What happened with HTDAAB - A different perspective perhaps?

[U2girl]

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

So what does this truly tell us?

The listening public/buying public comparatively have a large amount of apathy for the 00's U2 music. You can debate the reasons, but there is little doubt that this is the case.

Yet the albums have sold rather well.

Basically singles and chart success don't mean anything, anything at all, yet Bono and the boys will go out of their way to tell you how much they covet it. They will even re-record an entire album to 'get it right'. They want hits, and they aren't getting them. You can debate the reasons why, but there is little doubt this is the case.

So if the general public is apathetic about them and they can't get the hits they covet, the questions are they failing to accomplish their goals or are they just chasing down the wrong path? Is this an artistic impulse to want to have hits? Or might it just be an ego thing?

Personally, I think they've been around so long and have hit the top of the mountain in popularity only to fall down the same mountain of popularity, and have explored different realms of music that they finally just wanted to make an album/or albums that was/were such a big success it could buy them an extra decade of doing whatever they wanted to do. They could do it financially either way, but what is the point? I think they wanted to make it worthwhile. The big question is, are they failing and what does it mean, creatively, commercially and in terms of the longevity of the group.

I say it goes one of three ways:
A-They pull a Rattle and Hum/POP and don't learn their lesson of treading on the same ground for too long with another album of 'whatever this is'.
B-They take the popularity they've earned in the last 5 years and use it to branch out musically and politically with a message and a sound that will either catapult them or doom them.
C-They decide that they are going to give it one last shot, creating the perfect album, take 5 years and go out with a bang, it's not a hit or miss proposition, it's a one shot finish.

I lean heavily towards A, in about 2008, another album down this path. B is the longest shot and C, I think if they look at the last 5 years as some kind of failure, they might just say 'one more go around'. They pay lip service to wanting to keep writing music for years and years, but that is wishful thinking.

If they could bang out an album every two years, they would have a lot more room to play with in terms of the creative/popularity bubble.

Did you read all of my post? I explained the potential reasons why U2 is - relatively, albums did well - failing the "pop/single" struggle in America.
Also, seems to me the general public rather liked ATYCLB/Bomb, looking at the sales. (single fight aside)

Probably a bit of both - an ego thing as well as a creative impulse. I think ATYCLB already bought them their post 5-0 decade.

The question is, what happens if a Rattle and Hum/Pop type of backlash comes up? Would they go on making music or strongly re-consider? I mean, U2 doesn't want to be seen as washed up has-beens.

My hunch is U2 knows better than this and will move on with the third album of this decade, so IMO option A won't happen. The way they talk about going on and on (provided Bono's voice and Larry's wrists hold on, of course), I doubt C is happening, nor do I think they will make a perfect album - by which I mean topping or at least equalling JT and AB. My money is on B.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I sincerely hope it is B. I had written a big long paragraph here explaining what I think the real fear is in what U2 could potentially (potentially being the key word) do wrong if they go for a third album of this type, and how the threat is as real as it has ever been that it would/could backlash, but in a different way to the past. However I think I can sum it up by saying, and I'm sure many here agree, that the proposed fake song title in another thread, "Stop (The Poverty)", doesn't seem anywhere near as ridiculous as it once would have. Everything you imagine that comes with a title like that is everything I fear. You can imagine the lyrics. The 'sincerity'. The music-to-formula. Scary that at this point it honestly wouldn't surprise me.

 

[STING2]

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

Well I can agree with that. Although, accessibiity and popularity are not the same thing. Saying song X hit #11 and song Y hit # 35 doesn't mean song X was more accessible, it only means it was more popular, so it doesn't actually prove anything. It just means at the time, they were more popular for whatever reasons.

As to your second paragraph, while I agree, I'd also add that while U2 wanted to sell as many albums and tickets as possible with POP, for example, they certainly took a riskier path to grand commercial success.

How they presented the music, the tour, all something very unproven. The idea of stripping back to the bare essentials and going back to basic songwriting has been around as long as music has been around. So the complexity is the risk of acceptance, the risk of it being accessible to a larger crowd.

