Are U2 taking the Piss?

[martha]

Imitating U2 = desperately trying to reclaim past glories and trying to go back down a path already traveled.

Like most people on here want them to do.

"Bring back Zootv."

"I hope the next album is AB."

"Why can't they tour like Popmart again?!"

"Make the next album War 2."

 

[U2girl]

Despite the "we want something new" cries, ATYCLB as well as Bomb were actually new. The band never tried to do pop music as overtly as ATYCLB, nor did they ever do a retro album like Bomb before.
Of course, had U2 gone back to experimenting with dance music, 90% of this forum would be drowning in their drool.

I would also love to see a time when U2 and Bono in particular didn't think they were the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[kingofsorrow]

that's it. i'm not eating bread anymore. it's U2 sandwiches from now on.

 

[Zoots]

nor did they ever do a retro album like Bomb before.

Oh a retro album! How daring and courageous!

 

[U2Man]

 

[U2girl]

Oh a retro album! How daring and courageous!

Yes, most bands/artists probably do retro sounding records at some point in their career.

The point is it was still something new for the band, even if you may not like the album.

 

[Zoots]

The point is it was still something new for the band, even if you may not like the album.

I love How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb. In fact I was listening to it at high volume in the car on my way to work this morning. It's been a while since I gave it a spin so it sounded extra delicious.






















































But I still wouldn't call it adventurous or daring.

 

[U2Man]

liar, liar - pants on fire!

 

[Zoots]

liar, liar - pants on fire!

I'm serious, dude! Vertigo - A Man And A Woman fit in perfectly into my work commute. Crumbs - Yahweh still left.

 

[U2girl]

Is that why you started the official mother of all "Bash Bomb" threads a while ago and rip on it sistematically?

It wasn't adventurous or daring. It is not about that at all.

 

[Zoots]

Is that why you started the official mother of all "Bash Bomb" threads a while ago and rip on it sistematically?

I rip on it because I care. If I didn't like the album, I wouldn't spend hours here analzing and overanalyzing it as to what aspect of it I don't like or how they could have made it better.

It's weird actually. And I think it only happens with U2 albums for me. When I am in the mood I really REALLY enjoy them and this includes ATYCLB & HTDAAB which I'm usually the most critical of. Whether it's the racing build-up of City Of Blinding Lights, the rocking bass of Vertigo, the beautiful melody of Crumbs or OOTS, the minimalistic beauty of A Man And A Woman, the atmosphere of One Step Closer or the interesting sounds of LAPOE, I find myself appreciating these aspects of the album but only when I'm in the right mood.

Other times, the flaws are so glaring to me that the whole thing comes off as a half-assed effort that could've been so much better! And at that moment, the awkward spanish of Vertigo, the 'holier than thou' feel of Miracle Drug, the mediocre lyrics of LAPOE, the weak chorus of City Of Blinding Lights, the unnecessarily loud ear-piercing intro to All Because Of You, the chorus to One Step Closer that doesn't really go anywhere etc. all come into the picture and stand out like a giraffe in sunglasses trying to blend into a polar bear's only golf club. Okay I totally stole that line from Blackadder but the point is...

It's this unexplainable see saw feeling and I think it comes only with U2.

It wasn't adventurous or daring. It is not about that at all.

I know. It's more like Def Leppard's Euphoria. After the experimentation of Slang, they went back to their 80s glories on Euphoria.

 

[BVS]

Oh a retro album! How daring and courageous!

Yet you mentioned The Killers as exciting in another thread.

 

[Zoots]

Yet you mentioned The Killers as exciting in another thread.

Really? Dunno if I used the word 'exciting' per say but maybe I did, don't remember. So sue me! I really don't understand the point of chasing somebody's posts and trying to prove them wrong. Music is something you feel and something you can only attempt to put down in words. There's no right or wrong, it's all opinion and it's all subjective. So maybe I said somewhere that I enjoy The Killers' Hot Fuss more than HTDAAB. So what? The Killers were a retro band to start with. U2 have always pushed the envelope. That's why I felt that HTDAAB's retro feel was not daring. I still do enjoy the album.

