Did ATYCLB "save" U2's legacy?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I agree with you Bunbury.

One album can't destroy a legacy (Pop), nor can one album save it (ATYCLB). A legacy is created through a substantial period of time. And again, Pop was a fiasco, but ONLY in the US, but as you all know, the world is bigger than the US. In Europe Pop was succesful, just as was ATYCLB.
 
I think the main reason ATYCLB is very important in U2's legacy is because (as some people have already pointed out) in a 20+ years career you can't go for a decade without an album that appeals to the masses
and it had been a long time since Achtung Baby

Zooropa is one of my fave U2 albums
but to be able to maintain a legacy in the greater schemes of things they did need the success of ATYCLB + Elevation IMHO
 
U2 sealed their legacy with the release of Joshua Tree.

They rose from being a small band with big ideas to a big band with big ideas.

They laminated their legacy with Acthung, Baby and the ZOO years. To be a big band with big ideas was blase. So they reinvented and became a big band with bolder ideas.

It's almost like a plane rolling down the runway (Boy, October, War) then pulling up the front wheels for take off (TUF, JT, R&H) and then take off (Achtung, Zooropa, Pop) and now they're coasting above the clouds (ATYCLB) and where they go from here is...well, I guess we'll have to see.
 
Rafiennes said:
It's almost like a plane rolling down the runway (Boy, October, War) then pulling up the front wheels for take off (TUF, JT, R&H) and then take off (Achtung, Zooropa, Pop) and now they're coasting above the clouds (ATYCLB) and where they go from here is...well, I guess we'll have to see.
Click to expand...
Yes, will they fall from the sky, or turn into a space craft and leave orbit? If the new album really is "punk rock from Venus," I suppose it will be the latter.
 
jick said:


Precisely why I described POP as "inacessible". It wasn't U2's fault that not many could understand POP. I could understand it. U2 simply overestimated the intelligence of its fans. We can argue all day as to whether POP is a good or a bad album, and no one will win because it is all a matter of opinion. But the main fact is that POP was the least well-received U2 album since UF (or was it October), the worst selling and most dissed album since U2 launched to the rock stratosphere in 1987. So in the sense that POP created a sales dive, and U2 played to mostly half empty stadiums during their 2nd trip to the USA kinda tarnished their image. ATYCLB era restored the legacy, as it was the antithesis of POP. POP debuted #1 everywhere but fizzled out, whereas ATYCLB started out not quite as good as POP did but it sustained its momentum for almost 2 years. Even in the tour, the contrast can be seen - U2 had to add dates to their 2nd US leg, while in POP U2 were playing to half empty stadiums.

Cheers,

J
Click to expand...
J, your post, as it stands, is invalid. If you made the simple amendment of adding the phrase, "In the United States," after each sentence, you would rectify this issue. For example, starting at the beginning of your post: "Precisely why I described POP as "inacessible" [in the United States],"...or, "It wasn't U2's fault that not many could understand POP [in the Untied States]," clears things up nicely...or, "But the main fact is that POP was the least well-received U2 album since UF (or was it October), the worst selling and most dissed album since U2 launched to the rock stratosphere in 1987 [in the United States]," etc. This is by no means an insult to the United States, simply an amendment that would add accuracy to your post...because in pretty much every other country in the world, Pop was a big success, as was the tour.

There are obviously many reasons for this...but I think the most basic reason was the slow emergence of electronica/dance music in the American mainstream. In pretty much everywhere else in the world (for whatever the reasons), dance music had been breaking for years...even in Canada believe it or not. This is a simple, crude explanation, but I think it is a good place to start when asking this question.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and to answer the topic question, I'll try and give a short answer. I think ATYCLB put U2 into the stratosphere in a way that it would have fell just short of if the album hadn't been such a mainstream success. While I agree with those who say U2 would have kept their legacy regardless, I think they now have an even bigger legacy because of ATYCLB...perhaps, at least, in the eyes of the younger generation...who were introduced to U2 through the success of that album, and own many of U2's older albums because of it. I suppose it's a bit like roots growing into a tree and branching off in order to be recoginized. The new greenery continues to draw attention to its source...which can only be a good thing in terms of overall recognition and place in the pantheon of rock n' roll history.
 
ATYCLB put U2 back on the map thats all. critics loved it ad called it u2's best work yet:huh: critics suck big time.


my atyclb is starting to collect dust.
and i just got a new AB cd now i have two.
 
I'm hoping they use ATYCLB as a platform to make better more edgy work

they needed to get into the public eye before making another album that everyone might not necessarily like...like pop or zooropa
 
As a fan since Boy whose least favorite album is Pop, I really resent the comments that fans who didn't like Pop were dumb or didn't "Get it", come on. You either like something or you don't. It's a matter of taste, that's all. It's just that among the people who had enjoyed U2's previous work, there just weren't as many who were into the techno or whatever sound, it just wasn't as good. It doesn't make anyone stupid. Some very intelligent people didn't like it. How do you know it wasn't the SMART ones who avoided it? ;) :laugh:

j/k of course. Really. It's about TASTE and OPINION. That's all. No need to insult anyone's intelligence.
 