The path taken with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, for better or worse, was a proven commodity in the realm of popular music. When people talk about Achtung or POP vs these two albums, I think they are talking about the risk of failure/acceptance and how that balance was flushed out in the last 6 years. They'll tell you themselves they tried to make albums with potentially 10 singles on them. Hell, Mofo and Numb WERE singles. That is the difference, it can't be pointed out any clearer by myself.

"We can't have another Pop fiasco" I can just see them saying it.
I am sure they wanted to make band records and song records or they wouldn't have done it in the first place. But don't try to sell me that they didn't take a more accessible route than the previous 3 albums, because they did.

Well, thats your opinion that they took a more accesible route since 2000 than the 1990s, its not a fact as you would like to believe. The band, and many other fans disagree with your theory. In my opinion the band have made two of their best albums ever. The past two albums are way ahead in quality and songs than the previous two album and considering what the band has said recently about their work, they agree as well.

I was discussing Accessiblity and AIRPLAY, NOT Popularity. Just because something gets played a lot on the radio does not necessarily mean that it is popular although, album sales usually follow strong airplay. Whether something gets played on the radio has a lot to do with "accessiblity". Radio programers search for songs that they THINK will be well received by their audiance. But Popularity is determined by the choices people make with their money, ie purchasing albums and tickets.

So the fact that song x hits #1 while song y only makes it to #30 is an INDICATOR that the #1 song is probably more accessible to the current listening audiance at least from the judgement of the radio programers. Whether people really love it that much can be seen in how many albums people are going to the store to buy.

So, while you may think that the last two albums are dramatically more accessible and the band planned it that way, the facts from radio airplay and the bands statements about the quality of the recent albums they have made, show that is not likely to be the case. These facts support my opinion.

I don't see POP as really being a riskier path to grand commercial success than any album before it or after it. Yes, somethings may have looked a little strange to people, but by in large, the band did a textbook job of promoting POP and POPMART but many in the public did not like it. POP is an unfinished album and it shows. The best song on POP is comparable to the weakest song on HTDAAB in my opinion.

While the band have not made an album the equal of Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby, the past two albums come close and are better than any of the other albums in U2's catalog. The Musicians in the Grammy acadamy seem to agree as well.

 

[STING2]

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

So what does this truly tell us?

The listening public/buying public comparatively have a large amount of apathy for the 00's U2 music. You can debate the reasons, but there is little doubt that this is the case.

Yet the albums have sold rather well.

Basically singles and chart success don't mean anything, anything at all, yet Bono and the boys will go out of their way to tell you how much they covet it. They will even re-record an entire album to 'get it right'. They want hits, and they aren't getting them. You can debate the reasons why, but there is little doubt this is the case.

So if the general public is apathetic about them and they can't get the hits they covet, the questions are they failing to accomplish their goals or are they just chasing down the wrong path? Is this an artistic impulse to want to have hits? Or might it just be an ego thing?

Personally, I think they've been around so long and have hit the top of the mountain in popularity only to fall down the same mountain of popularity, and have explored different realms of music that they finally just wanted to make an album/or albums that was/were such a big success it could buy them an extra decade of doing whatever they wanted to do. They could do it financially either way, but what is the point? I think they wanted to make it worthwhile. The big question is, are they failing and what does it mean, creatively, commercially and in terms of the longevity of the group.

I say it goes one of three ways:
A-They pull a Rattle and Hum/POP and don't learn their lesson of treading on the same ground for too long with another album of 'whatever this is'.
B-They take the popularity they've earned in the last 5 years and use it to branch out musically and politically with a message and a sound that will either catapult them or doom them.
C-They decide that they are going to give it one last shot, creating the perfect album, take 5 years and go out with a bang, it's not a hit or miss proposition, it's a one shot finish.

I lean heavily towards A, in about 2008, another album down this path. B is the longest shot and C, I think if they look at the last 5 years as some kind of failure, they might just say 'one more go around'. They pay lip service to wanting to keep writing music for years and years, but that is wishful thinking.

