Niceman said:
I'll agree that, while the BOMB was an amazing collection of songs, it wasn't their best as far as "album continuity and direction as far an production and arrangement goes" BUT, I would say that ALL THAT was even worse........IMHO.
Yeah, they can do better. Even Bono admitted that the BOMB was NOT bigger than the sum of it's parts.
The trouble with this argument is that U2 are NOT a group that makes a cohesive or continuous album - at least not lately.
The early albums did have more cohesiveness, but that's because U2 was still defining their sound. The most "continuous" album is arguably JT. But JT is continuous because the songs tend to blend right into each other (barring a few token exceptions). And, IMO, that's probably the biggest weakness of JT. I'm not hearing enough diversity.
But with R&H, U2 are bouncing. Songs don't blend into each other on R&H and many different styles are explored. We have hard rock along with jazz and folk. U2 continue that trend from AB through today.
So it really depends on how you define "continuous". Do you mean cohesive? If so, U2 hasn't done this in ages. Do you mean quality of songs? That's far too subjective - what you may hate, others may adore. Production? IMO, most people don't notice it. I never do. Only those true techno/audio-philes who listen closely with headphones seem to pick up any production issues.
Hence, this topic is challenging and one of the reasons why I wrote my first post.
So how do I judge an album? There are several factors. One is by songs that forward or advance a sound and an artist. HTDAAB has that with "Fast Cars" and "Love & Peace" - sounds I haven't heard from U2 in the past. I also judge an album by songs I really enjoy and could listen to over and over - long after the album's release. "Bomb" is now just shy of 2 years old, long enough for me to say that I still love the same 6 of 11 songs and could listen to them over and over. And I judge an album by how many songs I really dislike. "Bomb" has a few, 2 that I don't care for - but I also have 2 on JT and 2 on AB.
In other words, I like HTDAAB quite a bit because it has all the elements I love in music. It shows more energy and creativity than ATYCLB. This isn't to say ATYCLB is bad. In fact, I think it was THE perfect album for U2 to release at that point in their careers. They had really gone out there in terms of exploration, especially with "Zooropa", OS1 and "Pop". It was time to re-explore U2 and U2's unique sound. Admittedly, "Bomb" keeps that theme going, but also expands upon it. Even "Vertigo" is unique (probably why it was such a big hit).
Now, if U2's next album is too similar to HTDAAB or regresses to ATYCLB, I may be disappointed. But I won't make that judgment until I hear the songs. There's nothing wrong with an artist sounding like him/her/themselves. But if the artist's new work sounds exactly like their old work (a problem INXS and Bon Jovi often face, IMO) then audiences get a bit bored. So U2 need to expand on those tidbits of "Bomb" that got me excited (e.g., "Fast Cars", "Vertigo", "Love & Peace"). I'm hoping Rubin picks up on those and keeps it going.