 

[BVS]

Really? Dunno if I used the word 'exciting' per say but maybe I did, don't remember. So sue me! I really don't understand the point of chasing somebody's posts and trying to prove them wrong.

Don't be so paranoid, zoots... No one's chasing anyone, we just post in the same threads. Don't flatter yourself

Music is something you feel and something you can only attempt to put down in words. There's no right or wrong, it's all opinion and it's all subjective. So maybe I said somewhere that I enjoy The Killers' Hot Fuss more than HTDAAB. So what? The Killers were a retro band to start with. U2 have always pushed the envelope. That's why I felt that HTDAAB's retro feel was not daring. I still do enjoy the album.

Fair enough, and I agree, but why must everything be "daring" in order not to warrant criticism in here?

I like "daring" music as much as the next guy, but I also enjoy many artists who write good tunes who don't feel like they need to create a new genre everytime around. Dylan, Bruce, Ryan Adams, PJ all great musicians who would rarely fit the "daring" category in here...

 

[dietcokeofevil]

I wish that Bono would do less of the Larry King/ Opera thing.

But I will say this:

I believe he is sincere because he is aware as anyone the shite he will take for it every time with fans and internet folk. He knows how uncool it is. And nah, I don't believe it will ever put them at #1 on the Billboards

 

[BVS]

I wish that Bono would do less of the Larry King/ Opera thing.

Larry King/ Opera thing?

What does this mean? Less Larry King and less Opera?

 

[Zoots]

why must everything be "daring" in order not to warrant criticism in here?

BECAUSE it is different with U2, a band that has always been pushing the envelope..even more so in the 90s and didn't seem to give a fuck about reaching the widest audience possible with safe pop/rock, like they have started doing since 2000. If they had, then Zooropa would have been as mainstream or more than Achtung Baby. Not that I don't enjoy their music since 2000.. I really do.. but it is still a very odd move by a band such as U2 who previously didn't care about pleasing everybody under the sun.

Dylan, Bruce, Ryan Adams, PJ all great musicians who would rarely fit the "daring" category in here...

Woah, wait a minute now. PJ? Pearl Jam? I have always considered them to be an adventurous band constantly experimenting with new influences ever since Vitalogy. Sure, the latest one is not really experimental but it IS daring though, as in it challenges the fucked up state of affairs in the US and the world right now.

Despite the "we want something new" cries, ATYCLB as well as Bomb were actually new. The band never tried to do pop music as overtly as ATYCLB, nor did they ever do a retro album like Bomb before.

Sure, a retro album is something new for U2 but it is not daring. It is a safe move. Again, doesn't mean I don't enjoy the songs on it but it is un-characteristic of U2's past.

 

[neutral]

Larry King/ Opera thing?

What does this mean? Less Larry King and less Opera?

I think they mean Oprah

 

[BVS]

I think they mean Oprah

That would make more sense. I thought he was talking about songs like Sometimes, Miss S, or The Hands...

 

[U2girl]

I rip on it because I care. If I didn't like the album, I wouldn't spend hours here analzing and overanalyzing it as to what aspect of it I don't like or how they could have made it better.

So why don't you post on aspects you DO like? Don't the pros overweight the cons if you still enjoy the album, after all?

 

[Zoots]

Don't the pros overweight the cons if you still enjoy the album, after all?

That's a good question that I do not know the answer for. It's like what I said before, quoted below for reference. Sometimes I enjoy it and can appreciate the melodies and sometimes I don't and it comes off as mediocre. Depends on the mood I guess. Looks like U2 has given me MPD.

