What happened with HTDAAB - A different perspective perhaps?

[Inner El Guapo]

Re: Re: What happened with HTDAAB - A different perspective perhaps?

Keep in mind, that U2's 2nd most popular album is Achtung Baby, which go's against this theory that the band tried to reach the widest audiance possible with the recent couple of albums.

Pure nonsense.

So because Star Wars Episode IV was George Lucas biggest ticket draw, that automatically means he wasn't shooting for the same audience share on all subsequent sequels/prequels, because it didn't sell as much.

Great logic.

I just don't get your point at all.

 

[Snowlock]

Saying U2 is writing to appeal to a wider audience rings false to me, because in 1987 they had the widest audience. Now they may be the biggest band in the world. Back then they were a cultural phenom.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

u2 is one of if not only band that can get played on the top 40 corprate commcerlized pop stations that 16-24 year old girls swear by (no offense lol) and then i hear em on a underground college or kinda public radio free formstation that plays the most unknown of unknow bands. thats parallel diffrence is insane and most cool.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

u2 is one of if not only band that can get played on the top 40 corprate commcerlized pop stations that 16-24 year old girls swear by (no offense lol) and then i hear em on a underground college or kinda public radio free formstation that plays the most unknown of unknow bands. thats parallel diffrence is insane and most cool.

Honest question, are they playing the last two albums on those freeform/college stations? Here in Australia the crossover doesn't exist anymore. The "music first" stations (as opposed to the "advertising/ratings first" money driven stations) haven't dared touch U2 since Ground Beneath Her Feet. You still here old U2 on there, but nothing post-2000.

We don't have 'college radio' here, but do have an excellent network of government funded youth stations that don't have advertising or huge corporate/shareholder driven needs, so therefore they are able to concentrate on the music first and ratings be damned. They have huge listenership, often quoted as the largest in the world for their type - by a mile - and a very real and important place both in Australian culture and in guiding and reflecting where music is in this country. Don't come in here with a 'college radio/mainstream vs cool' argument because it doesn't work that way - there is no beef with U2 on these stations, back catalogue is played a lot, but like I said, post-2000 absolutely never.

In my opinion, the crossover is gone and in this country at least U2, if limited to the songs off those two albums, are only appealing to one side of the market.

 

[namkcuR]

Well, forget Achtung's radio play, believe it or not, POP has actually received more radio airplay than HTDAAB. Once again, HTDAAB had Vertigo peak at #31 in on the HOT 100 and a #97 position for "Sometimes You....." .

POP had Discotheque which made it to #22 in airplay, and Staring At the Sun which made it to #26. It also had "Last Night On Earth" which made it to #74.

The fact is, POP received more airplay on the radio than HTDAAB, not to mention MTV & VH1 still played video's during normal hours back then as well. But, HTDAAB has sold more than twice as many copies than POP at a time where artist are loosing sales to "File Sharing" and CD Burning, something that was not a problem in 1997.

Your more "accessible" songs are the ones that typically receive more airplay, but as I have shown with Achtung and POP, the songs on these albums have received much more airplay than anything from HTDAAB. No U2 are not 18, but neither is Madonna(47), Green Day(average age 33), or Mariah Carey(36) and all three of them get top 10 airplay for weeks on end.

Your more likely to find a shelf that has Maroon 5 and HTDAAB on it than one with a White Stripes CD and HTDAAB because the White Stripes have not been a big seller comparitively. I know many people that own White Stripes albums as well as HTDAAB and I'd say you be just as likely to find HTDAAB sitting on the shelf with the White Stripes in 2006 as you would finding Achtung sitting on a shelf with with a Stone Roses album in 1992.

I think HTDAAB and ATYCLB have some of the most involved and interesting music U2 has ever done. Also, just because something is more accessible to the buying public than another piece of music does not mean it is less involved and less interesting, nor does something that is less acessible mean that it is superior in any way shape or form to something that is more accessible.

With Or With Out You is arguably the best song U2 have ever written or recorded, and its also their most played, well known, and popular song. No other U2 song has ever received more airplay during the year of its release or in the years since then.

You are really missing the point.

