Indulge me as I rant

[JOFO]

I agree with everything Michael has to say, especially the part about POP.
I'll add my 2 cents though:
I think the failure of POP bit them in the ass in such a way as that they STILL haven't forgotten what that was like; and here's the kicker: if the album was a total critical and commercial success, they would NEVER be saying that it "wasn't finished".
Here's the top rock band in the world in 1997, not having released a new album in 4 years, trying to "predict" the electronica craze and getting there first. In the past, they'd changed styles several times, mostly to critcal and commercial success. Now they're faced with the most expensive tour ever undertaken supporting an album that is largely dismissed by the general population, and even u2 fans as well, as being crap.
They were given a second chance though: ATYCLB's ass was kissed the world over because it didn't jump on any "latest craze" and basically presented the band in a "pop" format while still retaining their character. And don't think they didn't capitalize on the "only band still relevant after 20 years" angle.

Look, all the new album has to do is be great and all these arguments about pop and ATYCLB will vanish in a heartbeat.
If it's only pretty good, the arguments will intensify, and I think that the time for them to call it quits will be near, because if they can't get the magic in 4 years since the last release, they'll surely not get it again in 10.

 

[Jamila]

As someone who's been following U2, their lives and their music for over 23 years, I feel compelled to offer some thoughts but not to negate anyone else's ideas.

I do not think that U2 has lost any of their passion or fire over the years, but I do think that their maturity has possibly CHANGED THE WAY THAT THEY COMMUNICATE their passion in their songs.

Bono is no longer a young man, full of righteous indignation at the unfairness in the world, ready to shout out that indignation at any moment.

He is now a very astute middle-aged man, who has gone through all the ups and downs of life enough to want to approach song-writing and the difficulties of life more holistically.

Maybe Bono has found out that it is not enough for him anymore to simply scream his passions and indignations, but to sing about them in a way that BRINGS MORE HOPE AND LIGHT, and that UPLIFTS OUR SPIRITS, but can still be played on the radio. (which I see nothing wrong with)

Even in the '80s, Bono was talking about the process of song-writing and of how much he wanted to write songs that could get across their message and still stay within the bounds of airplay.

I personally LOVE ATYCLB as much as I cherish JT, UF, AB, Boy or really any of their albums. It's just DIFFERENT from the others (isn't that the main reason that we love U2's music anyway?).

So, I ENCOURAGE U2 TO ALWAYS DREAM EACH OF THEIR ALBUMS UP ALL OVER AGAIN. I WILL ALWAYS FOLLOW!

 

[Basstrap]

heh

anyway,
I was expecting to come back from work and see this thread as a big ugly mess. But I'm glad people were civil.

I'm actually encouraged by the Atomic Bomb title, though I thought it was How To ASsemble...etc.
it's post modern, it's arty, it ironic and political.

all things which U2 are a lot better at than this "gola is soul" shit (worse slogan evah!)

and griffiths...those were some good words.
Describes the way I feel accurately (aside from POP, I really like that album)
it's too bad they feel they have to sell millions of copies...I think you're right, that pressure is holding them back from taking risks.

 

[Basstrap]

I don't listen to U2 just because of their energy
it's one element they've got

fucking up the mainstream also is only fun for a couple of years
U2 could probably poop out an album filled with indie sensibility every other year
it's an easier trick than trying to write songs in a way that's new to you

I don't think you seriously believe they could 'poop' out an album a year as good as, say, your favorite Will Oldham cd. That statement was purely defensive, which is a problem many U2 fans have. They see U2 as being in a competition with everyone. So when a band comes along with a lot of hype or acclaim. Or when somebody who is into indie music has a qualm with U2,
well then, that acclaimed band gets trashed and all indie music is simplisitc poop that U2 could make with their eyes closed.

 

[RademR]

I think the only way u2 will call it quits is when they want to, not because the quality of their music isn't as good. The only people talking about this is the super u2 fans and the regular u2 haters, eveyone in between arent even close to having these thoughts. I mean, say what you want, but lets put a review on ATYCLB:

-it sold over 10 million copies.
-It won 5 Grammy Awards.
-Critics kissed it's ass.
-Fans kissed its ass: Voted the 15th greatest album of all time by the readers of Rolling Stone.
-It's tour was the 2nd largest selling tour of all time!
-It got more radio airplay than POP and ZOOROPA combined.