When I am in the mood I really REALLY enjoy them and this includes ATYCLB & HTDAAB which I'm usually the most critical of. Whether it's the racing build-up of City Of Blinding Lights, the rocking bass of Vertigo, the beautiful melody of Crumbs or OOTS, the minimalistic beauty of A Man And A Woman, the atmosphere of One Step Closer or the interesting sounds of LAPOE, I find myself appreciating these aspects of the album but only when I'm in the right mood.

Other times, the flaws are so glaring to me that the whole thing comes off as a half-assed effort that could've been so much better! And at that moment, the awkward spanish of Vertigo, the 'holier than thou' feel of Miracle Drug, the mediocre lyrics of LAPOE, the weak chorus of City Of Blinding Lights, the unnecessarily loud ear-piercing intro to All Because Of You, the chorus to One Step Closer that doesn't really go anywhere etc. all come into the picture and stand out...

 

[BVS]

BECAUSE it is different with U2, a band that has always been pushing the envelope..even more so in the 90s and didn't seem to give a fuck about reaching the widest audience possible with safe pop/rock, like they have started doing since 2000. If they had, then Zooropa would have been as mainstream or more than Achtung Baby. Not that I don't enjoy their music since 2000.. I really do.. but it is still a very odd move by a band such as U2 who previously didn't care about pleasing everybody under the sun.

It's funny you say that for we've heard these arguments before. First with R&H, then big time with AB, and then probably the biggest so far with POP. The movie was a reach for the widest audience, then with AB and the approach to dance remixes and acting more surface, and then with POP actually diving into dance music...all of these moves were attacked with the same exact argument you just stated right here.

It makes me laugh.

Woah, wait a minute now. PJ? Pearl Jam? I have always considered them to be an adventurous band constantly experimenting with new influences ever since Vitalogy. Sure, the latest one is not really experimental but it IS daring though, as in it challenges the fucked up state of affairs in the US and the world right now.

I love PJ, but with the exceptions of a few moments they haven't been that adventerous when it comes to whole albums.

Sure, a retro album is something new for U2 but it is not daring. It is a safe move. Again, doesn't mean I don't enjoy the songs on it but it is un-characteristic of U2's past.

But here's the question I've been asking and no one's ever been able to answer. How do you know it was a safe move? For the most part, any U2 album at this point is pretty safe compared to most bands. Even Pop didn't flop as bad as some like to paint it.

How did U2 know people wanted to hear them play hints of Motown, sing about their own mortality, straightforward pop melodies, power chord rock riffs??? Can they tell the future?

They've done this before, so why was it so safe? Just because it didn't infuse dancebeats?

 

[U2girl]

I wonder what the band makes of fans reactions over the years...
people didn't like R&H, so they went into AB, people liked Zooropa and Pop less so they went into ATYCLB and Bomb and people questioned that too. (and people probably thought "what are they thinking?" with UF and "they are music for the masses now" with JT)
Not that it's intentional, but they do care what people think.

As for caring about pleasing, they always have in a way. From talking about being better than music on the charts, to bragging about being no. 1 in America on tour, to making a book/movie/album combo, to changing their image and attitude so completely after being burned by the critics. To changing again after dubious acceptance of one of their albums.

It will be interesting if they, looking at Edge's "departure" comment, do a twist this time around and not continue the album "trilogy" work. Sped up the change and do it an album early and catch everyone by surprise.

 

[Zoots]

It's funny you say that for we've heard these arguments before. First with R&H, then big time with AB, and then probably the biggest so far with POP. The movie was a reach for the widest audience, then with AB and the approach to dance remixes and acting more surface, and then with POP actually diving into dance music...all of these moves were attacked with the same exact argument you just stated right here.

First off, what you're saying about Pop puzzles me to no end. No way could they have been aiming for the biggest audience with songs like Mofo, Velvet Dress, Miami, Please & WUDM etc. on the album.

