Salome
you are what you is
ATYCLB could have failed so majorly it would have killed the band
if it hadn't been for Beautiful Day it probably would have failed
if it hadn't been for Beautiful Day it probably would have failed
ATYCLB could have failed so majorly it would have killed the band
if it hadn't been for Beautiful Day it probably would have failed
Well, they did beat that Prodigy album by 4 months
and Chemical Brothers by 1 month
but those bands were continuing on their own sound
so to say U2 would be ahead of them of complete nonsense
it is ridiculous to deny U2 weren't trying to tap into what was happening musically back in the 90s
they just didn't look at what was most popular, they looked at what was most 'exciting' / 'cool' whatever
when that approach basically failed somewhat with POP they had to refocus again
since there was nothing else to tap into at the moment (unless they were going to make an album based on Outkast's Hey ya) they tapped into their own sound
good decision
Again, when you have that many catchy songs on the album (didn't the band describe it as an album full of singles?), your risk factor is a hell of a lot lower than when you have shit like Mofo, Miami, and Please to work with.
I could be wrong
but if my memory serves me right you're talking nonsense here
actually I looked it up
Chemical Brothers - Exit Planet Dust (June 1995)
Prodigy - Music for the jilted generation (April 1994)
Underworld - Born Slippy (1995)
"Exit Planet Dust" was a top ten album in the UK. #9 to be exact.
"Music for the Jilted Generation" was a #1 record in the UK.
"Firestarter" was a #1 UK single for 3 weeks in March, 1996.
"Underworld" had a #2 UK single in 1996 with "Born Slippy."
Throw in "Leftism" by Leftfield. #3 on UK album chart in 1995. Adam used to name drop that album alot.
Pretty darn "breakthrough."
Are you freaking kidding me? That would have caused a revolution! It wouldn't have just divided the fanbase, it would have nearly deleted it! How is that safe? "Safe" to me is playing tried and tested guitar riffs and songs of god and love etc. like on the Bomb.
Where do you come up with this stuff???
Why the hell are we talking about U2 in B&C? I came in here to make fun of Metallica.
I thought, album was released, there was talk that Noel Callagher even collaborated on the songSATS being a nod to Oasis?!
Did you not understand what I posted?
Unfortunately, Pop was being made way BEFORE those bands had their breakthrough albums.
well, I interpreted this as you saying that POP was made way before Fat of the Land and Dig yo own hole
perhaps 1 and 3 months is indeed WAY BEFORE in your book
otherwise you were talking shite
I don't think it's very relevant that the music they're tapping into wasn't that popular (yet) in the US at the time
last time I checked U2 was after all a European band
Exactly.
It aped a sound that was supposed to be "the next big thing" in the US.
The sonic dressing on Pop takes ALOT from that scene. They bet. They lost.
The songwriting on Pop is solid. All the crap they dropped on top of those songs is where things get very, very, trendy.
Go ahead, get the thread back on track.
Metallica IS back baby !
Gladly!
The last good Metallica album was Master of Puppets,
As for this idea in general.........
This is one of the biggest myths in the U2 fandom and honestly I could go on and on (once again) about why this is CLEARLY nothing but an absolute myth but what it really comes down to is this:
Nobody really made this charge until U2 made this charge.
If you know what that means, then you know why the myth lives.
It's not a myth.
It's how people felt about the album. In March. 1997. Hours after the album was released. "Trendy" and "forced" was the most common reaction from our entire group at the midnite sale.
AJFA was good, it just wasn't great. It did sure have some great songs on it, though. Blackened, The Frayed Ends of Sanity, Dyer's Eve...unfortunately the rest of the album wasn't up to that standard.
It's not a myth.
It's how people felt about the album. In March. 1997. Hours after the album was released. "Trendy" and "forced" was the most common reaction from our entire group at the midnite sale.
There are two separate arguments I'm trying to refute here. One is that U2's 90's albums weren't risky moves, even taken individually. The other is a subargument that they weren't risky because U2 was jumping on some kind of popular bandwagon or trend.
The points I was trying to make was that a trend that didn't currently exist in the U.S. wasn't likely to translate into huge sales. As the band got further and further into the electronic treatments, the opportunity for overseas success diminished. And while U2 is obviously a European band, they certainly have an eye on how things fare over here. And it's relevant when people like U2 Girl claim that Pop was some kind of obvious move, or an attempt to hitch their wagons to the next big thing.
And let's look at those dates again:
Dig Your Own Hole came out a month afrter POP. Fat of the Land came out four months after POP. But what I'm talking about is the RECORDING of the album. I was under the impression that even though the album came out supposely "unfinished" it was delayed quite a bit from its original completion goal date. Do you remember that Discotheque was leaked all the way back in October? So we're not talking about 1 or 3 months, more like 6. And that can be an eternity in the business when we're talking about what appears derivative, trendsetting, etc.
The band had been working on this stuff since the beginning of 1996 (and that's if you don't include material that may have begun during the Passengers sessions), and all I'm trying to say is that the "trend", wasn't nearly as big worldwide as it was when the album finally came out.