If they could bang out an album every two years, they would have a lot more room to play with in terms of the creative/popularity bubble.

The band is doing the same thing it does for every album they record. Their going into the studio and writing songs. The goal has never been tobe complex. Complexity does not equal quality. The goal has been to make the best music possible regardless of style, complexity, simplicity etc. As noted by the past history of airplay, the band clearly are not making significantly more accessible music now than they were in the 1990s.

The funny thing is, I remember people in the early 1990s making the same arguement that the band had "soldout" with Achtung Baby and Zooropa in order to remain popular after the commercial high of the Joshua Tree. I even heard that some "alternative" band played a little bit of Lemon at Lollapalooza 1994 and then stopped and stated "and were gonna f$#% up the mainstream".

 

[STING2]

I sincerely hope it is B. I had written a big long paragraph here explaining what I think the real fear is in what U2 could potentially (potentially being the key word) do wrong if they go for a third album of this type, and how the threat is as real as it has ever been that it would/could backlash, but in a different way to the past. However I think I can sum it up by saying, and I'm sure many here agree, that the proposed fake song title in another thread, "Stop (The Poverty)", doesn't seem anywhere near as ridiculous as it once would have. Everything you imagine that comes with a title like that is everything I fear. You can imagine the lyrics. The 'sincerity'. The music-to-formula. Scary that at this point it honestly wouldn't surprise me.

I and many other people consider the BOMB to be the best album in this decade so far. I also consider it to be U2's third best album ever. Repeating that, to me is not a bad idea at all. I consider ATYCLB and HTDAAB to be different albums, although obviously some people consider them identical because certain 90s effects are missing.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I think you hold radio airplay too high. It's an indicator of a lot of things, but it's tough to compare when you are talking differences of years, even decades. Radio has changed dramatically. Tastes have changed dramatically. Images have changed dramatically. In the 90's all things 'alternative' were lapped up. That certainly worked in U2's favour radio-wise with the kind of music they were producing. Radio playlists were also far more relaxed and diverse in general. In the late 90's, sugary bubblegum pop made it's big return hot on the heels of Britney, Backstreet, N*Sync etc. At around the same time a new wave of commercial radio friendly hip-hop, and pop hip-hop came through in a big way. The rock that had it's success was the commercial end of the styles made popular in the early 90's by bands like Pearl Jam and Nirvana. A kinda angry suburban teenage male thing that was really a very diet version of the real thing. Diet-grunge, and also diet-punk following the early 90's success of bands like GreenDay (whenever a style of music breaks through and becomes popular, no doubt a more accessible, commercial friendly sounding version will arrive a few years later). At the same time there was massive consolidation of radio ownership, as with all media during this period, and with that came standardised playlists across dozens if not hundreds of stations, and a far more 'corporate' focused approach to driving advertising sales and dollars, which reaches into hammering a core demographic, which then reaches into playlists which are much more researched and formulated now than ever before. It's a rare DJ who is in a position to now just spin whatever is floating his boat. Very rare. You now will also here far more of the same, far more often. If a #1 song was played (and the figure is a guess just to make the point) 7 times a day a decade ago, that would now be 21 times a day today. Radio listening habits have changed dramatically with iPods, iTunes, in car CD players, the ability to bring into your own home and stereo your own massive music library, even podcasts effecting how and why people would tune in. Radio listenership is now less often, for shorter periods, and you'd better believe that the station hope that they catch you for that short period. Therefore the music they play is now with less regard for longterm listenership (ie diversity) and more to do with nailing you for those key short 15 minutes you do tune in on your way to the mall. Therefore they pick the songs they think will catch you (most popular for the demographic they are after) and play them often.

