Here's what I'm worried about...

[Sleep Over Jack]

Axver is right on the money here!

catlhere, I love your posts and think they're funny as hell... but I have to say your anti-Pop anti-Mofo bias shows really well in most of your serious posts!

How can you generalize like that and say that most of this forum wants 90s U2 to return???

I agree catlhere is somewhat biased, but come on, you should be aware of your own bias here too..

 

[Zoots]

HTDAAB is more edgy rock than anything else they've ever done.

what exactly do you mean by edgy rock? The album sounds more like a mainstream pop/rock album to me.

 

[typhoon]

Man, I don't know, I suck with genres. But it sounds different from their other shit to me, and not in a watered down way (well, not the good half of it).

 

[MrBrau1]

It sounds like U2 to my ears.

 

[Zoots]

For the last time... it's not about the sound, it's about the lyrics!!! That's what's wrong with current U2!

*bangs head repeatedly to a post around which a dead horse is tied*

 

[angelordevil]

...winning Album of the Year (and the other 4 awards) makes U2 think that they can make another album like it and that's what the general public wants.

I guess I’m in the camp that thinks U2 have arrived at one of the most intriguing points of their career. The Grammy wins just add to what they crave more than record sales—relevance. No, the awards shouldn’t “matter” on one level. I mean, look at the competition—it’s laughable, in terms of talent. We know they’re better than the lightweights, but for the casual fan, it solidifies that U2 are at least equals with Kelly Clarkson, and Madonna’s ass. In America, that’s something.

U2 want nothing less than the ability to change the world—look at everything they do, from the humanitarian work, right through to Bono having breakfast with George Bush. They’ve worked hard to achieve the exact position they’re in right now--to be able to shift the status quo. It’s always been about more than the music for them—and I’m convinced that they will be revered, and even studied, for years because of this.

I’m also convinced that the next album will be different. Personally, I’m hoping for some mind-bending artistry. It might not be filled with cowbells or elephant mating calls (tragically), but I’m willing to bet anything that U2 are too smart to bore themselves, and us, to death.

 

[MrBrau1]

A band of 45 years old won song of the year.

Did "Sometimes" even chart in the top 200 in the US?

I'd imagine every one of there competitiors were top 10 singles.

That's pretty cool.

 

[Zoots]

That's all cool and good for them that they're having a lot of success lately. But at the end of the day, Passengers and MDH sound much more interesting to me than ATYCLB and HTDAAB put together.

 

[MrBrau1]

That's fine. I'm more impressed with good songs than strange sounds.

 

[Achtung_Bebe]

What I and many others do NOT want to happen is for U2 to grow stagnant, to slide themselves into a comfortable rut and stay there...So yes, I hope they keep pushing themselves to not become comfortable, to put themselves out there, to take risks. The greater the risks, the greater the potential rewards.

You see, I find it more likely for U2 to take a risk having won the grammies than if they were to have lost. They have had so much success with the recent releases, you may say they snapped back from the failure of Pop (although I hate to call it that as I love the album). But, admittedly, it wasn't well recieved. From a marketing standpoint, now is the perfect time to tread new ground. They may be criticized for it not sounding like "Beautiful Day" "Vertigo" etc., but really what more do they have to prove? I think U2 realizes that they really don't have anything more to prove now. I have a feeling that the next release will be something new for U2.

I agree wholeheartedly with typhoon's post, U2 have never stopped experimenting for the very fact that they keep innovating as a band.

 

[Achtung_Bebe]

Re: Re: Here's what I'm worried about...

I guess I’m in the camp that thinks U2 have arrived at one of the most intriguing points of their career. The Grammy wins just add to what they crave more than record sales—relevance.

"You have to fight to be relevant. I mean, being successful is easier, in a funny way, than being relevant. It's very hard, and we need to prove it to ourselves...there's no reason for us to be in a band now other than to try and make some extraordinary music." -Bono, CNN post-grammy interview

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

I've never seen such an uptight group of fans than ones of U2.

U2 have progressed on every album they've made, whether you like the album or not. The progression they made on the last 2 albums from Pop shouldn't be taken any lighter than going from "God Part 2" on Rattle and Hum to "The Fly" on Acthung.


They started out as a teenage punk band, and look where they've gone-They've touched on country, soul, 60s Pop, 50s rock,electronic, dance, ambient, jazz, opera, Irish folk music AND created their own sound in the process.

They've written songs for/or with Bob Dylan, Willie Nelson, Frank Sinatra(even if he never did get around to recording it), Luciano Pavarotti, Robbie Roberston and Tina Turner(Yeah she's cool)

And people are worried that they won another grammy? Crazy........