I know things like record sales and awards and radioplay dont mean anything to the music, but my point is they got all those things because people loved the record! I think people overlook what u2 tried to do with the last album. I dont think they've lost the passion, not after hearing "Kite" for the first time, or seeing the Slane DVD. So while I agree its not their best work (but seriously, do you think they will ever really top Acthung Baby?), they can keep making albums on the quality level of ATYCLB and I will keep being a loyal u2 fan.

 

[Salome]

I don't think you seriously believe they could 'poop' out an album a year as good as, say, your favorite Will Oldham cd. That statement was purely defensive, which is a problem many U2 fans have.

I may have many problems, but U2 isn't one of them
(Will Oldham has probably become more formulaic in his songwriting than U2 btw but I don't care about that either because the man's brilliant)

I didn't say they would end up releasing a great album every 2 years, but these guys are talented enough and have enough experience to ensure that the album would not cause any of their fans to turn their backs on them

POP actually is a great example of this
because they did try to cater to what was 'happening' in the music scene outside the pop charts by having their chosen producer for this project add some kind of electronic sound over their music (I love MOFO, one of U2's best songs IMO, but it's also in many ways nothing more than U2 trying to sound like Underworld)
back then that was indeed the way music seemed to be going

and I am convinced U2 are definitely able to write a couple of good and a couple of great songs every other year and having the latest critics favourite (I'm still surprised Nigel Godrich only got to do a b-side) produce it

would I lose my interest in them?
probably yes
because you do need great instead of bits of greatness and bits of pretty good
but to me greatness can as easily be found in craftsmanship as it can be in profound lyrics, youthful energy, sonic explorations and overall kick-arseness

 

[mofo82]

I am really excited by this thread and anyone who hasn't read "I Miss the 'Accident's' from U2" thread must read it. It's in the same vein.

MG you're right, that the band would want us to challenge them the way we have on these to threads. I love a critical voice when it comes to the arts- visual, musical, etc. if anything, it will validate and commend the artist or possibly motivate and encourage the artist(s) to create instead of settle for a particular style. I live by the idea that the arts are not simply for the artist but for an audience. I have yet to meet or hear of an artist that made work for themselves. there must be some intention to meet the wants and desires of an audience or following. this almost automatically opens your work up to criticism, especially when you are a rock band with the weight of U2.

I am an artist myself- paint, draw, plus a variety of other media. I understand this thread and totally appreciate the truth and passion some individuals can express while being tasteful and wise. Thanks to all!!!

 

[thrillme]

Staying current shouldn't mean making records that get played to soothe and pacify, and that's what I heard with ATYCLB.

Huh, guess it really does depend on the listener. I had the hardest time listening to "Kite." I have no problem with death, no fear of it myself, but when it's someone close to me, other people's death, that I do have a hard time dealing with. Someone very close to me, came close to dying, and Kite, the lyrics, it made me want to cry whenever I heard it.

"I know that this is not goodbye--"


"Peace on Earth" actually has the names of real people who were killled in bombings. That shocks me into reality, not pop fluff. Not that soothing to be honest.

"Hope and history won't rhyme, so what's it worth, this peace on earth."

Nor pacifying for me.

Wild Honey, Beautiful Day, and Grace, are the only ones that gave me soothing or pacifying feelings, to counter the ones that didn't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, concerning "When I look at the World" perhaps it depends on how one interprets Bono's song writing. I know lots of U2 fans are not Christian, so this interpretation won't be theirs, but if the "you's" in the lyrics, were to be viewed as referencing God of the Bible,....I dunno, maybe it just works for me. I get a deeper song by doing that.

I gotta say, I agree with the Rollingstone writer who said ATYCLB was a rather dark album, rather than pop. "If the title in general refers to those things that really matter, it is also specifically about death, and about valuing whatever accompanies you when you die."

Elevation (the revamped "tomb raider" version) was the "pop" song of that album for me.

