U2's fork in the road and the path chosen.

[U2DMfan]

They ...

U2 has always received backlash, even on their two most popular albums/tours JT&AB, there was a fair amount of backlash from their own fans and critics. It's just the nature of the beast, I guess.

As far as 'complacency', I wouldn't say U2 are complacent, I would say they are more cautious, very much more cautious about the degree of difficulty they are putting in the songs.
One one hand, you can call this the new artistic direction of U2, on the other you can call this the "pulling in of the reigns" so they don't piss off the public. Semantics aside, U2 are going down the middle for one reason or another.

Pop appeal by itself doesn't bother me. Good music is good music. With or Without You is a pop love song dressed up probably as some modern rock ballad. I still love it no matter what you call it. Hell, Radiohead makes loads of pop music, toss in a synth or a weird hi-hat loop and all of a sudden it's "progressive". That to me, is image bullshit.

And the last thing, ATYCLB and HTDAAB are not a return to 80's form in my eyes, it's something pretty different. Well, besides the fact that it's the same 4 dudes making music together.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

It's the dumbing down.

 

[VertigoGal]

Pop appeal by itself doesn't bother me. Good music is good music. With or Without You is a pop love song dressed up probably as some modern rock ballad. I still love it no matter what you call it. Hell, Radiohead makes loads of pop music, toss in a synth or a weird hi-hat loop and all of a sudden it's "progressive". That to me, is image bullshit.

agreed

 

[U2DMfan]

It's the dumbing down.

Can't say I disagree with you.
It's the over-correction for POP.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Can't say I disagree with you.
It's the over-correction for POP.

Yeah, it is. In a huge way. Correction = fine, but they've sprinted off too far away in the opposite direction.

And it really annoys me that so many people still can't see the point and want to hammer on like the people who dislike U2 post 2000 only don't like it because it's not U2 circa 1991-1997 and that we miss looping buzzing sounds or something. Couldn't be further from the truth. When we talk about U2 employing Flood in 1991 for Achtung Baby and embracing those sounds coming out of Germany at the time, or U2 employing Howie B in 1997 and embracing those sounds coming out of the UK at the time, we are also talking about U2 employing Brian Eno in 1983 and lifting off into his synthesized atmosphere. There is no difference at it's core between U2 circa 1983 and U2 circa 1997. It's not the sound. I couldn't care less if U2 never used a piece of technology in their recording ever again and they actually do one day want to strip it back to being the sound of "4 guys in a room" (still waiting...). I couldn't care whether The Edge chooses to update an 'old' sound of his on a new song. I couldn't care whether Bono stops singing about complex emotions and relationships by using the analogies of the sun and the moon and wants to be more direct. I couldn't care if they want their production to sound slicker, more immediately accessible, so it sounds like a more attractive prospect for high rotation on a US radio stations very regimented playlist. None of these things bother me in the slightest.

If you still can't see what is missing in 'City Of Blinding Lights' but is present in bucketloads on 'The Unforgettable Fire', or honestly, truthfully believe that 'Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own' is even playing the same game as 'One', let alone a competitor, or that 'Vertigo' should even be invited to sit at the same rock table as 'Mofo' or 'The Fly' or 'Bullet The Blue Sky' or 'Out of Control' (and on and on and on), then.... I dunno.... I'm completely lost as to how that is possible. Enjoy swimming in the shallows, and enjoy watching U2 slide off into irrelevance.

 

[VertigoGal]

Well, I like a lot of songs off of HTDAAB, but I agree that they're missing something. It feels like they're trying too hard, but good creative songwriting is just eluding them. I don't think they've run out of ideas or lost their gift...the b-sides to the album that were leaked to me are a great example of some songs that do go for the more stripped down sound you mentioned, but don't lost their soul or magic. I feel like U2 could be writing some great songs here, but are taking these songs and either dumbing them down as has been said, or otherwise commercializing and overproducing them.