 

[doctorwho]

A band of 45 years old won song of the year.

Did "Sometimes" even chart in the top 200 in the US?

I'd imagine every one of there competitiors were top 10 singles.

That's pretty cool.

The song was a Hot 100 hit in the U.S.

However, "Walk On" won "Record of the Year" and that wasn't a Hot 100 hit - one of the few that has that distinction.

And, of course, this puzzles me quite a bit. ATYCLB has sold well over 4M copies in the U.S. and won 7 Grammy awards. HTDAAB has sold over 3M copies in the U.S. and has won 8 Grammy awards. U2's tour is instantly sold out across the U.S. When radio actually promotes a song, ala "Beautiful Day" or "Vertigo", it becomes a hit.

So why on earth aren't radio stations playing more U2 songs?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

These last two albums are arguable the most radio-friendly, yet have received the least amount of radio airplay. Album sales are higher than many artists, including those "American Idol" kids (U2's last two albums have outsold Idol's most successful artist - Kelly Clarkson - by over a million copies).

I really don't get why pop radio ignores U2 - clearly the public and critics want to hear them.

 

[MrBrau1]

I really don't get why pop radio ignores U2 - clearly the public and critics want to hear them.

Really good question.

 

[biff]

So why on earth aren't radio stations playing more U2 songs?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

I don't listen to the radio very often, but I can tell you that when I do, I hear a lot of U2. It's the Canadian way!
If I'm in the car for any length of time with the radio on, I inevitably hear U2 (much to my delight and to the chagrin of my non-U2 loving spouse).
I sense that in the U.S., U2 are way further down the scale of radio popularity than they are in many other countries. At least that's how it seems to me here in the Great White North.

 

[nightninja56]

I just want a new album...if its as good or better than HTDAAB, i will be completely fine with it

gosh..i cant wait for them to come out with one...

 

[Axver]

and yet a majority of what this forum likes is 90's U2 that is dark dirty and hard rocking, full of glam and distored vocals. so are they saying they like U2 best when they aren't "U2"-ish?

That didn't address what I said in my post.

And note that most of the hyper-nineties fans gush all over One, which I think is the most eighties-sounding of all of U2's nineties output! (Which is part of why I don't like it, as it feels stale to me, like it's a fading shadow of WOWY.)

Now, personally, I wish U2 would make more music in the style of The Unforgettable Fire, stretching out the atmospheric and often instrumental soundscapes of that period to their natural conclusion (I think Bono got sidetracked by American music before the band really got there). But really, all I want to see is U2 keep pushing into the future rather than becoming a formulaic band who make predictable re-hashes of past glory.

And good lyrics. The world needs good lyrics. Bono's never been a truly great lyricist, but the last two albums (especially ATYCLB) are lyrically disappointing. "It's a beautiful day, don't let it get away" or "hello, hello, I'm at a place called Vertigo" has nothing on, say, "then you discover what you thought was freedom just was greed".

If Bono could write a whole album of songs with lyrics as good as A Sort Of Homecoming, One Tree Hill, The Fly, Please, and Wake Up Dead Man, I would die happy - twice.

 

[VintagePunk]

Why are you so outright aggressive towards people who want some kind of a change? It's not necessarily because they aren't satisfied with the current albums or want U2 to do what they like. Personally, the current sound is below what I think U2 could do but some songs are the equal of almost anything they have ever done. And no-one's asking for another Pop-esque attempt, though it shows your bias that you think that will ruin things.

What I and many others do NOT want to happen is for U2 to grow stagnant, to slide themselves into a comfortable rut and stay there. Then their music would just become stale and they'd go nowhere except fading away into oblivion. I'd like to see U2 keep pushing themselves. I don't care if I like it or not. It's just important that their music doesn't become stale. After all, you wouldn't eat stale bread, would you? On the same token, you wouldn't want to listen to stale music, and I doubt U2 want to make it. So yes, I hope they keep pushing themselves to not become comfortable, to put themselves out there, to take risks. The greater the risks, the greater the potential rewards.

Fair enough. But aren't you accusing them (or are afraid of them) of doing so just a little prematurely?

I'm fascinated to see where this next album will take them. My guess is that the popularity of HTD will give them free reign to delve into something more experimental, rather than pandering to radio hits, because what more do they have to prove after the popularity of the Bomb?

Then again, that could be just wishful thinking talking.

 

[VintagePunk]

I don't listen to the radio very often, but I can tell you that when I do, I hear a lot of U2. It's the Canadian way!
If I'm in the car for any length of time with the radio on, I inevitably hear U2 (much to my delight and to the chagrin of my non-U2 loving spouse).
I sense that in the U.S., U2 are way further down the scale of radio popularity than they are in many other countries. At least that's how it seems to me here in the Great White North.