When people complain about the music being 'too accessible', it's not about whether or not the songs get played on the radio a lot. Most of us don't care if songs are played on the radio or not. The complaints come with the perception of U2 intentionally writing and releasing music post-2000 that is watered-down in comparison to their back catalog for the purpose of being played on the radio. Whether or not it works and the songs actually get played on the radio is irrelevant. It's the the idea of the band caring so much about being on the radio and the that irks some of us. And there's no statistic that can measure their intentions with Bomb.

 

[namkcuR]

Double post.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Radio is such a different beast now to a decade ago as well. Numb probably got lightyears more radio play in 1993 than All Because of You got in 2005, but All Because of You got way more airplay in 2005 than Numb would if released in 2005. Radio from top to bottom is completely different. From the way they run the business, the selection of playlists - the how and why - to the other side, the listener, and what they want and why they listen to radio. Also who is listening to the radio.

Hands up who in here listens to the radio to hear new music?
Hands up who used the internet to find out about and then sample new music in 1993?
Hands up who in here pretty much only listens to the radio now in small bursts, perhaps in the car for small trips, maybe on in the background sometimes at work?
Hands up who in here listened to their iPod while travelling on the train to work in 1993?
Hands up how many of you had 10 stack in-dash CD players in your car in 1993?
Hands up how many of you just ran iTunes through you computer/on through your stereo at home or work, shuffling through your own private radio station of thousands of songs, back in 1993?
Hands up how many people when they DO listen to the radio now, just tune into a station and stick with it for ages? Hands up how many of you are rapidly scanning backwards and forwards till you hear something you either know or like or just sounds interesting?

Radio today is about knowns, never unknowns. The habits of the listener have changed, and the 'science' of making money off those listeners has adjusted accordingly.

 

[Zoots]

You are really missing the point.

When people complain about the music being 'too accessible', it's not about whether or not the songs get played on the radio a lot. Most of us don't care if songs are played on the radio or not. The complaints come with the perception of U2 intentionally writing and releasing music post-2000 that is watered-down in comparison to their back catalog for the purpose of being played on the radio.

Whether or not it works and the songs actually get played on the radio is irrelevant. It's the the idea of the band caring so much about being on the radio and that irks some of us. And there's no statistic that can measure their intentions with Bomb.

Exactly!!!

watered down... that's the perfect description, esp. for ATYCLB!

 

[MrBrau1]

Honest question, are they playing the last two albums on those freeform/college stations?

Yes. Both ATYCLB and HTDAAB charted very high in the CMJ (College Music Journal), which tracks radioplay at these stations.

Infact, a college station in Cleveland has had U2 marathons for the past few years, where they play just about everything the band has ever recorded.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

When Bono says whatever about HTDAAB being their first album, I agree. It certainly sounds like it. To me it sounds like this is an extremely competent and solid album by a bunch of people who can clearly write a tune and play their arses off, but then pretty much their entire back catalogue sounds like it should come AFTER this one. Like you start with Miracle Drug, get better, mature, learn more, experiment more, experience more and a decade later comes The Unforgettable Fire album. But that was 20 years earlier! It sounds like regression, not progression. And not in a 'back to the basics/roots' good way at all. Like Edge forgot years of nailing his craft, Bono is just beginning as a writer etc, they can put together basic catchy tunes, but not ones yet that give you a feeling of depth or emotional mirroring.

Some see that as their deliberate ploy to get back on the radio, back in the charts, dumb the U2 music back to something very simple and easy to digest, as it's not like the selling/airing music of today ever has what you would call 'emotional depth' does it. I mean, Ashlee Simpson likes to La La and Bono likes to Woo Hoo.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Yes. Both ATYCLB and HTDAAB charted very high in the CMJ (College Music Journal), which tracks radioplay at these stations.

Infact, a college station in Cleveland has had U2 marathons for the past few years, where they play just about everything the band has ever recorded.

Cool, thanks for that.

Like I said, the 'college radio' format doesn't exist here, and I don't think the format I am talking about exists there either (but 'college radio' might be the closest), so I'm talking based on Australia where it seems U2 has firmly now been placed 'over there' onto Commercial FM, Adult Contemporary, Classic Rock and away from 'over here', New Music, Interesting Music, 'Youth' Music etc etc. They'll play very commercial stuff in there, eg new GreenDay back to back with something like new Sigur Ros, but yeah, they've left new U2 alone like it's diseased, which is noticeable because pre-ATYCLB they were huge huge U2 champions of both commercially successful and relatively obscure (and they still are, if it's pre-2000 material).