That being said, I think Walk On, Kite, and In a Little While are some of their best songs. I also like a lot of songs off the Bomb. I just can't love them like so many of their other songs.

I'm holding out hope though...based on some b-sides and some quote I thought I read from Adam about going in a new direction next album, I don't think it's time to write them off as completely irrelevant or whatever.

 

[Zoots]

Earnie Shavers, if you were a woman I'd marry you.

 

[Bono's shades]

I'm holding out hope though...based on some b-sides and some quote I thought I read from Adam about going in a new direction next album, I don't think it's time to write them off as completely irrelevant or whatever.

I would love to believe that U2 is going to go in a different direction on the next album, but we were led to believe the band was going in a different direction on HTDAAB and all we ended up getting a slightly more rocking version of ATYCLB. At this point I'm just trying not to get my hopes up too much because I made that mistake with HTDAAB and just got disappointed.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I think it's passion. Or at least redirected passion. I don't think U2 are any less passionate.

I think Pop shook them off the top of the mountain, at least mentally. I think the shift in passion then went from what the product was, to what the product does. They are damn passionate about staying on the top of that mountain. It's not about releasing something and hoping it reaches the goal, but starting at the goal and working backwards. That's where the passion is. The goal isn't soul anymore, no matter how much he tells you it is (and he never had the need to try and convince you of it before) the goal is the mountain top.

And you can hear it in the songs. The seriously restrained Edge as a start. Vertigo is a gimmick rock song done to a formula. It is exactly what has pretty much killed rock off, but that's another point for another thread. There is no passion in Edge's guitar, think of Bullet The Blue Sky. Think about the parts in songs where all the attention is on the Edge and Edge alone. The end of All Because Of You, or the end of Love & Peace. They don't launch and take off like he normally does, a solo that is a perfect continuation of the mood and lyric of the song, like it's the parts that Bono simply couldn't find the words for, so left it for Edge's guitar to describe. On this album they stay very restrained and have a feel of going through the motions. Is that a deliberate decision to reign Edge in, or is the passion not in the songs to begin with, leaving Edge nothing to naturally feed off and run with?

But particularly with Bono. The guy sounds like he's trying to write a passionate lyric deliberately, and he's not that great at it, which suggests to me that the emotion or feeling behind the songs isn't as real to him as in the past. He then sounds like he's trying to sing it to sound passionate, but that alone doesn't make it passionate. For example, there's a billion times more genuine passion in the quiet falsetto notes he holds in Running To Stand Still then there is when he yells "I've had enough of romantic love" in Miracle Drug. It's like he's thinking, "This must sound passionate" and the most obvious way for him to sound that way is to scream. If you're screaming, it must be something you are passionate about right? When it's not coming naturally, it doesn't work. You can see right through it, and Bono spends half the album screaming away at the top of his lungs. The brilliant way that One or Bad swirl around you and build naturally to a point that almost surprises you at the end is infinitely more believable then the forced building and rush to create an emotional moment that is evident in songs like Original of the Species and Miracle Drug. Both musically and vocally.

Meanwhile, get them in an interview and talking about the album and there's the real passion. It'll top the charts!!! It'll reclaim the radio for rock'n'roll!! We are the biggest band in the world!!! It's our best album!!! We don't want to leave this mountain top!!!! That's where the passion is, and that's where the fundamental change at the core of U2 has come from. That's what I'm talking about. The absolute need for chart success above all else has stripped away the very fundamentals that made U2 amazing in the first place. In the process of trying to stay at the top of the mountain, they are throwing away all the equipment they used to climb it with in the first place. The music is lightweight, shallow, forced, ie everything it used to be the exact opposite of.

 

[Sken]

I feel that U2 have lost their truthfulness in their song writing , a truthfulness they had in abundance during the pre-2000 period. I do still think their new songs are good.

In regards to Pop, brilliant, underated, one of their better albums.

