Has any band ever recovered after starting to suck?

[edgeztv2]

I can't think of any examples of major bands ever recovering after starting to head south. Here's a timeline most successful bands seem to follow:

1) a very good 1st album
2) a slightly weaker, but still good 2nd album
3) a few truly amazing albums
4) an album that's not outright terrible but still weaker than all preceding albums

At this point most bands either

A) break up

or

B) continue releasing mediocre material, that has a few good songs here and there (sometimes even very good ones), but the albums are riddled with songs that make you reach for the "next track" button. The bands are still amazing live and sell out shows for many years on the strength of their glory days (e.g. The Rolling Stones).

Take Pink Floyd, for example:

1) Piper at the Gates
2) Relics
3) Animals, Wish, Darkside, The Wall
4) The Final Cut
5) A - Pink Floyd, the band, breaks up
B - Roger Waters continues releasing mediocre albums

Many less talented bands have an abbreviated version of the above timeline. Take Coldplay, for instance:

1) [SIZE=-1]Parachutes
2) (skipped to 3)
3) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A Rush of Blood[/SIZE] (no other albums here, alas)
[SIZE=-1]4) X&Y (the weaker album)
5) seems to be headed in the direction of B - mediocre albums with occasional good songs in there, but lots of cringe-worthy lyrics "for some reason I can't explain I know Saint Peter will [or won't] call my name", etc.

*****

Now the important question: has any band ever released a single album that was every bit as good as the albums during their "golden age" after a string of mediocre albums? *Every bit as good* is the main criteria here. "Pretty good" doesn't cut it.

*****

I'm a huge U2 fan (attended 12 live shows). I fell in love with U2 in 1997, in high school. I loved every single album released up to that point, inluding Pop. I was a super fan in every sense of the word. I used to visit this forum a lot back in the day under alias "EdgeZTV" (but I forgot my password, and don't have the same email address, so I had to create this new account).

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Now the controversial part - U2:

1) Boy
2) October
3) War ... Pop
4) ATYCLB
5) trending towards trajectory B - a string of mediocre albums ([/SIZE][SIZE=-1]HTDAAB, NLOTH)

Don't get me wrong, these albums have some good songs on them, but does anyone who became a U2 fan before year 2000 honestly think any of their post-2000 albums every bit as good as any of their golden age albums?

In 2001 I hoped ATYCLB was a fluke, and the band would recover. I attended many shows on the Elevation tour and I loved them. However, after hearing [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]HTDAAB, I knew, but didn't want to admit, that U2 has entered that irreversible trend of releasing almost-good but really mediocre material compared to their golden age. While waiting for NLOTH to come out, my expectations were very low. On first listen, I was pleasantly surprised by the first two tracks - they reminded me of the AB+Zooropa material - and for a second I thought the band might be on the road to recovery. The third track wasn't too bad, it reminded me of Wild Irish Rose. The fourth was good, but had a few cringe-worthy moments. The rest of the album is a mixed bag of both amazing and cringe-worthy song fragments.

Even you like the post-2000 albums, you can't disagree that they are different from the previous 20 years. I can even prove it empirically: sum up all the chart positions and grammy awards for the two eras and compare them. There's no comparison. The number of awards U2 have received in the 2000's for just 2 albums outweights all the awards they've received in the prior 2 decades for 9 albums. There's no denying the change. U2 have gone mainstream by losing that "spark that set the flame" that all their previous work had but the masses couldn't see at the time. Now all people of all ages know about U2 (in contrast to 1997), and many of these newly exposed people even *like* their new material. But no one truly *loves* it. So unfortunately, they (most likely unintentionally) went from recording music that a few million people really loved to releasing music that a few hundred million like but no one loves.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
The weakest link in U2 post-2000 albums is the lyrics. Much of the lyrics simply make me cringe. The melodies are still good, the musicians are still amazing, but unfortunatelly rock 'n' roll is the art of song, not music, and the art of song is mostly lyrics, and U2's lyrics in the new millenium are mostly bad. "This is a song [/SIZE]called[SIZE=-1] that's Bad"

I'm still looking forward to the tour (got Foxboro GA's through the u2.com membership presale), I can't wait to hear NLOTH live, I still love U2, and always will. But after three albums consistently on trend B, I'm now certain that they will never again have that "spark that set the flame."
[/SIZE]

 

[MMP]

Answering the thread title question: yes.