 

[ozeeko]

who cares what their intentions were, it just sounds and feels watered down. A song like "Even Better Than The Real THing" or "Hold me thrill me kiss me kill me" however, sounds ready for radio and they both were and suceeded and it might've been their intention to land a hit when they were composing them. Of course, those were great songs. WARNING, OPINION: If it sounds watered down, sugarcoated, and is very average to below average (like all of the new album) then intention or not, it's just disappointing music. And it just makes it that much sadder if U2 thought they had huge hits on their hands with these lackluster tunes.

 

[Zoots]

Yeah, we don't know what their intentions were anyway!

My point is... Sure, songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday, Pride, With Or Without You, Streets, One, Mysterious Ways, EBTTRT, Who's Gonna Ride, Stay, Discotheque, SATS etc. were all radio friendly! I agree.

But they don't sound quite so watered down and 'lite fm' friendly as say, Stuck In A Moment, In A Little While, Wild Honey, Grace, Sometimes, A Man And A Woman, One Step Closer etc. All imo.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

If I took all of the songs off the Bomb and melted them down and used that liquid to try and fuel Hold Me, Thrill Me, it would run out of steam after the opening chord, splutter out and die. That's how watered down the Bomb Gas is. 11 songs couldn't fuel that one song. (IMO)

Before anyone tries to defend that, everyone quickly run off into your iTunes and line up Hold Me, Thrill Me so it comes on straight after Crumbs From Your Table. Listen to them back to back.

 

[Axver]

Before anyone tries to defend that, everyone quickly run off into your iTunes and line up Hold Me, Thrill Me so it comes on straight after Crumbs From Your Table. Listen to them back to back.

You'd get a better result if you used HMTMKMKM from Popmart Mannheim, 31 July 1997.

After hearing that, I find HMTMKMKM in the studio to be pretty weak. I also seem to be one of the rare people who thinks Crumbs is one of the outstanding songs of this U2 era.

 

[Zoots]

I also seem to be one of the rare people who thinks Crumbs is one of the outstanding songs of this U2 era.

I don't know about outstanding but I agree that Crumbs is one of the best tracks on HTDAAB!

 

[MrBrau1]

Before anyone tries to defend that, everyone quickly run off into your iTunes and line up Hold Me, Thrill Me so it comes on straight after Crumbs From Your Table. Listen to them back to back.

All that did was make me play air guitar for 10 minutes.

 

[MrBrau1]

I also seem to be one of the rare people who thinks Crumbs is one of the outstanding songs of this U2 era.

Crumbs is one of U2's top 10 songs.

I'll listen to it again, and this time, I'll play "air drums."

 

[Earnie Shavers]

After hearing that, I find HMTMKMKM in the studio to be pretty weak. I also seem to be one of the rare people who thinks Crumbs is one of the outstanding songs of this U2 era.

Well, it's a rare U2 song that doesn't sound better live. I'll even give the ATYCLB/Bomb songs credit for being tenfold better live. I also agree, Crumbs is one of the better songs of this U2 era. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's one of only two that doesn't embarrass me off the Bomb, that I wouldn't be completely afraid of putting on a cross-era U2 mix CD. Where the best of this U2 era ranks in comparison to the worst of other U2 eras though

 

[Zoots]

I also agree, Crumbs is one of the better songs of this U2 era. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's one of only two that doesn't embarrass me off the Bomb, that I wouldn't be completely afraid of putting on a cross-era U2 mix CD.

Okay, what's the other one? Tell us already!

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

You'd get a better result if you used HMTMKMKM from Popmart Mannheim, 31 July 1997.

After hearing that, I find HMTMKMKM in the studio to be pretty weak. I also seem to be one of the rare people who thinks Crumbs is one of the outstanding songs of this U2 era.

HMTMKMKM is a studio behemoth..in fact when they did it live the guitar sounded a lot thinner and lacked the impact of the original..in my opiniont it is one of their best-produced songs; a nice blend of gritty guitar and well-used strings, without either element overpowering the other.

