My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

[MrBrau1]

Gotta say this is spot on! SYCMIOYO sucks big time and reminds me of Aerosmiths contrived terrible awful fuckin' nonense "Don't wanna miss a thing", christ I hate that song!

Again, you are one of the dumbest posters on this board. The post referenced Elevation.

That's 2 in a row for you where it is plain as day, you didn't really read the posts. Can you read?

 

[rjhbonovox]

it really is the zooropa and pop lovers that hate HTDAAB

wow

Naw, I love HTDAAB!

Its my 12th favourite U2 album!

 

[rjhbonovox]

Again, you are one of the dumbest posters on this board. The post referenced Elevation.

That's 2 in a row for you where it is plain as day, you didn't really read the posts. Can you read?

Yep my mistake but I still stand by my statement!

Personal attacks just show how intelligent you are though eh?

 

[2Hearts]

Fuckin hell Zoo Station a gimmicky song. The best intro to an album EVER.

Maybe you should read things a bit closer...

For the record I can't think of any U2 song I would call a gimmick (namkcuR's definition is a good one). I just wondered if anyone would agree with my 'claims' that Sweetest Thing, Zoo Station, etc. were gimmicks.
.
.
.
Zoo Station has a TON of meaning when you take into account the band's new direction at the time. But it also has intrinsic meaning with a kind of 'carpe diem' theme, "Time is a train, makes the future the past/ leaves you standing at the station/ with your face pressed up against the glass"

 

[MrBrau1]

Yep my mistake but I still stand by my statement!

Personal attacks just show how intelligent you are though eh?

You were asking for it. 2 obvious ones in a row. C'mon, take your medicine.

 

[MrBrau1]

Make that 3.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Zoo Station has a TON of meaning when you take into account the band's new direction at the time. But it also has intrinsic meaning with a kind of 'carpe diem' theme, "Time is a train, makes the future the past/ leaves you standing at the station/ with your face pressed up against the glass"

You're spot on. The whole song is a perfect opening to the new U2 sound on the album, and also the attitude of the characters in a lot of the songs. Someone ready to let go of the steering wheel, to run with animal urges, instincts, and not have to answer to the consequences or answer to anyone (particular themselves - the conscience is simply a pest after all)... Even just as an introduction to the attitude in Even Better than the Real Thing, it's perfect. It's not a gimmick, not even close. A gimmick song is one that only works on one level, and is only aimed at one level... "I just can't get you out of my head....la, la, la"

 

[rjhbonovox]

Someone ready to let go of the steering wheel, to run with animal urges, instincts, and not have to answer to the consequences or answer to anyone (particular themselves -

U2 have now grasped the steering wheel with both hands and are trundling along in snoozeville zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Look, I and many others are not saying that The Bomb or The Suitcase (ATYCLB) are crap albums (although I know some are saying that). They are pop albums. Straight out pop albums made for a pop audience, carrying a pop weight. That doesn't make them crap, just different. U2's strength was always that they made killer songs that had an amazing weight and depth to them, but always kept their pop sensibilities so that they were easy to take on at a surface level if that's all you wanted from them. Catchy hooks, sing along chorus', memorable riffs, lyrics that have an easily digestible theme on the surface, even if only via the chorus. Even little things like Bono's trick of adding a part to many songs that easily turns to a great interactive call & response live is a part of that. That's U2 at their best, in that middle ground. Songs and albums that ARE catchy and memorable for the average FM listener, but are also in their own way innovative, challenging, creative. Anyone else notice that U2's two undisputed heavyweight champion albums are their most middle ground albums? At one end of the extreme you have Passengers. At the other extreme you have The Bomb. In the centre you have Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree and everything else is somewhere in between on that scale.

Look at Achtung Baby. In 1991, a year in rock that up until that point was dominated by the then very stale sounds of Gun'n'Roses type hair rock, a billion new U2 fans jump on board with the sounds of songs like The Fly, Mysterious Ways, Even Better than the Real Thing, and One cutting through their FM stations RIGHT alongside such memorable pop crap as MC Hammer and C&C Music Factory and the pop-rock of bands like Bon Jovi. That album was a straight out commercial and chart hit. But in a way only U2 really can, that album also has every right in the world to hold it's head up high alongside the truly great musical releases that year. Albums like Nirvanas 'Nevermind', Massive Attacks 'Blue Lines', Primal Screams 'Screamadelica'. Albums that really mean something to a lot of people, and have the amazing ability to sound as great and fresh and inspiring now as they did the day of their release. Not just an album that kicked Bon Jovi's arse on the charts, but it was ALSO that. I was too young to be musically 'aware' in 1987, but I assume The Joshua Tree was similar, it certainly is regarded as one of the better albums ever made by anyone by most people, so I guess that answers that.

I happen to truly love the Passengers album, because it falls far closer in line then The Bomb with my musical tastes and what it is I actually look for in good music in the first place, but it most definitely is at one end of an extreme for U2. It's the least commercially viable thing they've ever done - by a long shot. It stands no chance of crossing over between both musical worlds. There's nothing in One Minute Warning for the average Joe FM radio listener to enjoy in the car on the way home from work. Now, imagine if post Zooropa, U2 released Passengers under their own name, as in U2's formal 9th studio album was titled "U2. Passengers". They would have completely shot their ability to reach the common ear. Now imagine if they then did that again, their 10th formal studio album was essentially "U2, Passengers 2". Like I said, I adore Passengers with all my heart, but what would have been best for U2 was what they did with that album, it's off too far in one extreme. I think they could have gotten away with releasing it under their own name if it was pitched the right way, and piggy backed another major album closely, but if they had taken that concept and sound and theme and did it for two major "NEW U2 ALBUM!!!" studio releases, it would have been a big, big mistake.

At the other end of the scale is the other extreme. Complete safety. Pop music. Albums of singles. Albums that stick to the sounds that sound very much like what U2 are expected to sound like and don't really dare stray away from that. Just as Passengers was at one extreme, The Bomb and The Suitcase are at the other. As Passengers was very risky, The Bomb is very safe. As Passengers was very adventurous, The Suitcase is very restricted. As Passengers was made without a care in the world for commercial success, The Bomb is made entirely with commercial success in mind. That DOES NOT make The Bomb or The Suitcase bad. This has pretty much been my point all along. I adore the extremity of Passengers because the more depth and the more 'interesting' and innovative the music and ideas the more it has me, regardless of artist or style. The Bomb and The Suitcase are the least enjoyable of U2's albums for me because of that safety. It's not what I'm listening for, regardless of quality. I want it to be interesting and challenging, something that all other U2 albums are to me, but that's just personal. However, The Bomb and The Suitcase are at, in U2 terms, the other extremity to Passengers, and I believe that just as if U2 had released two Passengers albums in a row under their name they would have lost all their commercial appeal and alienated a huge % of their audience, these last two albums have done or will do the same, although the opposite. They've got all the commercial appeal in the world, but do you seriously believe either will be written up in the U2 or musical history books in the way that an Achtung or Zooropa or War or Joshua Tree will be? I don't. Do you think they can forever hold their head up proudly alongside the best true music released in their respective years? I don't.

So, my argument is that U2 need to steer out of the extremity and back towards their magic middle ground. It's that middle ground that made them the unique band that they are. If they'd always released the extremity of Passengers they would never have sold and would never have been heard of. If they'd always released the extremity of The Bomb they would have sold a ton, but like all pop albums and all pop groups, it would have been fleeting and they would have, if still around, a very different image and reputation and recognition. Commercial respect and power, but no real relevance and no definitive and unique stamp on music at all.

What made U2 become U2 is that ability to be both. To release albums like Zooropa & The Unforgettable Fire that have a creative, innovative approach to music, with a real and true soul and depth, but dress it up in all the most successful and memorable pop sensibilities for the masses. Take one away from the other and they are simply not U2. That's one of the reasons why Passengers was put under the name Passengers, not U2. It was a step too far away from what was U2. It's the reason why that journey ended there and hasn't been repeated. These two albums are different because of their mammoth commercial success. I do think the band, given the choice, will take biggest over best. And that's where the challenge is for them. I imagine that in the current environment within the band, a Zooropa or Unforgettable Fire will be trashed and turned into a safe Bomb. The challenge to them is to realise that straight smack in the middle is the best for them, and that's a damn tough thing to do. It takes a lot of blind faith in themselves, and not second guessing their instincts. The challenge for them is to be the biggest AND the best, ie, to keep all parties happy, but most importantly to reposition U2 back where they were. Those that love U2 for their great, tight, sing along songs for the everyman. Those that love U2 for their ability to write the most amazing songs from the soul, that do challenge and embrace you as a fan and take you for a ride, emotionally, musically & sonically. Those within the band that want to stay true to their natural musical development and urges, and those within the band that want to stay true to the mammoth U2 brand name and all that it is worth commercially. An album whose songs will be played alongside Gwen Steffani and Rob Thomas on the average shitty commercial FM station and will gain all the MTV/Top 40 recognition in the world, but songs that will also be played alongside Interpol and Wilco on the more alternative stations and gain all the true musical respect in the world. At the moment they are getting all of one, but none of the other.

So.... at this stage, they need an Achtung Baby or Joshua Tree. The challenge there for the band is to have the balls to aim for that, but be prepared to not quite get there. To get a Zooropa instead of an Achtung, to get an Unforgettable Fire instead of a Joshua Tree. I don't know if they have that in them....

Does that make sense? That's the best way I think I can explain it (and, believe it or not, the shortest).

 

[corianderstem]

A gimmick song is one that only works on one level, and is only aimed at one level... "I just can't get you out of my head....la, la, la"

Well ... yes, a gimmick is a song that works on only one level, but I don't think you can take a pure pop song like Kylie Minogue as an example. I mean, that's what Kylie Minogue does (and does very, very well). She makes pop music. Are you saying all pop songs are gimmicks?

This thread is such a bizarre combination of decent discussion and the predictable, frustrating, boring argument between the "this album sucks, end of story" crowd and the "why can't you let anyone else have an opinion" crowd.

It's frustrating, because when you're passionate about something, you want to defend what you love when someone puts it down. But jeez, there's a way to do it without coming across like a know-it-all who can't let anyone else have an opinion.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Well ... yes, a gimmick is a song that works on only one level, but I don't think you can take a pure pop song like Kylie Minogue as an example. I mean, that's what Kylie Minogue does (and does very, very well). She makes pop music. Are you saying all pop songs are gimmicks?

Well, there's a whole other thread in this, except to say that no I wasn't holding a Kylie Minogue song up as a reference to the fact that all pop songs are gimmicks - they are clearly not. And not all gimmick songs are pop. For example, a song that just spews violence and offence for no genuine reason is a gimmick, and certainly not pop. I used the Kylie Minogue quote on a whim really, what I wanted to say was that a gimmick song is there for one reason - attention, and hopefully, staying on your mind. But yeah, what that means in pop, and where the fine line is in pop between gimmick pop and 'genuine' pop is a whole other Bang & Clatter thread...

This thread is such a bizarre combination of decent discussion and the predictable, frustrating, boring argument between the "this album sucks, end of story" crowd and the "why can't you let anyone else have an opinion" crowd.

Interference!!

But jeez, there's a way to do it without coming across like a know-it-all who can't let anyone else have an opinion.

If that's in part in reference to me, I'm sincerely trying not to come across that way and certainly don't mean to if I do. Can't say enough that I definitely do not think The Bomb sucks, or is crap, or is without meaning or anything. It doesn't do it for me personaly on many levels, but that's personal and is quite seperate to my main argument about U2's direction from here.

 

[namkcuR]

Firstly, props to Earnie. That lengthy post of his just might be the Interference post of the year thus far.

I'd like to add something to what he said too, though. Something aside from the music.

My first taste of U2 came in the mid 90s, 95 maybe. I just sort of saw one video here, heard one song there, that kind of thing. U2 started becoming more to me when I heard 'Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me' on the Batman Forever soundtrack. I loved that song before I even knew who the members of U2 were. By 1998, I was still only a VERY casual U2 fan, not that familar with them. Then, on a vacation, I saw a few more videos, mostly from the 80s. I loved them. At the time, I primarily knew U2 as a band that my older brother liked a lot. When we got home, I found two old U2 cassettes in his room(he was away at college) - JT and UABRS. I listened to them and fell in love with the band.

And one of the major things besides the music that attracted me to them was that they, at the time at least, had this mystique about them. I remember reading the JT liner notes and seeing their names, 'Bono', 'The Edge', and where a lot of people would think of that as a sign of cheesiness, I thought of it as a sign that this band was for real, that they didn't just make pop music, and as a sign that they were a little weird, a telltale sign of any great artist.. I remember thinking, as I collected every album(which at the time went through the Best of 1980-1990), how they seemed ever-changing, and full of character - always changing their appearance whether it be with hats, glasses, headgear(Popmart era Adam), facial hair, earings, hair color/length/style, etc - and, like I said earlier, like they had this mystique to them. I remember seeing the ZooTV and Popmart videos for the first time, and thinking how the band were putting these mysterious, over-the-top, artsy-farsty, colorful, WEIRD, WONDRFUL shows on - stage, show, video, music, wardrobe and all, and how their frontman Bono was slightly insane and always dressing up as other characters, as if he was putting on a play. I remember introducing two of my best friends to U2 in 1998(at the time we were 14) and them saying, 'who is that again?' - because they really didn't know, because back then the band wasn't all over the place like they are now - and them remembering who they were when I played some of the 80s anthems. I remember alternative rock radio stations in the mid-late 90s playing U2 music with pride. I remember U2 calling themselves the 'biggest baddest boldest band in the land'. I remember it being true. U2 were cool, and U2 carried with them, this mystique. They were artistes. This went on through 1999.

And then comes 2000 and everything changes. You think I could go and mention U2 to any 14 year old right now and they would say 'who is that again?' Not a chance. Any 14 year old would know exactly who U2 is now because U2 is all over the place. They're a brand now. And those alternative rock radio stations? They don't much play U2 anymore(at least in my experience) because U2 isn't making that kind of music anymore(see Earnie's post). And the mystique I keep bringing up, it is gone too. I don't see 'artistes' anymore when I look at U2. I see shadows of what they were. And their shows? They are still top-notch. They do it better than any other band out there. But I don't see all those colors anymore, and I don't see all those characters anymore. I don't see the artsy-fartsiness anymore. I don't see the over-the-top-ness anymore. I see a band putting on great, even really great, conservate rock concerts. But ZooTV and Popmart created their own little worlds, with the music being those worlds' soundtracks. I was too young to have been at either, but I imagine that if you were at either of them, you forgot you were in a stadium/arena, at least for a little while. At Elevation and Vertigo(I've been to both), as great as the show might be, you never forget you're in an arena. They don't create their own little world. That's part of that mystique I keep bringing up, that is gone now.

They had an undeniable mystique about them that is, for the most part, gone(no pun intended) now. They are still a great band, but they are capable of being more than great. They are capable of being 'artistes'. Whereas they used to be the biggest, baddest, boldest, they are now just the biggest.

 

[U2DMfan]

There is that idea about romanticism and attachment.
Like if you were dating someone and had fond memories of her/him, you might have that attachment to whatever album you were into at the time. Or music from your school years or whatever, music has a tendency to attach itself to moments in your life.

So I defintely see it on this board a lot. It works both ways.
The person who had the time of their life in 1997, remains attached to POP, maybe they can't seperate the emotional attachment and would never be fair to any album that came after. The person who got into U2 in 2000 or 2004 might think ATYCLB or HTDAAB is the best thing since sliced bread because they are in their moments.

I had that romanticised attachment to a few albums in my life, but as I've gotten older have really started to become numb to those old emotions. I listen to an album that I loved during my senior year in high school a few weeks back and thought "man, that does not hold up" Yet I listen to a few others and they do.

I think I have been able to seperate them and it has both it's plusses and minuses. The biggest plus being that you can be fair to the music, across the board. The minus being losing those special meanings. I sort of miss them in a way, I listen to music sort of clinically sometimes and it does take the fun out of it to a certain extent, but it has also enriched my experience tenfold.

When I was 12, I loved music, when I was 18 I was in love with certain music, now I am 30, I love music more than I ever have and I am far more open than I thought I was a decade ago.

So it pains me to try and force myself to like an album just because of who made it. I listen to HTDAAB all the time, looking for what I am missing. Might be silly, but I do it every so often.

A time in my life when I am listening to more pop oriented stuff since I was about 12 and I can't get into a U2 pop album?
I have been playing guitar and writing songs a lot lately, I hear something I never would have listened to years ago, and say "man that is pretty good stuff" and yet I can't hear U2 and think the same thing? It's sort of mind boggling to me.

It's just my band, the one group or artist I ever got really fanatical about (past the age of 16/17). The one band I still actually beleive in. They are letting me down, what the fuck else can I say? This band is fucking miles better than this. That's all I am trying to say.

You fucking bashers know who you are, I don't care to be linked with them. I don't get any enjoyment for not liking the new stuff. That's pointless. Others on this board, I think they actually enjoy it. So please consider me apart from those people when talking about those who are critical of the band.

I just know U2 are better than this, it might be too high of a standard for you, but I disagree. U2 are more talented now than ever, more mature and are in a place of high esteem, they are begging to be mind blowing and I don't know how you could think they are right now. If you do then that is great, enjoy it while you can because you may not like the next album or the next sound of U2. I thought I'd never not be into it. Oh, the stuff is still good enough to listen to, it's just not good enough to get excited about.

With U2, I don't know if I can lose the romanticism of believing they are the greatest band ever and beleiving they can do better than safe and 'good'. Sue me, I am a huge U2 fan.

 

[rjhbonovox]

There is that idea about romanticism and attachment.
Like if you were dating someone and had fond memories of her/him, you might have that attachment to whatever album you were into at the time. Or music from your school years or whatever, music has a tendency to attach itself to moments in your life.

Yeah why can't U2 bring back my first love!

 

[MrBrau1]

Yeah why can't U2 bring back my first love!

That same question was asked by countless U2 fans after AB came out.

 

[corianderstem]

If that's in part in reference to me, I'm sincerely trying not to come across that way and certainly don't mean to if I do.

It honestly wasn't in reference to anyone in particular, because it happens so much, with so many people doing it. I realize it's not going to change. It's just frustrating.

Oh, and your lengthy post was great. That's the good stuff on these boards.

Whoo! Intelligent discussion! Whoo!

 

[rjhbonovox]

It honestly wasn't in reference to anyone in particular, because it happens so much, with so many people doing it. I realize it's not going to change. It's just frustrating.

Oh, and your lengthy post was great. That's the good stuff on these boards.

Whoo! Intelligent discussion! Whoo!

I hope your referring to me when quoting intelligent discussion, cos when intelligent discussion is needed I am right up there with the best of them!

 

[corianderstem]

I'll have to check my scorecard and get back to you.

 

[thrillme]

That same question was asked by countless U2 fans after AB came out.

Yeah, I once saw a link posted to some U2 fans' comments about Achtung Baby interesting parallels to now I must say.

To quote Larry, "same shit, different decade."

 

[Zoovation]

I really like HTDAAB, it's a very good album.

I can't understand the people that always complain about something. Enjoy the moment because U2 won't make good music and good shows forever.

There are a lot of fans that really like the new songs. I saw it during some Vertigo Shows in Europe and will see it again next week in Paris.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

Yeah, I once saw a link posted to some U2 fans' comments about Achtung Baby interesting parallels to now I must say.

To quote Larry, "same shit, different decade."

Yeah was posted back here.

http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123346

pretty funny to read.

 

[namkcuR]

Yeah was posted back here.

http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123346

pretty funny to read.

The difference is that those people back then wanted U2 to keep making Joshua Trees, to keep repeating themselves. The people complaining about ATYCLB and HTDAAB, or at least speaking for myself, want the band to stop trying to do what they've done before, and to keep trying new thing after new thing like they used to do.

 

[corianderstem]

I certainly would like them to return to their adventurous ways, but then again, I like both HTDAAB and most of ALYCLB quite a bit.

If I hate the next album though, I'll join the rest of the Grumpy Ranks.

 

[rjhbonovox]

I certainly would like them to return to their adventurous ways, but then again, I like both HTDAAB and most of ALYCLB quite a bit.

If I hate the next album though, I'll join the rest of the Grumpy Ranks.

Yeah come on in, the waters lovely!

 

[corianderstem]

Well, by the time the next album comes out, I'll probably be an old lady, and I'll just be grumpy about everything. So I'm not sure if I'd be a valid member of the Grumpy About U2 club.

 

[MrBrau1]

The difference is that those people back then wanted U2 to keep making Joshua Trees, to keep repeating themselves. The people complaining about ATYCLB and HTDAAB, or at least speaking for myself, want the band to stop trying to do what they've done before, and to keep trying new thing after new thing like they used to do.

Be patient. Some U2 fans are turned on by the experimentation, others are turned on by the songwriting. Some like both. Those U2 fans who were turned off by AB/Zooropa/Passengers/Pop era were probably very happy to hear U2 return to straight songs like Kite, Walk On, COBL. They'll turn in that direction again.

After 10 years in outer space, it's no wonder they want to simply play as a band and record songs they think are really great. There is great progression in their songwriting. Soul. R&B. 60's Brit Rock. Glam. There's not 1 song in their back catalog that sounds like Wild Honey. There's not 1 song in their back catalog that sounds like Original Of The Species. It's not as obvious as something off Passengers, but it is there.

And remember, they seem to do things in 3's. You're gonna get 1 more record of straight songs. Edge was recently quoted "right now I'm interested in making rock 'n' roll music as loud and proud as we ever have." Then who knows. (So long as they don't play Jazz, I'll be psyched to hear it.)

Let me give you an example. I like Radiohead. The Bends and OK Computer are 2 of the best rock records ever made. The last three records, not so good. Yes, I applaude their experimtal attitude, but in the end, the songs ain't there. I'm pretty sure sometime in their career, they'll start making music that I enjoy again. Complaing about their last 3 records on a Radiohead board, ain't gonna change a thing.

 

[corianderstem]

So long as they don't play Jazz, I'll be psyched to hear it.

Good god, amen to that.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

In a way, I think of a lot of Passengers as jazz....

 

[corianderstem]

That explains why I hit "skip" a lot while listening to that CD.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

Be patient. Some U2 fans are turned on by the experimentation, others are turned on by the songwriting. Some like both. Those U2 fans who were turned off by AB/Zooropa/Passengers/Pop era were probably very happy to hear U2 return to straight songs like Kite, Walk On, COBL. They'll turn in that direction again.

After 10 years in outer space, it's no wonder they want to simply play as a band and record songs they think are really great. There is great progression in their songwriting. Soul. R&B. 60's Brit Rock. Glam. There's not 1 song in their back catalog that sounds like Wild Honey. There's not 1 song in their back catalog that sounds like Original Of The Species. It's not as obvious as something off Passengers, but it is there.

And remember, they seem to do things in 3's. You're gonna get 1 more record of straight songs. Edge was recently quoted "right now I'm interested in making rock 'n' roll music as loud and proud as we ever have." Then who knows. (So long as they don't play Jazz, I'll be psyched to hear it.)

Let me give you an example. I like Radiohead. The Bends and OK Computer are 2 of the best rock records ever made. The last three records, not so good. Yes, I applaude their experimtal attitude, but in the end, the songs ain't there. I'm pretty sure sometime in their career, they'll start making music that I enjoy again. Complaing about their last 3 records on a Radiohead board, ain't gonna change a thing.

Agree