All "Is U2 Breaking Up" Discussion

[doctorwho]

I'm in my thirties. I get this from people my age, younger, whatever. Anyway, there are a lot of people who think this way. Too many.

Then it must be you. Time for a makeover.

I admit, back in 1989 or 1990, if you said you liked U2, people would say things like "I think they are the Beatles of our generation."

But that's where the age thing comes in. Those in their teens or 20's then are in their 40's or 50's now.

And U2 was "new" to many people back then.

Now, U2 is well established. Everyone loves an underdog. Some people liked when "Pop" didn't sell well. And after the success of ATYCLB and HTDAAB, I bet some liked that NLOTH didn't sell well, even though it was the best of the three (IMO).

Some may view U2 as a bit too commercial. There was a lot of flack about the iTunes ad in 2004.

Some may feel that the U2 they loved was back in 1987.

Some may feel the U2 they loved was back in 1992.

So it's tough to say why you get those responses.

But I can say, I do not. Most have something good to say about U2, even if they aren't big fans.

 

[BVS]

To me Achtung Baby is 100 times more relevant than All that you...because without AB,or a failure of it,there would not be a ATYCLB.

Failure of AB? Maybe you meant something else.

But yes, that would have been a much different question. BUT still both are very relevant albums, just for different reasons. But AB is far more relevant than ATYCLB.

So at the expence of relevancy,they aimed for popularity.I understand that BD is huge hit for them,but for many observers, it was an attempt to recapture their presence on the radio more than to take their sound somewhere else.

This is a bit revisionist.

When U2 released AB and Zooropa, they had luxury. They had the luxury of releasing something like The Fly or Numb given their standing in the world, one must not forget this when looking at how U2 operated. U2 had the luxury of making the "pop kids" comment because 1. they were at the top of the world and 2. alternative was becoming the new pop. These moves weren't nearly as risky as some people like to paint them in here.

So when you say "at the expense of relevancy" I have to call bullshit because U2 still wrote a song that resonated(and still does) with the people. They didn't do that with Discoteque.

 

[Niceman]

So it's tough to say why you get those responses.

But I can say, I do not. Most have something good to say about U2, even if they aren't big fans.

I want to word this carefully, and I have a feeling I'm not going to manage to do it right!

I wonder if YOU'RE getting out and meeting a lot of people? U2 are really looked down on right now and I have to wonder what world you're living in if everyone is sharing your opinion on this?

But anyway, we could go in circles. No point.

 

[Niceman]

When U2 released AB and Zooropa, they had luxury. They had the luxury of releasing something like The Fly or Numb given their standing in the world, one must not forget this when looking at how U2 operated. U2 had the luxury of making the "pop kids" comment because 1. they were at the top of the world and 2. alternative was becoming the new pop. These moves weren't nearly as risky as some people like to paint them in here.

Did they have the luxury of creating AB, or the responsibility? Apparently they did feel they were at the end of their rope. The public might have been happy with another JT, but I think that U2 felt it wouldn't have been accepted. They had to re-invent themselves or die.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Sure, but U2 has always had a focus on conquering American charts specifically, and this was the height of their domestic popularity. To be rebuffed by both American critics and (eventually) the public was a painful thing, one that Flanagan recounts in exhaustive detail. Keep in mind that by 1991, the LA Times was reporting in the wake of the bootleg Achtung Baby release that nobody was buying U2 records anymore. Ouch.

But Rattle & Hum did conquer the charts. By that logic nothing since The Joshua Tree really has done well. Except for... perhaps Discotheque. Which wouldn't make any sense. Songs like "Beautiful Day" or "Vertigo" held up as some of the notable songs of the decade, and "Beautiful Day" had to withstand all 10 years of it.

 

[BVS]

Did they have the luxury of creating AB, or the responsibility?

The luxury.

They are musicians, they have no responsibilites.

 

[Hollow Island]

Failure of AB? Maybe you meant something else.