 

[Leeloo]

I don't know why people think it's because they're old and slow. How come we have so many teenagers here who just now became fans because of ATYCLB? The album sold 9 million copies and means a lot to a lot of people. If you don't like it there's no need to keep whining, just don't play it!

 

[Leeloo]

and anyone who wants to be blown away or have their socks knocked off you're listening the worng band. They have never been known as that hard of rockers.

 

[Basstrap]

a lot of my favorite U2 songs are slow as hell

that's not the issue here

if I had an album full of Stateless....God help me, I'd never leave the room

 

[isabelle_guns]

I agree bass, sometimes i THINK that u2 have lost their fire

 

[martha]

a lot of my favorite U2 songs are slow as hell

that's not the issue here

Indeed it isn't.

I can name all kinds of slower songs from the past that challenge and stimulate with a slower tempo.


As for not rocking, a few here need to go back and relisten to much of AB, JT, and the first three records.

 

[U2girl]

I figure I should just have it out here once and for all so I can stop bitching on all the other forums.

My beef with U2:

today Streets came on the radio at work. It was the first time I have heard them in a long time...and my heart skipped a beat to hear one of my favorite songs of all time.
It's then I remembered, putting aside all my aquired indie sensibility, why I love(d) U2.

I don't think anyone could argue that U2 possess anymore talent at songwriting than most bands. There are certainly more brilliant songwriters, anyway.
So what was is about U2 that set them apart?
it was raw emotion.

listening to Ultraviolet or Streets or Please just makes you want to find some rain and dance in it. Or scream. Or laugh.
There are not many bands that can find that and incorporate it into their music. But U2 did.

then there was Ground Beneath Her Feet and stateless

and then U2 died

All the emotion and art was sucked from their songs leaving them lifeless pleas for media attention. The only time they even approach their former greatness in maybe in Walk On and Kite...but even these feel formulaic and 'by - the - numbers'

It's like they took a few templates and molds from the story of pop music and churned out a few easily forgettable tunes.

now it's lame press photos of four aging men hanging out in an airport
now it's bono and his senile speeches. Don't you ever wish he'd go the way of The Edge?...speak when spoken to.

for all the talk of soul they seem to have lost it.
You can always smell when someone is trying to hard...and ATYCLB tried so hard to change your life that it embaressed me. I was embarssed for them (even though I know it was a huge smash hit)

And that's where I lie now,
I'm nervous about the new album cos I know it could make me or break me. I want so much to put on the first track and get some ass kicking intro like zooropa...I want to hear a song that makes me shake like With or Without You or get angry like Wake Up Dead Man or dream like Sort of Homecoming.

But I don't think I'll get my wish.
what I'll get is more million dollar music videos

whatever happened to fuck the mainstream?

Well, don't listen to ATYCLB, then.

I hear plenty of emotions in it, and I get out of it more than their previous two albums, which are far more forgettable as far as most U2 fans are concerned.

U2 has used plenty of formulaic songwriting before, they often stick to verse-chorus-solo/middle-ending, and sometimes they don't. I don't really care, as long as the music connects with me.

It was a photo of four men in front of a joshua tree and no one minded (virtually all U2 albums have band pictures anyway), Bono had speeches back in the 80's so it's not really something new. Speak when spoken to?!?

Actually, U2 were trying SO hard to be cool and innovative with Pop/Popmart (trying to top Achtung Baby and Zoo TV), and look how that worked. For the first time, ATYCLB is the one U2 album where they aren't proving anything to anyone.

 

[U2girl]

I don't think you seriously believe they could 'poop' out an album a year as good as, say, your favorite Will Oldham cd. That statement was purely defensive, which is a problem many U2 fans have. They see U2 as being in a competition with everyone. So when a band comes along with a lot of hype or acclaim. Or when somebody who is into indie music has a qualm with U2,
well then, that acclaimed band gets trashed and all indie music is simplisitc poop that U2 could make with their eyes closed.

You know, the argument that many indie/alternative fans like to use when a band makes it big is that they "sold out". To which I say: boo hoo, everyone starts from zero and everyone has a chance. It is not U2's - or any other fault, people decide.

