The 80's: U2's Most Prolific Decade?

[DevilsShoes]

I think they were, after all the band managed to produce 6 albums during that time and only 3 in the nineties. Of course most of this was driven by desperation, financial neccessity was the main reason. Up until the Unforgettable Fire the band were deeply in debt to Island and so had no choice but to keep churning out albums and going on tour every year. I think it was for the best, if there had been a three to four year gap between albums as there is now, who knows the amount of classics we would have missed out on. So much of U2's song writing is instinctive and almost by accident, Bono used to dislike writing lyrics and often used to improvise on the mike, same with the band, sometimes long jams and because they didn't really know what they were doing, produced some great inspirational moments, which may not have existed if they hadn't been in the studio so much. It also makes me think what we may have lost in the nineties with the band no longer dictated to by the same urgency. We all know the story of how One just seemed to fall from the sky into their laps when things weren't going well, and wouldn't what other modern classics may have emerged? I think the eighties material still stands as their strongest output. I mean what was produced during these 10 years still forms to backbone of their live shows today, just look at the number of songs which have gone onto become fan favourites and that the band continue to play to this day: I Will Follow, 11 O Clock Tick Tock, Out of Control, Gloria, Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Years Day, 40, Pride, Bad, MLK, Streets, Still havent Found, With or Without You, Bullet the Blue Sky, Running to Stand Still, One Tree Hill, Desire, Angel of Harlem and All I Want Is You. Of the nineties tunes which have managed to survive, its only really Acthung Baby which is still represented in concert: Zoo Station, Even Better, One, end of the World, Wild Horses (occassionally), Fly and Mysterious Ways. Zooropa only has Stay, and Pop only really has Staring at the sun and maybe Gone. The nineties may be a more popular decade with the fans, but the I think the eighties were more important.

 

[Salome]

as great as 90s U2 were, they are painfully overrated on this site compared to what the band did in the 80s (and even compared to what they're doing in the 00s, but that's a different discussion)

 

[Aygo]

Originally posted by DevilsShoes Of the nineties tunes which have managed to survive, its only really Acthung Baby which is still represented in concert: Zoo Station, Even Better, One, end of the World, Wild Horses (occassionally), Fly and Mysterious Ways. Zooropa only has Stay, and Pop only really has Staring at the sun and maybe Gone. The nineties may be a more popular decade with the fans, but the I think the eighties were more important. [/B]

Are you sure you don't want to edit your post and erase this?

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

Yeah, 80's U2 is more prolific..... they were young, had something to prove..... it's normal they got more rage and ambition than after 100 millions ablums sold..... However, I think they were very solid in the 90's..... best album (AB) and 2 huge tours..... some reinventions too....

 

[Utoo]

The 80s work certainly was incredible with regard to sheer volume of material. It's also pretty significant for the quality of the extra material, i.e. B-sides, which have suffered ever since. It's probably mostly due to the creative runs that young bands go on....it's not uncommon for bands in their first several years to crank out a wealth of material. I think that what is unusual is that it was mostly such great quality. Not to knock Pop in any way (yes, it is good, I do like it), but I have probably listened to my 1980-1990 B-sides about 4x more often than Pop. The quality of the stuff put out in the 90s was phenomenal, too...there was just less of it (hence, less "prolific").

 

[U2Kitten]

There's really no contest.

80s-Boy, October, War, UF, JT, R&H
90s- AB, Zooropa, Pop
00s- ATYCLB, Bomb

The 80's produced the most albums, and most of the best. They were young, prolific, eager and GOOD. Then you go to the 90s. AB was awesome, but there were few good songs on Zooropa or Pop. Then in the 00s, you have two mediocre sounding (really) albums by some old guys who have really lost their creative spark and drive. It's no offense to U2, they're still great, but it's a fact that the rich, happy old man does not produce the great music the angry, hungry young man does. Look at all the rock greats and you'll see the pattern. U2 have not put out a 'great' album since AB and most likely never will, though I'm still proud they're still around, still together, and legendary.

 

[U2Kitten]

Re: Re: The 80's: U2's Most Prolific Decade?

Originally posted by DevilsShoes
Of the nineties tunes which have managed to survive, its only really Acthung Baby which is still represented in concert: Zoo Station, Even Better, One, end of the World, Wild Horses (occassionally), Fly and Mysterious Ways. Zooropa only has Stay, and Pop only really has Staring at the sun and maybe Gone. The nineties may be a more popular decade with the fans, but the I think the eighties were more important.

Are you sure you don't want to edit your post and erase this?

Why? Though those words may not be popular with many here on this forum, they are all true.

I completely agree with every word, other than the part about the 90s being most popular with the fans. The fans HERE maybe, but not as a whole. Most people I know only like 80s U2. The fact that most 90s songs aren't done in concert, or heard on the radio (other than Stay and AB) are living proof that most fans and casual fans- there are millions of them while only a few hundred post here- agree with what Devilshoes posted.

 

[CTU2fan]

No question about it. U2 produced as many albums 1980-88 as they've done in the 20 years since (Boy, October, War, UF, JT, R&H vs. AB, Zooropa, Passengers, POP, ATYCLB, HTDAAB), and on top of that those first 6 albums were superior.