Second, I don't think they ever wanted to be as big as they want to be right now. I never heard any of this 'we want to be the biggest band in the world and reach the widest audience possible' talk before 2000. I could be wrong as I have only been following them since Achtung. But that is what I believe.. that they never wanted to be like the Beatles or bigger than the Beatles or whatever like they're saying in the 00s. To me, the last 2 albums sound a lot more mainstream than The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, Rattle & Hum or The Unf. Fire.

Okay. What's wrong with wanting to be the biggest band in the world and reach the widest audience possible, you ask? Well.. there's nothing wrong with it. But in order to do that, I believe you cannot take risks with your music. You cannot experiment with new sounds and hope tons of people like it. Just doesn't ensure success.

But here's the question I've been asking and no one's ever been able to answer. How do you know it was a safe move? For the most part, any U2 album at this point is pretty safe compared to most bands. Even Pop didn't flop as bad as some like to paint it.

How did U2 know people wanted to hear them play hints of Motown, sing about their own mortality, straightforward pop melodies, power chord rock riffs??? Can they tell the future?

They've done this before, so why was it so safe? Just because it didn't infuse dancebeats?

No. Compared to other, much more experimental/underground/indie whatever bands, of course U2 is mainstream. Heck, their whole catelogue is mainstream as hell! But we're talking relative here, within U2's discography.

I have explained this before. I think the brand of pop/rock displayed on ATYCLB & HTDAAB is safer than say material from War, UF, JT, R&H, AB, Zrp, Pop etc. Let me explain further. War didn't sound much or anything like Boy or October. War was more aggressive and a lot more political. UF didn't sound anything like what came before it. JT & RH didn't sound anything like what came before. AB didn't sound anything like what came before. Zooropa didn't sound anything like what came before. Same with Pop. But ATYCLB tries to be the Joshua Tree (in parts) starting with the delayed guitar riff on Beautiful Day. There's hints of UF and JT guitar all over HTDAAB in songs like Sometimes, City, Yahweh etc. Hence the safe label. It is safe because they know it will sell. It has sold in the past judging by JT & UF sales.

 

[BVS]

First off, what you're saying about Pop puzzles me to no end. No way could they have been aiming for the biggest audience with songs like Mofo, Velvet Dress, Miami, Please & WUDM etc. on the album.

Do you remember how big bands music like Prodigy and Chemical Brothers were back then, you add that to the name U2 and you have a huge umbrella of fans.

Second, I don't think they ever wanted to be as big as they want to be right now. I never heard any of this 'we want to be the biggest band in the world and reach the widest audience possible' talk before 2000. I could be wrong as I have only been following them since Achtung. But that is what I believe.. that they never wanted to be like the Beatles or bigger than the Beatles or whatever like they're saying in the 00s. To me, the last 2 albums sound a lot more mainstream than The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, Rattle & Hum or The Unf. Fire.

But you forget they played a huge part in creating the mainstream sound of music...

They may have not actually said those words but their actions definately showed they did.

Okay. What's wrong with wanting to be the biggest band in the world and reach the widest audience possible, you ask? Well.. there's nothing wrong with it. But in order to do that, I believe you cannot take risks with your music. You cannot experiment with new sounds and hope tons of people like it. Just doesn't ensure success.

You mean like the Beatles? You're probably right if you weren't talking about U2. Just look at the transition between JT/ R&H to AB... They didn't lose any size in their audience with that move, they lost some hardcore fans but made up for it with their new audience.

I have explained this before. I think the brand of pop/rock displayed on ATYCLB & HTDAAB is safer than say material from War, UF, JT, R&H, AB, Zrp, Pop etc. Let me explain further. War didn't sound much or anything like Boy or October. War was more aggressive and a lot more political. UF didn't sound anything like what came before it. JT & RH didn't sound anything like what came before. AB didn't sound anything like what came before. Zooropa didn't sound anything like what came before. Same with Pop. But ATYCLB tries to be the Joshua Tree (in parts) starting with the delayed guitar riff on Beautiful Day. There's hints of UF and JT guitar all over HTDAAB in songs like Sometimes, City, Yahweh etc. Hence the safe label. It is safe because they know it will sell. It has sold in the past judging by JT & UF sales.

