atyclb really didnt cut it for this guy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The "intimacy" thing was something they definitely used on the War tour because it hit me when I watched Red Rocks for the first time and became a fan. They were not big stars all over at the time; they were just breaking through in the U.S, although they were #1 in the U.K. The U.S. and Canada were both potentially strong markets for them and you just don't write that off. But they hadn't exactly conquered these markets, either; they didn't do that with UF, either, they had to wait until JT in 1987. They used the intimacy factor way before this. It happened to work even better than they realized. Look at Live Aid--they thought they'd blown it, but in fact they'd stolen the show, at least partially, with their bonding with the audience. Who else in the world can do this? No one. Except----U2. It's part of their strength but got a bit submerged with ZooTV and PopMart. It was stronger on the Elevation tour, what with the cat walk and the heart and such. There were no cat walks in the '80's. It was just a stage. So did they know the cat walk/ heart deal work like a charm? Not necessarily. It was risky. It turned out to be a brilliant idea.
Sounds just like any other U2 tour to me.
 
Desire4Bono said:

JT- Deeply religious, deeply in love. In the desert, growing and expanding as artists and songwriters.

POP- Into the dance scene, gay bars, transvestites, ecstasy scene, triphop, etc. and questioning their spirituality.


I have to respectfully but strongly disagree with some of what you said.

JT contained a song entitled "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" which to me doesn't seem "deeply religious" - but exploring religion. Pop also explores religion with songs like "Wake up dead man". Yes, they expanded as artists on JT, but the same thing with Pop. :idea: (but, i guess what this pop argument is all about, all the time.)

I also do NOT think Pop is about the ecstasy scene, gay bars, transvestites :huh: i'm really confused on where you're getting that but maybe because you haven't listened to the album much or read much about the era you are just making an assumption?

anyway .. it's hard to get into Pop unless people are really serious about talking about it and opening their mind. If you dont like it fine everyone has a right not to like something, but I don't want to discuss Pop further with anyone who will just blindly say they hate it and not want to talk about the album. And yes, an open mind goes both ways. Actually i've always been interested in having an educated discussion with people who dislike Pop, but unfortunately all the time around here it turns into "Pop sucks" end of discussion, throwing lemons sorta crap and that's that. But like B says, it's a heavy mofo, yknow?

*edit for my spelling
 
EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS POP THAT YOU CAN'T LEAVE BEHIND

i wish Flood be back , and he& B.Eno together , more songs from Edge and Larry , more guitars , i didn't like the fact that the band that always was going ahead -- tommorow , suddenly decided to play SBS in original form .

I remember words about ATYCLB before release " great album , thier 4th masterpiece , rock rises again " --- dirty lie .

ok ok POP is better , but All That You Can't Leave behind is a U2 album , so on your kneees muchachos and muchachas :evil: :evil:



DISCOTHEQUE :lemon: :lemon: :lemon:
 
Ooh.......yes, I have to disagree with the "questioning their spirituality" on Pop deal myself. Good grief, this had WUDM--an angry song, yes, but also a prayer, kind of a "sour prayer", if you will, "Please", thematically very similar to SBS, and references to God, spirituality, etc, etc, all over. Maybe gay bars and transvestites.....hell, there's nothing wrong with that, but there was no negation or absence of spirituality on Pop. It had some really strong lyrics. So the idea that ATYCLB was such a huge break with Pop just doesn't sit with me. They did pitch the irony but they never have pitched the spirituality, the political concerns, the social concerns........the idea that they ever went away is just plan bogus. They just got mixed up with introspection in the '90's. This doesn't mean they disappeared.
 
get it thru your thicks skulls that I don't hate ATYCLB, and my "resentment" at ATYCLB is that it is being hailed as their messianic album, and their previous decade of work is being dismissed as "experiemental meandering," my contention is that ATYCLB is a grossly over-rated album and I am disappointed in the album as a whole (though as I've said many many times I like many of the songs on the album, a couple of them actually rank in my top 10 U2 songs, ie, Beautiful Day, Walk On), I don't particularly like POE, WH, Grace and WILATW, Stuck and Elevation are just "ok," now that leaves me feeling utterly disappointed by the record as a whole, though I don't HATE any of these songs, they just don't do much of anything for me, they're decent songs, but after BD, Walk On, NY, Kite and IALW, I feel the rest is mediocre for U2's standards (again, no mention of the word "hate" in there)

and salome, et al

U2 did make the record they wanted to make, I am very aware of that, I am just wary of what those intentions were, I can't put it any blunter than by saying they made this record with the intention of being the "biggest band in the world" again, and they knew the exact formula for doing that, now it's not all bad, they managed to make a good record that probably falls some where in the middle in their vast catalogue of music
 
The Wanderer said:


U2 did make the record they wanted to make, I am very aware of that, I am just wary of what those intentions were, I can't put it any blunter than by saying they made this record with the intention of being the "biggest band in the world" again, and they knew the exact formula for doing that, now it's not all bad, they managed to make a good record that probably falls some where in the middle in their vast catalogue of music


yeah i think there's truth in this. interesting!
 