Though I'd expect some "POP is teh gr8!!!!!11!!!11" posts any minute now...lots of those folks here.

 

[Aygo]

Re: Re: Re: The 80's: U2's Most Prolific Decade?

Why? Though those words may not be popular with many here on this forum, they are all true. [/B]

No, the last paragraph is not...

 

[U2Kitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The 80's: U2's Most Prolific Decade?

No, the last paragraph is not...

That part is especially true, and I've been thinking and saying the same thing for years! There are no good songs on Pop except SATS and Gone, and not much on Zooropa but Stay. Radio play and concerts have even proven this. There are a handful of a few dozen Pop fanatics here who think it's great and that everyone else is stupid for not 'getting' it, but I have always thought of it like the kid in the "Emperor's New Clothes"- everyone's saying how great it is, and there's really nothing there but nobody wants to say it and get bashed, but one kid who doesn't care speaks the truth. As I read Devilshoes' post, I felt sorry for him/her, because while it's all true to most of the MILLIONS of U2 fans, not just a handful here, I was afraid the poster would be bashed by the "PoP is gr8t!!!11!! I luv pOp!" bunch, and that the opinions expressed were so close to my own- right down to song titles- that the mods are probably running an IP check on the guy/girl to see if he/she is my alter! Unfortuately, the views expressed innocently and honestly by devilshoes, cannot really be posted here without suffering for it, so while most fans know it to be true, few will say it or even back it up if they see it in print. I admire the poster for his/her honest assesment and hope it will be respected.

 

[Laura M]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The 80's: U2's Most Prolific Decade?

That part is especially true, and I've been thinking and saying the same thing for years!

It's true because that is what your opinion is, doesn't mean someone else is wrong because they don't think the same thing.

There are no good songs on Pop except SATS and Gone, and not much on Zooropa but Stay. Radio play ... have even proven this.

The only songs I hear from AB on the radio is 'One'. And I have heard songs from both Pop and Zooropa here on the radio.

As I read Devilshoes' post, I felt sorry for him/her, because while it's all true to most of the MILLIONS of U2 fans, not just a handful here, I was afraid the poster would be bashed by the "PoP is gr8t!!!11!! I luv pOp!" bunch, and that the opinions expressed were so close to my own- right down to song titles- that the mods are probably running an IP check on the guy/girl to see if he/she is my alter! Unfortuately, the views expressed innocently and honestly by devilshoes, cannot really be posted here without suffering for it, so while most fans know it to be true, few will say it or even back it up if they see it in print. I admire the poster for his/her honest assesment and hope it will be respected.

Nobody has bashed the poster, infact a lot of people seem to be in agreement with her. I love Pop but I don't really care if everyone hates it to be honest. The only thing that will cause any friction in this thead is someone bashing everyone else.

 

[roy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The 80's: U2's Most Prolific Decade?

That part is especially true, and I've been thinking and saying the same thing for years! There are no good songs on Pop except SATS and Gone .

lol..What nonsense you spout. (and this is from someone who thinks Pop is slightly overrated on this forum).

 

[U2Kitten]

That's good. I hope this thread can stay what it is and not become another Pop discussion. There is no doubt that the 80's were the most prolific, regardless of your opinion on any albums, because there wer more made in that decade.

 

[U2Kitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The 80's: U2's Most Prolific Decade?

lol..What nonsense you spout. (and this is from someone who thinks Pop is slightly overrated in this forum).

I was taking up for the original poster who said exactly the same thing- go look. It's not nonsense. Those are the only 2 songs on the album I can stand to listen to.

Well, I have to go somewhere now, you all have a nice day!

 

[Laura M]

That's good. I hope this thread can stay what it is and not become another Pop discussion. There is no doubt that the 80's were the most prolific, regardless of your opinion on any albums, because there wer more made in that decade.

Quantity doesn't equal quality.

The only person who changed the topic and mentioned the pop is great discussion/ how the mods would be checking this person's ip/ bashing people on this forum was in fact yourself.

Back on topic, I think U2 were more prolific in the 80's (and I still like POP).

 

[prideofzootv]

bonos voice has rapidly declinged from the 90s, listen to vertigo milan for example, lots of croakin, more than what a frog does

Larrys back problem preventing him doing some kick ass drumming

The edge starting to stand still more instead of dancing around like in the 80's and 90's (live aid for example)

Adam-well, no singing

 

[U2Kitten]

Quantity doesn't equal quality.

But the 80's albums are of higher quality, too, especially UF and JT.

The only person who changed the topic and mentioned the pop is great discussion/ how the mods would be checking this person's ip/ bashing people on this forum was in fact yourself.

Then you need to go back and reread the thread, because 2 others did it before I did.



I have to drive about a 100 miles away now, so see ya!

 

[MrPryck2U]

I would agree and say that the 80's were U2's most prolific decade. They simply put out more stuff in the 80's. I won't comment and say if it was their best decade or not, but the volume of their work was greater.