Problem with Pop is image, they shouldnt have gone the gay village people look. It turned too many people away and didnt give the music a chance.


Sken

 

[ishkash]

I think U2 is doing is what they did in 90's. Getting away from the sound which made them famous, I am pretty sure that back in 90's Fatlady would have been considered a gimmick after the sincerity of Joshua Tree.

I am so glad U2 is moving on and not afraid to lose fans. If they feel topping the charts is the most important thing, so be it, the day I wont like anything I wont listen to it. Simple. Its not my headache to ensure "how" and "will" U2 retain its greatness. As for I see, the only way U2 has achieved some greatness is moving away from the formula which made them have it in the first place.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

As for I see, the only way U2 has achieved some greatness is moving away from the formula which made them have it in the first place.

By 'formula' you mean the sound and image, and yes, U2 have had several very successful, and necessary reincarnations of sound and image.

I think the point is that this one goes way, way beyond that.

 

[U2DMfan]

just some quotes for the perspective of time

Hot Press March '97

A good piece of work. It isn't all that counts, but it counts for a hell of a lot -- and the overwhelming critical consensus is that U2 have delivered that and more with Pop.

"I don't think we could face having made a crap record," Bono says. "I think it would destroy the group. I don't think we've made one yet but it gets harder and harder to better yourself. We can't stop -- so I guess there's gonna come a time when it starts going down the other side."

All the familiar intensity is there in his voice, the appetite for the fray that has characterised U2 from the beginning. He's ready for the shuffle, ready for the deal, ready to let go of the steering wheel -- he's ready, ready for what's next!

"That's the time to stop," he says passionately. "When it starts going down the other side. But that's not happening right now, that's for sure. We're getting the best reviews of our whole life, and from the most miserable of quarters. And generally, big groups just don't get those reviews because people don't want to give you the cream on the cake. They're wrong to think like that because they should forget about your stature and context and think about the quality of the work. But in this instance, I think we're coming out on top, because the reviews are unbelievable."

And the final nail-biting climax notwithstanding, it was achieved without the same internal conflicts and blowouts which had characterised the band's more intense albums in the past.

"It's been described as a man's record," Adam reflects, "and I think that's appropriate in that things are not quite as extreme as they were and you actually get to like a bit of moderation! It was a great record to work on. It was hard. It was very hard at times. But it's pretty good, having done this for 20 years with your three best friends and still to be able to come up with the goods."

You can tell that Adam has become stronger over the past two years, that he went to the edge and flirted with disaster in the past but that there's a new stability and confidence in his life -- and his work.

"I'm very proud of the record," he says. "I'm very proud of everyone's involvement and commitment. We may be at the top of the pyramid, but Flood, Howie, Steve Osborne, Spike, Rob, Nellie's contribution and the members of the crew and everyone involved in this are all important -- and I can look back over all that now and say 'Didn't we do well!'

 

[U2girl]

U2 don't have to prove anything anymore.

They're not young and hungry anymore. When you get to the top of the mountain you can do whatever you want. They're doing what they want.

Exactly.

 

[U2girl]

And it really annoys me that so many people still can't see the point and want to hammer on like the people who dislike U2 post 2000 only don't like it because it's not U2 circa 1991-1997 and that we miss looping buzzing sounds or something.

Yet it would appear that is exactly it. The real reason those people dislike U2 post 2000 is not the sales, not the popularity but simply the fact they're not looking for effect no. 123743747848 on Edge's guitar and being pretentious writers.

 

[bathiu]

Yet it would appear that is exactly it. The real reason those people dislike U2 post 2000 is not the sales, not the popularity but simply the fact they're not looking for effect no. 123743747848 on Edge's guitar and being pretentious writers.

