Question for 00's Bashers/90's Lovers...

[Mr. V]

Logic for the ultimate win.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I think the original poster is right, although I do see good things in the last two records, Beautiful Day is one of their greatest ever singles, Electrical Storm, Fast Cars and TGBHF are three of my top U2 songs ever, but on the whole I have been disappointed by the 00's stuff. Part of the anxiety has been that I am worried this next record will be similar and if that is the case then I would just have to give up hoping that U2 could be truly great again, and that thought is just not worth thinking about!!!!
If the next record can excite me as much as TJT, TUF, AB etc then I will look back on ATYCLB and HTDAAB with more generosity, in the same way that Achtung Baby made look back on Rattle and Hum with fondness, at the time I was very disappointed with Rattle and Hum.
I have a feeling though that the next record will be up there with the greats!!

 

[U2girl]

You overlooked the attitude of the band in this decade. The decision to become more mainstream and poppy. The hype and bullshit about these last two albums from members of the band. Making new fans and pleasing casual fans over their core support. The whole mindset of the band this decade is something I don't think a lot of people can get over because of one album.

Nothing will change my belief that ATYCLB and Bomb are crap. It was the downfall of U2. They have diluted the band's catalog. They have hurt the band's legacy. In my eyes, a great album in their remaining years can't change that they went away from evolving and creativity for the sake of money.

It's true U2 decided to make pop music (and thus entering the mainstream - which sounds like Pop when they wanted the band's sound to enter the dancefloor), but it wasn't out of "let's make more money becase we're out of ideas". Rather, ATYCLB was new teritorry for the band. They've never actually done a pop record before (and I don't resent them for falling back to known sounds for once in their career with Bomb, a song collection considered better than ATYCLB by most here). All the irony simply ran out of their system. Just like all the straightforward, wearing the heart on their sleeve attitude ran out of their system at the end of 80's.

As for hype, when have they not done it ? Making new fans is kind of one of the biggest things that's kept them so popular over such a long period of time. The core support is still there, buying the remasters, the DVDs, and watching the tours (noticed all the oldies being played on the last two tours?).

I don't buy the theory that they ruined their legacy (not with that kind of back catalogue) or purposely dilluted anything. I hope you also have something more substantial to base your comments than "ATYCLB/Bomb sold a lot ergo U2 sold out".
I agree though that even if they make a great album it will probably add more fuel to the "see, they were all about the cash!" mentality.

 

[Screwtape2]

How do you know it is the truth? What quotes do you have to present this as fact?
And yes, quotes from the band/McGuinness only please, no interpretations of their actions. Because if you're making assumptions, then it's not certain it's the truth.

It isn't assumptions. The evidence is there in their actions. Pop doesn't sell as many records as they wanted and the next thing we hear from them is this radio friendly pop. I've already said what happened next:

"There is one major flaw in your logic. U2 claims to compete for the title of biggest band in the world. In turn, they give us two of their least creative albums and they start making radio friendly songs again. Biggest band must mean most popular and most financially successful. Like I said mainstream success over creativity."

 

[LMP]

...of which I consider myself one of. (Although I can appreciate a lot of the 00's material it is just not as exciting or artistic, IMO...but this discussion has been done to death and is not the point of this thread. So on with the question.)

If U2 put out an album now that was truly innovative and ranked with their best material and was in every way an undeniable classic, would it be easier to accept ATYCLB and HTDAAB simply as a phase of the band that gave us some actually pretty decent pop music (rather than as the downfall of U2)?

I'm not sure if that question makes sense.

For myself, and I think maybe for other as well, the disappointment of the 00's material is the idea/fear that maybe they have "lost it" and can no longer reach the artistic peaks of the past. I think however, if they were to make something extraordinary at this point, I could more easily dismiss/accept the last 2 albums as an interesting sidestep for the band in which they tried something different with varying degrees of success. In other words, it would help to know they've still got it.

So, would an innovative classic, at this point, change your opinion of the last 2 albums or would they still seem like wasted opportunities?

What an interesting question. I don't think the new album would diminish my opinions of the previous 2 albums. I enjoy ATYCLB overall and dig most of the songs there, and I don't think HTDAAB has any staying power, album cohesion, or truly classic songs, but it's not terrible to listen to, for me at least.

I would absolutely love for the new album to be great for me and stay that, you know? I absolutely loved HTDAAB upon release, but it hasn't stuck with me while I've appreciated other albums in their catalogue. If the new album stinks, then I still have their older music to fall back on. Nothing will ever change that for me or put their legacy in doubt or any of that type of bullshit.

I still maintain that ATYCLB was another progression for the band, not a retread or "return to their roots" type of album. None of their other albums sound similar to that one, at least to me, whereas HTDAAB sounded like they were trying to put together a greatest hits album. Again, these are solely my opinions and it's totally cool if anyone disagrees, I only reiterate this because of the parties involved.