 

[Nate Dogg]

The 90s were great, except for the album they made with Gary Cherone.

 

[BVS]

bonos voice has rapidly declinged from the 90s, listen to vertigo milan for example, lots of croakin, more than what a frog does

Larrys back problem preventing him doing some kick ass drumming

The edge starting to stand still more instead of dancing around like in the 80's and 90's (live aid for example)

Adam-well, no singing

WTF does this have to do with the 80's being prolific?

 

[DevilsShoes]

Thanks U2Kitten for looking out for me, you're words meant alot. You actually contributed to my last thread as well and said some very insightful things there too.

By the way as there seems to some confusion over my gender, I am in actual fact male.

I don't want to erase any of my original post because I think its all true. I'm not slating the nineties and beyond, just expressing an opinion. There are things about every era of the band that I enjoy.

 

[Aygo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The 80's: U2's Most Prolific Decade?

That part is especially true, and I've been thinking and saying the same thing for years! There are no good songs on Pop except SATS and Gone, and not much on Zooropa but Stay. Radio play and concerts have even proven this. There are a handful of a few dozen Pop fanatics here who think it's great and that everyone else is stupid for not 'getting' it, but I have always thought of it like the kid in the "Emperor's New Clothes"- everyone's saying how great it is, and there's really nothing there but nobody wants to say it and get bashed, but one kid who doesn't care speaks the truth. As I read Devilshoes' post, I felt sorry for him/her, because while it's all true to most of the MILLIONS of U2 fans, not just a handful here, I was afraid the poster would be bashed by the "PoP is gr8t!!!11!! I luv pOp!" bunch, and that the opinions expressed were so close to my own- right down to song titles- that the mods are probably running an IP check on the guy/girl to see if he/she is my alter! Unfortuately, the views expressed innocently and honestly by devilshoes, cannot really be posted here without suffering for it, so while most fans know it to be true, few will say it or even back it up if they see it in print. I admire the poster for his/her honest assesment and hope it will be respected.

Clearly an anti-1990's U2 non-sense post.

 

[Aygo]

But the 80's albums are of higher quality, too, especially UF and JT.

That's your opinion, thankfully, not a stated fact.

 

[gman]

Maybe the thread should be renamed quantity vs quality. Even if u2 released 3 masterpieces in 90s, the fact the 80s had more albums, therfore meaning they were more prolific in that decade, kind of answers the question before its asked. In my opinion, the 80s beats 90s and noughties toghether hands down for quality

 

[U2Kitten]

Thanks U2Kitten for looking out for me, you're words meant alot. You actually contributed to my last thread as well and said some very insightful things there too.

By the way as there seems to some confusion over my gender, I am in actual fact male.

I don't want to erase any of my original post because I think its all true. I'm not slating the nineties and beyond, just expressing an opinion. There are things about every era of the band that I enjoy.

Thank you You are right about everything you said, and you have every right to express your opinions. Thanks for posting.

 

[Diemen]

Maybe the thread should be renamed quantity vs quality. Even if u2 released 3 masterpieces in 90s, the fact the 80s had more albums, therfore meaning they were more prolific in that decade, kind of answers the question before its asked.

Indeed. There is no opinion as to what the most prolific decade for U2 was (so far). It was the 80s. Period.

Quality? That's definitely a separate issue, and thankfully there is no one set truth on this one. Some people love the 90s over the 80s. Some the 00s over both. Some the 80s over everything else. None of those groups are wrong in any strict sense. You think the 80s are the best. Well, for you they are, so you're right. But the next guy or gal may prefer the 90s or 00s, and they're not wrong simply because they don't agree with you.

 

[DevilsShoes]

Yeah you're right Dieman and Gman, I should have named this thread The 80's: U2's most 'productive' decade, they were always going to be most prolific simply because they released the most albums. But I think it was the most productive because of all the classics which came from the decade and which still to this day form the back bone to their concerts. The nineties stuff gets hardly a look in really.

 

[U2girl]

Maybe the thread should be renamed quantity vs quality. Even if u2 released 3 masterpieces in 90s, the fact the 80s had more albums, therfore meaning they were more prolific in that decade, kind of answers the question before its asked. In my opinion, the 80s beats 90s and noughties toghether hands down for quality

 

[prideofzootv]

my bit has to do about the 80's because everything i stated was about U2 from the late 90's onwards, the 80's had the complete opposite,

Bono had a fantastic voice
Larry had some kick ass drum beats
Edge ran everrywhere he possible could,you would think he was spazzing out
and Adam sang!

 

[guill]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The 80's: U2's Most Prolific Decade?

You can't compare, after JT any new album from U2 was expected to sell 10-15M copies, they had more pressure. When you have 300 journalists, 40 tv, 500 radios and millions of people waiting for a new album and a new tour, you take your time to release a decent album. They even had to invent The Passengers to be able to play fun music and new songs without the pressure of "OMG, U2 is back !!!".

But the 91-00 decade was not desertic, they released 4 albums (AB, Zooropa, Pop, ATYCLB) + 2 projects (Passengers, MDH).
The 2001-10 period is so poorer in comparison, it's scary.