I love the MDH songs (post 1997)... I hate ATYCLB and consider it the worst U2 album (mostly because of realy bad production I think)... I love HTDAAB and consider it better than most U2 albums
1. AB
2. Boy
3. HTDAAB
4. War
5. Pop

Could you please label me? You're so good at it.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Yet it would appear that is exactly it. The real reason those people dislike U2 post 2000 is not the sales, not the popularity but simply the fact they're not looking for effect no. 123743747848 on Edge's guitar and being pretentious writers.

If you are referring to me, it would be lovely if you could take the time to read exactly what I write. I don't really care what sound Edge's guitar is making, whether he is using effect no.123743747848 or he is using no special effect at all. And I'd love nothing more than to see a U2 album sell 15,000,000 and sit firmly in #1 on every chart in every country in the world. It would be awesome if a U2 song was the song everyone was singing in a particular summer. All these things are good things.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

I think it's passion. Or at least redirected passion. I don't think U2 are any less passionate.

I think Pop shook them off the top of the mountain, at least mentally. I think the shift in passion then went from what the product was, to what the product does. They are damn passionate about staying on the top of that mountain. It's not about releasing something and hoping it reaches the goal, but starting at the goal and working backwards. That's where the passion is. The goal isn't soul anymore, no matter how much he tells you it is (and he never had the need to try and convince you of it before) the goal is the mountain top.

And you can hear it in the songs. The seriously restrained Edge as a start. Vertigo is a gimmick rock song done to a formula. It is exactly what has pretty much killed rock off, but that's another point for another thread. There is no passion in Edge's guitar, think of Bullet The Blue Sky. Think about the parts in songs where all the attention is on the Edge and Edge alone. The end of All Because Of You, or the end of Love & Peace. They don't launch and take off like he normally does, a solo that is a perfect continuation of the mood and lyric of the song, like it's the parts that Bono simply couldn't find the words for, so left it for Edge's guitar to describe. On this album they stay very restrained and have a feel of going through the motions. Is that a deliberate decision to reign Edge in, or is the passion not in the songs to begin with, leaving Edge nothing to naturally feed off and run with?

But particularly with Bono. The guy sounds like he's trying to write a passionate lyric deliberately, and he's not that great at it, which suggests to me that the emotion or feeling behind the songs isn't as real to him as in the past. He then sounds like he's trying to sing it to sound passionate, but that alone doesn't make it passionate. For example, there's a billion times more genuine passion in the quiet falsetto notes he holds in Running To Stand Still then there is when he yells "I've had enough of romantic love" in Miracle Drug. It's like he's thinking, "This must sound passionate" and the most obvious way for him to sound that way is to scream. If you're screaming, it must be something you are passionate about right? When it's not coming naturally, it doesn't work. You can see right through it, and Bono spends half the album screaming away at the top of his lungs. The brilliant way that One or Bad swirl around you and build naturally to a point that almost surprises you at the end is infinitely more believable then the forced building and rush to create an emotional moment that is evident in songs like Original of the Species and Miracle Drug. Both musically and vocally.

Meanwhile, get them in an interview and talking about the album and there's the real passion. It'll top the charts!!! It'll reclaim the radio for rock'n'roll!! We are the biggest band in the world!!! It's our best album!!! We don't want to leave this mountain top!!!! That's where the passion is, and that's where the fundamental change at the core of U2 has come from. That's what I'm talking about. The absolute need for chart success above all else has stripped away the very fundamentals that made U2 amazing in the first place. In the process of trying to stay at the top of the mountain, they are throwing away all the equipment they used to climb it with in the first place. The music is lightweight, shallow, forced, ie everything it used to be the exact opposite of.

I think it's worth comparing their career projectory to a band like REM, who were for a time considered their equals in fame, in "bigness". Now REM are considered to have fallen off in terms of sales, big crowds and some say quality. I have seen members of REM in interviews say time and time again, they never wanted to be big and famous, they wanted to be good and great, yes. They would always refer to U2 as a band that desperately wanted to the biggest band in the world. Now REM are making records that don't sell as much and they're playing smaller venues. I don't think they're unhappy about that. I'm sure U2 don't think that way.