U2girl said:
I'd like to ask ATYCLB bashers this: do you dislike the album because of its popularity in the media or do you have a problem with the music itself?
i have a problem with the music itself. it's just a disappointing album. sure, i wasn't expecting pop part 2 or anything, and i'd actually be pissed if they just duplicated the sound of the last record. but, for the band to almost sell out, to essentially make a record for the radio, that's something i wouldn't expect from them either. but they did it with atyclb. there are plenty of other bands out there who make music seemingly solely for the purpose of being on the radio. they're called boy bands. it's almost like they wanted to reduce themselves to this. sure, i don't totally hate top 40 music, and there is some stuff out there today i can tolerate, but i just can't believe U2 would lower their standards like this.

U2girl said:
ps: I suppose it would be better for U2 if they made another experimental album and get destroyed by the media and critics for sure?
yes, wouldn't that just solve everything. :rolleyes: no one ever said they needed to do that. like i said, i don't even want them to duplicate a previous album. not even if it's one i like. sure, i love achtung baby, but i don't want them to make a carbon copy of it. U2 doesn't always have to be experimental and "out there," they just need to be gutsy. to try to change the face of popular culture and music with each album. they've done it with each effort in the past, and i just don't understand why they had to go and do the exact opposite with this album.
 
oliveu2cm said:


I have to respectfully but strongly disagree with some of what you said.

JT contained a song entitled "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" which to me doesn't seem "deeply religious" - but exploring religion. Pop also explores religion with songs like "Wake up dead man". Yes, they expanded as artists on JT, but the same thing with Pop. :idea: (but, i guess what this pop argument is all about, all the time.)

I also do NOT think Pop is about the ecstasy scene, gay bars, transvestites :huh: i'm really confused on where you're getting that but maybe because you haven't listened to the album much or read much about the era you are just making an assumption?

anyway .. it's hard to get into Pop unless people are really serious about talking about it and opening their mind. If you dont like it fine everyone has a right not to like something, but I don't want to discuss Pop further with anyone who will just blindly say they hate it and not want to talk about the album. And yes, an open mind goes both ways. Actually i've always been interested in having an educated discussion with people who dislike Pop, but unfortunately all the time around here it turns into "Pop sucks" end of discussion, throwing lemons sorta crap and that's that. But like B says, it's a heavy mofo, yknow?

*edit for my spelling

Well, first, I never said I hated it, so I'm not going to debate that. Second, I got all my information from articles and/or interviews with the band from that time. Even VH1 Legends says they were into the dance bar scene. It's a documented fact. There was even a dancing transvestite with his tallywacker hanging out on the vidscreen behind Larry. There were rumors about them taking ecstasy. Whether they did or not is not my business, but they were hanging around with that crowd at the time, and some have said that the 'party' Bono said the album was in the beginning, ending with the 'hangover' at the end, was based on an ecstasy high and coming down. When I hear Discotheque, MOFO, LNOE and DYFL, they seem very much of that scene and have that kind of feel. No, I don't take it, but they seem like other songs and videos I've seen of that scene. Even the band would admit they were influenced by the dance bar scene when making that record! Again, I am not judging them, or accusing them of anything, just stating that I did mot 'blindly' make my statements. I think WUDM and IGWSHA is VERY much questioning their spirituality, and I have seen much written on this topic as well. IF, and I do mean IF (no accusations) you have some kind of problem with the things I mentioned and don't want to believe they had an influence on POP, well, sorry. I think they do, from all I've seen. About ISHFWILF, yes it is searching too but their general attitude toward their spirituality seemed more positive back then.
 
Last edited:
pop has great sound , i mean all these scratches and sounds , echoes , great , flood . :drool: :drool:

we can make something beautiful , something that wouldn't be a problem ...

MIAMI , !!! MIAAAAAAMI MY MOMMY
:scream: :scream:


pop pop popapa

great record , shape !
 
