goat) And so far in this decade, HTDAAB and ATYCLB are too similar musically to provide the same debate.

 

[Utoo]

One other possibility is that with the age range of many members on the board, I'd say a lot of folks either "discovered" U2 in the 90s or were at their prime music-loving age at that time. Just a guess, though.

 

[Lemonfix]

And maybe we think that casual U2 fans (as well as even the band themselves?) don't give Zooropa and Pop enough credit and we in turn overcompansate

 

[Achtung Joshua!]

80's U2 is much better

 

[ponkine]

Because the 90s were the most daring U2 era ever

 

[MrBrau1]

Because Pop was a poor record and people here think talking it up will actually make it a good record.

 

[MrBrau1]

One other possibility is that with the age range of many members on the board, I'd say a lot of folks either "discovered" U2 in the 90s or were at their prime music-loving age at that time. Just a guess, though.

This is correct.

 

[Clawgrabber]

or because POP is a great record and people criticizing it is a cliche.

and the majority of people i have heard criticize it haven't even heard the thing.

spin magazine, for one, who gave it their highest possible rating and had U2 the cover at the start of the tour with a rave review...

now tears the whole thing apart as a misstep...

 

[HelloAngel]

spin magazine, for one, who gave it their highest possible rating and had U2 the cover at the start of the tour with a rave review...

now tears the whole thing apart as a misstep...

SPIN doesn't know its arse from a hole in the ground and has ceased being a magazine that stands for something important, other than whenever Klosterman weighs in on something, or when they put the Pixies on the cover.

 

[U2Man]

50 % of POP was good

50 % of POP was weak

 

[MrBrau1]

50 % of POP was good

50 % of POP was weak

exactly.

 

[clifedge]

Because Pop was a poor record and people here think talking it up will actually make it a good record.

 

[trevgreg]

You can probably see that Pop is a huge reason why the 90s are talked about on here so much...

 

[Axver]

I think the main reason people talk about the nineties is because of Alex Descends Into Hell, and maybe Viva Davidoff too.

 

[nathan1977]

^ Mostly that.

 

[LMP]

I think the main reason people talk about the nineties is because of Alex Descends Into Hell, and maybe Viva Davidoff too.

because we all know without those 2, U2 would end up playing at Holiday Inns across the country

 

[Clawgrabber]

discotheque=strong
do you feel loved = strong
mofo = strong
if god will send his angels = weak
staring at the sun = strong
last night on earth = strong
gone = strong
miami = weak
the playboy mansion = weak
if you wear that velvet dress = strong
please = strong
wake up dead man = strong

that is me being as critical as i can. i don't actually think miami or if god.. are weak, but to be super hard on the album, i believe that the percentage could only be argued that pop is at worst:

75% strong
25% weak

that is stronger than october and rattle and hum
i would even argue that that percentage is stronger than WAR (which i also love)

 

[Zoots]

Haha... it's amazing how fast a thread about 90s U2 turns into an argument about Pop! Fans of the album continue defending it and the people who just don't see the brilliance continue starting shit! Basically same shit... different day!

 

[cobl04]

Well, I love Achtung Baby now (although I still pronounce it Ach-tung (ach as in achoo)) so I just hope the Passenegrs, Zooropa and Pop make even better!

 

[Zoomerang96]

because the 90's was the last time u2 didn't suck ass.

in kind regards to brau's flattery,

-caisenma

 

[U2DMfan]

Even if POP was half brilliant and half average, it's better half is so much better than anything they've done since it's not even funny.

 

[U2girl]

I guess most people here got into the band in that period and the 90's albums are their favourite ones.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Even if POP was half brilliant and half average, it's better half is so much better than anything they've done since it's not even funny.

Miami > HTDAAB

 

[karls77]

Miami > HTDAAB

That's quite a bold statement! I'm inclined to agree with you though.......

 

[Ellay]

I never understand why miami gets so much stick - admittedly on pop it was unfinished, but live it was fantastic.

 

[LemonAid]

the 90's were the time that U2 were that thing I love.......unpredictable!

they were getting off on playing with peoples idea of U2, and it was just one hell of a ride..

...never mind the fact that it was their best and most inventive music.

...also, they were techno savy at just the right time....90's was just the media-decade, and u2 were so on it, in every way....music, image, tours...

..kicked ass

 

[Pero]

BECAUSE IT ROCKS

 

[U2Man]

Haha... it's amazing how fast a thread about 90s U2 turns into an argument about Pop! Fans of the album continue defending it and the people who just don't see the brilliance continue starting shit! Basically same shit... different day!

You forgot the people who are capable of seeing both the strong and the weak parts of POP.

 

[U2girl]

Even if POP was half brilliant and half average, it's better half is so much better than anything they've done since it's not even funny.

Hmmm...