It's funny back in 97 Billy Corgan interviewed the band for a Spin(I believe) he said he found Pop interesting because it was like a greatest hits album, it touched upon almost every aspect of their career.

I don't hear any hints of previous U2 in Wild Honey, In a Little While, Stuck, LAPOE, Yahweh, or Fast Cars...

I think the whole safe argument is pretty much bullshit unless they made an album that was just like JT, AB or some trend that was happening right now.

 

[Zoots]

Do you remember how big bands music like Prodigy and Chemical Brothers were back then, you add that to the name U2 and you have a huge umbrella of fans.

But was that the kind of music that the majority of the music buying public liked in 1997? I highly doubt it. I also highly doubt that the Prodigy or the Chemical Brothers had a bigger fan base than U2 has right now.

But you forget they played a huge part in creating the mainstream sound of music...

They may have not actually said those words but their actions definately showed they did.

Not the same as trying to be part of an already established mainstream in order to reach the widest audience, a la present U2.

You mean like the Beatles?

Oh c'mon now! As far as I know, most people in the 60s hated the Beatles for going all experimental. I have read several NME reviews and snippets of people back then complaining about the weird sounds of Sgt. Pepper & MMT etc. and saying that they wished the band would go back to the old sound again. It was only over many years/decades that the Beatles became as respected as they are now.

It's funny back in 97 Billy Corgan interviewed the band for a Spin(I believe) he said he found Pop interesting because it was like a greatest hits album, it touched upon almost every aspect of their career.

I don't care what Billy Corgan thought of it. lol. To me, the Bomb sounds much more like a greatest hits than Pop ever did. But music can be interpreted and analyzed in a thousand different ways by different people and it's all good.

I don't hear any hints of previous U2 in Wild Honey, In a Little While, Stuck, LAPOE, Yahweh, or Fast Cars...

I agree with all of that except Yahweh which has enough of the classic chimey guitar and sounds vaguely like One Tree Hill. Not to mention, lyrics that are reminiscent of Do You Feel Loved.

As for Stuck In A Moment, sure it didn't remind me of anything U2-ey. The first thought in my head when I heard the studio version was Michael Bolton, no joke. That said, it has definitely grown on me.. esp. the acoustic version!

I think the whole safe argument is pretty much bullshit unless they made an album that was just like JT, AB or some trend that was happening right now.

I guess we disagree on what constitutes safe music. I don't feel that you have to sound EXACTLY like your past work to be safe. You could borrow from it and sprinkle it all over your new album so people hear familiar sounds and buy more records. That's what I think.

 

[silvrlvr]

This is one of the most entertaining threads I have read in a long time. You do not have to be a fan of everything U2 ever created in order to participate here -- debate like this is good exercise.

But getting way back to the original topic on Red. My take is that it is Bono related more than U2 related, and that's a separate category. If people get to Sydney and Honolulu and find Red merchandise for sale outside the arenas then it will have become a U2 thing, otherwise it's primarily a Bono cause, just like MR is an Edge cause.

So that doesn't bother me or make me think any differently of the music.

 

[BVS]

But was that the kind of music that the majority of the music buying public liked in 1997? I highly doubt it. I also highly doubt that the Prodigy or the Chemical Brothers had a bigger fan base than U2 has right now.

Wow you missed the point. This sound had a big buying public, but no not the majority...but that being said you are contradicting yourself now because what's the majority buying public listening to now?

But when you add the name U2 + the new big sound = more fans than anyone...

Not the same as trying to be part of an already established mainstream in order to reach the widest audience, a la present U2.

What? This makes no sense. That's like saying GnR(if their album ever gets released) is trying to be part of the hard rock scene, one to which they helped make.