(BTW, I saw REM play this year, and they kicked ASS! )

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I think it's worth comparing their career projectory to a band like REM, who were for a time considered their equals in fame, in "bigness". Now REM are considered to have fallen off in terms of sales, big crowds and some say quality. I have seen members of REM in interviews say time and time again, they never wanted to be big and famous, they wanted to be good and great, yes. They would always refer to U2 as a band that desperately wanted to the biggest band in the world. Now REM are making records that don't sell as much and they're playing smaller venues. I don't think they're unhappy about that. I'm sure U2 don't think that way.

(BTW, I saw REM play this year, and they kicked ASS! )

Yeah, looking at REM is exactly like looking at what U2 would be if they never had that major evolution of their sound (and image). Both are equally commendable, but I wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a U2 fan if they were still, for example, releasing The Unforgettable Fire Part 12 (Despite The Unforgettable Fire being my 2nd favourite U2 album).

There's no doubt that being the biggest and best is U2's overall goal, and I think that's a great thing.

(and I also saw REM this year and thought they were fantastic)

 

[U2girl]

If you are referring to me, it would be lovely if you could take the time to read exactly what I write.

I wasn't.

But countless posts I've seen here about U2's latest two albums seem to point in that direction.

 

[VertigoGal]

Hmm...I dunno. It seems like eventually U2 will have to realize that the kids don't like thier music (well I'm 14 and I love it, but I'm pretty alone, and anyway I got into them thru the Best of the 90s not the Bomb). I still believe they've got some great music in them, even if they've possibly gone astray as far as staying true to their music. People can make mistakes. Anyway, if they spend the rest of their lives making good but (imo) mediocre albums, they've already given me enough great music that ya can't take away! For the record, I still think In a Little While is a kickass song. In fact I still like their last 2 albums. whatever..

 

[salim117]

Hmm...I dunno. It seems like eventually U2 will have to realize that the kids don't like thier music (well I'm 14 and I love it, but I'm pretty alone, and anyway I got into them thru the Best of the 90s not the Bomb). I still believe they've got some great music in them, even if they've possibly gone astray as far as staying true to their music. People can make mistakes. Anyway, if they spend the rest of their lives making good but (imo) mediocre albums, they've already given me enough great music that ya can't take away! For the record, I still think In a Little While is a kickass song. In fact I still like their last 2 albums. whatever..

 

[salim117]

It's the over-correction for POP.

Couldn't have said it any better.

 

[salim117]

They don't want to make an art album because it's the cliche of the 45 year old band/musician. You are no longer old enough to be "cool", so you try to be "hip" to fill the niche. I see U2 as trying to defy the whole idea of how a band is looked at when it's in it's 25th year of existence. So, yeah, they are still out to prove a lot, I think.

An art album by U2?
If only.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I wasn't.

But countless posts I've seen here about U2's latest two albums seem to point in that direction.

Ok that's cool, sorry for snapping back at you. There are also countless posts that would seem to suggest that there are people who simply don't like the 90's and particularly Pop because of those effects, and no other reason.

There are also some of us who see no difference in 'innovation' or 'experimentation' or whatever between U2 bringing in Howie B for the buzzes and whirs on Pop in 1997 and U2 bringing in Brian Eno for the synthesizers and effects on The Unforgettable Fire in 1983. No difference at all. Zero. None. One is to take the music out into the wide open spaces and let it soar, the other is to bring the music back into the dirty city and get it stuck in a traffic jam. That's all there is to it.

 

[corianderstem]

I have nothing constructive to add to this thread, and have agreed and disagreed with points throughout.

Just wanted to poke my head in to say it's an interesting, intelligent thread on a divisive topic.

HUZZAH!

Carry on.

 

[thrillme]

ATYCLB isn't like their previous albums though, it is different.

Is it a copy of Boy? not even.