 

[Screwtape2]

Logic for the ultimate win.

It might not make any sense for them to do it but they are. Did U218 make any sense either? But they released it.

 

[LemonMelon]

I would also like to encourage those who believe ATYCLB and HTDAAB were retreads because "that's where U2 are right now" to listen to some of the b-sides from the period. Fast Cars, Xanax And Wine, Flower Child, Levitate, and Love You Like Mad are SO stereotypically U2.

 

[Popmartijn]

It isn't assumptions. The evidence is there in their actions. Pop doesn't sell as many records as they wanted and the next thing we hear from them is this radio friendly pop.

So what is this irrefutable evidence then? As you can see from the post by U2girl above you, there are multiple explanations possible about the shift from Pop to ATYCLB. Hence, there is no truth in claiming that they're only in it for the money now.

 

[LMP]

Creativity and taste aren't quantifiable subjects. You can feel a certain way about them, no doubt, you're entitled to that, but touting them around as fact does absolutely nothing.

Pop is an extremely radio-friendly album that just didn't sell well. Half of that album was released as singles.

 

[Screwtape2]

So what is this irrefutable evidence then? As you can see from the post by U2girl above you, there are multiple explanations possible about the shift from Pop to ATYCLB. Hence, there is no truth in claiming that they're only in it for the money now.

There is only one explanation to the shift to pop. They first dumbed down Sweetest Thing to simple pop for no other reason than money. They had Wave of Sorrow waiting to be finished but no they went for the clear hit. They dumbed down Always to have a clear hit in Beautiful Day. They dumbed down Native Son to have a clear hit. They even dumbed down a close to completed beach clip to make Window In The Skies to make sure to have another hit. That's trying to be mainstream and sell more records than anyone else. That's the opposite of creativity.

 

[LMP]

"Always wear a safety belt... ALLLLLLLLLLWAAAAAAAAYS"

That's a beacon of intelligent songwriting right there.

Maybe they're just into a new style of making music that you don't particularly like? It doesn't make them any less creative of a band for producing it or you any less of a fan for not liking it.

 

[Screwtape2]

Pop is an extremely radio-friendly album that just didn't sell well. Half of that album was released as singles.

But none of the singles were rewritten or designed to be huge hits. They were all too unique sounding to actually end up being the single that sells the record.

 

[Screwtape2]

"Always wear a safety belt... ALLLLLLLLLLWAAAAAAAAYS"

That's a beacon of intelligent songwriting right there.

Maybe they're just into a new style of making music that you don't particularly like? It doesn't make them any less creative of a band for producing it or you any less of a fan for not liking it.

It isn't about whether I like it or not. It is about the band's intention.

 

[LemonMelon]

They first dumbed down Sweetest Thing to simple pop for no other reason than money.

The Sweetest Thing has always sucked though.

For the record, Kate Bush has several greatest hits albums. Just saying.

 

[LMP]

But none of the singles were rewritten or designed to be huge hits. They were all too unique sounding to actually end up being the single that sells the record.

On the contrary, the single versions of "If God Will Send His Angels", "Last Night on Earth", and "Please" were altered upon release because the band thought those were better. How is that any different of a move than "dumbing down" other songs that you don't like? Why would any band release a song as a single without the intention of it being well-received?

"Discotheque" and "Gone" were also changed to appear on the Best Of, too.

What quantifies a song being more "unique sounding" than another, pray tell?

It isn't about whether I like it or not. It is about the band's intention.

How do you or I know about the band's intention without being in the know? You and I possess the same amount of information about the band, unless you speak to them on a regular basis and no one else knows about it.

 

[Screwtape2]

The Sweetest Thing has always sucked though.

For the record, Kate Bush has several greatest hits albums. Just saying.

The point is they went for the clear pop hit.

I'm not talking about greatest hits albums at all.

 

[LemonMelon]

The point is they went for the clear pop hit.

I'm not talking about greatest hits albums at all.

The Sweetest Thing's remix was released for the sole purpose of promoting a greatest hits. It's all tied together.

And I don't think you can deny that The Sweetest Thing is an obvious pop song, and was from the start. It's a perfect example of U2's proclivity for a pop hook, even during their peak. Shock of shocks, it was a success when they actually released it.

 

[Screwtape2]

On the contrary, the single versions of "If God Will Send His Angels", "Last Night on Earth", and "Please" were altered upon release because the band thought those were better. How is that any different of a move than "dumbing down" other songs that you don't like? Why would any band release a song as a single without the intention of it being well-received?

"Discotheque" and "Gone" were also changed to appear on the Best Of, too.

What quantifies a song being more "unique sounding" than another, pray tell?