U2 are in a tough place in this regard now no matter what they release. I think it is farcical to compare U2's radio airplay in the 90's to today - or any artist for that matter. That doesn't mean though that U2 aren't trying. It's not a difficult thing to believe when at every opportunity Bono is talking up big singles, radio songs, biggest this, biggest that. I agree that U2 have always had that ambition, but the goal posts have moved now and if U2 want to stand a chance of radio play, they have to do it a certain way. They don't have the luxury of the 80's and 90's radio system anymore. They are also a dramatically different band in the way they are perceived, and the habits and demographic of their fans. For U2 to get another song up in the top zone of airplay charts, I think it would either have to be the single most heartstoppingly brilliant song of their career - make that anyone's career - that absolutely demands it, or it would take a commercial 'jump the shark' attempt of unheard of proportions along the lines of "Song X by U2 feat. (insert current pop act here)". U2 could release the most brilliant album of their careers at this point, one that none of us even need to debate (oh, and STING, the worst song on Pop blitzes the best song on The Bomb without breaking a sweat), loaded with absolutely amazing songs that just leave every single one of us in here in complete awe, but in the 2000's, they're still not going to get too many spins on the radio. The market and that business have just changed that much, and not in U2's favour.

Just as an aside, don't forget the Grammy Awards are as much about lobbying, politics and back promotion as the Academy Awards. There's a lot of money at stake. A Grammy Winner gets a big boost. The money film companies spend directly on publicising and promotion to voting Academy members is returned tenfold should they win. Miramax famously spent just as many millions on that as they did on promoting to the public. The spotlight has never been shone on it with the Grammy's as much, and it's not to the equiv amounts, but it certainly is the same. You can't buy a Grammy as such, but you can definitely campaign. It wouldn't be as big time as it was a decade ago though. The MTV Awards have stolen much or most of the Grammy's money-making thunder in this new pop dominated world. I would think it's not a coincidence that we have such a dull-commercial orientated Album of The Year nominees list this year, and it will be interesting to see what, if any, changes are made to the production of the event itself. I predict they'll aim it younger and less formal with every year.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I and many other people consider the BOMB to be the best album in this decade so far. I also consider it to be U2's third best album ever. Repeating that, to me is not a bad idea at all. I consider ATYCLB and HTDAAB to be different albums, although obviously some people consider them identical because certain 90s effects are missing.

That post you quote wasn't me taking a shot at the Bomb. Relax. It was just a stated preference for U2 to make their next move earlier rather than later. The most told history of U2 always refers to Rattle & Hum and Pop as the bands two slip ups - and many in here of course disagree, but that's the most told story. Rattle & Hum is apparently when U2 got their heads too far up their own egos. Pop is apparently when U2 got their heads too far up their own experimentation/creativity. Not all people perceive them that way. I've got no beef with the Rattle & Hum project at all. Love both the album and the film and can see what their intentions were. I've got no beef with Pop either. What they were trying to acheive is clear and obvious. They tripped just before the finish line, but it's a magnificent effort regardless. So opinions, obviously, differ greatly. You STING, will have to accept that the opinion of many is that U2 RISK (I say RISK, not WILL) getting their heads too far up their own commercial hunger and suffering a similar slip up. Also remember that the higher you set yourself up, the more people are gunning to knock you down, and if U2 slip again now with both their size and Bono's as an individual, plenty will be waiting to stick the knife in. It doesn't mean that they can't repeat, or repeat successfuly what they've done, I am simply stating that perhaps this time they make the shift on their own terms before it's virtually forced upon them again by a perceived failure. It's not me stating anything, just me tapping Bono on the shoulder and giving him a bit of friendly advice. Think one step ahead.

STING, I'm happy to accept that in your opinion The Bomb is U2's third best album, maybe the best album of the decade so far by anyone and better than their 90's work. I know many in here agree. You'll also have to accept that many in here agree with me by saying this album is U2's weakest, shallowest, is dull, overblown, cliched, formulatic and is by far their largest excursion into flat out pop music. Doesn't mean it's not high quality, tight, loaded with catchy riffs and hooks, because it most certainly is. It's an 11/10 pop-rock album without a doubt. The best pop-rock album of the decade, maybe even ever. Plenty of us though feel a spirit missing in it, as it feels like it is an album swimming in the shallows, not in U2's normal depths. What it probably all comes down to is what attracted us to U2's music in the first place - and that's cool. Personally, I think their 00's work is not a patch on either their 80's or 90's work.