October, nope, far too subtle with the Christian themes.

War, not as, brash, bombastic? for lack of better terms.

Unforgettable Fire, eh, can still hear Eno's influence to some of ATYCLB but it's not exactly like it.

Joshua Tree, had more country/western influence, ATYCLB doesn't have that.

Rattle and Hum, no.

Achtung Baby, no way, not close at all.

Zooropa, ditto.

Pop, well ATYCLB did use some drum loops, but it's not like Pop.

ATYCLB isn't a copy of any of their previous albums, or maybe I'm not as musically inclined to hear it. That's the, "not playing safe" aspect of ATYCLB.

I'm one of the younger generation of U2 fans, I do like ATYCLB, but not as much as I like War or their older albums.

I got U2's albums in a very unsequential order, but I had "ATYCLB" before I had "Pop." I took to "Pop" faster than I took to "ATYCLB".

"How to", isn't like "ATYCLB", otherwise I wouldn't have played for weeks like I did.

"How to", it's really about the bass for me, I don't know if Adam's any better, I'm not a bassist, maybe Lillywhite is able to make the bass stand out more on U2, but that's where "HOW TO", moves beyond ATYCLB for me. On ATYCLB, bass isn't nearly as prominent as "How to."

I'm afraid drumming is the hardest for me to gague. Anyone who is a drummer, has the hand-eye coordination to be a drummer, gets kudos from me.

Pop and ATYCLB had more drum loops, or drum machine parts than How to, which as far as I know, is all Larry.

New York, doesn't start till Larry comes in for me.

"How to", Bono's much more personal.

"A Man & a Woman", he says it's about him and Ali.

In that respect, "How to" is closest to "Boy," but the boy/s have grown up, and know a lot more about the world, been through a lot, and know a lot more about their instruments.

 

[Chizip]

ATYCLB doesn't sound like other U2 albums, but it sounded more like mainstream music for its time much more than the other U2 albums did at their time. Thats why it was considered "playing it safe."

 

[thrillme]

ATYCLB doesn't sound like other U2 albums, but it sounded more like mainstream music for its time much more than the other U2 albums did at their time. Thats why it was considered "playing it safe."

But ATYCLB is nothing like what was in the mainstream at the time of it's release, it debuted at No. 3, behind 2 rap albums.

2000 was all about rap, hip hop, and teen pop. Though teen pop started to wane at the end of the year.

If U2 released a hiphop influenced album, which would a very ballsy thing to do, talk about losing your core audience, ATYCLB would've debuted at, hmm, would it have even charted?

I lived through teen pop, it was the rage of my high school years, ATYCLB is nothing like teen pop, especially lyrically.

Also popular angst rock, like Limp Bizkit, and whatever Korn falls into.

I lived through the mess, some of you only heard some of it.

 

[U2girl]

Ok that's cool, sorry for snapping back at you. There are also countless posts that would seem to suggest that there are people who simply don't like the 90's and particularly Pop because of those effects, and no other reason.

There are also some of us who see no difference in 'innovation' or 'experimentation' or whatever between U2 bringing in Howie B for the buzzes and whirs on Pop in 1997 and U2 bringing in Brian Eno for the synthesizers and effects on The Unforgettable Fire in 1983. No difference at all. Zero. None. One is to take the music out into the wide open spaces and let it soar, the other is to bring the music back into the dirty city and get it stuck in a traffic jam. That's all there is to it.

Definitely, and that is their opinion, which they're entitled too. I can remember reading posts about long time fans walking out on the band during Popmart.

As for Brian Eno vs Howie B - I think that the former's keyboards helped to expand U2's sound, and he is the "fifth" member of U2. (I think Daniel Lanois is underrated though)
I'm not sure Howie B managed to do the same with his time with the band.
But yes, both was/is experimentation.

edit: I wonder how much of the "U2 sound" in the last two albums has to do with who produced them? Maybe a different producer would be helpful next time...