How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb - a different view! A newbie's view!

[BVS]

Gotcha, it's been awhile since I've seen the movie...

 

[MrBrau1]

The "challenging" thing is a cop out.

Say you simply don't like the songs.

It's far more understandable, and doesn't make one a hypocrite, a BVS has pointed out.

COBL isn't "challenging", but One or Pride is?

 

[toscano]

You still haven't shown me what's "challenging" about any of these examples.

Based upon what I've seen from you so far I doubt you'd actually understand.

If you can't see how a U2-audience-at-the-time might be challenged by UF after War, AB after the JT era or the Pop/Zooropa era, that's OK with me.

HTDAAB and ATYCLB was U2 common denominator. Radio-land. they succeeded. Their only challenge was how many hit singles, how much airplay, and how many grammy's they could collect. Mission accomplished. Enjoy it.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

Based upon what I've seen from you so far I doubt you'd actually understand.

If you can't see how a U2-audience-at-the-time might be challenged by UF after War, AB after the JT era or the Pop/Zooropa era, that's OK with me.

HTDAAB and ATYCLB was U2 common denominator. Radio-land. they succeeded. Their only challenge was how many hit singles, how much airplay, and how many grammy's they could collect. Mission accomplished. Enjoy it.

They got more radio airplay with Pop than either of these past albums, So quit with the revisionism crap.

I was U2-audience-at-the-time and I certainly wasn't "Challenged" by hearing new music at any time. Some albums took longer than others to fully grasp. and "The Joshua Tree" took the least amount of time.

What does being "Challenged" by music mean anyway? It takes more than one listen "To Get"? So...?

 

[MrBrau1]

What does being "Challenged" by music mean anyway? It takes more than one listen "To Get"? So...?

It better mean something more than that. Some tunes are growers, some tunes are immediate. Neither case is superior to the other.

Unless of course, you decide that's how you're gonna think.

Many would consider Kid A by RH a "challenging" record.

I would agree.

It's also a terrible record.

 

[BVS]

Based upon what I've seen from you so far I doubt you'd actually understand.

If you can't see how a U2-audience-at-the-time might be challenged by UF after War, AB after the JT era or the Pop/Zooropa era, that's OK with me.

HTDAAB and ATYCLB was U2 common denominator. Radio-land. they succeeded. Their only challenge was how many hit singles, how much airplay, and how many grammy's they could collect. Mission accomplished. Enjoy it.

Based on what you've seen before? Don't even try...

I've been a fan since 88, and I'm a musician myself, and the term "challenging" means nothing. You either feel it or you don't. It may grow on you, but that doesn't mean it's a challenge.

When Radiohead made Kid A, they weren't saying I challenge you to like this... You either like it or you don't.

Music doesn't challenge you. Lyrically it may make you think or question, but that's not a challenge. Art isn't competitive.

And like what's been said before Pop got more airplay in most areas.

 

[ozeeko]

Music doesn't challenge you. Lyrically it may make you think or question, but that's not a challenge. Art isn't competitive.

And like what's been said before Pop got more airplay in most areas.

I wouldn't simplify it that much. Music can be challenging. For God's sake, look at The Beatles, Stones, Led Zep, The Doors...Dylan...the Velvet Underground, 2 Live Crew, Ace Of Base, they all challenged radio and listeners back in the day. Only problem now is everything's pretty much been done so there's not much ground left to cover. When POP was released, radio was not even halfway close to being the watered down, pandering to the masses, pathetic media outlet it is now. I think it's safe to say the U2 singles then were slightly more "challenging" than the singles of today. Hell, it took me a while to understand and appreciate Discoteque. And look at the other songs and singles off that album. Even "Staring at the Sun", the way it's orchestrated utilizing triphop and atmospheric synthesizers, and "If God Will...", with it's strange unconventional song structure and country/hip hop flavor...those songs are safe to say the most basic off POP and they still maintain some level of experimental edge, no pun intended. The singles released today don't need to be that bizarre, just plain catchy singles. Because radio isn't offering that much in the way of creative mainstream rock. I mean, why is Coldplay the messiah of rock all of a sudden? I'm not even trying to be funny, that's a serious and sad question.

