90'2 U2 Appreciation Thred

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Originally posted by Kieran McConville:
I can't speak for October, never having heard it in full,
You should give it a listen...you may like it.

I think the argument is kind of relative...it may fall somewhere along age lines. If you were 18 when you first heard War, for example, that record may have had a more profound influence on you than Zooropa did when you were 28. Conversely if you were 8 when War hit, you might have been listening to Alvin and the Chipmunks at the time, but AB hit you at age 17 and had a major effect on you.
 
Originally posted by Hewson:



I think the argument is kind of relative...it may fall somewhere along age lines. If you were 18 when you first heard War, for example, that record may have had a more profound influence on you than Zooropa did when you were 28. Conversely if you were 8 when War hit, you might have been listening to Alvin and the Chipmunks at the time, but AB hit you at age 17 and had a major effect on you.



That can be true, but for me, I have found that all the albums (with a few exceptions) has a profound effect on me. I love Boy, and I was only 3 when it came out. I also love ATYCLB and I was 22 when that came out, so I don't necessarily think that age has anything to do with it. Each album speaks to me in a different way, and draws on different personal experiences of mine.

However, Actung Baby came out when I was 15, a very influential age, and that is the album that I feel the most attatched too.....

There are two sides to every coin.
 
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Ha ha! That's funny!
I still don't like the 90s era, but it's mainly because of all but 1 POP song and half the Zooropa songs. I liked the simple, straight ahead, no pretense, no glitter, no glam, no techno, style of the 80s. I liked the "reality" of the 80s music. Their 90s music, in my opinion, was contrived and weird. and yes, I am one of those who are thankful they've "gone back to their 80s style". Many of you will say they haven't, but in many many ways, they have. If ever there was an 80s style anthem not made in the 80s, it's Walk On. All songs on this CD sound like JT and earlier, with the exception of Elevation, In A Little While, and Stuck, but these 3 sound like nothing U2 has done before.
HMM..WTF???!!!! your point is really weak , at first Walk On - i'm agree , that this is a great song , but it doesn't sound like U2 of the 80's , but Stuck sounds too mtv-likely ( in bad sence ) , elevation - incomplete song with a BIG influence from Even Better Then Real Thing ; speaking of " back to the 80's , to basics " U2 always were changing , even now , they went for MTV masses , lyrics & melodies are poor if you will compare them from ATYCLB to say so - WAR , JT or even Rattle & Hum
U2 just made an album which is easy-listened with no big songs and big deals , Boyzband-alike , so everybody would say " oh year this is a classic album " this sucks , i hope U2 will still rock with thier next studio CD , Amen .
, some people just stuck in time , some are better then others
wink.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Originally posted by Hewson:
Originally posted by Kieran McConville:
I can't speak for October, never having heard it in full,
You should give it a listen...you may like it.

I think the argument is kind of relative...it may fall somewhere along age lines. If you were 18 when you first heard War, for example, that record may have had a more profound influence on you than Zooropa did when you were 28. Conversely if you were 8 when War hit, you might have been listening to Alvin and the Chipmunks at the time, but AB hit you at age 17 and had a major effect on you.


Thanks, October is definitely on my list. One of these days.

Yeah, age plays a part. I was just the right age when Achtung Baby and Zooropa appeared, for instance. But retrospectively, Unforgettable Fire made a big impact as well. I'd put the title track in their top ten any day of the week.

ATYCLB is not 'returning' to their 80's sound. U2 did not sound like this in the 80's. Period.
 
Well, I'm personally really glad that they did all that crazy 90s stuff and let the people know that they weren't just a bunch of serious stony-faced brooders on the B&W photographs. I can understand that the over-the-top glitz and gizmos were a bit too much for some fans, but c'mon, how much FUN it all was! While AB isn't perfect and has got its share of boring and uninvolving tracks, it still ties with JT for the position of my second-favourite U2 album. I'm also fond of Zooropa and it's really unfair that POP will most probably go into the music history as the album that nearly destroyed U2.

The only thing that makes me roll my eyes a bit is when people go on how "innovative" AB, Zooropa and POP were. Sorry, but U2 weren't the first to play around with fuzzy electronic sounds, hip-hop beats, techno, dance and so on, and I can surely say that many other artists not only did this kind of "innovation" before, they also sometimes did it much better. Just because a former post-punk band decides to include some weird sounds into their music, it doesn't make this music "innovative". I remember reading a few articles where a point was made that all U2 really did in the 90s was stealing ideas from a younger generation.
 