But yes, that would have been a much different question. BUT still both are very relevant albums, just for different reasons. But AB is far more relevant than ATYCLB.


This is a bit revisionist.

When U2 released AB and Zooropa, they had luxury. They had the luxury of releasing something like The Fly or Numb given their standing in the world, one must not forget this when looking at how U2 operated. U2 had the luxury of making the "pop kids" comment because 1. they were at the top of the world and 2. alternative was becoming the new pop. These moves weren't nearly as risky as some people like to paint them in here.

So when you say "at the expense of relevancy" I have to call bullshit because U2 still wrote a song that resonated(and still does) with the people. They didn't do that with Discoteque.

In 1993 U2 were one of the biggest bands in the world and could release whatever they wanted and have it do well, but releasing Numb as a single was a really fucked up, daring decision. Probably the strangest single released by a mainstream band since the 70s. And Zooropa sold half as much as Achtung Baby. I don't think that record is nearly as daring as people think it is.

Alternative was becoming the new pop, but that "alternative" was dirty, basic rock music. The kind of music U2 were making in 1993 was nowhere near the mainstream. It wasn't nascent britpop, it's wasn't 5th generation shoegaze, nor was it "grunge". It was like nothing else out there. It's their "Low".

The only mainstream band that was on par with U2 for experimentation in the 90s was Nine Inch Nails

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I imagine Numb was more of a statement, just like Zoo Station was a statement as an album opener. Either trying to redefine music or just trying to say 'this is the new us'.

 

[nathan1977]

But Rattle & Hum did conqur the charts.

Yes. And then the backlash began.

 

[doctorwho]

I want to word this carefully, and I have a feeling I'm not going to manage to do it right!

I wonder if YOU'RE getting out and meeting a lot of people?

Yep, I am!

I never wrote everyone shares my glory-filled views of U2. Rather, I'm just not getting the bile-filled responses you are.

I am an unusual person in that despite my age, I have friends - real friends, not just Facebook - with age ranges from 20's to 50's. My Halloween party was almost TOO big of a hit as my house was packed! Young, barely dressed ladies mingled with comfortable 50-somethings. All had fun. And no problems with anyone.

My U2 obsession is obvious. Admittedly, I know some people don't like them. When I ask why, I often hear they are bit too mainstream. To show the other side of U2 to these people, I created a CD filled with mp3's of U2's album and b-side tracks that are, IMO, more "alternative".

It is O.K. if some don't like U2. Not everyone liked them in '87 either. I have one friend who felt they were too mainstream back then!

I'm not sure of the justifications people are giving you, but if you haven't asked, you might find their answers surprise you. If it is current music, maybe introduce them to the best on NLOTH and other recent work. They may only know "Beaufiful Day" and not the rest. If they feel U2 are too commercial, create a CD like I did that ignores the hits. If they dislike U2 because of Bono's activisim - a big issue with even fans on this site - then state that at least his actions are getting things done.

You may not change many minds, but if it's just one person, well then!

If nothing else, at least you have us here. Lucky us.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Yes. And then the backlash began.

From the pretentious attitude surrounding the band, but not really the content of the songs released on the radio.

And conquer looks very ugly without that e.

 

[Niceman]

The luxury.

They are musicians, they have no responsibilites.

I'm sure that's not how they see it.

 

[Niceman]

Yep, I am!

I never wrote everyone shares my glory-filled views of U2. Rather, I'm just not getting the bile-filled responses you are.

I am an unusual person in that despite my age, I have friends - real friends, not just Facebook - with age ranges from 20's to 50's. My Halloween party was almost TOO big of a hit as my house was packed! Young, barely dressed ladies mingled with comfortable 50-somethings. All had fun. And no problems with anyone.

My U2 obsession is obvious. Admittedly, I know some people don't like them. When I ask why, I often hear they are bit too mainstream. To show the other side of U2 to these people, I created a CD filled with mp3's of U2's album and b-side tracks that are, IMO, more "alternative".