Desire4Bono said:
There was even a dancing transvestite with his tallywacker hanging out on the vidscreen behind Larry.
so because of this, the whole album is about "gay bars and transvestites?" U2 dressed up like women for the "one" video, and i doubt achtung baby would be regarded as a transvestite album because of this.
 
let's face it , pop is a sexy record


sunlight ...

it's ok ...

i never listen to you anyway
i got my own hands to pray

if u wear that veeeeelvet dres <velvet dress....///


who catch the star when it falls .. velvet dress...:heart: :heart: :angel:
 
Desire4Bono said:
Obviously you ignored the rest of my post. I explained everything.
ummm...where? i read the entire post, and have re-read it now a couple times to see if i missed anything. here it is (i just included the part where you mention pop and after it):

POP- Into the dance scene, gay bars, transvestites, ecstasy scene, triphop, etc. and questioning their spirituality.

ATYCLB- Getting older, all but Adam having new babies, Bono finding out his father was ill, Bono crusading for debt relief and AIDS help and trying to save a world he felt very bad about.

I think, no, I KNOW all of these factors influenced the songs the band produced at the time. I don't believe any album was created for any other reason than they were what the band felt at the time and produced. As Bono recently said, it's about waking up with a tune in your head. The songs come to them, they don't go looking for them for any particular reason. That's just my 2 cents.
so where is it explained? i'm not being snippy or anything, i just don't see it.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

ummm...where? i read the entire post, and have re-read it now a couple times to see if i missed anything. here it is (i just included the part where you mention pop and after it):


so where is it explained? i'm not being snippy or anything, i just don't see it.

In the very first line when I said I got my information from articles and/or interviews at the time, along with several other lines throughout my post where I mentioned things I had seen and heard. I never said it was 'all about' anything, I simply listed some of their influences at the time. What's so bad about transvestites anyway?
 
I don't know that I agree that U2 made ATYCLB "for the radio". Rather, they emphasized the importance of each *song* as opposed to the importance of theme of an album. The songs were supposed to "do the talking" if you will, rather than the more conceptual Pop, with the whole thing oriented towards the superficiality of popular culture. There's no concept in ATYCLB; it's simply a collection of songs that reflected where they were and yes, where they wanted to be. U2 has always been about looking to the future. There's no doubt in my mind that Bono wanted to be in a good position to promote debt relief and the Stop Global Aids campaign. So accessibility was an issue. It's a fine line between this and popularity, and sometimes the two take up the same territory. Still, this was also artistically motivated: they wanted that intimacy back, the closeness, the erasure of any barriers between performer and audience that was characteristic of their '80's tours, and their whole attitude about their relationship with the fans. Hey, attitude counts, too. It just struck the right chord with many, many people, but I don't see that they "lowered" themselves in any way for this. They just......did it, the chips fell, and the result was a massively popular album and tour. The "grand scheme" worked like a dream, and this dream turned out to be no nightmare.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

i have a problem with the music itself. it's just a disappointing album. sure, i wasn't expecting pop part 2 or anything, and i'd actually be pissed if they just duplicated the sound of the last record. but, for the band to almost sell out, to essentially make a record for the radio, that's something i wouldn't expect from them either. but they did it with atyclb. there are plenty of other bands out there who make music seemingly solely for the purpose of being on the radio. they're called boy bands.


HA! Boy that was a good one. As usual Khanada, I can't disagree with you more. ;)

There's NOTHING on the radio that sounds like U2. When I first heard "Beautiful Day", I thought it would flop. If "Staring at the Sun" couldn't become a monster hit, nothing would. Yet, I was gleefully proven wrong.

Nonetheless, my point stands - I don't think this was a "sure thing" album for U2 at all, nor do I think they were making songs for the radio just to regain fans.

I do think they focused on the song more - rather than the theme of the album. And I do feel that in Bono's mind, all of the songs could have been hits. But I do not feel this was the true goal of the work. There's a difference between being confident enough in your work to feel it will be a huge hit and creating work just to get a hit.
 
Desire4Bono said:


In the very first line when I said I got my information from articles and/or interviews at the time, along with several other lines throughout my post where I mentioned things I had seen and heard. I never said it was 'all about' anything, I simply listed some of their influences at the time. What's so bad about transvestites anyway?

I'll agree that U2 was influenced by the dance scene on Pop. And, yes, you have documented your sources. But none of your sources seem to indicate that because of the influence of the dance scene, transvestites, ecstasy, etc Pop is actually *about* these things. And I really don't think they were questioning their spirituality on Pop, either. As olive implied, spirituality has always been something they've *explored*, and I think they continued to do so on this album with songs like Please and Wake Up Dead Man.