 

[AtomicBono]

Now you wait a minute, girl. I thought Zootlesque was the hottie! Now I have to delete all my pictures of him and stop going to ZOOBA


I love the way you write, btw.

dude, Zoot totally IS a hottie. You've got pics of him? send them my way!

thanks for the compliment

you guys... can't we just agree that U2 is neat and Pop is the best album ever

 

[STING2]

I think you hold radio airplay too high. It's an indicator of a lot of things, but it's tough to compare when you are talking differences of years, even decades. Radio has changed dramatically. Tastes have changed dramatically. Images have changed dramatically. In the 90's all things 'alternative' were lapped up. That certainly worked in U2's favour radio-wise with the kind of music they were producing. Radio playlists were also far more relaxed and diverse in general. In the late 90's, sugary bubblegum pop made it's big return hot on the heels of Britney, Backstreet, N*Sync etc. At around the same time a new wave of commercial radio friendly hip-hop, and pop hip-hop came through in a big way. The rock that had it's success was the commercial end of the styles made popular in the early 90's by bands like Pearl Jam and Nirvana. A kinda angry suburban teenage male thing that was really a very diet version of the real thing. Diet-grunge, and also diet-punk following the early 90's success of bands like GreenDay (whenever a style of music breaks through and becomes popular, no doubt a more accessible, commercial friendly sounding version will arrive a few years later). At the same time there was massive consolidation of radio ownership, as with all media during this period, and with that came standardised playlists across dozens if not hundreds of stations, and a far more 'corporate' focused approach to driving advertising sales and dollars, which reaches into hammering a core demographic, which then reaches into playlists which are much more researched and formulated now than ever before. It's a rare DJ who is in a position to now just spin whatever is floating his boat. Very rare. You now will also here far more of the same, far more often. If a #1 song was played (and the figure is a guess just to make the point) 7 times a day a decade ago, that would now be 21 times a day today. Radio listening habits have changed dramatically with iPods, iTunes, in car CD players, the ability to bring into your own home and stereo your own massive music library, even podcasts effecting how and why people would tune in. Radio listenership is now less often, for shorter periods, and you'd better believe that the station hope that they catch you for that short period. Therefore the music they play is now with less regard for longterm listenership (ie diversity) and more to do with nailing you for those key short 15 minutes you do tune in on your way to the mall. Therefore they pick the songs they think will catch you (most popular for the demographic they are after) and play them often.

U2 are in a tough place in this regard now no matter what they release. I think it is farcical to compare U2's radio airplay in the 90's to today - or any artist for that matter. That doesn't mean though that U2 aren't trying. It's not a difficult thing to believe when at every opportunity Bono is talking up big singles, radio songs, biggest this, biggest that. I agree that U2 have always had that ambition, but the goal posts have moved now and if U2 want to stand a chance of radio play, they have to do it a certain way. They don't have the luxury of the 80's and 90's radio system anymore. They are also a dramatically different band in the way they are perceived, and the habits and demographic of their fans. For U2 to get another song up in the top zone of airplay charts, I think it would either have to be the single most heartstoppingly brilliant song of their career - make that anyone's career - that absolutely demands it, or it would take a commercial 'jump the shark' attempt of unheard of proportions along the lines of "Song X by U2 feat. (insert current pop act here)". U2 could release the most brilliant album of their careers at this point, one that none of us even need to debate (oh, and STING, the worst song on Pop blitzes the best song on The Bomb without breaking a sweat), loaded with absolutely amazing songs that just leave every single one of us in here in complete awe, but in the 2000's, they're still not going to get too many spins on the radio. The market and that business have just changed that much, and not in U2's favour.