It is O.K. if some don't like U2. Not everyone liked them in '87 either. I have one friend who felt they were too mainstream back then!

I'm not sure of the justifications people are giving you, but if you haven't asked, you might find their answers surprise you. If it is current music, maybe introduce them to the best on NLOTH and other recent work. They may only know "Beaufiful Day" and not the rest. If they feel U2 are too commercial, create a CD like I did that ignores the hits. If they dislike U2 because of Bono's activisim - a big issue with even fans on this site - then state that at least his actions are getting things done.

You may not change many minds, but if it's just one person, well then!

If nothing else, at least you have us here. Lucky us.

I think dueling second hand opinions is a pretty pointless debate. OBVIOUSLY I have asked people their opinions and debated with them. Give me a little credit!

I often get told that their current work lacks substance and that it's just pop. Yes, I know that's insane. However, I don't think Beautiful Day and Vertigo have given the impression of deep thought to those who don't read and think deeply about the lyrics the way we do.

 

[nathan1977]

From the pretentious attitude surrounding the band, but not really the content of the songs released on the radio.

But when we're talking relevance, we're not talking about the quality of the work, but the relevance to an audience. The audience, unfortunately but ultimately, decides what is relevant or not. By 1989, the American audience had decided U2 wasn't relevant anymore. That's not a knock on the quality of the work, but in U2's case, the perception had overwhelmed the music. They had become passe in pop culture circles, the butt of jokes and overexposed. Hence the need to go away and dream it all up again -- not just go away and write new amazing songs, but completely reconceive themselves for a new kind of relevance in the 90s.

And conquer looks very ugly without that e.

Yes, yes it does.

 

[BVS]

Alternative was becoming the new pop, but that "alternative" was dirty, basic rock music. The kind of music U2 were making in 1993 was nowhere near the mainstream. It wasn't nascent britpop, it's wasn't 5th generation shoegaze, nor was it "grunge". It was like nothing else out there. It's their "Low".

The only mainstream band that was on par with U2 for experimentation in the 90s was Nine Inch Nails

Anything with the "alternative" label was considered cool. Alternative rap, alternative metal, alternative pop, it didn't matter. Grunge was just a part of it, granted a large part, but just a part.

In fact if U2 didn't make a change at that very moment they probably would have been dead in the water, their timing was perfect because they were able to ride the fence between the "mainstream" and "alternative". I remember going to the CD bins and laughing at the labels they would put on U2 albums, because now the JT was labeled "alternative".

 

[Inner El Guapo]

Rattle and Hum was just like HTDAAB.

Big success followed by a groundswell of backlash.

The big difference between the two was U2 followed up R&H with Achtung.

We are now experiencing a period - that would surely have been somewhat similar - to what would have happened if Achtung had flopped.

They'll either sink or swim...or not even get in the water and go home.

 

[Niceman]

Rattle and Hum was just like HTDAAB.

Big success followed by a groundswell of backlash.

The big difference between the two was U2 followed up R&H with Achtung.

We are now experiencing a period - that would surely have been somewhat similar - to what would have happened if Achtung had flopped.

They'll either sink or swim...or not even get in the water and go home.

Insightful point.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

From the pretentious attitude surrounding the band, but not really the content of the songs released on the radio.

That's not true. There were many American critics who loathed what seemed to be U2's attempt at hamfistedly introducing American roots influences to American audiences as if they needed the lesson.

And to some degree those critics were right. Although U2 didn't mean it entirely.
They were just uniquely inspired at that moment.

 

[Globo14]

If U2 doesn't have another great album in them, then they shouldn't make it. They're not in it for the money, they're in it for the love of music. They could've stopped 20 years ago and been well off for money, but they didn't. Because they love music.

I see them doing two, possibly three more albums, with corresponding tours, and calling it a day after that. Probably about 10 or 15 more years.