Asking you a question: Why the opinion of a fan, which like me, started to like them after 2000, is less valid than the one which started previously? If I understood it wrong, please correct me.

 

[edgeztv2]

P.S. There is, however, one thing that sets U2 apart from every other band in history that started to head south. No other band has ever gained so much recognition and success *after* starting to suck.

P.P.S. I use the term "suck" very loosely. To quote Trainspotting: "Yeah Lou Reed's solo stuff is not bad... but it's not great... So how do you know know it's not just shite?"

 

[edgeztv2]

Answering the thread title question: yes.

Which band?

Answering the thread title question: yes.
Asking you a question: Why the opinion of a fan, which like me, started to like them after 2000, is less valid than the one which started previously? If I understood it wrong, please correct me.

Your opinion is not any less valid in the global sense, but it's less pertinent to my question because you presumably became a U2 fan based on their post-2000 material, and therefore would obviously disagree with my thesis because you like the new stuff. So no need to express the opinion, because I already know what it is

 

[phillyfan26]

U2 started to suck with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, two pretty mediocre albums, and has recovered with NLOTH.

IMO. Sue me.

 

[edgeztv2]

U2 started to suck with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, two pretty mediocre albums, and has recovered with NLOTH.

Do you think that NLOTH on the whole is *every bit as good* as any album before ATYCLB? When I say *every bit* I really mean "every track".

Don't get me wrong - it's first two songs are amazing (but only because they evoke memories of Zoo Station and Ultraviolet). And Fez is amazing, but only because it sounds like Bad.

But here's the difference - on all pre-ATYCLB albums, I could listen to the whole album over and over and over again and all tracks were great. Now I can only listen to at most 3 song on each new album over and over again.

 

[MMP]

Which band?

Led Zeppelin released the boring and far from awesome Presence to come back with In Through the Out Door, their best album. Sadly, they broke up after, so I can't prove they would continue that trend.
Aerosmith... three weak albums, almost broke up, and came back with Permanent Vacation/Pump/Get a Grip.
Radiohead... after Amnesiac you might think they would go downhill. In Rainbows, their second best album, comes to prove that's not true.

Your opinion is not any less valid in the global sense, but it's less pertinent to my question because you presumably became a U2 fan based on their post-2000 material, and therefore would obviously disagree with my thesis because you like the new stuff. So no need to express the opinion, because I already know what it is

Actually I started to like U2 after watching Go Home, which had only a few songs from ATCYLB. Then, I listened to HTDAAB and Best Of 90-00, which made me become a fan. So, it wasn't just the 00's that made me become a fan. I just don't think that NLOTH is average/bad at all, and to me, it's their third best album.

 

[edgeztv2]

Led Zeppelin released the boring and far from awesome Presence to come back with In Through the Out Door, their best album. Sadly, they broke up after, so I can't prove they would continue that trend.
Aerosmith... three weak albums, almost broke up, and came back with Permanent Vacation/Pump/Get a Grip.
Radiohead... after Amnesiac you might think they would go downhill. In Rainbows, their second best album, comes to prove that's not true.

I'm not super familiar with LZ or Aerosmith albums (the only one I had was Get a Grip, which was pretty good).

Radiohead has been on a very different musical trajectory since Paranoid Android, so it's almost like 2 different bands. Many will disagree, but I personally don't see the same spark in anything they've released after PA (except a couple of good songs here and there).

 

[edgeztv2]

Also Radiohead never really started to "head south". They went more like east or west (or to outer space), on some orthogonal plane.

 

[U2girl]

NLOTH, after three mediocre albums in a row.

 

[LemonMelon]

Radiohead... after Amnesiac you might think they would go downhill. In Rainbows, their second best album, comes to prove that's not true.