Just as an aside, don't forget the Grammy Awards are as much about lobbying, politics and back promotion as the Academy Awards. There's a lot of money at stake. A Grammy Winner gets a big boost. The money film companies spend directly on publicising and promotion to voting Academy members is returned tenfold should they win. Miramax famously spent just as many millions on that as they did on promoting to the public. The spotlight has never been shone on it with the Grammy's as much, and it's not to the equiv amounts, but it certainly is the same. You can't buy a Grammy as such, but you can definitely campaign. It wouldn't be as big time as it was a decade ago though. The MTV Awards have stolen much or most of the Grammy's money-making thunder in this new pop dominated world. I would think it's not a coincidence that we have such a dull-commercial orientated Album of The Year nominees list this year, and it will be interesting to see what, if any, changes are made to the production of the event itself. I predict they'll aim it younger and less formal with every year.

Its the MTV Music awards that are in the gutter when it comes to ratings, not the Grammy Awards. MTV have tried and failed to revive their show. The Grammy's have had consistent rating for the past 50 years. The Grammy awards are not about making money and sales although it can benefit some artist in particular catagories. The fact is, there is no other annual awards event that pays attention to nearly every major form of music there is.

Do you know who has won the most Grammy awards of all time? He is not a rock musician or a pop artist. He conducted the Chicago Symphony Orchestra for decades and has won 31 Grammy awards and been nominated for 74 awards. So much for this theory that the Grammy's are all about lobbying, politics, back promotion, and making money.



Remember, its your opinion that the album nominees are dull. I don't like several of them either, but thats my opinion as well. Your not really going for a young demographic when 3 of your album of the year nominees are U2, Mariah Carey, and Paul McCartney. Most people in High School today were not even born yet when Mariah Carey released her first album.

Radio has certainly changed over the past 10 years, but it is not even close to being the dramatic change that you describe. All the old formats are still there playing music that is not so different from 10 years ago. I could go into the airplay charts for different years and compare to prove that point. Radio's effect on album sales is also generally the same.

The Alternative scene may have been lapped up on certain formats, but overall POP was still very successful during that time period with Mariah Carey, Boyz II Men, Michael Bolton and others topping the airplay charts. Achtung Baby was released and getting strong airplay prior to the Grunge/Alternative Explosion. Nirvana was the first with their hit Teen Spirit to break through, but any major changes in radio play on certain formats did not happen for 6 months to a year after Teen Spirit first got played on the radio.

The music business did not begin in the early 1990s and all the corporate strategies and attempts to control radio were around prior to the 1990s. There were boy bands prior to the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync. Britney and Christina were not the first of their genre either. Some #1 songs back 15 years ago were played more than once an hour. So that whole saturation think and the targeting of a certain demographic is nothing new.

Bottom line, yes you can find differences between radio airplay in 2005 and 1992, but nothing so different that would invalidate the comparisons in radio airplay that I have made.

BONO has ALWAYS been talking about the charts and going to #1 since 1980! Just take a look at what he said in his first interview with Rolling Stone back in early 1981. The band have not change their approach to making music at all. They want to produce the best music they possibly can and also be #1. They want it all. They have not compromised themselves or attempted to water down their music just to achieve one of those goals.

As for POP, its a good album, but most of the songs on it fall far short of the quality of the songs on BOMB. Although its just another opinion, most people I know including musicians agree. U2, a band with 30 years of making music including have made 11 albums agree with that view point as well.

 

[STING2]

That post you quote wasn't me taking a shot at the Bomb. Relax. It was just a stated preference for U2 to make their next move earlier rather than later. The most told history of U2 always refers to Rattle & Hum and Pop as the bands two slip ups - and many in here of course disagree, but that's the most told story. Rattle & Hum is apparently when U2 got their heads too far up their own egos. Pop is apparently when U2 got their heads too far up their own experimentation/creativity. Not all people perceive them that way. I've got no beef with the Rattle & Hum project at all. Love both the album and the film and can see what their intentions were. I've got no beef with Pop either. What they were trying to acheive is clear and obvious. They tripped just before the finish line, but it's a magnificent effort regardless. So opinions, obviously, differ greatly. You STING, will have to accept that the opinion of many is that U2 RISK (I say RISK, not WILL) getting their heads too far up their own commercial hunger and suffering a similar slip up. Also remember that the higher you set yourself up, the more people are gunning to knock you down, and if U2 slip again now with both their size and Bono's as an individual, plenty will be waiting to stick the knife in. It doesn't mean that they can't repeat, or repeat successfuly what they've done, I am simply stating that perhaps this time they make the shift on their own terms before it's virtually forced upon them again by a perceived failure. It's not me stating anything, just me tapping Bono on the shoulder and giving him a bit of friendly advice. Think one step ahead.