U2 is in competition, with other bands and mostly, themselves and their past.

BTW, Salome was right. It's easy to goof around (see Zooropa, Passengers), but the question is: will it work? (see Achtung Baby) I would also say they already f... up the mainstream: first they became a part of it (with Joshua Tree), then they challenged it (with Achtung Baby) and then they played by its own rules and succeded while maintaining their own sound (with ATYCLB).

 

[U2girl]

Indeed it isn't.

I can name all kinds of slower songs from the past that challenge and stimulate with a slower tempo.


As for not rocking, a few here need to go back and relisten to much of AB, JT, and the first three records.

It may not be the issue, but U2 as a whole really does not have that many rocking moments.

On first two albums, they sound closer to punk than rock, on War only rock on some songs - 3 or 4, JT only has Bullet the blue sky and Exit, while AB has Zoo station/Until the end of the world/The fly. There's Gone and Last night on earth, possibly Dirty day, and - to an extent - Elevation and Beautiful day, along with New York. 2 to 3 rock songs on their albums is the average.

 

[U2girl]

I agree with everything Michael has to say, especially the part about POP.
I'll add my 2 cents though:
I think the failure of POP bit them in the ass in such a way as that they STILL haven't forgotten what that was like; and here's the kicker: if the album was a total critical and commercial success, they would NEVER be saying that it "wasn't finished".
Here's the top rock band in the world in 1997, not having released a new album in 4 years, trying to "predict" the electronica craze and getting there first. In the past, they'd changed styles several times, mostly to critcal and commercial success. Now they're faced with the most expensive tour ever undertaken supporting an album that is largely dismissed by the general population, and even u2 fans as well, as being crap.
They were given a second chance though: ATYCLB's ass was kissed the world over because it didn't jump on any "latest craze" and basically presented the band in a "pop" format while still retaining their character. And don't think they didn't capitalize on the "only band still relevant after 20 years" angle.

Look, all the new album has to do is be great and all these arguments about pop and ATYCLB will vanish in a heartbeat.
If it's only pretty good, the arguments will intensify, and I think that the time for them to call it quits will be near, because if they can't get the magic in 4 years since the last release, they'll surely not get it again in 10.

Agreed on Pop comments. ATYCLB would be called back to basics even if it would have been rocking, as long as it would step back from the effects and experimenting. What...they're not the only band still relevent after 20 years?

The trouble is, ATYCLB arguments will never go away, no matter what happens.

 

[U2girl]

Describing an album?
Bono has always been doing that, for example for War, JT, AB, and ATYCLB that I remember off the top of my head, all of which describe the albums very good. What's so wrong with that? Not like he's the only one or the only U2 member to do that, too.

As for agenda, like someone else said: I don't mind agenda if it means a really good album. Achtung Baby had possibly the biggest agenda of their career.

 

[cujo]

... I don't mind agenda if it means a really good album. Achtung Baby had possibly the biggest agenda of their career.

The intention of Achtung Baby was to make a great record which modifies the sound of the band to incorporate dance rhythms and more indirect lyrics... while at the same time maintaining and expanding an audience.

From what Bono has mind-numbingly repeated, the intention of All That You Can't Leave Behind was to create an album of soulful pop songs that resembled a Beatles record... where all the tracks could by themselves be a single. In that respect, the album was somewhat successful with regards to intention (or "agenda").

My opinion (this isn't directed to personally violate anyone's musical chops, but take it for face value if you want):

Emphasis on single-oriented pop songs and on production polishing removed a lot of the rawness and passion (as some have alluded to) from the last album. As a fan I want to hear the process and the conviction behind the songs, and not a diluted pop formula. I don't care what this or the next album actually sound like, in terms of tempo, guitar, or rhythm... as long as the music is being made through an explorative process, with the intent of making an album and not just a collection of "stuff we did over the last four years". Of course there will be a mix of serendipity and pretention in the drive to make an album, but as long as what results is something cohesive... or something cohesive in its uncohesiveness... it will be a good record. I think one of the major misgivings I've had is that U2 have become an editing body, rather than a writing and composing group. Countless remixes and extended studio time seem to be the biggest disparity between the quality of work done in the past, and the material released of recent... overproduction was successful for them too, but maybe they need to consider other avenues to refresh the sound. The number of producers involved with this album is very concerning for me, as a fan... it just may turn into a degraded musical piece that appeases too many special interest groups, losing the musical cohesiveness that an album in isolation might achieve. Based on that, it seems the next U2 album will be the safest, most pop-enforced ballad opera we've ever seen. Now I'm a Who fan too, so I won't mind this. But I'd much rather hear a U2 album... seeing as they're... not the Who.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