Originally posted by Saracene:
Well, I'm personally really glad that they did all that crazy 90s stuff and let the people know that they weren't just a bunch of serious stony-faced brooders on the B&W photographs. I can understand that the over-the-top glitz and gizmos were a bit too much for some fans, but c'mon, how much FUN it all was! While AB isn't perfect and has got its share of boring and uninvolving tracks, it still ties with JT for the position of my second-favourite U2 album. I'm also fond of Zooropa and it's really unfair that POP will most probably go into the music history as the album that nearly destroyed U2.

The only thing that makes me roll my eyes a bit is when people go on how "innovative" AB, Zooropa and POP were. Sorry, but U2 weren't the first to play around with fuzzy electronic sounds, hip-hop beats, techno, dance and so on, and I can surely say that many other artists not only did this kind of "innovation" before, they also sometimes did it much better. Just because a former post-punk band decides to include some weird sounds into their music, it doesn't make this music "innovative". I remember reading a few articles where a point was made that all U2 really did in the 90s was stealing ideas from a younger generation.

This argument comes up from time to time. It's not who you steal from, it's what you DO with it. This idea that because U2 didn't somehow invent their influences fully-formed, they were ipso facto unoriginal, needs knocking on the head. Anyway all the glitz and glamour was just that, fun. I never noticed anything very glitzy about the music.

I wonder if Bob Dylan invented folk music. Doubt it, somehow.

Does Auchtung Baby have some uninvolving and boring tracks? Can't say I'd noticed.
 
"This argument comes up from time to time. It's not who you steal from, it's what you DO with it."

It's true, but I should probably explain a little further: I just think that, no matter how good some of U2's 90s music was (AB especially), it just doesn't strike me that they did anything particularly exciting or new with the elements they've borrowed from the other bands or artists who experimented with electronic sounds. I mean, their 80s music style didn't come from nowhere either, it was influenced by many other artists from the Velvet Underground to the Ramones and so on. And yet, out of those influences, they've managed to forge one of the most iconoclastic and distinct musical identities. I feel that, by trying so hard not to sound like the "old U2" in the 90s, they made quite a lot of awkward, half-baked music without fully digesting the ideas they've taken from the other music styles.

"Does Auchtung Baby have some uninvolving and boring tracks? Can't say I'd noticed."

Well, I never liked "Zoo Station" and I think that "So Cruel" and "Love Is Blindness" are dull. The rest, though, ranges from excellent to very good.
 
Originally posted by Saracene:
"This argument comes up from time to time. It's not who you steal from, it's what you DO with it."

It's true, but I should probably explain a little further: I just think that, no matter how good some of U2's 90s music was (AB especially), it just doesn't strike me that they did anything particularly exciting or new with the elements they've borrowed from the other bands or artists who experimented with electronic sounds. I mean, their 80s music style didn't come from nowhere either, it was influenced by many other artists from the Velvet Underground to the Ramones and so on. And yet, out of those influences, they've managed to forge one of the most iconoclastic and distinct musical identities. I feel that, by trying so hard not to sound like the "old U2" in the 90s, they made quite a lot of awkward, half-baked music without fully digesting the ideas they've taken from the other music styles.

"Does Auchtung Baby have some uninvolving and boring tracks? Can't say I'd noticed."

Well, I never liked "Zoo Station" and I think that "So Cruel" and "Love Is Blindness" are dull. The rest, though, ranges from excellent to very good.

Ok, I may have sounded a bit sarcastic regarding Achtung. Fair point, although in my opinion So Cruel is among the very best. Even Better Than the Real Thing, though a lot of fun, might be a candidate for weakest track. I've a hunch it was designed with the ZooTV show in mind (in as much as ZooTV was in anyone's mind at that stage).

As for the general point, I would agree slightly in the case of POP. There, some things did seem a bit half-digested. But I should clarify. For me their 90's work was not interesting because it was so smashingly original that noone had done it before. It was interesting because of the ideas they were playing with. Linking sexuality and spirituality in the songs, for one. It was also interesting/exciting because of the possibilities involved. At one point in the mid-90's I really thought U2 were about to abandon the standard rock band idea altogether (much as Radiohead have done - if this is good or bad, take your pick).

Radiohead are another example. They are interesting because of what they bring to the music. As any pedant will tell you, they are not the first to play with genre in the actual music they produce. But again, not really the point IMO.
 
And on top of all of the above, U2 have always wanted to be at the centre of things, right? 'Classic' rock, or whatever you want to call it, was suffering a serious lack of inspiration for most of the 90's. If it was dying, as some claim, then maybe it deserved to. IMO the inspiration is what matters. If rock loses the plot, then let it die. The spark will catch somewhere else. I'm no mindreader, but sense that U2 felt similarly at the time.

And at the moment it's (some) dance/electronica/hip hop that's become bloated and lacking in new ideas.
 
Great topic, I must be psychic because i was thinking about this on my way home from work and I hadn't seen this thread before (i dont get here very often nowadays)

My theory is its an age thing. Most of the people who perfer U2's older 80's stuff were at that age where they were young and carefree when U2s music changed their world.

Ask any 16 year old in this forum and they might tell you they found out U2 was THE BAND when they heard BD.

Me, I look at JT as "no sex until marriage, but lots of sincere love and lust and yearning"

AB was the sound of passionate love, and dirty sex with the after-smoke too
wink.gif


Zooropa was like OMG "i'm pregnant" WTF!

PoP was the nasty divorce/breakup

All That You Can't Lick Behind is the sound of a brand new wonderful relationship. I think it ranks up there with JT and AB.

Even though I am 30, I kinda perfer the post-JT era over the 80's. And although I never got to see them until 97, from the videos I damn sure perfer their live performances now!
 
Even though I'm not always impressed with U2's 90s stuff, I definitely agree that it was good for them to change their sound and the entire image that went with it. I always enjoy watching ZooTV from Sydney straight after Rattle and Hum, because the change is just so amazing, you could be forgiven for thinking that you've been watching two different bands (with the same drummer,
smile.gif
).
 
Originally posted by Saracene:
Even though I'm not always impressed with U2's 90s stuff, I definitely agree that it was good for them to change their sound and the entire image that went with it. I always enjoy watching ZooTV from Sydney straight after Rattle and Hum, because the change is just so amazing, you could be forgiven for thinking that you've been watching two different bands (with the same drummer,
smile.gif
).

Yeah the drummer never changes. Poor old Larry gets some bad press. He's become painted as almost some kind of classic-rock fascist over the years. I think if he was as traditional as some think, he would have left U2 years ago.

He looks quite gaunt these days. Good for 40, but not so fresh-faced any longer. Adam on the other hand has looked like an old man since the age of 30.
 
I always thought that Edge started to look middle-aged by 25, when his hair started to abandon him. Well, not really middle-aged, just one of those men whose age is kinda undeterminable from their appearance.
 
Originally posted by Saracene:
I always thought that Edge started to look middle-aged by 25, when his hair started to abandon him. Well, not really middle-aged, just one of those men whose age is kinda undeterminable from their appearance.

Like me, I'm 30 but have the rock-solid body of a 19 year old
wink.gif
 
Originally posted by Saracene:
I always thought that Edge started to look middle-aged by 25, when his hair started to abandon him. Well, not really middle-aged, just one of those men whose age is kinda undeterminable from their appearance.

The Edge looks ageless. His style suits him, I must say. Before he got the goatee, he looked a bit gawky.

Bono changes from day to day. Sometimes he looks great, other times he looks utterly worn out. I can't tell when the ageing hit Bono. During ZooTV he still looked 'young' to a degree. Just three or four years later, it was a different story - check out the eyes especially.
 
Originally posted by Kieran McConville:
The Edge looks ageless. His style suits him, I must say. Before he got the goatee, he looked a bit gawky.

Bono changes from day to day. Sometimes he looks great, other times he looks utterly worn out. I can't tell when the ageing hit Bono. During ZooTV he still looked 'young' to a degree. Just three or four years later, it was a different story - check out the eyes especially.

His eyes look better every year. You can see more life and experience in them. I admit that he is starting to look older, but he is 41 years old. I think that age suits him, and I might be excited at the idea of him not dying his hair anymore. I think that the salt and pepper look would suit him, you can see it growing through in his stubble. Bono said it best when he sang it "I'm a man, I'm not a child". He looks like a man, and a damn fine man at that!!!
 
I really can't understand the people who think Bono should let his hair go gray. He would look so old! They all would! He looks fabulous just the way he is like in this pic from just a few days ago -sigh-

capt.1008883389britain_macroeconomics_lrl102.jpg


I think Bono looks excellent for his age. I don't think Larry looks as young as some of you say. I think Bono, Edge and Larry look the same age and Adam looks about 10 years older and has ever since the JT days. Sorry.

Now back to the original topic- 80sU2isbest!
biggrin.gif


------------------
~We need new dreams tonight~
 
Oh, of course it's all nitpicking. 40 is not old, and they all (except Adam) look pretty good for their age.

Let the debate resume, if anyone cares.
 
Back
Top Bottom