I guess I just resent the implication that Pop was an entirely frivilous endeavor, inspired by nights spent with transvestites on ecstacy.
 
exactly how I took it.

Hallelujah Here She Comes said:

I guess I just resent the implication that Pop was an entirely frivilous endeavor, inspired by nights spent with transvestites on ecstacy.
 
Zoomerang96 said:
i guess i cannot seem to drill it into your heads what im talking about, and youve made your mind up already, just like i have.
ah well, I think I do know what you're trying to say
thing is that I'd probably say the same thing as you did about some albums I don't like

I guess my point is that I think it all comes down to personal taste
because I don't like an artists album doesn't mean the artist made the wrong decision (as long as s/he remains sincere it probably is the right decision in the long run), it just means that I don't like it
 
Last edited:
Salome said:
ah well, I think you do know what you're trying to say
thing is that I'd probably say the same thing as you did about some albums I don't like

I guess my point is that I think it all comes down to personal taste
because I don't like an artists album doesn't mean the artist made the wrong decision (as long as s/he remains sincere it probably is the right decision in the long run for), it just means that I don't like it


Bravo, Salome! I love that. That's the civilized way not to like a record........there are alot of good records I personally don't like.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

i have a problem with the music itself. it's just a disappointing album. sure, i wasn't expecting pop part 2 or anything, and i'd actually be pissed if they just duplicated the sound of the last record. but, for the band to almost sell out, to essentially make a record for the radio, that's something i wouldn't expect from them either. but they did it with atyclb. there are plenty of other bands out there who make music seemingly solely for the purpose of being on the radio. they're called boy bands. it's almost like they wanted to reduce themselves to this. sure, i don't totally hate top 40 music, and there is some stuff out there today i can tolerate, but i just can't believe U2 would lower their standards like this.


yes, wouldn't that just solve everything. :rolleyes: no one ever said they needed to do that. like i said, i don't even want them to duplicate a previous album. not even if it's one i like. sure, i love achtung baby, but i don't want them to make a carbon copy of it. U2 doesn't always have to be experimental and "out there," they just need to be gutsy. to try to change the face of popular culture and music with each album. they've done it with each effort in the past, and i just don't understand why they had to go and do the exact opposite with this album.

Dissapointing? How? Because it did well on the radio? Not to mention it contains (safe to say IMO) future U2 classics like BD, Kite or Walk on, and it will most likely go down in the Top 3 U2 albums in the general fan consensus.

Why is it so unconceivable to be good and popular at the same time? :rolleyes:

LOL! U2 reducing themeselves to boyband level? Suuure. I don't know about you, but i don't mind hearing more U2 on the radio.

(and i LOVE it that they finally released a positive, warm, optimistic album)

Well, all the Pop lovers gave me the impression they wanted more 90's U2 sound for the future. My mistake if i misunderstood you.

Hmmm...so what's the difference between being gutsy and being experimental? I'm not sure i'm following you.

And just so you know, i don't hate Pop either. I like 5, maybe 6 songs, but i do think it's overrated.
 
Last edited:
All That... was an album made specifically for the post-Sept 11th audience. But how is this so? The album was released in October of 2000. That is the pure genius of it all. U2 gave the world an album they needed long before the world wanted it. To of truely marketed this album for mass consumer appeal, a crystal ball would of be required. To of given the world what they truely wanted in 2000, U2 would not of given them this "titanium soul." This beautiful healing album.
 
By the way....

if you truely want to know a "gutsy" and "experimental" U2 album, park yourself in 1984. You have just listened to the Unforgettable Fire for the first time. You have been following U2 since Boy was released. In terms of "experimental," a song like Elvis Presley and America in the ears of a U2 audience that have just recently enjoyed the War album is very much something quite "off the wall."

As beautiful as Pop is, it is not something I personally label as the grand U2 experimental album. That is a label I reserve for the Unforgettable Fire. From Zooropa to Pop you can witness the evolution of a changing sound. From War to the Unforgettable Fire you are just smacked in the face.

I guess this is something one can not fully understand and appreciate unless he or she witnessed U2 in 1984. I don't deny that Pop is an experimental album (and a great one too!). It is just that U2 had taken this road in the 80's with the Unforgettable Fire. This is my experience with U2.
 