The one argument about challenging music being superior to nonchallenging music, I have to disagree on. Some of my favorite songs I loved on first listen, while many others have taken a while. It doesn't matter, really.

But music can be challenging. The first time I listened to Tool all I heard was fucked up time signatures and noisy shit. Now they're one of my favorite bands. Old Genesis made me piss my pants when I first heard them. Now they make me "something else" my pants. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon? It took my best friends mother to make me see the light side of that one. I could go on for hours but I won't.

 

[XHendrix24]

If you can't see how a U2-audience-at-the-time might be challenged by UF after War, AB after the JT era or the Pop/Zooropa era, that's OK with me.

Wouldn't the same apply to ATYCLB after Pop? That album was a massive departure from their 90's work and alienated some 90's fans such as yourself. But for whatever reason that album isn't "challenging"?

Oh, and to the guy with the last post:

While bands like The Beatles certainly were great, they rarely made music that could in any way be considered "challenging." I Want to Hold Your Hand, Twist and Shout, Can't Buy Me Love, Penny Lane, Yellow Submarine, Eight Days a Week - all great songs, but challenging? Give me a break. The same could be said for the majority of the music from the bands on your list.

Also, the next time you're attempting to gain any kind of musical credibility in an argument, I'd leave out any mention of 2 Live Crew and Ace of Base.

If you really think that adding in clicks and whistles here and there in certain places automatically makes a song like Staring at the Sun "challenging," well...you're wrong. SATS is to this day one of U2's safest, blandest, and most boring songs in their catalogue (in my opinion, blahblah). The synths and extra noises don't make it any better or more interesting, and it certainly doesn't make up for the white-bread plain structure of the song. Also, I'd rather have U2 take their own musical route as opposed to conforming to upcoming musical trends of the day like they have at certain times in the past.

U2 has never been a particularly "challenging" band. I don't see why anyone expects them to be that way now. They're U2.

All that being said, I still loathe ATYCLB as an album to this day. So if someone simply doesn't like the past two albums, that's fine. Just don't act like a pompous prick about it like you've got some kind of deeper understanding of the music that the people who actually like the music can't possibly begin to fathom. Because you're wrong.

 

[ozeeko]

Wouldn't the same apply to ATYCLB after Pop? That album was a massive departure from their 90's work and alienated some 90's fans such as yourself. But for whatever reason that album isn't "challenging"?

Oh, and to the guy with the last post:

While bands like The Beatles certainly were great, they rarely made music that could in any way be considered "challenging." I Want to Hold Your Hand, Twist and Shout, Can't Buy Me Love, Penny Lane, Yellow Submarine, Eight Days a Week - all great songs, but challenging? Give me a break. The same could be said for the majority of the music from the bands on your list.

Also, the next time you're attempting to gain any kind of musical credibility in an argument, I'd leave out any mention of 2 Live Crew and Ace of Base.

If you really think that adding in clicks and whistles here and there in certain places automatically makes a song like Staring at the Sun "challenging," well...you're wrong. SATS is to this day one of U2's safest, blandest, and most boring songs in their catalogue (in my opinion, blahblah). The synths and extra noises don't make it any better or more interesting, and it certainly doesn't make up for the white-bread plain structure of the song. Also, I'd rather have U2 take their own musical route as opposed to conforming to upcoming musical trends of the day like they have at certain times in the past.

U2 has never been a particularly "challenging" band. I don't see why anyone expects them to be that way now. They're U2.

All that being said, I still loathe ATYCLB as an album to this day. So if someone simply doesn't like the past two albums, that's fine. Just don't act like a pompous prick about it like you've got some kind of deeper understanding of the music that the people who actually like the music can't possibly begin to fathom. Because you're wrong.