The intention of Achtung Baby was to make a great record which modifies the sound of the band to incorporate dance rhythms and more indirect lyrics... while at the same time maintaining and expanding an audience.

From what Bono has mind-numbingly repeated, the intention of All That You Can't Leave Behind was to create an album of soulful pop songs that resembled a Beatles record... where all the tracks could by themselves be a single. In that respect, the album was somewhat successful with regards to intention (or "agenda").

My opinion (this isn't directed to personally violate anyone's musical chops, but take it for face value if you want):

Emphasis on single-oriented pop songs and on production polishing removed a lot of the rawness and passion (as some have alluded to) from the last album. As a fan I want to hear the process and the conviction behind the songs, and not a diluted pop formula. I don't care what this or the next album actually sound like, in terms of tempo, guitar, or rhythm... as long as the music is being made through an explorative process, with the intent of making an album and not just a collection of "stuff we did over the last four years". Of course there will be a mix of serendipity and pretention in the drive to make an album, but as long as what results is something cohesive... or something cohesive in its uncohesiveness... it will be a good record. I think one of the major misgivings I've had is that U2 have become an editing body, rather than a writing and composing group. Countless remixes and extended studio time seem to be the biggest disparity between the quality of work done in the past, and the material released of recent... overproduction was successful for them too, but maybe they need to consider other avenues to refresh the sound. The number of producers involved with this album is very concerning for me, as a fan... it just may turn into a degraded musical piece that appeases too many special interest groups, losing the musical cohesiveness that an album in isolation might achieve. Based on that, it seems the next U2 album will be the safest, most pop-enforced ballad opera we've ever seen. Now I'm a Who fan too, so I won't mind this. But I'd much rather hear a U2 album... seeing as they're... not the Who.

Nice synopsis, Cuj. I think as long as the production is a part of the creative process and progression of the music, we should be fine. It's when they use the production to mask the shortcomings of a song that they get into trouble.

 

[martha]

From what Bono has mind-numbingly repeated, the intention of All That You Can't Leave Behind was to create an album of soulful pop songs that resembled a Beatles record... where all the tracks could by themselves be a single. In that respect, the album was somewhat successful with regards to intention (or "agenda").
...
Emphasis on single-oriented pop songs and on production polishing removed a lot of the rawness and passion (as some have alluded to) from the last album. As a fan I want to hear the process and the conviction behind the songs, and not a diluted pop formula.

This is what I was trying to say when I was talking about the songs on ATYCLB soothing and pacifying. Except you said it better. The songs were too crafted, they didn't have that danger and challenge of prior years.

I think one of the major misgivings I've had is that U2 have become an editing body, rather than a writing and composing group. Countless remixes and extended studio time seem to be the biggest disparity between the quality of work done in the past, and the material released of recent...

This is so painfully evident when comparing B-side outputs. The first Best Of had original songs for the B-sides album, yet the second Best Of had almost exclusively remixes. I cringe every time I listen to it. It so clearly shows a band that has had some serious trouble maintaining a creative and prolific edge.


I too am a little worried about too many cooks in the kitchen here. I especially worried about Lanois coming on board. He said something in an interview about ATYCLB that was very telling about that album. He was talking about Elevation and saying how the album needed one big song to reach back into the back of the arena. The way he said it made it seem like Elevation was throwing the audience a bone, that what he considered the real songs on the album were the pop songs, the slower, safer songs. Which is what he puts on his albums. Which is why his presence here worries me just a bit.