Good example. After Kid A, Radiohead released a mess of an album with Amnesiac, and struggled through creative stagnancy with Hail To The Thief, which broke very little in the way of sonic ground. In Rainbows, however, sounds refreshing and vital, even if it, too, isn't anything new for the band.

I feel the same way about NLOTH. For all of its flaws, it does feel more impassioned and vital than anything the band has released since Achtung Baby. And, to that end, I think there is some hope that U2 could, somehow...someway...stop sucking.

 

[phillyfan26]

Do you think that NLOTH on the whole is *every bit as good* as any album before ATYCLB? When I say *every bit* I really mean "every track".

Don't get me wrong - it's first two songs are amazing (but only because they evoke memories of Zoo Station and Ultraviolet). And Fez is amazing, but only because it sounds like Bad.

But here's the difference - on all pre-ATYCLB albums, I could listen to the whole album over and over and over again and all tracks were great. Now I can only listen to at most 3 song on each new album over and over again.

I think it's the best album they've done since the Joshua Tree. I think every song aside from Stand Up Comedy is high quality, and even Stand Up Comedy is fun.

 

[doctorwho]

I can't think of any examples of major bands ever recovering after starting to head south. Here's a timeline most successful bands seem to follow:

1) a very good 1st album
2) a slightly weaker, but still good 2nd album
3) a few truly amazing albums
4) an album that's not outright terrible but still weaker than all preceding albums

A
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Now the controversial part - U2:

1) Boy
2) October
3) War ... Pop
4) ATYCLB
5) trending towards trajectory B - a string of mediocre albums ([/SIZE][SIZE=-1]HTDAAB, NLOTH)
[/SIZE]

Controversy is right.

I don't cosider ATYCLB nearly as good as HTDAAB or NLOTH. I enjoyed it at the time as I felt it was far better than "Pop" and arguably "Zooropa" (I love "Zooropa", but it has a few horribly weak songs on it).

Music is far too subjective to ever do what you describe. In your "War...Pop" category, there are those who might consider TUF, R&H, Zooropa, OS1 and Pop all "weak" releases. There were critics who did not like JT or AB. There are fans who don't like JT or AB.

I think a more realistic cycle is one where a band grows, peaks and slowly declines. How slow that decline is is based on the quality of music. Based on album sales only, for some, U2 declined with "Pop" but then rebounded strongly with ATYCLB. However, if you listen to people here, they seem to adore "Pop" and hate the output of this decade. Then you have those who despised ATYCLB and HTDAAB, but have fallen back in love with U2 due to NLOTH. Again, far too subjective. But this disagreement is part of the reason U2 is able to maintain their status as one of, if not the, world's biggest band. Every release will have haters, but every release brings in more fans or brings old fans back.

U2's longevity is because despite some clunker songs, they have never had a clunker album. Even some of my least favorite U2 albums are still amongst the best releases of any given year (and sometimes decade!).

So I don't think there is a decline. In fact, with NLOTH, I think U2 are back at #3 again - a peak.

 

[MMP]

I'm not super familiar with LZ or Aerosmith albums (the only one I had was Get a Grip, which was pretty good).

Radiohead has been on a very different musical trajectory since Paranoid Android, so it's almost like 2 different bands. Many will disagree, but I personally don't see the same spark in anything they've released after PA (except a couple of good songs here and there).

And there you go... you don't see the same spark... many will disagree. It's the same with NLOTH. There's no ultimate truth.

 

[edgeztv2]

I feel the same way about NLOTH. For all of its flaws, it does feel more impassioned and vital than anything the band has released since Achtung Baby. And, to that end, I think there is some hope that U2 could, somehow...someway...stop sucking.

That's actually a nice way of describing NLOTH - impassioned. I felt that too. Maybe also the most "vital" since AB....maybe...

But - and this is a huge one - the kind of lyrics that made me cringe on ATYCLB and HTDAAB - are still there on NLOTH:

Examples:
ATYCLB: "Sean and Julia, Gareth, Ann, and Reece"
HTDAAB: "Some things you shouldn’t get too good at. Like smiling, crying and celebrity"
NLOTH: "Coming from a long line of traveling salesmen I wouldn't listen to anyones cock-a-doo [whatever that word is]. Would you?"