 

[namkcuR]

Am the only one that is bothered by the fact that the riff in Crumbs sounds nearly identical to the one in Electrical Storm and also Walk On before that?

I also am not crazy about Crumbs because lyrically, it is symbolic of a problem with U2's recent political lyrics that I fear will only get worse as Bono becomes more and more dedicated to his activist work(which in itself is a great thing). IMO, U2's political songs were at their best when they were angry and dark and brooding - think SBS, Seconds, Bullet, Love Is Blindness(one interpretation is political), Please - but, for obvious reasons, Bono just can't write angry political songs that attack policies and actions/inactions of the current or past administrations. There are real issues and causes that are more important than music that would be damaged if Bono did so. That said, if Bono is in a set of circumstances where he can't write political songs with balls - for lack of a better term - anymore, I think I'd prefer it if he didn't write political songs anymore. Love And Peace Or Else is good, as is Native Son, but even LAPOE isn't as truly ANGRY as U2's past political songs, and Native Son didn't even make the album. I just don't think a 'Crumbs' is anywhere near a 'Bullet The Blue Sky', a 'Sunday Bloody Sunday', a 'Love Is Blindness', or a 'Please'. Just my opinion.

 

[Axver]

HMTMKMKM is a studio behemoth..in fact when they did it live the guitar sounded a lot thinner and lacked the impact of the original..in my opiniont it is one of their best-produced songs; a nice blend of gritty guitar and well-used strings, without either element overpowering the other.

I'd have to totally disagree with you there. I'm not that keen on the strings, especially not at the end. Live, if you get the right version - such as the soundboard recording from Mannheim - HMTMKMKM is absolutely thundering. Rock in every sense of the word.

Am the only one that is bothered by the fact that the riff in Crumbs sounds nearly identical to the one in Electrical Storm and also Walk On before that?

People say that frequently, but I honestly haven't really noticed. Maybe I'm being unobservant. I don't really care, as I think Crumbs sounds great.

I also am not crazy about Crumbs because lyrically, it is symbolic of a problem with U2's recent political lyrics that I fear will only get worse as Bono becomes more and more dedicated to his activist work(which in itself is a great thing). IMO, U2's political songs were at their best when they were angry and dark and brooding - think SBS, Seconds, Bullet, Love Is Blindness(one interpretation is political), Please - but, for obvious reasons, Bono just can't write angry political songs that attack policies and actions/inactions of the current or past administrations. There are real issues and causes that are more important than music that would be damaged if Bono did so. That said, if Bono is in a set of circumstances where he can't write political songs with balls - for lack of a better term - anymore, I think I'd prefer it if he didn't write political songs anymore. Love And Peace Or Else is good, as is Native Son, but even LAPOE isn't as truly ANGRY as U2's past political songs, and Native Son didn't even make the album. I just don't think a 'Crumbs' is anywhere near a 'Bullet The Blue Sky', a 'Sunday Bloody Sunday', a 'Love Is Blindness', or a 'Please'. Just my opinion.

Crumbs isn't attacking? What lyrics do you have? I think it's some of Bono's most attacking lyrics. As great as Bullet is, its vagueness means a lot of people don't understand its message and miss the point. Crumbs wastes no time in saying what it wants to say and doesn't water itself down with its criticisms of the West's inaction. Bono doesn't criticise just one person or one stance, but everyone. I think it's some of his best political lyrics.

 

[AtomicBono]

As for radio play, different time and place. Achtungs songs wouldn't get that airplay now. HTDAAB's don't because Bono isn't 18 and hot, but they are far more likely than Achtungs just based on musical positioning alone.

Wait. Wait. Wait a minute here. Wait just a minute here ... Bono's not hot?!!?!? man now I have to delete all my pictures of him and stop going to PLEBA way to RUIN MY LIFE!!



okay, in all seriousness. good thread. Although I don't think HTDAAB is as good as any of their 90's stuff, I disagree with comments about it watered down. Just because it's a different style doesn't mean it's watered down, though I do think HTDAAB especially was overproduced, but I don't know if "watered down" is how I'd describe that. A lot of the 00's stuff is more optimistic than anything previously - maybe that's what people don't like? U2 hasn't written any really dark songs for a while. There are some, like When I Look at the World, but nothing like Exit or Love is Blindness, and even the songs with somewhat depressing subject matter, like Sometimes, have a hopeful tone. I think joy has always been a central point in U2's music, but often a bittersweet joy (like Beautiful Day) and certainly many of U2's darkest songs are also their best. So I can understand if people miss the darkness and the cynicism, because I know I do. But looking at the world through Bono's rose coloured glasses isn't too bad, and there's certainly the sweet with the sour as always, sometimes the sour's just harder to find.