 

[U2girl]

The intention of Achtung Baby was to make a great record which modifies the sound of the band to incorporate dance rhythms and more indirect lyrics... while at the same time maintaining and expanding an audience.

From what Bono has mind-numbingly repeated, the intention of All That You Can't Leave Behind was to create an album of soulful pop songs that resembled a Beatles record... where all the tracks could by themselves be a single. In that respect, the album was somewhat successful with regards to intention (or "agenda").

My opinion (this isn't directed to personally violate anyone's musical chops, but take it for face value if you want):

Emphasis on single-oriented pop songs and on production polishing removed a lot of the rawness and passion (as some have alluded to) from the last album. As a fan I want to hear the process and the conviction behind the songs, and not a diluted pop formula. I don't care what this or the next album actually sound like, in terms of tempo, guitar, or rhythm... as long as the music is being made through an explorative process, with the intent of making an album and not just a collection of "stuff we did over the last four years". Of course there will be a mix of serendipity and pretention in the drive to make an album, but as long as what results is something cohesive... or something cohesive in its uncohesiveness... it will be a good record. I think one of the major misgivings I've had is that U2 have become an editing body, rather than a writing and composing group. Countless remixes and extended studio time seem to be the biggest disparity between the quality of work done in the past, and the material released of recent... overproduction was successful for them too, but maybe they need to consider other avenues to refresh the sound. The number of producers involved with this album is very concerning for me, as a fan... it just may turn into a degraded musical piece that appeases too many special interest groups, losing the musical cohesiveness that an album in isolation might achieve. Based on that, it seems the next U2 album will be the safest, most pop-enforced ballad opera we've ever seen. Now I'm a Who fan too, so I won't mind this. But I'd much rather hear a U2 album... seeing as they're... not the Who.

So you're saying Achtung Baby was not all about re-invention of U2's sound, image and Bono's writing? It wasn't about "chopping down the Joshua tree" and "dreaming it all up again"? Pretty big agenda if you ask me.

Yes, Bono said several times ATYCLB was a pop (and by pop he meant the old school of pop, not the bubble gum pop of boybands and Britneys) and soul album. With editing, even New York or Grace could have been singles.
Of course, it is clear they wanted it to work well in US and so they did the promotion shows.

U2 always had big single songs - why is it such a crime all of a sudden? Every U2 album has lots of passion, and the latest one was no exception - using the standard writing formula - which is kind of needed to appeal to the masses, which U2 always has - not like we're talking Radiohead here - or not. (which again, U2 are no strangers to) They balanced the art and the craft virtually perfectly over the years.

We will see, U2 has been using more producers starting with Achtung Baby. Several producers can also mean more fresh ideas and views on the product.

 

[cujo]

Setting parameters and making concessions doesn't really sound like much of an artistic process... granted to work in the pop idiom you have to maintain a certain level of accessibility to the audience. But beyond the mainstream, does compromising expression for coherence really offer anything interesting? Does the process itself offer anything redeeming above the run-of-the mill pop record (and by pop, I mean popular music)?

Maybe for some people it does. But apparently satisfaction can't be had by all, and you'll have to excuse the collection of fans (including myself) who are finding the band's progression to be retroactive and repetitious to a degree. If I'm not mistaken, early in their career Bono said they would dissolve the band if such a situation presented itself...

As far as producers go, you're right it could be beneficial to the project. But the background and experience of many of these producers lends credibility to the argument that U2 are becoming a little too concerned with the sentiments of current commercial music production.

 

[U2girl]

Is it not possible to have expression within the standard songwriting formula? U2 started focusing more on the craft with Joshua tree than the earlier albums, and I don't think that took away anything from their music.

I guess for U2 the only way after Pop was going back to the more organic "classic" U2 sound. Unless you thought they would keep up the experimenting for the rest of their career.

If I'm not mistaken, a lot more people enjoyed and bought ATYCLB over Pop or Zooropa - and I don't mean just the new fans, but those who "left" the band in the 90's. Critics approved of it in majority also. Why is that so bad?

There can be no credibility to any side of producers' argument until we hear the new album. From the quotes of several people who heard the album (not the band or fans alone), the reactions are very positive and it doesn't seem like this will be similar to ATYCLB. It might, of course, be similar to any other U2 album in that it will have rocking songs, mid-tempo songs, and bittersweet ballads.