Dude! Ace of Base is one of the craziest groups ever to come on the scene. No, actually I was just kidding with that one. I don't know who's the stupid one here. Me, thinking that it would be funny, or you, actually thinking I was serious.

But let's move on.

You mention The Beatles' straightfoward early pop hits. Yellow Submarine..i fucking hate that song. But it's one out of how many? Point is: you can't jot down a couple pop hits and disregard the rest of the Beatles catalog. Songs from Revolver thru Sgt. Pepper, thru the White Album, thru their other albums until they stopped. I mean, between you and me, can't you at least admit these albums somewhat challenged listeners and broke down doors for all musicians to come? And what about Bob Dylan? "Like A Rolling Stone". that's one of the most challenging songs ever to hit radio. Led Zeppelin helped pave the way for Heavy Metal. The Velvet Underground, I mean the shit they were singing about, their lyrical content.

Sorry if I sound like a pompous prick.

 

[XHendrix24]

Sorry if I sound like a pompous prick.

It's all right. Sorry I didn't pick up on extremely thinly-veiled sarcasm on the internet without any indication at all that you were kidding. Plus, considering a lot of the other stuff you've posted, I wouldn't have been very surprised if you were completely serious.

As for the rest of your post, I'll give you Dylan (for lyrical content, even though his music is based off of traditional folk), Zeppelin (even though a lot of their stuff is based off of traditional blues), and the VU (well, the VU just rule). And the point I was trying to make about the Beatles isn't that they never challenged their listeners, but rather that a large amount of their catalogue wasn't anything that could be considered challenging. I mean, what do you mean exactly when you reference their challenging music? Revolution 9?

I mean, of course tunes like I Am The Walrus and Helter Skelter are completely awesome and different, but even those songs are rooted in catchy melodies and are fairly immediate. Once again, not arguing that the Beatles never did anything challenging, but they aren't exactly the pinnacle of "different" music (even though they may be the pinnacle of pop music in general).

Personally, I tend to think of modern U2 as sort of a parallel to White Album-era Beatles, considering the whole "back to roots" ideas both eras represented. I mean, going from something like Magical Mystery Tour to something like the White Album was just about a big of a jump as from Pop to ATYCLB (actually, probably a bigger jump). But I'm getting off topic. I think. What were we talking about again?



Oh, yes. That's right. HTDAAB rules.

 

[Aygo]

They got more radio airplay with Pop than either of these past albums, So quit with the revisionism crap.

That only true in North America...
ATYCLB / HTDAAB got lots of airplay here in Europe, the Pop album succeded in the radio too, but not as today...

 

[catlhere]

Interference is definitely the wrong place to go for a reasonable discussion on U2 albums

ask every day U2 fans, imo iyo ieo

 

[WhiteWolf]

Great thread, CKONE, and I'd like to add to your "Newbie" sentiment if I may.

BOMB is already standing the test of time. After so many multiple listenings the CD is worn thin, the songs (all of them) are still great, perhaps even getting better.

In my truthful opinion, BOMB is edging its way up between JOSHUA TREE and ACHTUNG BABY as time goes on. Just an awesome record, no matter what the "vocal minority" (as bonsai put it in the first page) may say. BOMB is one for the ages.

 

[JMScoopy]

replace fooj with fuck. christ!

 

[popmart86]

im gonna go listen to the FOOJIES!!!!!

 

[sue4u2]

Interference is definitely the wrong place to go for a reasonable discussion on U2 albums

ask every day U2 fans, imo iyo ieo

I agree. It's almost like discussing religion and which one is really the "one" or best.

My challenge is primarily - which one do I want to listen to at the moment.

 

[CKONE]

replace fooj with fuck. christ!

lol - sorry it was cut and paste from a site with a swear filter.

 

[CKONE]

Great thread, CKONE, and I'd like to add to your "Newbie" sentiment if I may.

