What Do You Think U2 Should Have Done After Pop?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

DevilsShoes

War Child
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
760
Location
UK
I know several fm's were dissapointed with the bands decision to go back to basic's with ATYCLB after the percieved failure of Pop, feeling they chose to go the commercial route rather than the genuinely creative one, so what do you think U2's next step should have been at the end of the nineties?

Does anyone think they should have continued with the Pop direction, i.e: pushing themselves creatively in an attempt to break new ground and potentially becoming less commercially successful but remaining innovative.

Does anybody think they made exactly the right decision by stripping back their sound and trying to write straight to the heart pop songs with ATYCLB? Whether you think the songs on this album represent U2 at their best or not, it can't be denied that the record did it's job so far as putting them back in the public eye and giving them a fresh shot in the arm for the 2000's.
For U2 being a big act has always been a primary objective.

Perhaps the main problem some people have with the 2000 albums is not that they made a concerted effort to simplify their sound but that the songs on these records are just uninspired.

I don't know, what do you think?
 
I think they made the right decision at the time, and then gave us one of their most consistent records with ATYCLB. I can see the argument for H2DAAB being uninspired, but not ATYCLB.
 
i would've liked some kind of compromise between the two i guess. i know pop wasn't a commercial success at all and i doubt they would've kept plugging away while they sold less and less records. that's just not feasible, it doesn't seem like something they'd do.

but i would've preferred something not as commercial as atyclb. for example, with achtung baby, they found that perfect compromise between creativity/experimentation and commercialism/popularity. they stretched themselves, but they also remained incredibly popular and made music that was popular at the time. i'm not suggesting they should've made another achtung baby or anything else, repeating themselves is never a good idea.

but to do something in that vein - not necessarily musically - but where they found that happy medium again, i think would've pleased both sides better than atyclb ended up doing.
 
I think ATYCLB wasn't a bad idea, just a horribly executed album. Beautiful Day, Kite, and Walk On are good songs. They could have used five more good songs.
 
I think they should have done what they did--but use things like real orchestras instead of synth orchestras. And have Elevation be like the Tomb Raider Mix.
 
DevilsShoes said:
Does anyone think they should have continued with the Pop direction, i.e: pushing themselves creatively in an attempt to break new ground and potentially becoming less commercially successful but remaining innovative.
I have 2 problems with this:
1. the biggest flaw of Pop is that they didn't dare to push themselves far enough experimentation wise
Pop is where they chickened out and didn't finish what they started
ATYCLB is about the exact opposite in that respect
2. the entire U2 / experimentation issue only exists when you consider U2 as something completely seperate from what else goes on in the world of music
otherwise you can hardly call anything the band did as being experimental because it has all been done before
maybe an exception can be made for part of their 80s output even though the reason they did sound different back then is because they couldn't play any better


anyway
ATYCLB was a great decision at that time and in any time as it's a great album
How to dismantle ... somehow doesn't really work and therefore wasn't the right decision at that time

that's how I see it
 
Salome said:

I have 2 problems with this:
1. the biggest flaw of Pop is that they didn't dare to push themselves far enough experimentation wise
Pop is where they chickened out and didn't finish what they started
ATYCLB is about the exact opposite in that respect
2. the entire U2 / experimentation issue only exists when you consider U2 as something completely seperate from what else goes on in the world of music
otherwise you can hardly call anything the band did as being experimental because it has all been done before
maybe an exception can be made for part of their 80s output even though the reason they did sound different back then is because they couldn't play any better


anyway
ATYCLB was a great decision at that time and in any time as it's a great album
How to dismantle ... somehow doesn't really work and therefore wasn't the right decision at that time

that's how I see it


i agree with this I mean, they changed the sound of the record midway through....if they had just given themselves six more weeks, this could have been averted...and then we would have nothing to talk about except mercy.
 
Swan269 said:

...and then we would have nothing to talk about except mercy.

That in itself is a good reason U2 didn't take those 6 weeks to "finish" Pop.
 
