Axver said:
I think HTDAAB has actually caused somewhat of a decline for ATYCLB. Prior to HTDAAB, there were all the Pop vs ATYCLB debates and they generated some pretty strong feeling. ATYCLB was the return some people wanted and they were willing to cling to it regardless of its cheese (Elevation), poor vocals (In A Little While), and b-sides posing as album tracks (Wild Honey). Then along came HTDAAB and the Pop vs ATYCLB debates are now a more generic 1990s vs 2000s debate. What's more, the poor showing of HTDAAB helped to reveal just how mundane ATYCLB was. This U2 sound became the norm, not a return. The common cheesiness and blandness shared by the albums has done nothing to help ATYCLB's image.
At the end of the day, there's no way either are classics or truly great and I don't think many people here think they are; not even their fans are regularly putting them up on a JT/AB pedestal as some people (including myself) will do with UF. HTDAAB could never be a classic without a remaster anyway; even if its songs were fantastic and lyrics worthwhile, its mixing is so horrifically bad that it's off-putting. If U2 are going to release another truly great album, they absolutely must have it mixed and mastered by someone who's got a clue, i.e. someone who will let the songs breathe and won't force the "loudness wars" upon them.
I was not posting in this thread until I read the hilarious silliness posted by Axver.
Allow me to offer an alternative view.
As a long time U2 fan, and one close to their ages, I often felt U2 and I were "in sync" in terms of musical preferences. They always stood out from the crowd, musically, and it always matched my mood.
After "Pop", even I grew tired of U2's "irony". I longed for something more substantial, where perhaps the power of the words weren't hidden. In other words, even though I loved U2's experimentation, I too wanted a bit of the 80's U2 back. And U2 delivered.
However, one problem I had with ATYCLB is that it seemed a little too "soft" - that is, a bit too easy listening. I adored the simplicity of "Elevation" - a fun rocking prayer, as well as many of the hits, but some of the latter tracks were too soft. That said, I strongly disagree with Axver about "Wild Honey" (if you think that's a b-side, I can rattle off quite a few songs from U2's other so-called masterpieces that should have been shelved or released as b-sides) or those who complained about Bono's vocals on "In a Little While" (because that means you completely missed the point of the song - it's a well known fact that Bono purposely sang that song as scratchy as he could to emphasize the lyrics - he's done this before).
While HTDAAB has that God-awful "A Man and a Woman" (one of U2's worst songs ever, but not THE worst, that's still a JT song), what I liked was the power. The songs had more meaning and rocked harder. U2 also showed their experimental side with "Love & Peace" and "Fast Cars", two totally different styles that really stood out as highlights on the album. Plus, "Yahweh" is the best closer since "Love Is Blindness".
In other words, as much as I enjoyed ATYCLB when it was released, I saw how much more powerful U2 could be with this genre (i.e., the "every song is a single" style) with HTDAAB. The weakness of writing in that fashion is that the sum of all songs is less than each individual song. But U2 have done outright albums before, so this was an interesting style. I think the next step is to take this philosophy of every song being a single, yet turn it into a cohesive album. At the same time, U2 need to throw in some experimentation - ala "Fast Cars". Of course, that's a HUGE thing to ask any artist to do.
And that's the problem - it seems U2 fans aren't happy. Axver, for example, loathes "One", which most fans adore. I feel that song was Bono at his lyrical best. But Axver has the right to dislike it - however, his dislike showcases the issue. No fan will like everything. So U2 do what works best for them.
Do they need to prove themselves again? No. Finally the pressure is off. After "Pop", I do think they wanted to show the world that they aren't fading away as so many 80's bands did. With back-to-back multi-platinum albums and oceans of awards and sold out tours, it's clear U2 have once again dominated the music world. On top of this are all of U2's and Bono's charitable efforts, meaning they are always in the news.
So what are U2 to do? I think now is the best time to try something different. Sure, throw a bone for the studio execs to have their hit single and have something for the die-hards who must have that "U2 sound" (whatever that is), but have fun with the album. If it doesn't sell millions, that's O.K. U2 have nothing left to prove.
So while I don't agree with Axver's assessment of the last two albums in any form (nor do I agree with his assessment of what other fans think of those albums), I feel that the need to produce a "truly great album" is not necessary. And the best part of that is that by NOT trying, U2 may indeed produce another truly great album. The pressure is off - they are free to create. And that freedom may result in glory.