If U2 had retired following Pop, they would still have ranked as one of the 10 greatest groups of all time.

ATYCLB - one of the best albums of 2000, whether that's damning by faint praise or not is up to you to decide - puts them solidly into the top 5. It's not the greatest thing they have ever done, but it's probably the best album ever by a group 20 years into their recording career. ("Undercover" or "Steel Wheels" by the Stones? Nahhh...)

If the next album is up to that level, they'll stake a pretty strong claim to No. 2 on the all-time list. (The only way they can challenge the B's for #1 would be to put out another JT/AB combination.)

But even if U2 puts out five tank jobs in a row, their Top 10 status is secure.
 
Seabird I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else who did not like POP it is not my favorite album either there are some good songs on it and then some that sound unfinished!I was referring more to the Pop tour and some people not getting the irony of what was going on onstage thats all!
 
u2sangel said:
Seabird I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else who did not like POP it is not my favorite album either there are some good songs on it and then some that sound unfinished!I was referring more to the Pop tour and some people not getting the irony of what was going on onstage thats all!
Click to expand...

I understood the irony and the concepts they were going for, likemaking fun of commercialism, materialism and selling themselves as products, etc. But it didn't help me enjoy something I honestly didn't care for. :shrug: Pop blew chunks IMO and 'getting' what they were trying to do makes no difference. The 'getting it' thing is what I was talking about when I said it irritated me that some people always say fans who didn't like it didn't get it, but I'm saying that doesn't matter. I get it just fine, but I don't like anything about it. I also like a lot of drug related music I'll never really get because I'm not into drugs. I've heard a lot of people say things like "listen to this with the headphones high and you'll get it" but I already liked it. That's what I mean, the getting it thing is old and has nothing to do with your appreciation of something if you like it or not. I do 'get it' but I don't like it. I don't believe explaining any hidden meaning behind anything will make fans suddenly love something they don't already, and even if you do already understand it is still up to taste and opinion. So it is the get it thing I was talking about.


I also disagree that if they had retired after Pop they'd be one of the top 10 bands ever. No way, they had really taken a dive in their public image. I used to hear comments like "U2? They used to be good, but now they suck, what happened?" or "They were so cool but then they freaked out." No you can't write them all off as "stupid" and "not getting it" and to do so would be ridiculous and unfair. I don't think it was just America because there are Americans who liked it just as there are Europeans who didn't- I know several Pop disliking Europeans myself. They had, sadly, as some others here have mentioned, become a laughingstock because of the Pop era. So yes, they did need ATYCLB to save their legacy. I think anyone who is disagreeing with that just likes Pop so much or defends U2 as perfect so greatly they don't want to believe it but I think it's true. Of course we'll never really know what might have happened if not for ATYCLB, or if they had put out that proverbial second "crap" album. (2 crap albums and you're out, Bono's quote) But all that matters is the do have their legacy and they are one of the top 5 bands of all time so let's just be proud and happy!!
 
Last edited:
What an interesting thread! So: it seems there are people who mostly liked JT/AB/All that OR Pop/Zoopra.

Am I one of the few who honestly likes both? Okay, I prefer JT and AB but damn if Pop and Zoopra dont have at least some real gems.

Anyway, interesting. Its nice to be talking about the music again. :D

SD
 
There's no question that ATYCLB was great for U2's reputation and career. I think they'd accomplished so much with their previous material that it wasn't absolutely necessary. That being said it didn't exactly hurt them. It enhanced an already legendary reputation.
 
Interesting discussion...I would say that ATYCLB might have saved U2?s popularity, at least in the U.S., because as some have said before, their previous album Pop and the tour Popmart were both successful in other parts of the world. Now, their legacy have always been intact, they have a very strong body of work since early 80s. Nobody and nothing will take that from them.

With that said, here is some bits of an interview with Bono to brazilian newspaper O Globo, dated 11.25.2000, when they were in Brazil promoting ATYCLB. I thought some here might get interested. In a rough translation:

O GLOBO: Do you think it was a mistake to go into electronic music in your two previous records?

BONO: No, we?re very proud of those records. We have worked with electronic music since The Unforgettable Fire, and in Achtung Baby and Pop I think there are some of the best songs of our career, in terms of lyrics and imagination. Maybe we have hurried up a bit to finish them. U2 fans who have dedicated some time to those songs enjoy them very much: songs like Please, Staring at the Sun...My regret is that people didn?t know what Discotheque was about, I think that it?s my fault. It?s a riddle of love: "You can reach, But you can't grab it". Everybody asked: is that about drugs?

O GLOBO: Do you agree that U2 was getting too big, therefore you lost the artistic control over Pop?

BONO: Maybe. You end up being a bit self-indulgent. But you have to forgive some self-indulgence coming from us, because it is necessary to be selfish to make music. You must have the right to explore and discover new colours, new tones. And if everything goes all right you turn those findings in songs. If it goes wrong, it continues being only experiences.