 

[The Panther]

The kind of music U2 were making in 1993 was nowhere near the mainstream. It wasn't nascent britpop, it's wasn't 5th generation shoegaze, nor was it "grunge". It was like nothing else out there. It's their "Low".

Some of your points are good, but I'm wondering if you were around at the time and where you live? I was 17 in 1993 (North America) and was extremely plugged in to both the 'pop' and the 'alternative' end of the music scene. And Zooropa was very much in the mainstream. Because it didn't have huge singles it didn't sell and sell over time to match Achtung Baby's catalogue sales, but it did hit #1 on the US charts -- that's about as mainstream as you can get. According to Wiki, it sold double-platinum in the US, triple in Australia, and 4 times platinum in Canada and New Zealand. You can't get much more mainstream than that... but yes, I agree that they had the freedom to release such an album because of (a) Achtung's recent all-conquering success, and (b) the then-current climate of alternative music being the new mainstream.

The only mainstream band that was on par with U2 for experimentation in the 90s was Nine Inch Nails

At which point we start to argue semantics over who is "mainstream". And I'm not a fan of the term "experimental" to describe U2's music in the 90s. How is it experimental when they spend two years making high-budget albums? I think maybe U2 had in mind in 1996-97 to take dance/club-culture and electronic music influences to the United States and sell the Americans on it --- sort of like The Police had the aesthetic of new wave music --- but this failed in a big way. In any case, the kind of music U2 did in 1997 was really already done and dusted in the UK scene five years earlier.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

That's not true. There were many American critics who loathed what seemed to be U2's attempt at hamfistedly introducing American roots influences to American audiences as if they needed the lesson.

And to some degree those critics were right. Although U2 didn't mean it entirely.
They were just uniquely inspired at that moment.

Well like I said. I wasn't really around then and my studies on it are limited. It was just my understanding that the two biggest things around the criticism were

- The pretentious, larger than life attitude presented by the band (especially with the film)

and

- The inclusion of several legendary artists on the album, making them 'equal to' such artists at the time.

Again, I could be wrong. That's just my understanding of Rattle & Hum during the time.

 

[gvox]

I think maybe U2 had in mind in 1996-97 to take dance/club-culture and electronic music influences to the United States and sell the Americans on it

LOLWUT

Youre off by about a decade here. If that truly was their intent they were playing catch up, at best.

 

[Hollow Island]

Some of your points are good, but I'm wondering if you were around at the time and where you live? I was 17 in 1993 (North America) and was extremely plugged in to both the 'pop' and the 'alternative' end of the music scene. And Zooropa was very much in the mainstream. Because it didn't have huge singles it didn't sell and sell over time to match Achtung Baby's catalogue sales, but it did hit #1 on the US charts -- that's about as mainstream as you can get. According to Wiki, it sold double-platinum in the US, triple in Australia, and 4 times platinum in Canada and New Zealand. You can't get much more mainstream than that... but yes, I agree that they had the freedom to release such an album because of (a) Achtung's recent all-conquering success, and (b) the then-current climate of alternative music being the new mainstream.


At which point we start to argue semantics over who is "mainstream". And I'm not a fan of the term "experimental" to describe U2's music in the 90s. How is it experimental when they spend two years making high-budget albums? I think maybe U2 had in mind in 1996-97 to take dance/club-culture and electronic music influences to the United States and sell the Americans on it --- sort of like The Police had the aesthetic of new wave music --- but this failed in a big way. In any case, the kind of music U2 did in 1997 was really already done and dusted in the UK scene five years earlier.

Of course Zooropa was a mainstream album; it was made by one of the biggest bands in the world. However, the music on the album bore no relation to what was going on in the mainstream. I'm pretty sure that was my point - that their mainstream status enabled them to experiment and release songs like Numb and Lemon, both of which were hits, but were completely different from anything else out there in the mainstream. The rest of the north american charts were hip hop, some dance pop, and lots of "grunge".