Oh c'mon now! As far as I know, most people in the 60s hated the Beatles for going all experimental. I have read several NME reviews and snippets of people back then complaining about the weird sounds of Sgt. Pepper & MMT etc. and saying that they wished the band would go back to the old sound again. It was only over many years/decades that the Beatles became as respected as they are now.

Did they lose their biggest band status? No.

I don't care what Billy Corgan thought of it. lol. To me, the Bomb sounds much more like a greatest hits than Pop ever did. But music can be interpreted and analyzed in a thousand different ways by different people and it's all good.

Yes it can and that's what I was trying to show you with my example.

I agree with all of that except Yahweh which has enough of the classic chimey guitar and sounds vaguely like One Tree Hill. Not to mention, lyrics that are reminiscent of Do You Feel Loved.

To each it's own.

As for Stuck In A Moment, sure it didn't remind me of anything U2-ey. The first thought in my head when I heard the studio version was Michael Bolton, no joke. That said, it has definitely grown on me.. esp. the acoustic version!

Once again different strokes, guitarist for Radiohead said it was some of U2's best work at the time...

I guess we disagree on what constitutes safe music. I don't feel that you have to sound EXACTLY like your past work to be safe. You could borrow from it and sprinkle it all over your new album so people hear familiar sounds and buy more records. That's what I think.

What band doesn't do this? Yes Radiohead made a large departure from OK to Kid A, but they haven't done that since.

Even JT to AB had sprinkles of U2 past in it...

 

[angelordevil]

Woah, wait a minute now. PJ? Pearl Jam? I have always considered them to be an adventurous band constantly experimenting with new influences ever since Vitalogy. Sure, the latest one is not really experimental but it IS daring though, as in it challenges the fucked up state of affairs in the US and the world right now.

angelordevil interrupts this great debate to say that he is deeply inspi(red) by these quoted words of wisdom.


Carry on.

 

[Zoots]

angelordevil interrupts this great debate to say that he is deeply inspi(red) by these quoted words of wisdom.

Haha, thanks man!

Wow you missed the point. This sound had a big buying public, but no not the majority...but that being said you are contradicting yourself now because what's the majority buying public listening to now?

But when you add the name U2 + the new big sound = more fans than anyone...

I disagree. I think the type of pop/rock that U2 are displaying on their latest venture sells much much more than Chemical Brothers electronika did even at it's peak!

What? This makes no sense. That's like saying GnR(if their album ever gets released) is trying to be part of the hard rock scene, one to which they helped make.

No. I did not say U2 are trying to be part of a mainstream that 'they' created. More like it seems they're trying to be part of a mainstream that they never were a part of!

Did they lose their biggest band status? No.

I don't think the Beatles were TRYING desperately to become the biggest band in the world like U2 is, now. It just happened! I don't think Lennon/McCartney gave a fuck if Sgt. Peppers' experimentation cost them a bunch of fans.

Yes it can and that's what I was trying to show you with my example.

Fair enough. But I disagree with Corgan's ridiculous viewpoint if what you're saying is indeed true.

To each it's own.

What? It was even discussed right here in this very forum by many posters about how Yahweh's lyrics of 'take these shoes/hands/soul' etc. is reminiscent of DYFL's 'take these hands/shoes...' The resemblance to OTH may be a stretch but you can clearly see where the lyrical connection to DYFL is.

Once again different strokes, guitarist for Radiohead said it was some of U2's best work at the time...

If that's true, I can't believe he said that. Radiohead seems so far from ever releasing a song like Stuck that it's not even funny.

Even JT to AB had sprinkles of U2 past in it...

Gimme some examples. I don't believe that it was anywhere near as 'reminiscent of the past' as the guitar work on Sometimes, COBL, Yahweh etc.


side note: I don't know how much more time I can waste on this. BVS argues like a mofo!