U2DMfan said:
Seperate. I even stated that you can't define U2's magic.
As far as balls, why would you fathom I would be talking about the earlier work? I am talking about an overhaul of their sound after their most brilliant success (JT/RH into Achtung/Zoo era) but moreso the gigantic balls of the image overhaul. That is risk at it's greatest. The elaborate tour, something which had never been attempted, much less by an already decade-long established critical darling rock band. Risk risk risk balls balls balls. Following up two album re-inventions with an album they didn't even title as recorded by U2 (Passengers) that's at least confidence. And then after 4 or 5 years of all that, they trup it on Pop and more pointedly POPmart. The largest TV screen ever constructed (at the time) and a gigantic mirror balled lemon.
This is what I am talking about when I use the term "balls"
And I was just using it to offset the difference between U2 in say, 1998 and what U2 became in 99/00 and have furthered with HTDAAB in 2004.
"Balls", "risk" whatever term you use, it's the same meaning to me.
And with that in mind, I actually agree. U2 did not take too many risks with either ATYCLB or HTDAAB. Still, it's not as if they've abandoned all experimenting either. I've never heard "Stuck in a Moment..." on any other U2 CD. Never heard "Fast Cars" either. Even "Love and Peace..." with its Moby-like beginning, is also experimental (and oddly enough, the one track many fans and critics don't like - I can't help but wonder if this is because this is one of the more experimental songs on the album).
But I see your point, the image is not revolutionary. Most likely the tour won't be either. The band looks great, but they aren't revolutionizing their appearance as they did for ZOO TV or PopMart. The Elevation tour was brilliant - far better than PopMart, IMO - but it wasn't as risky.
However, this brings about the following questions: does a band HAVE to be risky to be good, no, great? Does a band constantly have to reinvent their sound to be great? Does a band have to change their look? Does a band have to come up with revolutionary thoughts each time? When is it O.K. for a band to sound like a band?
The Beatles, long revered as one of the best bands ever, sounded very similar on their first few albums - as did U2. They made a mid-career shift, as did U2 ("Revolver" compared to UF and JT). They continued with an even larger shift and image change, as did U2 ("Sgt. Pepper" compared to AB). And then, for their last few albums, they changed again, but sounded like the Beatles ("Abbey Road" compared to ATYCLB and HTDAAB). The Beatles didn't revolutionize their sounds, rather, they worked within their own sound. They didn't drastically change their appearance, but gave a more natural look. That's what I'm seeing here with U2. U2 are working within their sound - exploring what makes U2 sound like U2. They are incorporating new sounds into their music. Their image is natural. They aren't trying to shock anymore. Just like the Beatles, U2 has already done this.
This then leads to the next question - what do you WANT U2 to do? What would be risky to you?
The last few points. Sure, AChtung wasn't revoltionary in terms of innovation, but U2 don't innovate, they incorporate. They were brave or "ballsy" to do what they did for that entire era. For themselves, for their own music, it was revolutionary, but not inoovative neccessarily.
See, you even say this yourself - U2 don't innovate, they incorporate. And that's what I'm hearing on HTDAAB. They are incorporating other sounds, including their OWN sound.
The difference is that this isn't unique. Plenty of bands have incorporated their own sound into their music. However, in doing so, they sound stale, stagnant. Their new music sounds like their old music. There's nothing fresh. U2 differs in this area - they still sound fresh and invigorating. If they didn't, I doubt we'd be here discussing this.
AB stood out as radically different thanks to JT and R&H. If AB came out after HTDAAB, I highly doubt we'd view it as so revolutionary. Likewise, if HTDAAB came out after "Pop", we'd all be singing U2's praises about how once again U2 sound radically different. How they once again changed their image (as it's different from all other eras of U2). But we have ATYCLB "buffer". And because of ATYCLB, U2 come across as playing "safe" on HTDAAB.
I'm not sure that's fair to say, but I see the argument. Still, I contend that U2 were safe many times before in their careers.
For me, HTDAAB sounding like a polished ATYCLB isn't a problem. However, if U2 release another album that sounds like ATYCLB and HTDAAB in a few years, then even I will be disappointed. U2 have explored this sound. They've fully explored their past. They've examined the U2 sound and what makes U2 sound like U2. They did this beautifully on 2 albums now. If they come out with a third that sounds this way, then I think it should be their swansong, because that suggests that the ideas are starting to run on low.
For now, U2 have 11 tracks that pretty much shine. Unlike on JT, AB and ATYCLB, while I have my favorites, I don't hate any song on HTDAAB. I skip at least 2 songs on JT and at least 1 on AB and ATYCLB every time. But I'm not hearing this on HTDAAB.
U2 sounding like U2, is fine if you discount a whole chunk of their catalogue as not sounding like U2. I guess what I would say is it all sounds like U2 to me. I get the point you make, and don't mean to parse words, but I think Lemon and Mofo are not trademark U2, but it is part of what a lot of us love about them.
I agree, "Lemon" and "Mofo" don't sound like U2 - but I never said they did. What I said was that JT sounds like U2. "War" sounds like U2. Even AB sounds a lot like U2 - just a darker more rocking side of them. U2's more experimental work is on "Zooropa", parts of "Pop" and a lot of the Passengers' album. Hence my comment, we can't deride U2 for sounding like U2 on HTDAAB when they've done that plenty of times before. And, I'll argue that songs like "Stuck..." and "Fast Cars" and "Love and Peace..." are still experimental songs for U2 as they don't appear elsewhere in the U2 catalog. They are just as unique as "Lemon" and "Mofo". So for a band that sounds like itself, they seem to have quite a few tricks left!
That's it!
Well put. 