Art should be the aim of every artist. If it isn't your objective no one should give you the time of day. The band didn't give up everything for art. You have to. You should be willing to die for your art. If you don't then you don't deserve the praise you get. I think they tried to make to art with the last two albums but they didn't have the courage to take it further. So simply put they should have had courage after Pop.
 
U2 made the right decision. As "mainstream" as we make ATYCLB sound, it was a bit different during the times. Wasn't Creed the big band around that time.

The only problem I have with ATYCLB is the B-side. I mean:

BD
Stuck (Good song, just over produced)
Elevation
Walk On
Kite
even In A LItte While

is a great diverse collection of songs. Those 6 songs are very instresting and great to listen to. BUT, things take a left turn after IALW and the listener never gets back on track.

Overall, U2 made the right decision and were just shy of a masterpiece.
 
In theory I don't have a problem with them dumping the techno/dance elements and going with more pure melody. My main objection to ATYCLB and HTDAAB was the execution.
I loved some of the pure pop stuff like Wild Honey and In A Little While, but the big guitar anthems just felt like a "lite" version of '80s U2. And don't get me started on the lyrics.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:
i would've liked some kind of compromise between the two i guess. i know pop wasn't a commercial success at all and i doubt they would've kept plugging away while they sold less and less records. that's just not feasible, it doesn't seem like something they'd do.

but i would've preferred something not as commercial as atyclb. for example, with achtung baby, they found that perfect compromise between creativity/experimentation and commercialism/popularity. they stretched themselves, but they also remained incredibly popular and made music that was popular at the time. i'm not suggesting they should've made another achtung baby or anything else, repeating themselves is never a good idea.

but to do something in that vein - not necessarily musically - but where they found that happy medium again, i think would've pleased both sides better than atyclb ended up doing.

:applaud: I don't need to say anything. You've said everything I wanted to.
 
I think they made the right choice. It was worth it for them to go in that direction, even if just for Beautiful Day.

Now, however, it's time for them to expand their horizons and move on.
 
They should have done a kickass rock and roll record. That's what excited me in all that Bomb hype.

Oh how naive I was.
 
phillyfan26 said:
I think ATYCLB wasn't a bad idea, just a horribly executed album. Beautiful Day, Kite, and Walk On are good songs. They could have used five more good songs.

Agreed on most parts.

I think they spent too much time on All That You Can't Leave Behind... polishing some songs to the point of neutering (lyrically and/or melodically). The issue I take with the band's direction post-Pop is that they became compulsive perfectionists (see the time and number of producers used for How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb). Members of U2, Edge specifically, have claimed that their pursuit has always been to create the perfect record or album... maybe as the years have progressed the band has become more desperate in that pursuit. The unfortunate result has been albums of muddled focus, in my opinion.

As for the question at hand, I think they should have called it a career after Pop. That is, unless they had pursued the direction that Million Dollar Hotel was taking them (which seemed like a more interesting departure to Pop). The introspection, perspective of age, and ambient production of songs like Ground Beneath Her Feet and Falling At Your Feet intrigue me more than the entire collection of mid-life crisis bombasts from the last two albums.
 
djerdap said:
They should have done a kickass rock and roll record. That's what excited me in all that Bomb hype.

Oh how naive I was.

Xanax & Wine
Native Son
Are You Gonna Wait Forever

It WAS a rock record at one point, but they wussed out later thanks to Lillywhite.
 
I agree with most of what is written in here.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the choice of direction on ATYCLB, but I do think it's overall a very weak album. They do succeed with making alot of it sound breezy and natural though, as good pop should sound, and there's no denying what Beautiful Day did for them. It's just a weak album. The other direction would have been "fuck it, lets just make great music" and I think that's the sound of those Million Dollar Hotel tracks, which sound more like what comes naturally after the 90s, growth wise. I'd love to have heard more of that, so much better than anything else they've done in the 00s.

HTDAAB does seem to have started out as everything they were hyping: an out and out rock record, 4 guys in a room, blah blah. But yeah, they freaked and turned it into something, IMO, truly horrible. Mid life crisis indeed.