To be honest I don't think U2's really trying any harder now to be on the radio than ever. I also don't think U2's being any less true to themselves. U2 has always tried to be popular and make music that will be on the radio but they've never gone against what they want to make just to appeal to the masses. Believe it or not, sometimes the music people want to make also happens to be catchy and, well, good, and therefore popular.

As for U2 on the radio: I've heard U2 on top 40, classic rock, Adult Contempory, Alternative, and College stations. They're literally all over the board. In fact, All Because of You was the first U2 song I'd ever heard on our local "alternative" station (which basically plays nü-metal with some 90's grunge and rock type stuff thrown in like RHCP, plus Foo Fighters, White Stripes, Franz Ferdinand, ect. and even Coldplay) and I've been listening to that station for years. I dunno. Perhaps in some areas U2 isn't on the "college" or "underground" or "hip" or whatever radio, but who cares, really. If people are saying they don't care about whether U2's on the radio or not, just whether they're trying to be on the radio, then why care what stations play their music?

Originally posted by namkcuR
Am the only one that is bothered by the fact that the riff in Crumbs sounds nearly identical to the one in Electrical Storm and also Walk On before that?

I also am not crazy about Crumbs because lyrically, it is symbolic of a problem with U2's recent political lyrics that I fear will only get worse as Bono becomes more and more dedicated to his activist work(which in itself is a great thing). IMO, U2's political songs were at their best when they were angry and dark and brooding - think SBS, Seconds, Bullet, Love Is Blindness(one interpretation is political), Please - but, for obvious reasons, Bono just can't write angry political songs that attack policies and actions/inactions of the current or past administrations. There are real issues and causes that are more important than music that would be damaged if Bono did so. That said, if Bono is in a set of circumstances where he can't write political songs with balls - for lack of a better term - anymore, I think I'd prefer it if he didn't write political songs anymore. Love And Peace Or Else is good, as is Native Son, but even LAPOE isn't as truly ANGRY as U2's past political songs, and Native Son didn't even make the album. I just don't think a 'Crumbs' is anywhere near a 'Bullet The Blue Sky', a 'Sunday Bloody Sunday', a 'Love Is Blindness', or a 'Please'. Just my opinion.

See, that's what I was talking about when I first started this post like 2 hours ago (look, things have come up, okay? I get distracted easily ). U2's songs aren't so dark and angry anymore. As for Crumbs, eh, decent song, I really don't think it's that great. Probably my least favourite from HTDAAB. It sounds too much like Walk On, except Walk On was better. It does have some great lyrics though - "You were pretty as a picture, it was all there to see/Then your face caught up with your psychology/With a mouth full of teeth you ate all your friends/And you broke every heart thinking every heart mends." But I personally wouldn't think it fair to judge HTDAAB based on Crumbs, which is an average U2 song, when there are songs like Original of the Species that are some of the best songs U2 has ever done.

 

[STING2]

STING, do you have any appreciation or understanding of music outside of statistics?

You seem to adore the business side of music, but you would actually only manage half a day in it if you only had such an analytical approach to something that for the most part cannot be either forecast or reviewed by stats alone.

Well, if you actually take the time to read some of my post in here, you would realize that I do. I only brought up the statistics because people were claiming that x album was more accessible than y album and I was showing that in fact is not necessarily so.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: What happened with HTDAAB - A different perspective perhaps?

Pure nonsense.

So because Star Wars Episode IV was George Lucas biggest ticket draw, that automatically means he wasn't shooting for the same audience share on all subsequent sequels/prequels, because it didn't sell as much.

Great logic.

I just don't get your point at all.

Many in here have claimed that albums with U2's "more complex" work is their least accessible material, and the results from radio airplay and sales clearly show that is not the case.