BOMB is already standing the test of time. After so many multiple listenings the CD is worn thin, the songs (all of them) are still great, perhaps even getting better.

In my truthful opinion, BOMB is edging its way up between JOSHUA TREE and ACHTUNG BABY as time goes on. Just an awesome record, no matter what the "vocal minority" (as bonsai put it in the first page) may say. BOMB is one for the ages.

I completely agree. It will stand the test of time and when all is said and done and U2 have finished (nooooooooooooo never) arguments will continue to rage for years and years as to which album is best.

I make myself laugh though sometimes as I may well listen to War or Boy every now and then and each time I do they are the best albums ever - then its pop then its zooropa etc etc.

JT will I think always be my favourite, Bomb is currently a very very close second.

 

[CKONE]

It's all right. Sorry I didn't pick up on extremely thinly-veiled sarcasm on the internet without any indication at all that you were kidding. Plus, considering a lot of the other stuff you've posted, I wouldn't have been very surprised if you were completely serious.

As for the rest of your post, I'll give you Dylan (for lyrical content, even though his music is based off of traditional folk), Zeppelin (even though a lot of their stuff is based off of traditional blues), and the VU (well, the VU just rule). And the point I was trying to make about the Beatles isn't that they never challenged their listeners, but rather that a large amount of their catalogue wasn't anything that could be considered challenging. I mean, what do you mean exactly when you reference their challenging music? Revolution 9?

I mean, of course tunes like I Am The Walrus and Helter Skelter are completely awesome and different, but even those songs are rooted in catchy melodies and are fairly immediate. Once again, not arguing that the Beatles never did anything challenging, but they aren't exactly the pinnacle of "different" music (even though they may be the pinnacle of pop music in general).

Personally, I tend to think of modern U2 as sort of a parallel to White Album-era Beatles, considering the whole "back to roots" ideas both eras represented. I mean, going from something like Magical Mystery Tour to something like the White Album was just about a big of a jump as from Pop to ATYCLB (actually, probably a bigger jump). But I'm getting off topic. I think. What were we talking about again?



Oh, yes. That's right. HTDAAB rules.

Ozeeko and XHendrix24,

quality discussion that you will never resolve.

the 'challenging' argument is another impossible to be right about. what is challenging?? to some it is the music - complexity, melody, technicality, new style, new ground or new sound - to others its the lyrics, the content, the subject, the format, the poetry - and to some its the performance, the passion, the emotion and of course the effect it has on each individual listener. for others it will be the combination of all of the above.

You cant compare challenging with the beatles as they were just toss. an original example of the dross we get from Take That, Backend Boys, Britney Spears etc. Their songs fed the audince of young girls at the time - not at all challinging imho. Once they were on their pedastool they could have released any old shit (and some would say they did) and their fans would have bought it!(I accept reluctantly that this criticism could be levelled at U2 though!)

The music of U2 (and every other band) is measured individually by the listener. Its quality is therefore impossible to discuss to conclusion but great fun to discuss none the less.

 

[shaun vox]

im sorry but HTDAAB is a medicore pop adult contemporary
album!!

where have the days gone when u2 were good!!!

 

[DarkAcrobat]

I miss Glenn Miller too, now, all music is crap !

 

[DarkAcrobat]

im sorry but HTDAAB is a medicore pop adult contemporary
album!!

where have the days gone when u2 were good!!!

What you mean with "medicore", maybe "medicare", Do you mean HTDAAB is a healing album ?

HTDAAB , the cure for the metal air head !!

 

[ozeeko]

Ozeeko and XHendrix24,

quality discussion that you will never resolve.

the 'challenging' argument is another impossible to be right about. what is challenging?? to some it is the music - complexity, melody, technicality, new style, new ground or new sound - to others its the lyrics, the content, the subject, the format, the poetry - and to some its the performance, the passion, the emotion and of course the effect it has on each individual listener. for others it will be the combination of all of the above.