The really annoying thing is that all of those songs also have some amazing moments. But I can't listen to them because of this drivel in the middle of the song.

Examples of the awesome parts of the aforementioned songs:

Peace on Earth:

"Jesus, do you have the time to throw the drowning man a line" - beautiful lyric.

Song would have been great without the "Sean and Julia, Gareth, Ann, and Reece"!!!

Original of the Species:

"And you feel like no one before
You steal right under my door
I kneel ‘cause I want you some more
I want the lot of what you got
And I want nothing that you’re not"

This part is pure magic, but the song really hurts because of the "Some things you shouldn’t get too good at" part.

Breathe:

"Walk out, into the sunburst street
Sing your heart out, sing my heart out
I’ve found grace inside a sound
I found grace, it’s all that I found"

Beautiful, heavenly, magical. Again, the song hurts to listen to because of the first half.

To use an analogy, listening to every album prior to Pop was like looking at a clear blue sky. Not a single patch of cloud. Now everything is partly cloudy. Patches of blue sky alternating with clouds.

(I removed Pop from the analogy because Staring at the Sun, despite it's title ;-) is also a great example of partly cloudy listening)

 

[Yahweh]

NLOTH is much better then ATYCLB or Bomb in my mind, and certainly better then Zooropa, R and H and anything before Joshua Tree as well. At bare minimum it is a top 5record and I would personally rate it top 3 album.

 

[JimmyChicken]

"Coming from a long line of traveling salesmen I wouldn't listen to anyones cock-a-doo [whatever that word is]. Would you?"

The word is "cockatoo" which is species of parrot capable of mimicking speech. So in other words they're liable to say anything...

 

[Galeongirl]

The word is "cockatoo" which is species of parrot capable of mimicking speech. So in other words they're liable to say anything...

It's actually "Wouldn't buy just anyone's cockatoo".

 

[edgeztv2]

I don't cosider ATYCLB nearly as good as HTDAAB or NLOTH.

Yes, it's #4 on my timeline because it's the "turning point" album.

Despite such support for NLOTH right now, I doubt it will stand up the test of time. I remember many of us (including myself) also thought that ATYCLB and HTDAAB were #3 albums in the first month or two after they came out. But they never lasted. We realized that we couldn't listen to them every day (or at all!) anymore, unlike the UF, JT, or AB. I listened to NLOTH every day for the first week. But I'm not sure if I want to hear it in it's entirety ever again. The same is also true for the prior 2 albums, but absolutely NOT true for Boy though Pop.

Everything that's new tends to seem better than it really is.

Two years ago, I had the chance to hang out with Joe O'Herlihy while he was doing the sound at a Dolores O'Riordan concert. I asked him what his fav. U2 album was. He said, undoubtedly it's HTDAAB, and then added "it's always the latest one for me". I'm sure many of us have similar feelings.

 

[edgeztv2]

The word is "cockatoo" which is species of parrot capable of mimicking speech. So in other words they're liable to say anything...

Thanks

Alas knowing the word doesn't change the meaning or the suckage of that part of the song.

Many songs like Breathe, on this album, could have been great if parts of their lyrics weren't so annoying.

The only song on NLOTH with no redeeming qualities at all is Boots. It's 100% a re-working of Elvis Costello's Pump it Up. Therefore it's 100% not better than the original. For the mathematically inclined, Boots is asymptotically bounded from above by Pump It Up. In other words, "Boots <= PumpItUp".

 

[Salome]

this thread started with suck and never recovered

 

[believer75]

These threads are usually started by people with EXTREMELY LOW post counts and recent sign-up dates....suspicious???

 

[Rob33]

Don't get me wrong - it's first two songs are amazing (but only because they evoke memories of Zoo Station and Ultraviolet). And Fez is amazing, but only because it sounds like Bad.

Are you dense?! Dude...you cannot be fucking serious....