And here we are in 2007/8. 10 years after Pop, and U2 just lost a Grammy to Maroon 5. For that song (WITS), and the recent history of this band, it actually makes perfect sense. That's a real shame.

Hopefully all this big change of direction talk is legit, and holds all the way through to release.
 
I do believe the talk is legit. I simply do not believe they have an album of boring pop songs sitting on the table that they're calling Moroccan trad molten metal rock to screw with us.

If they change producers, I retract that statement.
 
The trouble is not with the direction they followed. The problem is in the choices thay made for the final tracklist.

It's not comprehensible why they left out of the album such great songs like "Levitate", "Stateless" and "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" (no, it's not on my version - it's just... a bonus track) and why they kept poorer songs like "Wind Honey" (b-side material for me) and "Peace On Earth" (what a bad-taste title!... Even Bono admited it...).

...oh, and yes!... Unlike most people, I love "Grace" and think that it's the perfect closer and that it matches on the spirit of the album.
 
Aygo said:
"Peace On Earth" (what a bad-taste title!... Even Bono admited it...).

How is it in bad taste? It's a sarcastic snipe at so-called Christmas spirit. Interesting idea for a song, I think.
 
Dorian Gray said:
I think they made the right decision at the time, and then gave us one of their most consistent records with ATYCLB. I can see the argument for H2DAAB being uninspired, but not ATYCLB.
QFT
 
Aygo said:
"Peace On Earth" (what a bad-taste title!... Even Bono admited it...).

:huh: What's so "bad taste" about it? I can kinda see it if somebody calls it a cliche title... but bad taste? Personally POE is one of my favorite songs on ATYCLB. Finally a song with interesting lyrics after a stretch of self-help songs.
 
Zootlesque said:


:huh: What's so "bad taste" about it? I can kinda see it if somebody calls it a cliche title... but bad taste? Personally POE is one of my favorite songs on ATYCLB. Finally a song with interesting lyrics after a stretch of self-help songs.

:up:

and I would like to ask.. when did it become so easy to write a masterpeice??
seriously..if it was as easy as all the comments that tell them what they should have done.. then they would only have a catalogue of masterpeices.
ATYCLB & HTDAAB have achieved just what they were meant to..
Most of you already know that - You have to give them credit for that, at least. or not.. who am I kidding
(not directed at you Zootlesque) :wink:
 
Zootlesque said:


:huh: What's so "bad taste" about it? I can kinda see it if somebody calls it a cliche title... but bad taste? Personally POE is one of my favorite songs on ATYCLB. Finally a song with interesting lyrics after a stretch of self-help songs.

It's a very... predictable (very cliche, if you prefer) title.
I remember Bono saying (don't ask me where or when now...) that he'd slap someone who'd call a song "Peace On Earth", because it's not a good title for a song.
 
Aygo said:
The trouble is not with the direction they followed. The problem is in the choices thay made for the final tracklist.

It's not comprehensible why they left out of the album such great songs like "Levitate", "Stateless" and "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" (no, it's not on my version - it's just... a bonus track) and why they kept poorer songs like "Wind Honey" (b-side material for me) and "Peace On Earth" (what a bad-taste title!... Even Bono admited it...).

...oh, and yes!... Unlike most people, I love "Grace" and think that it's the perfect closer and that it matches on the spirit of the album.

I think we share a brain. I am no lover of ATYCLB but I love "Grace". It just works for me. It's a great closer. "Wild Honey" is likable but not great. Would have been a perfect B-side. "Peace On Earth" is as bad as it's title makes it sound. And "Elevation" is an embarrassment to the U2 name.

I remember being so excited for the new album after hearing M$H soundtrack. Looking back on the 00s output, what a disappointment it has been. That is the direction they should have gone. It would have been a much more interesting and rewarding ride, I have a feeling.
 
What they really should have done is what they set out to do, actually. 4 guys in a room playing. Less overdubs. More Rubber Soul. Like what they were going for in the beginning. I guess overdubs and synthesized strings change "rubber" to "titanium."
 
Back
Top Bottom