It's apparent to me that what people think of when they hear U2 is related to (and I'm gonna use HTDAAB as an example):
A.What they know of U2 as a band
B.How much of U2's music they've heard or are familiar with
C.What, if any, is their personal opinion of U2/Bono is.
I was talking to a friend who I gave HTDAAB for christmas to and she was telling me that she really liked the album and how different it was from previous U2 material! Yup, different! I imediately told her how this album has been criticized for exactly the opppsite reason and she couldn't believe it. To her, it was innovative and unique. She likes U2 and is a casual semi-fan, she owns ATYCLB and Achtung. She has no personal opinion of U2 other than they are a very famous rock band. She's not been hammered by negative comments about the bands musical shifts and Bono's socio-political incursions. And that's U2 relativity. Everytime U2 cames out with new material it is never judged on it's merits alone, it's judged on it's legacy, on how much someone may love or hate Bono-U2, etc...etc.
U2's music is a victim of the band's shear "Biggness" & popularity and will never be judged "objectively". That's U2 relativity.
Just imagine what if HTDAAB had been the follow up to Rattle & Hum in 1991. My guess is that it would have been huge! It would not have been out of place in that time but yet it would have been considered revolutionary. Then AB in 1994, Zooropa in 1996, PoP in 2000 and ATYCLB in 2004. How different would U2's present state and relevance be by simply switching the order of these albums. For sure HTDAAB would be cosidered their 2nd masterpiece, followed by their 3rd in Achtung Baby which would have been seen as a natural evolution from HTDAAB.
Or what if there had never been a U2 until now with HTDAAB. I bet you critics would have gone nuts over it calling it the best album if this century!
My point is that we never can judged U2's music on it's merit alone anymore becouse of all the bagadge that comes with being U2. Just look at this form!
Just a thought.....
Salim
A.What they know of U2 as a band
B.How much of U2's music they've heard or are familiar with
C.What, if any, is their personal opinion of U2/Bono is.
I was talking to a friend who I gave HTDAAB for christmas to and she was telling me that she really liked the album and how different it was from previous U2 material! Yup, different! I imediately told her how this album has been criticized for exactly the opppsite reason and she couldn't believe it. To her, it was innovative and unique. She likes U2 and is a casual semi-fan, she owns ATYCLB and Achtung. She has no personal opinion of U2 other than they are a very famous rock band. She's not been hammered by negative comments about the bands musical shifts and Bono's socio-political incursions. And that's U2 relativity. Everytime U2 cames out with new material it is never judged on it's merits alone, it's judged on it's legacy, on how much someone may love or hate Bono-U2, etc...etc.
U2's music is a victim of the band's shear "Biggness" & popularity and will never be judged "objectively". That's U2 relativity.
Just imagine what if HTDAAB had been the follow up to Rattle & Hum in 1991. My guess is that it would have been huge! It would not have been out of place in that time but yet it would have been considered revolutionary. Then AB in 1994, Zooropa in 1996, PoP in 2000 and ATYCLB in 2004. How different would U2's present state and relevance be by simply switching the order of these albums. For sure HTDAAB would be cosidered their 2nd masterpiece, followed by their 3rd in Achtung Baby which would have been seen as a natural evolution from HTDAAB.
Or what if there had never been a U2 until now with HTDAAB. I bet you critics would have gone nuts over it calling it the best album if this century!
My point is that we never can judged U2's music on it's merit alone anymore becouse of all the bagadge that comes with being U2. Just look at this form!
Just a thought.....
Salim
Last edited: