ONE thread to rule them all! - HTDAAB Bashing Threads... be scared, be very scared!!!

[J_NP]

Originally posted by U2Man
You cannot expect a person that is about to turn 50 to have just as much energy and youthful passion in his voice as a person in his 20s. At this point of their career, I'm satisfied if they just keep writing good songs.

And though I keep thinking if Edge isn't better today , he is as good as other peaks . And BTW did I forgot to mention that I like Adam's bassin in HDTAAB much more than in ATYCLB .......

[Bono'sTyee]

Originally posted by Zootlesque


Sometimes I think we are the same person. I agree with everything you said! The fiery passion was what I loved in their old songs. You could hear it in Bono's voice in songs like Bullet, SBS, Like A Song, Silver And Gold and even Please! Now he comes off as too passive, like he's afraid to offend some world leader and as a result have his ONE campaign suffer or something. So, to me it looks like the music has been affected by his work.

[Zoots]

[BVS]

Originally posted by u2thewho
I just want Bono to realize that Bono-saving-the-world is different from Bono-fronting-the-greatest-rock-band-on-Earth. That's all.

You must be new to the band. This has never been the case...

[Zoots]

Originally posted by J_NP

And BTW did I forgot to mention that I like Adam's bassin in HDTAAB much more than in ATYCLB .......

Now that is true! Adam definitely sounds better on HTDAAB than on ATYCLB. Or at least you can hear him! He's not buried in the mix.

COBL's bass

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Pop? Why is Pop U2's quintessential album? Pop was U2's desperate attempt to stay relevant in the "pop" music business. U2 went out of their way to follow the trip-hop, electronica wave of the 90's. They sought out Nelle Hooper and Howie B who were connoisseurs of that genre. It failed...the concept that is.

U2 is neither trip-hop, electronica or anything other than a rock/pop band, so their attempt at that sort of music failed. In the end Pop sounds like U2 opening up their sound a little with mixed results. The album is good, sometimes very good. I love the lyrical theme of the album, but the music sounds forced to me. Like U2 didn't know what to do with themselves after the success of AB and Zooropa. Like they were thinking "how could we mix it up more?"

Just because they decided to follow the band's strengths with two more mainstream rock based albums after Pop does not mean that U2 lost it's way or sold out ('cos according to everyone in 1987 they sold out with the Joshua Tree). U2 just decided to be who they were. Does that mean they can't experiment...no it doesn't. Does it mean that they are finally comfortable in their own skin...yes it does.

I don't have a problem with people proclaiming their love of Pop or October or UF or Boy or whichever album you love, but don't make the proclamation that this album or that album is U2's greatest and every album after that sucked because of....whatever.

[MrBrau1]

Originally posted by Reggie Thee Dog
Pop? Why is Pop U2's quintessential album? Pop was U2's desperate attempt to stay relevant in the "pop" music business. U2 went out of their way to follow the trip-hop, electronica wave of the 90's. They sought out Nelle Hooper and Howie B who were connoisseurs of that genre. It failed...the concept that is.

U2 is neither trip-hop, electronica or anything other than a rock/pop band, so their attempt at that sort of music failed. In the end Pop sounds like U2 opening up their sound a little with mixed results. The album is good, sometimes very good. I love the lyrical theme of the album, but the music sounds forced to me. Like U2 didn't know what to do with themselves after the success of AB and Zooropa. Like they were thinking "how could we mix it up more?"

Just because they decided to follow the band's strengths with two more mainstream rock based albums does not mean that U2 lost it's way or sold out ('cos according to everyone in 1987 they sold out with the Joshua Tree). U2 just decided to be who they were. Does that mean they can't experiment...no it doesn't. Does it mean that they are finally comfortable in their own skin...yes it does.

I don't have a problem with people proclaiming their love of Pop or October or UF or Boy or whichever album you love, but don't make the proclamation that this album or that album is U2's greatest and every album after that sucked because of....whatever.

You're talking sense in a sea of horseshit and hypocrites.

Stop.

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Yeah Brau1 I know, but I can't help myself...

[LMP]

Originally posted by Reggie Thee Dog
Pop? Why is Pop U2's quintessential album? Pop was U2's desperate attempt to stay relevant in the "pop" music business. U2 went out of their way to follow the trip-hop, electronica wave of the 90's. They sought out Nelle Hooper and Howie B who were connoisseurs of that genre. It failed...the concept that is.

U2 is neither trip-hop, electronica or anything other than a rock/pop band, so their attempt at that sort of music failed. In the end Pop sounds like U2 opening up their sound a little with mixed results. The album is good, sometimes very good. I love the lyrical theme of the album, but the music sounds forced to me. Like U2 didn't know what to do with themselves after the success of AB and Zooropa. Like they were thinking "how could we mix it up more?"

Just because they decided to follow the band's strengths with two more mainstream rock based albums after Pop does not mean that U2 lost it's way or sold out ('cos according to everyone in 1987 they sold out with the Joshua Tree). U2 just decided to be who they were. Does that mean they can't experiment...no it doesn't. Does it mean that they are finally comfortable in their own skin...yes it does.

I don't have a problem with people proclaiming their love of Pop or October or UF or Boy or whichever album you love, but don't make the proclamation that this album or that album is U2's greatest and every album after that sucked because of....whatever.

excellent post

Pop is great in its own right, and an underrated gem in most of the world (not here for sure) and is one of my favorite U2 albums. I believe I ranked it #3.

I like when people reference some misquote by Bono saying "that this is the best U2 ALBUM EVARRR." I'm a huge fan of Bono's but he's said himself he's a travelling salesman, and travelling salesmen always overhype the newest product at the time.

[Zoots]

Originally posted by Reggie Thee Dog
but don't make the proclamation that this album or that album is U2's greatest and every album after that sucked because of....whatever.

Okay, I think the following applies for most people here that criticize the last 2 albums and praise Pop:

a. We don't think Pop is U2's best album.

b. We don't think ATYCLB and HTDAAB and everything that comes afterwords sucks.

c. We don't want U2 to go back to the 90s or the 80s or go back to anything at all!

Whereas as we speak, U2 is desperately trying to sound like the 80s U2 and failing at it. They wanna be 80s U2 so bad it hurts!

I hate to speak for a group of posters here. Maybe I should replace the 'we' with an I.

[J_NP]

Originally posted by Reggie Thee Dog
It failed...the concept that is.

U2 is neither trip-hop, electronica or anything other than a rock/pop band, so their attempt at that sort of music failed. In the end Pop sounds like U2 opening up their sound a little with mixed results. The album is good, sometimes very good. I love the lyrical theme of the album, but the music sounds forced to me. Like U2 didn't know what to do with themselves after the success of AB and Zooropa. Like they were thinking "how could we mix it up more?"

Just because they decided to follow the band's strengths with two more mainstream rock based albums after Pop does not mean that U2 lost it's way or sold out ('cos according to everyone in 1987 they sold out with the Joshua Tree). U2 just decided to be who they were. Does that mean they can't experiment...no it doesn't. Does it mean that they are finally comfortable in their own skin...yes it does.

I don't have a problem with people proclaiming their love of Pop or October or UF or Boy or whichever album you love, but don't make the proclamation that this album or that album is U2's greatest and every album after that sucked because of....whatever.

Although you made a good point and all ...... Pop is a master-piece . But you made some nice points , specially for the ones who coz the last albums doesn't please their tastes , they try to made up "theories" or b.....shits like to diminish these records.

BTW a curiosity , talkin like this bout pop , you are from the US , right ?

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Whether I'm an American or not doesn't mean my that I'm either right or wrong. I'm a U2 fan regardless of where I reside. I like UF and AB just fine, much better than Pop and they are definitely more European sounding than say War and JT.

I don't like Pop because it's a fractured record. A record that someone on the old "Wired" group once described as like "listening to an album of B-sides". That's exactly how I felt when I first heard it in March of '97. Unfinished and fuzzy is how I still regard this album, in terms of what the band wanted and what they actually produced.

As for people calling this or that album a masterpiece, I think that this word get's thrown around a little too carelessly. I think that when "Q" magazine releases it's survey/list of greatest albums of the 1990's that Pop will fall rank below both AB and Zooropa in the mass musical and critical audience's opinion. And aren't most musical masterpieces agreed on by fans and non-fans alike? I mean I don't care for Metallica, but I can listen to and enjoy their Black album without a care of who recorded it. That is a masterpiece, when the music is so good it doesn't matter who performs it.

Does this mean it can't be your personal masterpiece, or that it's a terrible album? No, not at all, music is everything and anything to the listener...and to this listener it is not a masterpiece...not even close.

[J_NP]

Originally posted by Reggie Thee Dog
Whether I'm an American or not doesn't mean my that I'm either right or wrong. I'm a U2 fan regardless of where I reside. I like UF and AB just fine, much better than Pop and they are definitely more European sounding than say War and JT.

No mate , that's not what I meant , what I mean is the obvious US didn't like Pop , that's why call it a failure , and the US was the only country of the planet which wasn't satisfied with Popmart

[u2thewho]

Originally posted by J_NP


No mate , that's not what I meant , what I mean is the obvious US didn't like Pop , that's why call it a failure , and the US was the only country of the planet which wasn't satisfied with Popmart

Well, in our defense, we did get the (from what I've heard) shitty leg in the beginning. The band definitely owes us a PopMart leg. To BonoVoxSupastar: I'm (relatively?) new; late 2005. And that's an awesome picture in your avatar; Millennium Park is pretty damn nice.

[BVS]

Originally posted by u2thewho


To BonoVoxSupastar: I'm (relatively?) new; late 2005. And that's an awesome picture in your avatar; Millennium Park is pretty damn nice.

Thanks, yeah it's one of fave parts of Chicago...

U2 and politics have always gone hand in hand, but as another thread talks about it wasn't as rehearsed in the past. But to be fair this is probably the most important and actually more productive than anything they've tackled in the past.

[Zoots]

HTDAAB

Bono

[AtomicBono]

Originally posted by Zootlesque
HTDAAB

Bono

I saw that.

now I know your true feelings.

[Zoots]

[Earnie Shavers]

To say that U2 were chasing relevancy or whatever and nothing more with Pop is on par with saying U2 are chasing dollars and nothing more with the Bomb. Both are complete bullshit, but you can pull plenty of evidence to defend both.

U2 more often than not have grafted outside influence into their music. It's only slammed when it doesn't work for you. I can't think of a U2 album that doesn't have en element of taking something outside and grafting it onto the U2 foundation. Whether it be in the producer brought in, the music influence of the time, the genre they are trying to ape. I don't know why the crime is suddenly greater with Pop, especially considering the path that led to it from Achtung through Passengers, one that was all too obviously heading to an album somewhere in the very close vicinity of what we got in 1997. Some of you make it sound like U2 started off as The Joshua Tree band in 1978, then suddenly shifted to Pop 20 odd years later. It's ignoring everything that came before the Joshua Tree and everything in between it and Pop entirely. The argument is bunk. They rushed the album and fucked the production, that's the crime of Pop. If you don't like the sound of it, the songs, the attempt, the image etc, that's perfectly fine, but to write it off in part because they were heavily influenced by other music of that era, and to put that down to merely some kind of cash in or "desperate attempt to stay relevant" is simply ignoring every single other time they've done the exact same thing, which is virtually every album.

What the fuck is U2's sound or music? It is as much Out of Control as it is October as it is Sunday Bloody Sunday as it is The Unforgettable Fire as it is Bullet the Blue Sky as it is Angel of Harlem as it is The Fly as it is Lemon as it is Mofo as it is Beautiful Day and as it is now Vertigo. I'm no Bomb fan, can't stand the album, makes me very sad really. I have my reasons, but they do not include something as weak as claiming it as a cash in, radio friendly attempt at relevancy and making a shitload of money off the pop market all as one massive ego sweep to remain the biggest band in the world. U2 are ambitious, always have been. Want to be relevant, always have. Graft other sounds and influences into their core foundation, always have. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some of us are sometimes fans, some of us are sometimes not.

Isn't this specificaly a Bomb bashing thread anyway? So I can be let loose without fear?

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Ah the Popmart tour opening dates. I see what you're saying J_NP. Yes, I was there in Vegas on April of '97 and it was strange show for sure. However I saw two great shows in Oakland later that year. The second show being one of my top 5 U2 live experiences ever. So yes and no to that argument. Popmart didn't sell out in America because the album fell flat here.

Here's my main problem with Popmart...Zoo TV did it better, with songs that actually stood up live. The Pop songs...other than MOFO, LNOE and Gone just couldn't be recreated live. SATS...a disaster, so much so that they could only do it acoustically live. Miami, an interesting, weird song on CD that never translated live and was dropped altogether. Please, which I feel is one of U2's top 10 songs ever, should have been like Bad, a showstopper, but it never was. Discotheque...someone, somewhere said live the main guitar riff sounded like a mosquito farting... Yes that is a harsh critcism, I agree. Still I never thought it sounded right live.

And with Popmart (and Bono said this, refer to your Propagandas and pre-Popmart interviews) U2 were trying to top something they had so ingeniously done in the past, and that's hard to do. Just for fun I put on Pop after my first post and I like it. I can listen to it, I can enjoy it, but I just can't say it's the quintessential or masterpiece album by U2.

I respect your and other fan's opinion on this album...I just don't agree with it.