U2 have tried on EVERY album and tour, to sell as many albums and tickets as possible! That has been a goal of U2's from day 1 that has never changed.

 

[STING2]

Honest question, are they playing the last two albums on those freeform/college stations? Here in Australia the crossover doesn't exist anymore. The "music first" stations (as opposed to the "advertising/ratings first" money driven stations) haven't dared touch U2 since Ground Beneath Her Feet. You still here old U2 on there, but nothing post-2000.

We don't have 'college radio' here, but do have an excellent network of government funded youth stations that don't have advertising or huge corporate/shareholder driven needs, so therefore they are able to concentrate on the music first and ratings be damned. They have huge listenership, often quoted as the largest in the world for their type - by a mile - and a very real and important place both in Australian culture and in guiding and reflecting where music is in this country. Don't come in here with a 'college radio/mainstream vs cool' argument because it doesn't work that way - there is no beef with U2 on these stations, back catalogue is played a lot, but like I said, post-2000 absolutely never.

In my opinion, the crossover is gone and in this country at least U2, if limited to the songs off those two albums, are only appealing to one side of the market.

Have any Australian airplay stats for those "music first radio stations" to back up your claim that they have NEVER played anything by U2 post 2000?

 

[Zoots]

"STING2, you have no soul... only stats!" - Bono

 

[STING2]

You are really missing the point.

When people complain about the music being 'too accessible', it's not about whether or not the songs get played on the radio a lot. Most of us don't care if songs are played on the radio or not. The complaints come with the perception of U2 intentionally writing and releasing music post-2000 that is watered-down in comparison to their back catalog for the purpose of being played on the radio. Whether or not it works and the songs actually get played on the radio is irrelevant. It's the the idea of the band caring so much about being on the radio and the that irks some of us. And there's no statistic that can measure their intentions with Bomb.

Or, are you missing the point? Your claim that the music is "too accessible" is not supported by the facts about radio airplay. I don't find the music to be "watered down" or really "more accessible". The radio airplay statistics show that albums like POP and Achtung received more airplay than BOMB despite your claim that BOMB is "watered down" and "more accessible".

Your claim that the band has suddenly started only writing music for the purpose of getting played on the radio is not supported by any evidence. Its pure opinion. Independent of my own opinion, the radio airplay charts show that this theory of more accessability does not hold much water.

 

[STING2]

Radio is such a different beast now to a decade ago as well. Numb probably got lightyears more radio play in 1993 than All Because of You got in 2005, but All Because of You got way more airplay in 2005 than Numb would if released in 2005. Radio from top to bottom is completely different. From the way they run the business, the selection of playlists - the how and why - to the other side, the listener, and what they want and why they listen to radio. Also who is listening to the radio.

Hands up who in here listens to the radio to hear new music?
Hands up who used the internet to find out about and then sample new music in 1993?
Hands up who in here pretty much only listens to the radio now in small bursts, perhaps in the car for small trips, maybe on in the background sometimes at work?
Hands up who in here listened to their iPod while travelling on the train to work in 1993?
Hands up how many of you had 10 stack in-dash CD players in your car in 1993?
Hands up how many of you just ran iTunes through you computer/on through your stereo at home or work, shuffling through your own private radio station of thousands of songs, back in 1993?
Hands up how many people when they DO listen to the radio now, just tune into a station and stick with it for ages? Hands up how many of you are rapidly scanning backwards and forwards till you hear something you either know or like or just sounds interesting?

Radio today is about knowns, never unknowns. The habits of the listener have changed, and the 'science' of making money off those listeners has adjusted accordingly.

There are differences between 1993 and 2005 indeed, but radio still remains the chief driver of album sales in 2006 just as it was in 1993. Just take a look at the top 50 most played songs in the United States last week and then look at the top 50 albums in sales for the last week. I think you'll find that for the most part, radio is still the chief engine behind album sales just as it was in 1990, 1980, or 1970.

I actually think that Numb would get more airplay than "All Because Of You" today because rock is less common in the airplay charts today than it was in 1993 and rap, Hip Hop and other styles have become much more common. Either way, you or I cannot definitively say which would get more airplay unless U2 actually re-released Numb.