You cant compare challenging with the beatles as they were just toss. an original example of the dross we get from Take That, Backend Boys, Britney Spears etc. Their songs fed the audince of young girls at the time - not at all challinging imho. Once they were on their pedastool they could have released any old shit (and some would say they did) and their fans would have bought it!(I accept reluctantly that this criticism could be levelled at U2 though!)

The music of U2 (and every other band) is measured individually by the listener. Its quality is therefore impossible to discuss to conclusion but great fun to discuss none the less.

At the time my friend, the girls were creaming over the "moptops" not the music. The music is something totally different entirely.

 

[desertfan]

Wow...I can't believe the 20+ year U2 fan called HTDAAB a "cookie-cutter" album made for "airplay and awards".

You must be joking.

Yes, it won awards and rightly so.

Frankly, I think it's as good as anything they've ever done.

In fact, I think the last two albums stack up with anything they've ever done.

Certainly the Joshua Tree will always be held in high esteem and it was a fabulous album, but the last two are simply works of art.

I'd give a slight edge to Bomb, but ATYCLB isn't far behind.

Beautiful Day, Elevation, Walk On, Kite and When I Look at the World are all incredible songs.

Auchtung Baby is still one of my favorite U2 albums and I've been rediscovering some of the better tracks from Pop of late (Gone, Last Night on Earth, Please, Staring at the Sun, Do You Feel Loved), but these last two albums are both outstanding efforts.

Joshua, Auchtung, All You Can't and Bomb are clearly their best four albums. The ranking order just depends on personal taste.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Wow...I can't believe the 20+ year U2 fan called HTDAAB a "cookie-cutter" album made for "airplay and awards".

You must be joking.

Yes, it won awards and rightly so.

Frankly, I think it's as good as anything they've ever done.

In fact, I think the last two albums stack up with anything they've ever done.

Certainly the Joshua Tree will always be held in high esteem and it was a fabulous album, but the last two are simply works of art.

I'd give a slight edge to Bomb, but ATYCLB isn't far behind.

Beautiful Day, Elevation, Walk On, Kite and When I Look at the World are all incredible songs.

Auchtung Baby is still one of my favorite U2 albums and I've been rediscovering some of the better tracks from Pop of late (Gone, Last Night on Earth, Please, Staring at the Sun, Do You Feel Loved), but these last two albums are both outstanding efforts.

Joshua, Auchtung, All You Can't and Bomb are clearly their best four albums. The ranking order just depends on personal taste.

you can stress your opinion as much as you like, but certain people will always belive there opinion is much more important than yours

 

[jacobus]

desertfan wrote: Joshua, Auchtung, All You Can't and Bomb are clearly their best four albums. The ranking order just depends on personal taste.

hola desertfan, IMO your're only half-right. TJT & AB both are on the quality top end of U2 releases. ATYCLB & HTDAAB aren't...thats my point of view

 

[CKONE]

I love impossible discussions
















1. JT
2. Bomb
3. AB/WAR/BOY/POP/ATYCLB/ZOOROPA/UF etc etc

 

[shaun vox]

i still cant believe that people like htdaab!!
i personally cant stand City of blinding lights!!(hate that song)

WAR/JT and achtung baby are miles ahead off Bomb and Atyclb!!
the vocals/instruments/musicianship/song structure and lyrics were all better on their previous albums!!
Doesn't anybody notice this?I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
lol

 

[BVS]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

We've all suspected this for quite awhile.

 

[xaviMF22]

i still cant believe that people like htdaab!!
i personally cant stand City of blinding lights!!(hate that song)

WAR/JT and achtung baby are miles ahead off Bomb and Atyclb!!
the vocals/instruments/musicianship/song structure and lyrics were all better on their previous albums!!
Doesn't anybody notice this?I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
lol

yes!!!!

No really although I can't stand HTDAAB, I'm glad other people like it.
Where some see the album as genius, I see a borefest and the only album which hasn't grown on me.