I can see why people have a problem with ATYCLB because it is too mainstream, it's a bit silly, but I have adverse feelings for it in that way too, I don't know why. I guess at times I find it is boring. But don't you think it is because U2 wrote the songs so well?? Seriously, some people, me included, find pleasure in finding some undiscovered, unloved gem of a song, a meaning that other people don't get to the certain song. Many of U2's albums, AB especially and Pop are very ambiguous in the lyrics, ATYCLB is much more to the point, but in some respects that is because they are better written! But people have this problem, or not really problem! Just a personal thing, where they like something less if it is very common to love it. It feels less special to their heart, less "theirs". I seriously believe that ATYCLB suffers from being too "spot on" and not enough rough around the edges. I have tired of it a bit I must admit, and Pop still holds that raw edge I love. Walk On and Kite and BD and Elevation and Stuck, pretty damn obvious in their meaning! But they are still great songs. The track listing, as we have said in the past, might have had a part to play in it suffering in some respects too, but you can't deny it's brilliance.

And about U2 intentionally "playing it safe" with ATYCLB, really I think this is a FACT! I have the interviews on video, and have read similiar things, listened etc. Many times Bono and Larry especially referred to it as getting back down to proper rock and roll. As in proper songs, songs they could play live, no major production, that is what ATYCLB is. And Bono referred to the fact that he wanted an album full of SINGLES, they intentionally tried to make this as much a crowd pleaser, crowd being the world, everyone, as they could. And they succeeded, bigtime.
 
lazyboy said:

And about U2 intentionally "playing it safe" with ATYCLB, really I think this is a FACT! I have the interviews on video, and have read similiar things, listened etc. Many times Bono and Larry especially referred to it as getting back down to proper rock and roll. As in proper songs, songs they could play live, no major production, that is what ATYCLB is. And Bono referred to the fact that he wanted an album full of SINGLES, they intentionally tried to make this as much a crowd pleaser, crowd being the world, everyone, as they could. And they succeeded, bigtime.

I have seen and read interviews too, but they are not about 'playing it safe' but simply rediscovering what they do best! In one story, they said a "DJ saved their lives" by unplugging all the extra stuff and showing them how much better they sounded just stripped down to themselves and basic rock and four blokes in the room with instruments.

In another interview I read online during the tour, Bono said how Edge had come up with a guitar riff and Bono had rejected it, saying it sounded "Too much like The Edge, too much like U2" and Edge looked at him and said, "I AM The Edge, and we ARE U2, what's wrong with that?" Bono realized Edge was right. They had spent so much time running from themselves they had lost sight of what they really did best and wanted to get back to that!

Bono told a story about Kite in concert, how he was flying the kite with his little girls and it blew out of control and he thought of how it compared to uncertainties in his life, and how he thought about his kids, his sick father, and his career. From what I've heard U2 was very worried and concerned about how they would be accepted this time. They did not plan to succeed, no one can, or we all would! Think of the lyrics to Kite. I have heard them mentioned before in connection with the band wondering about what was ahead for them with the new album and tour.

"Who's to know where the wind will take you, who's to know what it is will break you, I don't know, which way the wind will blow, who's to know when the time has come around, don't wanna see you cry, I know that this is not goodbye!"

"I wonder what is gonna happen to you, you wonder what has happened to me"

"The last of the rock stars, when hiphop drove the big cars"

I heard Bono thank the guy on VH-1 for supporting them 'before this thing caught fire.' They had no idea how successful ATYCLB would be, or all it would come to mean. God walked through the room, and it was good. U2 lives happily ever after.
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
Dissapointing? How? Because it did well on the radio?
mmm yes i certainly wouldn't think it would be disappointing simply because i don't like the album. i find it a little irritating that a thread was started by mentioning the dislike of atyclb, and all the fans of the album came in and acted like, god forbid we would hate that album, we can't hate U2. never mind all the people who diss pop or war or october all the time. :tsk:
 
khanada, i dont know if i followed you right, but you found it irritating that i even started this thread because i was bashing their latest album?

that really wasnt the case, at least not its intent.

i found the story to be rather humorous.
 
jesus , talks are goin' nowhere , i like listen to pop & atyclb , atyclb ofcourse is more duller record than pop , but the answer for question why atyclb was so popular ---->>> 1) great promotion 2) White optimistic energy power of the album ( except NYC ) . Pop is a semi depressive/aggresive lifestyle type , blah it's all crap and i'm gonna get some sleep , bonsoir


p.s. Solaris is due in december 2002 , i hope cameron will do something interesting
 
Back
Top Bottom