I don't see how spending two years making a big budget record precludes experimentation. The only records that U2 made in the 90s that were really experimental were Zooropa and Passengers, both of which were made quickly. Pop wasn 't experimental, really. They were trying things that were new for them (which I guess could be considered experimentation) but weren't really new.

I'm talking about pop music, about the mainstream popular bands, which NIN were (and are). I don't think establishing them as a mainstream band a stretch. All of their albums have been hits, and the Downward Spiral was the album of 94/95 in North America.

 

[Niceman]

Does being popular make an album mainstream? Hmm. In a sense its the definition of it. But when an album is written, and it is at that moment far away from what's popular at that moment, it isn't mainstream yet, is it?

I was a big Faith No More fan in high school. Then the pop kids started wearing their T-shirts and I was like "What the hell???" But does that mean Faith No More was mainstream?

I feel the same way about calling The Downward Spiral mainstream. yes, it conquered the hill, but it WAS experimental! I feel the same way about U2's 90s work.

 

[The Panther]

I'm always going to side with Niceman on this perpetual Rattle & Hum argument. Rattle & Hum was in no way some big disaster, as some of the third or fourth generation U2 fans seem to think --- I don't blame you for thinking that, because in the grand narrative of U2, it was the desert of dryness between the Oases of The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. The band themselves continue to perpetuate this myth, because (as Bill Flanagan aptly explains in U2 at the End of the World) they were extremely sensitive to the criticisms they received circa 1989 and they'd sooner forget that unhappy period.

Not only was Rattle & Hum not a disaster, it was an ENORMOUS success in all commercial areas. It vastly outsold records like Unforgettable Fire, as well as later ones like Zooropa and Pop.

Also, at the time, Rattle & Hum was not really perceived as anything new or different by them, it was just sort of an extension of The Joshua Tree thing (coming only 10 months after the end of the JT tour), even more so than Zooropa was an extension of the Achtung Baby thing.

Rattle & Hum also received largely positive reviews upon release. Rolling Stone in the USA gave it a 4-star review and its readers later voted it album of year (also single of the year, band of year, etc.). In Britain, it also got strong reviews. Also in Europe.

The supposed irrelevancy of the 1989 concerts (the band have talked much about this, too) also passed North America by, as they played no shows here between Dec. 1987 and early 1992. In those pre-Internet days, U2's playing concerts in Auz or NZ or Japan was like something secret that no one knew about.

Don't get me wrong -- some warning signs of forthcoming potential Dinosaur status were there with Rattle & Hum, and some longtime fans were turned off (for example, my high school French teacher, who said he'd enjoyed them from the early 80s but found Rattle & Hum too pretentious), but by and large it did nothing to harm U2. If anything, it strongly consolidated their status as the undisputed heavy-weight champion of rock.

However, it was also clearly the end of one road, and good on them for not attempting to beat it to death.

 

[The Panther]

If that truly was their intent they were playing catch up, at best.

Maybe you mis-read my post? That is exactly what I was saying.

 

[Hollow Island]

Does being popular make an album mainstream? Hmm. In a sense its the definition of it. But when an album is written, and it is at that moment far away from what's popular at that moment, it isn't mainstream yet, is it?

I was a big Faith No More fan in high school. Then the pop kids started wearing their T-shirts and I was like "What the hell???" But does that mean Faith No More was mainstream?

I feel the same way about calling The Downward Spiral mainstream. yes, it conquered the hill, but it WAS experimental! I feel the same way about U2's 90s work.

Downward Spiral was totally experimental, I agree 100% - but it was a mainstream record. The music wasn't mainstream, but the record was. I don't think I'm putting that very well. There's mainstream music and mainstream popularity. When NIN put out "The Perfect Drug" it was mainstream in terms of popularity and musically. Same with Pop - mainstream musically and commercially. Zooropa had the latter but not the former, and Passengers had neither. Achtung had the latter and a bit of the former. Sorry for all the latter formers.