 

[Catman]

Personally, I think the lyrics on NLOTH are the strongest they've been since the 90's period. Just because you found a couple of clunkers here and there does not mean the lyrics, on the whole, are complete suck.

For example, ACHTUNG BABY - I really, really hate the line "take the money, honey." Does that mean the rest of "Love is Blindness" is as trite as that lyric? Absolutely not. From "Ultra Violet" - "I want to get it wrong/ Can't always be strong/ And love it won't be long..." Just a very banal rhyming scheme... bleh. Of course none of what's on AB is nearly as bad as "Stand Up Comedy," but still. As a whole, NLOTH's lyrics are leagues ahead U2's previous records... IMO.

Okay, just felt like saying. Also I wouldn't include POP as part of their "peak" period - it probably ends with Zooropa (a fine, fine record indeed!). To be fair, I love POP, ATYCLB and NLOTH

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

NLOTH is mediocre?

 

[Galeongirl]

These threads are usually started by people with EXTREMELY LOW post counts and recent sign-up dates....suspicious???

Very suspicious. It makes you wonder if all new U2 fans are like this. It's okay if you've got criticism on the band guys, but at least let it be CONSTRUCTIVE. It's not cool to go bash them here, claiming they suck for no reason other than stupidity.

Opinion =/= fact.

 

[BVS]

Don't get me wrong - it's first two songs are amazing (but only because they evoke memories of Zoo Station and Ultraviolet). And Fez is amazing, but only because it sounds like Bad.

I think this pretty much invalidates everything else you say...

 

[sue4u2]

Someone else trying to tell fans how to feel about NLOTH. Just because the first two tracks remind one of ... how absurd and presumptuous.
It's not fact just because you wrote it down. How many people do I have to tell this too?

 

[pcfitz80]

U2 are very, very driven. Always have been. A friend of mind visited Fez not too long after they were there and even went to the place where they stayed and recorded. Apparently, the people there were just amazed at how hard they worked - like every day from 10 in the morning until 11 at night almost non stop. My point? They have been trying desperately hard to make the “perfect record” since POP. ATYCLB achieved success but in their quest to reclaim the thrown it was too “clean”, “safe”, “watered down” as has been discussed here at length. Make no mistake, they are very well aware of how well received their albums are and even though by most measures ATYCLB was an enormous success I think they tried to “rough up” the sound a bit on Bomb to correct for these things they knew part of their fan base didn’t like but otherwise made a very similar record. Following Bomb, the backlash from diehards like us increased even more. So they went to seek inspiration for a more experimental sound with more “soul” by going to a place like Fez to work on the album. From these sessions came “Unknown Caller”, “Magnificent” and Fez - Being Born. All great tracks that I really like and seem to be liked by most here. So really, what more can you ask? They are trying to please and be the very best they can be! Making great music and trying to stay at the top of your game for 30+ years is NOT easy! Lets face it, by rock star standards they are over the hill and I believe Bono has even said something to the affect that its harder and harder to really “rock out” at their age and that they are at a place where they want to make more mellow tunes which I suspect is what will get on “songs of Ascent”. Being a rock star and nearing 50 is like doing any other job at 65 or 70. Whatever it is you do in life just ask yourself, how easy do you think it will be to keep up the quality of your work at that age ( late 60s)? And further, would you even do it if you were as wealthy as U2 is? Most rock stars are has beens by their 40s. Even if U2 isn’t quite what they were 10-20 years ago, they are still amazing. And quite honestly, we’re a bit spoiled to have such an amazing band that continues to make music better than anything else out there after all these years be our favorites.

 

[digitize]

Your opinion is not any less valid in the global sense, but it's less pertinent to my question because you presumably became a U2 fan based on their post-2000 material, and therefore would obviously disagree with my thesis because you like the new stuff. So no need to express the opinion, because I already know what it is

I became a fan after 2000, initially based on 2000s material, but I became a true fan based on 80s and (especially) 90s material... in fact, I really never liked ATYCLB or HTDAAB as albums. I consider NLOTH to be one of the best albums... certainly in a thematic sense, only AB can beat it.