I second that. I have five stations programmed into the radio in my car, and, no exaggeration, at almost anytime, I could shuffle between them, and find a U2 song this past spring or summer.

I still here them a hell of a lot. And of the five stations I have programmed in my car, two are alt-rock, two are classic rock, and one is AOR. The attention is pretty equal.

Then again, Canadian radio is (for the most part) much better than that pop-rap-hip-hop centric US radio.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Here's what I'm worried about...

"You have to fight to be relevant. I mean, being successful is easier, in a funny way, than being relevant. It's very hard, and we need to prove it to ourselves...there's no reason for us to be in a band now other than to try and make some extraordinary music." -Bono, CNN post-grammy interview

Thats practically what BONO said on VH1 Legends back in November 1998.

 

[Zoomerang96]

God forbid you stick with what you and the majority of your fans and critics are enjoying. Who would EVER commit such a bogus act.

that's a well you can only go to so many times.

if you don't have something new to say, and a new way of saying it, then make way for other bands who've got it going on.

pandering to fans and critics is a deathwish to integrity, creativity, and success as a whole.

and to answer your question, radiohead.

ok computer was MILDLY well-received, if you do remember, if in fact you even know who radiohead are in the first place.

they took a break, and returned with something that ok computer wasn't.

kid a.

oh, and that album not only kicked ass, it didn't have any singles from it, no videos, almost no press at all. the music spoke for itself. one of the greatest acts by any band in the last 20-30 years.

did i mention kid a went to NUMBER ONE in the us despite the lack of publicity?

i have nothing against publicity, i'm only illustrating a point.

 

[U2DMfan]

They are trying to tackle a shark that most others just jumped.

 

[lazarus]

kid a.

oh, and that album not only kicked ass, it didn't have any singles from it, no videos, almost no press at all. the music spoke for itself. one of the greatest acts by any band in the last 20-30 years.

did i mention kid a went to NUMBER ONE in the us despite the lack of publicity?

To be fair, Kid A had virtually no competition, and took the number 1 spot with somewhere around 100-150 thousand units sold. It was a "weak week".

For comparison's sake, ATYCLB, which debuted at #3 behind Jay-Z and OutKast, sold almost 400 thousand units in the first week.

And as much as I admire Kid A, U2 did it 5 years earlier with Passengers. They may not have been ballsy enough to put the band's name on it for official U2 release status, but they abandoned the verse-chorus-verse structure and anything resembing guitar rock was thrown out the window. To me Passengers may not be as focused as Kid A, but artistically it's a greater accomplishment. As otherworldly as Everything In Its Right Place may have sounded, it doesn't approach the total mindfuck of hearing United Colors of Plutonium coming from U2 and Eno, even following Zooropa.

 

[U2girl]

I thought the band already said they will experiment again.

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

...winning Album of the Year (and the other 4 awards) makes U2 think that they can make another album like it and that's what the general public wants.

I hope they try something bold and daring next time...I think losing a few of the awards might have sparked them to do just that...to think they need to change it up a bit.

I hope I'm wrong, because while I don't mind the last two albums, I think they could do a lot more if they were motivated...and losing these awards may have been motivation enough.

Possibly.. but look at Achtung baby that came right off of Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum. I think the next album will be a little more gritty and less poppy

 

[Chizip]

Re: Re: Here's what I'm worried about...

Possibly.. but look at Achtung baby that came right off of Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum. I think the next album will be a little more gritty and less poppy

Rattle and Hum was killed by critics

 

[DreamOutLoud13]

You know... Pop is my favourite album, and it's status at the top of my U2 totem poll has nothing to do with the electronic sounds and techno beats (which only dominate a few of the songs on the album anyway).
Pop is lyrically brilliant. Beyond the music and the stigma, that fact remains.

ATYCLB and HTDAAB are not so lyrically brilliant. Some of the lyrics on ATYCLB just make me cringe and facepalm and cry out "Bono, what the hell were you thinking?!"
HTDAAB is better, but not by great leaps and bounds. Thinking about it now... Miracle Drug and One Step Closer are probably the two strongest songs lyrically, particularly if you focus on artistic use of words and the ability to paint a canvas with a lyric. Mercy is also very good in this manner, which is why I like it so much.