I'm talking about completely rewriting a song, changing the title and lyrics in some cases to ensure a record sells. They are choosing the money over the creativity.

The four examples I used are lowest common denominator songs. They are straight forward and simple. The Pop singles were all creative in their sound. They also weren't written specifically to be hits. They were part of the whole.

 

[LMP]

I'm talking about completely rewriting a song, changing the title and lyrics in some cases to ensure a record sells. They are choosing the money over the creativity.

The four examples I used are lowest common denominator songs. They are straight forward and simple. The Pop singles were all creative in their sound. They also weren't written specifically to be hits. They were part of the whole.

Again, this is all relative and your opinion. You can try and sell it to me all you want, but until you produce any type of evidence to the contrary, which won't happen, then I'll disagree with you.

But isn't going back and re-recording a song even "less creative" than making a new song entirely? Doesn't this break the cycle?

I don't know for the life of me how you or anyone else can say how creative something is like it's a fact.

I think the songs on ATYCLB fit together pretty well and maybe could put up a decent argument saying Pop was a more single-ready album than that one was without making a sweeping generalization, but that doesn't mean it'll be right or people will agree with me. Maybe I would be wrong, it happens... but I will admit it if the time comes.

 

[Screwtape2]

The Sweetest Thing's remix was released for the sole purpose of promoting a greatest hits. It's all tied together.

And I don't think you can deny that The Sweetest Thing is an obvious pop song, and was from the start. It's a perfect example of U2's proclivity for a pop hook, even during their peak. Shock of shocks, it was a success when they actually released it.

Sweetest Thing was actually turning into a more complex song before they released it as a b-side. They went for the pop hit instead of the other things they could have put on it. They cared more about money than creativity.

Sweetest Thing was destined for more than being a simple pop song. Instead of doing something innovative with it they decided to make it generic pop that would make them lots of money.

 

[LMP]

I don't even see how much different the B-side version of "The Sweetest Thing" is to the single version. The piano bit is more pronounced? The rest of the band sings in the chorus? The lyrics are the same... Bono's still singing them in an almost similar delivery, too. How is changing this song any different than the re-recorded versions of the Pop songs?

Help me out here.

 

[dan_smee]

But none of the singles were rewritten or designed to be huge hits. They were all too unique sounding to actually end up being the single that sells the record.

Please and IGWSHA have single versions.

 

[LMP]

I'm listening to both versions of The Sweetest Thing back-to-back and they're nearly identical. Cool if you prefer one version to the other, but saying one's purely for money is pretty unfounded.

 

[dan_smee]

Pop sold 6 million copies... big failure....

 

[Screwtape2]

I don't know for the life of me how you or anyone else can say how creative something is like it's a fact.

I think the songs on ATYCLB fit together pretty well and maybe could put up a decent argument saying Pop was a more single-ready album than that one was without making a sweeping generalization, but that doesn't mean it'll be right or people will agree with me. Maybe I would be wrong, it happens... but I will admit it if the time comes.

I'll educate you then. You can look at time signatures of songs, musical complexity, the effects, the innovation, the lyrical complexity, the changes in the songs, types of instruments used, the difficulty of bass lines, uses of moods, song length and many, many more.

Seeing as Always was turned into the mega hit Beautiful Day, I think it is a fact that ATYCLB was a more single ready album. That song sold so many records by itself.

 

[Lila64]

 

[Screwtape2]

Pop sold 6 million copies... big failure....

Failure in the band's eyes at least.

 

[Lila64]

And fortunately they changed the song to BE Beautiful Day, which is a great song. Always - not so much.

 

[dan_smee]

I'll educate you then. You can look at time signatures of songs, musical complexity, the effects, the innovation, the lyrical complexity, the changes in the songs, types of instruments used, the difficulty of bass lines, uses of moods, song length and many, many more.

Seeing as Always was turned into the mega hit Beautiful Day, I think it is a fact that ATYCLB was a more single ready album. That song sold so many records by itself.

You'll educate??? You still haven't responded to my question. I am yet to see evidence to support your sell-out claims. I used evidence to back up my arguements, you state bullshit and call it fact.

You'll educate? Pig-headed ignorance. Was that "insulting"?

 

[LMP]

I'll educate you then. You can look at time signatures of songs, musical complexity, the effects, the innovation, the lyrical complexity, the changes in the songs, types of instruments used, the difficulty of bass lines, uses of moods, song length and many, many more.

Seeing as Always was turned into the mega hit Beautiful Day, I think it is a fact that ATYCLB was a more single ready album. That song sold so many records by itself.

Hey, if that's how you measure how great a song is, more power to you, but to expect me to do the same is shaky at best. It'll affect me in a different way then it affects you, another totally alright thing, but how it relates to the band's intent on selling their music is still beyond me.

I wish you'd educate me more often though, I got a good laugh out of it.