I don?t know about you, but I hope they continue to explore those colours and tones...you know, the whole rainbow in front of them.

Cheers
MT
 
Last edited:
Seabird said:
I also disagree that if they had retired after Pop they'd be one of the top 10 bands ever. No way, they had really taken a dive in their public image. I used to hear comments like "U2? They used to be good, but now they suck, what happened?" or "They were so cool but then they freaked out." No you can't write them all off as "stupid" and "not getting it" and to do so would be ridiculous and unfair. I don't think it was just America because there are Americans who liked it just as there are Europeans who didn't- I know several Pop disliking Europeans myself. They had, sadly, as some others here have mentioned, become a laughingstock because of the Pop era.
Click to expand...
You also need to add the phrase, "in the United States," after each sentence. Of course there are some Pop haters in Europe as there are in America, but since you're speaking in general terms, you have to concede that the percentage of people who liked it in Europe compared to that of America was much greater; and, conversely, the percentage of people who hated it in Europe was much smaller than in the US. For proof, just look at the album sales per capita and the success of the tour in Europe compared to America. There's a big difference. I just cannot buy your argument that U2 took "a dive in their public image" outside of America based on a small percentage of fans. It would be like saying U2 took a public image dive with ATYCLB in America because some people hated it...which, as we know, was simply not the case.
 
Last edited:
A fair comment, but public image is not just about the fans and how many of them did/didn't like POP. It's also, if not more, to do with the general public and what the general perception of the band was. These may not have anything to do with the actual quality of the album. And whether it's fair or not, succeeding in US is a BIG DEAL, for both the artists and the observers, and it colours the general impression a lot.

Plus, I do not remember U2 playing more POP songs in Europe during the Elevation tour, either.
 
Saracene said:
A fair comment, but public image is not just about the fans and how many of them did/didn't like POP. It's also, if not more, to do with the general public and what the general perception of the band was. These may not have anything to do with the actual quality of the album. And whether it's fair or not, succeeding in US is a BIG DEAL, for both the artists and the observers, and it colours the general impression a lot.

Plus, I do not remember U2 playing more POP songs in Europe during the Elevation tour, either.
Click to expand...

Exactly :yes: :applaud:
 
Saracene said:
A fair comment, but public image is not just about the fans and how many of them did/didn't like POP. It's also, if not more, to do with the general public and what the general perception of the band was. These may not have anything to do with the actual quality of the album. And whether it's fair or not, succeeding in US is a BIG DEAL, for both the artists and the observers, and it colours the general impression a lot.

Plus, I do not remember U2 playing more POP songs in Europe during the Elevation tour, either.
Click to expand...
The general perception of the band (not just the fans) was also much better in Europe than the US. My argument was not about "quality of album" as you allude. People buy an album because they like it, not because of some objective quality standard. Of course succeeding in the US is a big deal. It's one of the largest markets in the world, if not the largest. That, however, doesn't negate the fact that in the rest of the world the album and the band did not suffer the public image/sales problems it had in the US--and to allude that the American market somehow paints the band all in one colour in a universal sense, it seems a bit arrogant to me. That's my argument.

Re: not playing more Pop songs in Europe, I wouldn't be so sure of that. You might want to research that one a bit. Even if it turns out to be true, though, U2's setlist from the entire tour was quite static, and they didn't play too many songs off, say, The Joshua Tree either -- in Europe or America. For that matter, the only album that had many songs was ATYCLB, no matter where they played. There was only enough room in the setlist for a couple songs from each album...Pop was no different.
 
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths said:
That, however, doesn't negate the fact that in the rest of the world the album and the band did not suffer the public image/sales problems it had in the US--and to allude that the American market somehow paints the band all in one colour in a universal sense, it seems a bit arrogant to me. That's my argument.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's useless to centre everything around US market - but that's what your own argument does, in a way. Stressing how much more successful POP was in one territory than the other doesn't take into account the fact that, in US and many places outside US, the sales for POP were rather lower than for U2's previous albums. Here, on the Australian charts, POP was certified 1 x platinum, whereas Achtung Baby was 5 x platinum and ATYCLB 4 x platinum. That pretty much spells a dive in popularity.
 
Last edited:
Saracene said:


I agree, it's useless to centre everything around US market - but that's what your own argument does, in a way. Stressing how much more successful POP was in one territory than the other doesn't take into account the fact that, in US and many places outside US, the sales for POP were rather lower than for U2's previous albums. Here, on the Australian charts, POP was certified 1 x platinum, whereas Achtung Baby was 5 x platinum and ATYCLB 4 x platinum. That pretty much spells a dive in popularity.
Click to expand...

Maybe POP filtered out the real fans from just the occassional fans :ohmy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
277
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
N
Hello From Alberta, Canada
Replies
4
Views
399
NormB
N
Digital Spy 2
I am back
Replies
2
Views
264
Digital Spy 2
Digital Spy 2
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
734
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom