financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Okay, I'll explain. For quite a while, I considered AB U2's best album, with Joshua running a very close second. Achtung was the album that first got me into U2, and I still think it's brilliant - definitely in my Top 3.
HOWEVER, recently it has occured to me that the album has dated just ever so slightly. What I mean is that, listening to it, it's very much "the sound of U2 in 1991" or even "the sound of rock music in 1991". In other words, it shows its age, just a tad.
The reason I now rate Joshua Tree higher is principally that, this album never tried to be modern, or trendy, or current, in the first place, therefore it's not capable of dating. There's no complicated technology on it, nothing remotely faddish, it could have been released in 1967 or 1977 and would still sound brilliant. Our impressions of it today would, I feel, be the same, had it been released in '67 or '77.
That said, LYRICALLY, I think Achtung Baby has the slight edge over The Joshua Tree, but musically, and conceptually, I reckon Joshua is a better album.
Thoughts?
HOWEVER, recently it has occured to me that the album has dated just ever so slightly. What I mean is that, listening to it, it's very much "the sound of U2 in 1991" or even "the sound of rock music in 1991". In other words, it shows its age, just a tad.
The reason I now rate Joshua Tree higher is principally that, this album never tried to be modern, or trendy, or current, in the first place, therefore it's not capable of dating. There's no complicated technology on it, nothing remotely faddish, it could have been released in 1967 or 1977 and would still sound brilliant. Our impressions of it today would, I feel, be the same, had it been released in '67 or '77.
That said, LYRICALLY, I think Achtung Baby has the slight edge over The Joshua Tree, but musically, and conceptually, I reckon Joshua is a better album.
Thoughts?