Much of the 80s songs were great lyrically as well. But lyrics completely aside, focusing entirely on sound, I prefer the 90s over everything else? Why? Because I also tend to prefer music I can move to. The 90s had everything, great sounds and great lyrics.
ATYCLB and HTDAAB are a bit short on both of those things, in my opinion. There are great songs on both albums, don't get me wrong. But they're just not what I want. They'll do. They'll feed my U2 hunger just fine, but they're not what I crave.

Now what do I think is in the future? Bono (and possibly The Edge as well) has referred more than once to ATYCLB and HTDAAB as a pair of albums. Of course, he could always try to stretch that pair into a trio, but I'd like to think/hope he already has an idea in mind of what the next album might turn out to be, and if he does, and is still calling them a pair... maybe it'll be different. Hopefully it'll be better. In my opinion HTDAAB is better than ATYCLB, so maybe they're moving back in the right direction.


And, while we're discussing it... I don't hear U2 on the radio much myself, but on the rare occasion that I do... it's usually something from Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree (or on the very rare occasion, War).

 

[doctorwho]

I don't listen to the radio very often, but I can tell you that when I do, I hear a lot of U2. It's the Canadian way!
If I'm in the car for any length of time with the radio on, I inevitably hear U2 (much to my delight and to the chagrin of my non-U2 loving spouse).
I sense that in the U.S., U2 are way further down the scale of radio popularity than they are in many other countries. At least that's how it seems to me here in the Great White North.

Canada has been VERY friendly to U2. In fact, U2's CD singles linger on the sales charts for months and months. Radio charts have been very good to U2, as have total album sales. Even when "Pop" was doing poorly in the U.S., the album and CD singles from "Pop" were doing SO well in Canada, that Island re-released U2's past CD singles - and they charted too!!

However, the U.S. is another story. As I wrote, ATYCLB and HTDAAB are arguably U2's most radio-friendly albums. Grammy voters - which are U2's peers - clearly agree as they have given U2 numerous song awards, such as two "Record of the Year" awards, three "Song of the Year" awards and four "Rock Song of the Year" awards (along with awards for "Best Rock Performance"). And to reiterate, when radio does actually play a song - like "Beautiful Day" or "Vertigo" - they became big radio hits.

Considering that U2's last two albums have outsold Kelly Clarkson's last two albums - she being "young and hot" and having the backing of "American Idol" behind her - clearly the public wants to hear U2. So I don't get why U.S. radio is ignoring them.

 

[U2Man]

I wanted to say something here, but then I saw that typhoon had already said all of it.

 

[doctorwho]

that's a well you can only go to so many times.

if you don't have something new to say, and a new way of saying it, then make way for other bands who've got it going on.

pandering to fans and critics is a deathwish to integrity, creativity, and success as a whole.

While I'm not a fan of Radiohead's recent work (even though I continue to get their CD's...), I do agree with this part of your post. And that's a rarity - I'm not sure I ever agreed with you.

Had U2 tried making a JT-2 in 1991, which is actually what Larry and Adam wanted to do, I don't think U2 would be around today. I'm sure sales would have been solid (for a JT-2), but it also probably would have been the beginning of the end.

One could argue that despite the success of AB, "Zooropa" and "Pop" still weren't huge sellers in the U.S. While true, U2's transition from JT to AB always kept critics and the public interested. "Discotheque" became a huge hit based on anticipation alone! Had U2 not made that transition in 1991, no one would have cared about U2 come 1997.

U2's transition from "Pop" to ATYCLB in 2001, also kept people interested. Despite "Pop" failing to find the audience U2 hoped, come 2001, U2 set a personal best record for a debut week in the SoundScan era when ATYCLB sold over 400,000 copies its first week.

As was posted by others, U2 try to stay relevant. Sometimes I think that quest takes them places that are more "popular" than relevant. For example, some songs on "Pop" were more hip for that particular moment in time rather than songs that could "last through the ages". And this is key - U2 have found a way to make songs that are not only hits, but remain fresh for years after their release. IMO, "Pop" didn't succeed as much because U2 emulated a current style, rathern than leading the way as they've done so often.

Regardless, U2 can only go try a certain style so many times. I feel that JT was a refinement of the sounds on UF. Similarly, I feel HTDAAB is a refinement of the sounds on ATYCLB. U2 were able to have these sets of similarly sounding albums sell well and be well received. But by R&H, U2 were already starting to suffer. So U2 defintely can't try their current style again unless they want to endure yet another backlash - this time for not being creative enough!

If U2 continue in the style of "Fast Cars", "Love & Peace" and even "Vertigo" and "Mercy", then this is a good thing. However, if they continue in the style of "Walk On", "Beautiful Day", "Sometimes..." or "Stuck...", then I will be very disappointed, and I think this will hurt them considerably.