 

[djerdap]

First, about the comments that U2 didn't mean to prove themselves on ATYCLB...so NOT TRUE.
ATYCLB was a safe pop album who had one main goal... to get U2 back into the mainstream, after the alleged POP "fiasco". It succeeded. But it also disappointed an incredible amount of fans. You see, I love the 90's U2. Zooropa and Pop are fantastic records for me. When I heard Stuck in a Moment and Elevation, it was the moment when I started to get really worried.
What was so good about Pop? U2 offered countless songs, like Mofo, Do You Feel Loved, Velvet Dress and Please, even Wake Up Dead Man, which they never had done before. It was something totally different. New and experimental. Commercial to an extent, but just because U2 made it commercial. Pop could've been a small, invisible album without any singles, but the band HAD to do that silly campaign with K-Mart and too ambitious tour.
ATYCLB is an album where every song is structured the same. There are no inovations in guitar playing, drum playing. The vocals are tired. There is no improvisation. No courage. Everything sounds bland and tired. Elevation is a silly pop song that is a mockery in my school, for example. U2 lost a lot of their reputation after ATYCLB, even more so than gaining it. That's what I like about Vertigo - the band is ready to improvise (did you notice Bono's singing at the end of that horrendous clip? Now that's improvisation and freedom), Edge is ready to set loose, and by God if this album won't be better than ATYCLB, I'm ready to quit. U2 should quit. We've waited too much to be disappointed. So, I always rely on this: every second U2 album was great: Boy-War-The Joshua Tree-Achtung Baby-Pop. The new album should join this. These are incredible albums. Let's pray the new album will be like these five and nothing like ATYCLB. At least I hope.

 

[U2girl]

Like I said, any tipe of U2 album that would drop the effects of the 90's would be labeled safe. I will admit it was very US aimed, but still nothing terrible like some make it out to be.

Alleged? It sold less than U2's previous 4 albums, not to mention touring attendance trouble for the first time in U2's history as far as I know.

Apart from the first three songs, If you wear that velvet dress and Playboy mansion, Pop is basically a straightforward rock album - and should be marketed as such. The Best of remixes nicely show how it could be. Just as ATYCLB was taking from mainstream's pop rise in the late 90's, so Pop took from techno's rise in the mid 90's - nothing wrong with that.

As far as I know, U2 didn't do the music styles that show on Stuck, In a little while, Wild honey and Grace - and they definitely did not sound like Beautiful day before. Vocals are tired - because after decades of singing like that, anyone's voice would be damaged. That said, ATYCLB is one of my favorite voices while Pop's tired vocals don't do much for me. U2 lost lots of reputation in Zooropa and Pop years, but got it back with ATYCLB.

 

[Salome]

I find it immensely interesting that people are able to state the differences in the creative process between the previous albums

I take it you were in the studio with the band back then
so my question is: do U2 have a Beavis & Butthead poster anywhere in the studio?

thanks for your answer in advance

sincerely
not Beavis

 

[Angela Harlem]

hehe hehehehe you said immense

 

[djerdap]

"U2 lost lots of reputation in Zooropa and Pop years, but got it back with ATYCLB."

WRONG! You can look at the sales and the critics, but when you look at casual fans(some of them are on this board), majority of fans that I know personally(and I know them a lot) lost their faith in U2 after ATYCLB. In some circles, Pop has a much better reputation than ATYCLB.
And, Pop could be called a fiasco only in America. In Europe and the rest of the world, it was a success. Same for the tour.

 

[martha]

I guess for U2 the only way after Pop was going back to the more organic "classic" U2 sound.

ATYCLB is not "classic" U2. They've never repeated themselves, so I've never been able to figure out what this really was supposed to mean.

If you listen to the "classic" U2 lps (Boy, War, JT AB), you hear Edge's guitars, passionate vocals, and songs that, I'll say it again, challenge the listener. I do agree that ATYCLB is more "organic" that Pop in the it sounds somewhat simpler, more like the band simply playing together, but that's it.