90s U2 and Interference...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Mac Phisto

The Fly
Joined
Jul 26, 2000
Messages
251
Location
New York City
I think it’s safe to say that the latest Rolling Stone review has once again struck a nerve in this forum regarding U2 in the nineties. It’s a recurring trend ‘round these Interference parts. I've been trying to figure out why...(not-so-clever segue-way alert)...

Let’s start off this way. Kudos to the band for going the road less traveled in the 90s. They could have easily coasted through the decade on verse chorus verse radio hits, but decided as a group there was something more. That said, many fans weaned on the 80s catalog of classics were understandably put off by Zooropa, Passengers and Pop (Acthung Baby was the bridge between the two sounds, it was never truly part of the preceding group). The riffs were clever and unique and Bono was still lyrically powerful, but there was a certain quality to the music missing, a level of heart-on-the-sleeve bravado gone from the mix.

That sentiment returned for ATYCLB and continues with HTDAAB. Coincidentally or not, U2 have once again achieved a level of popularity and relevance that matches up against any era in their career.

As a fan that got into U2 in the 90s, I look back at their input during that time as something of a badge of honor. The greater record-buying public lost track of U2 in America, morphing them into the biggest indie band of all-time. Liking U2 became cool and unique, probably for the first time since the very early 80s. If you didn't like them, you simply weren't getting it. I must say, convincing my friends of the brilliance of "Discotheque" was a fun challenge. I enjoyed being the U2 guy, because suddenly there weren’t so many of me.

The return of the belting chorus, ringing guitar-style ended that '94-'99 indie grace period, vaulting the band back into the deepest end of the mainstream and grudgingly flooding all 90s fans back into the general U2-loving public of today. I believe there is some resentment to that end. Being a U2 fan is still absolutely rewarding, but that "Us against Them" mentality no longer holds.

I miss that...and I don't think I'm alone. So when RS writer Rob Sheffield slags off the 90s period, it's not surprising that he gets thrown under the bus.

After all, some people just don't get it.
 
I hope that most people get it, for me 90's U2 is my favorite and well anyone who says they were shit in the 90's should be thrown under the bus of which you speak
 
It's really not fair to lump the whole 90's together, because AB was much more liked and successful than Zooropa or Pop. Most of the fans who don't like those 2 love AB.
 
It's understandable to bash Pop, because it has always been a controversial album.

But to lump the entire 90's together and bash AB/ZooTV is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. EVERYONE PRAISED AB AND ZOOTV AT THE TIME. That they would even dare lump it in with the mixed reviews of Pop is so hypocritical.

I should point out that I like Pop.
 
This is a really good post. I totally feel the same way. The "coolness" of being a U2 fan is not what it was in the 90's.

"and grudgingly flooding all 90s fans back into the general U2-loving public of today."

I have never had my feelings expressed for me so well.

I secretely want them to make an album that is amazingly brilliant but that no one likes or gets. (i.e. KID A)
 
Last edited:
Hoodlem said:
This is a really good post. I totally feel the same way. The "coolness" of being a U2 fan is not what it was in the 90's.



I have never had my feelings expressed for me so well.

I secretely want them to make an album that is amazingly brilliant but that no one likes or gets. (i.e. KID A)

This is a great thread...and one of the main reasons it has been hard to classify BOMB as the new masterpiece... Bono wants us to like it...he's like...c'mon c'mon these are really great songs. When AB came out he was like...Fuck off if you don't like it...so what. "We might lose some of the pop kids" was his famous quote. Now, if we looooove HTDAAB we are going along with the (huge) crowd instead of sticking our neck out and going against the herd. AB was a shock to most the old U2 fans...and it was bold as hell...brave.

Bono is in a different mode right now...politically, he wants to be THE rock star (to maintain his credibility in world affairs) still but not rock the boat so much...They are going to ride this huge wave of popularity right now but I think they will turn it all inside out again...shake off some of the bandwagon and go more experimental and brash as we head on into the future. They are good enough to dictate their own status...and at this point right now they are going for mass crossover appeal. The amazingly brilliant stuff wont come out until they "don't give a shit" again. I love the new album, but it wil never be my all time favorite, but the next one might be...and it is so cool to think that is still possible.:cool:
 
i want u2 to make an album they really want, not what their fans want.

maybe they have, i don't know. that's all i want from any band.
 
I agree PV...I think at some future point the pendulum will swing back the other way. Right now they need to be popular so Bono can do his political work. "celebrity is currency." I think they are saving up so they can afford to go off and do something in the future that is truly exciting.

(I love the new album by the way, i just know they still have the that creative streak in them to produce something a little more against the grain but still great. Fast Cars and Mercy prove this.)
 
Mac Phisto said:


The greater record-buying public lost track of U2 in America, morphing them into the biggest indie band of all-time.

:confused:

U2 were never indie. Not since 87 at the latest, not by their music, and most certainly not by their ambition and desire for success.

I agree that Zooropa/Passengers/Pop is a better trilogy and that AB doesn't really fit in there.

I also think that after "Dismantle..."'s follow up a new direction will come, as U2 does albums in trilogies.

(and Bono's activist work has nothing to do with what their post 2000 sound is)
 
You misunderstood, U2gal. The indie comparison wasn't literal...more a state of mind and being at that time.

In America, the band had fallen out of the pop culture eye by the late 90s. When POP arrived, the band was an enigma in the U.S. They were still U2, sure, but they had lost touch with the marketplace as they explored their European roots. They were no longer catering to the public masses here -- it was a very "indie" thing to do.
 
I don't think I truly appreciated '90s U2 until ATYCLB came out. I felt like something was missing on that album. It got me to give a second listen to the less popular U2 material from the '90s, such as Pop, and I realized, "Ah, THAT'S what was missing."
 
Back
Top Bottom