STING, I'm happy to accept that in your opinion The Bomb is U2's third best album, maybe the best album of the decade so far by anyone and better than their 90's work. I know many in here agree. You'll also have to accept that many in here agree with me by saying this album is U2's weakest, shallowest, is dull, overblown, cliched, formulatic and is by far their largest excursion into flat out pop music. Doesn't mean it's not high quality, tight, loaded with catchy riffs and hooks, because it most certainly is. It's an 11/10 pop-rock album without a doubt. The best pop-rock album of the decade, maybe even ever. Plenty of us though feel a spirit missing in it, as it feels like it is an album swimming in the shallows, not in U2's normal depths. What it probably all comes down to is what attracted us to U2's music in the first place - and that's cool. Personally, I think their 00's work is not a patch on either their 80's or 90's work.

I understand your opinion and I saw a group of fans say that about Achtung Baby and Zooropa when those albums came out. But this opinion in regards to HTDAAB is definitely in the minority. I would hope that fans that so clearly object to much of U2's music since the year 2000 would willingly give away their concert tickets to the current tour(if they bought them) to fans that adore U2's current work but do not have tickets. This is not the Joshua Tree Tour or ZOO TV, its the Vertigo Tour.

From a commercial standpoint, Rattle And Hum was definitely not a failure and neither was POP. POP saw U2 sell half as many albums and half as many tickets as they did for ZOO TV, but the POPMART tour at the time was still way ahead of any tour that year or before and worldwide ended up becoming the second highest GROSSING tour in history at that time. A fall for U2 yes from where they were, but they remained the 2nd strongest touring artist in the world right behind the Stones just as they had been since 1987. Rattle And Hum today is U2's 3rd biggest selling album in the United States and either third or fourth biggest selling album worldwide. There was no world tour for the album, although Lovetown visited Australia, Japan, and New Zealand and then did a few dates in Europe to celebrate the coming new year. The only step down on Rattle And Hum was with the critics.

Judging by the Grammy awards over the past 5 years as well as what most critics have said about the past two albums, U2 has done as well as they ever have in this area. Although it did not make the top 100, ATYCLB was in Rolling Stones top 500 albums of all time, although I forget the actualy position it came in at. Critics and the Grammy's don't seem to share the view that the past two albums are "generic early U2 designed for the purpose of selling albums only". Most people are amazed at the quality of the songs and the question is not whether U2 should make another album like the last two, but whether they would be able to make an album as good as the previous two.

As far as selling tickets and albums next time out, the past success of the previous two albums bodes well for the future but of course is not a guarantee. The tour will likely be a huge success given the fact that the band did not play enough shows on this tour to fully meet the demand that was out there. How well the next album will be received is not known, but if the quality of music present on the past two albums is present on the next album and the band are able to have just one song crack the top 40, they will do just as well as they have done with ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

 

[Zoots]

dude, Zoot totally IS a hottie. You've got pics of him? send them my way!

He does not have pics of me!

you guys... can't we just agree that U2 is neat and Pop is the best album ever

yeah really, I'm tired of this argument myself now.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

rock muisc was used to make money in the 50's when it first came out. so in the end the people who hate them for making this "commercal" muisc in the end don;t have shit. wake up people, its been about money the whole time. elvis . so shut up and enjoy the music. its been fucked up since day 1. i mean this whole thing goes nowhere in the end.

 

[ozeeko]

yea but elvis was the shit! HTDAAB is just...shit.

 

[Axver]

yea but elvis was the shit!

Take out 'the' and your post becomes correct.

I don't understand what people like in Elvis.