 

[Niceman]

I'm always going to side with Niceman on this perpetual Rattle & Hum argument. Rattle & Hum was in no way some big disaster, as some of the third or fourth generation U2 fans seem to think --- I don't blame you for thinking that, because in the grand narrative of U2, it was the desert of dryness between the Oases of The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. The band themselves continue to perpetuate this myth, because (as Bill Flanagan aptly explains in U2 at the End of the World) they were extremely sensitive to the criticisms they received circa 1989 and they'd sooner forget that unhappy period.

Not only was Rattle & Hum not a disaster, it was an ENORMOUS success in all commercial areas. It vastly outsold records like Unforgettable Fire, as well as later ones like Zooropa and Pop.

Also, at the time, Rattle & Hum was not really perceived as anything new or different by them, it was just sort of an extension of The Joshua Tree thing (coming only 10 months after the end of the JT tour), even more so than Zooropa was an extension of the Achtung Baby thing.

Rattle & Hum also received largely positive reviews upon release. Rolling Stone in the USA gave it a 4-star review and its readers later voted it album of year (also single of the year, band of year, etc.). In Britain, it also got strong reviews. Also in Europe.

The supposed irrelevancy of the 1989 concerts (the band have talked much about this, too) also passed North America by, as they played no shows here between Dec. 1987 and early 1992. In those pre-Internet days, U2's playing concerts in Auz or NZ or Japan was like something secret that no one knew about.

Don't get me wrong -- some warning signs of forthcoming potential Dinosaur status were there with Rattle & Hum, and some longtime fans were turned off (for example, my high school French teacher, who said he'd enjoyed them from the early 80s but found Rattle & Hum too pretentious), but by and large it did nothing to harm U2. If anything, it strongly consolidated their status as the undisputed heavy-weight champion of rock.

However, it was also clearly the end of one road, and good on them for not attempting to beat it to death.

The story U2 tell about themselves is sometimes different than what actually happened. I saw 5 POPMART shows and there were lots and lots of people there. ZOOROPA was the record, once upon a time, which America didn't like. That's why they only slowly started walking the audience into discovering Stay on later tours. R&H was panned by some critics, but it was a tremendous success.

I do think, however, U2 understood where the music world was going in 1990. How many bands went from very successful to unable to get their songs or videos played from one album to another? A massive sea-change happened in the music world from the end of the eighties to the early nineties. It killed many many bands, but U2 was savvy enough to reinvent themselves at that perfect moment and not look like a part of the old world.

If you want a perfect example of U2's revisionist history, buy the Best of 1990-2000 and notice how The Fly gets ignored while the quieter and more-ATYCLB style songs get attention they never did in the actual decade itself - or how Numb and the POP tracks all got re-recorded and feel like something the band in later years would have done.

 

[Niceman]

Downward Spiral was totally experimental, I agree 100% - but it was a mainstream record. The music wasn't mainstream, but the record was. I don't think I'm putting that very well. There's mainstream music and mainstream popularity. When NIN put out "The Perfect Drug" it was mainstream in terms of popularity and musically. Same with Pop - mainstream musically and commercially. Zooropa had the latter but not the former, and Passengers had neither. Achtung had the latter and a bit of the former. Sorry for all the latter formers.

It is confusing to talk about, isn't it?
The Downward Spiral was not mainstream when it was written, neither was The Real Thing or, I would argue, Zooropa. The success of those albums made them BECOME mainstream.

 

[The Panther]

If you want a perfect example of U2's revisionist history, buy the Best of 1990-2000 and notice how The Fly gets ignored while the quieter and more-ATYCLB style songs get attention they never did in the actual decade itself - or how Numb and the POP tracks all got re-recorded and feel like something the band in later years would have done.

Couldn't agree more. What was really insane was that 'Please' -- maybe the best song of the decade, aside from 'One' -- got completely ignored. It was as if they were saying, "Whew! Good thing we got ATYCLB out just in time to salvage this useless 8 year period and now we can live out a revisionist history!'