Anyone wish U2 never changed course after POP?

[Salome]

the album has some of the band's best lyrics
and I guess it has the most "in your face" production of any U2 album
that I still consider it my least favourite says a lot about how uninspired + incoherent I think it is musically
even though Adam kicks some arse

 

[corcovadosong]

i love pop, but i worry that pop was the last time the band was going to be able to be current and cutting edge with influences. It could tap into electronica because it developed somewhat concurrently with ZooTV and their own outgrowths. But every interview I've read with U2 lately, they're being apologists for The Killers, Kings of Leon, Snow Patrol, Black Eyed Peas (triple ugh) (because they're terrible, not because of the hip-hop influences... U2 used to have public enemy opening for them, now the Peas? gross.). They say it's about not "ghetto-izing" rock and roll, it's about the power of the single. But, sorry Killers fans, Killers singles are boring and samey. The absolute best thing to be said about them is that they can be catchy. There has to be more than that, because U2 is more than that. Achtung, Zooropa, Pop - hell, even war, TUF, JT - aren't just cookie cutter vertigo songs, not just all because of you.

If the most fascinating band U2 can think of to open for them on this massive stage is BEP, Snow Patrol, or Muse (man, I wish I could see Elbow open, because Elbow really fucking puts forth some effort, in addition to the big songs), then that says something about U2 as a band. The music industry has become even more divided in recent years between indie music and label music, and U2 continues to come down in support of the power structure, in support of big corporate music, in support of the single. That desperately concerns me. Because it makes me think that U2 is never going to be on the cutting edge ever again. We might be standing at the real dawn of Dad-Rock U2.

 

[BVS]

How ironic that you focus on opening acts in a PopMart thread, that tour had the worse opening acts of any tour.

With the exception of Rage; the US saw the likes of Smashmouth, Third Eye Blind, and Fun Lovin Criminals...

So you're gonna have to come up with a better argument.

 

[Salome]

i love pop, but i worry that pop was the last time the band was going to be able to be current and cutting edge with influences.

it has always interested me to find out what exactly was so cutting edge about it
usually this debate ends up:
1. comparing POP to the one hit wonders in the singles charts around the time while comparing U2s 00s output to Radiohead, Animal Collective and preferably something truly obscure
2. stating that even though others were already successful with this sort of music, U2 made it their own (an argument that apparently does stick for an album someone likes, but not for an album that same person doesn't like)

there's some absolute raw beauty in the album, but the reason it was comparatively speaking not the sort of success people expected of U2 was because it didn't materialize into a whole
parts of brilliance bunged together with rusty nails

 

[phommel]

u2 at its most insecure is the u2 i love the most.


pop is a dark mother of a record that saw them approaching music like they had never done before.
Lyricaly absolutely brilliant sometimes and a record that they should not be ashamed off but rather proud. Looking back, for me, after pop it all went downhill.

amen

 

[BVS]

It's cutting edge to jump on the newest bandwagon

 

[gunsnroses]

I wish the band would have went on the road and perfected the pop songs before releasing the album. The album was rushed due to the tour being booked.

 

[theu2fly]

Honestly if they hadn't reinvented themselves after POP, they would have disappeared off the planet. POP was considered a flop in the eyes of main stream music, but genius in the eyes of the true fans.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Any good artist always does something different from album to album. Would you expect anything differently from U2?

 

[FitzChivalry]

it has always interested me to find out what exactly was so cutting edge about it
usually this debate ends up:
1. comparing POP to the one hit wonders in the singles charts around the time while comparing U2s 00s output to Radiohead, Animal Collective and preferably something truly obscure
2. stating that even though others were already successful with this sort of music, U2 made it their own (an argument that apparently does stick for an album someone likes, but not for an album that same person doesn't like)

 

[Edge_Orchestra]

Maybe they'll finally drag out Playboy Mansion on the tour?!

Not such a favorite song, for me. I've not met many that are 'in love' with that song. The snippet at the end of Popmart era "Streets" was more than enough.

 

[Val]

I used to wish they stayed on that path, but I am now glad they didn't, because then we wouldn't have NLOTH.

Of course if they had, we would have most likely been given something else that is terrific, but we only know what we have, and I do love NLOTH.

 

[A stor]

Actually, there are songs on every U2 album that I like. Which, is why I purchased them in the first place. Pop is a great album and so are all of the others.

 

[The Sad Punk]

Honestly if they hadn't reinvented themselves after POP, they would have disappeared off the planet. POP was considered a flop in the eyes of main stream music, but genius in the eyes of the true fans.

What the hell is a true U2 fan? A true fan is one who loves the reinvention they made during the nineties, but dislikes their current trend. A true fan loves the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby, and has scattered opinions of the rest of their material. A true fan's all-time favourite album is Zooropa, and they don't care about the rest of the material. A true fan loves their '00s revival, yet doesn't significantly care about their earlier work. A true fan loves all of their material, yet does not consider U2 their favourite band. Any of those people can be "true fans". I don't know what a "true fan" is really meant to be. I, myself, don't really give a shit about Pop outside a few select songs. I don't know if I'm a true fan or not.

 

[65980]

Generally speaking, I think the "truer" the fan, the further the U2-members would run if forced to meet him (or her).

 

[bigjohn2441]

i'm the only true fan.


the fact that some people may think they are better fans than others due to taste is hilarious.

 

[drt4]

How ironic that you focus on opening acts in a PopMart thread, that tour had the worse opening acts of any tour.

With the exception of Rage; the US saw the likes of Smashmouth, Third Eye Blind, and Fun Lovin Criminals...

So you're gonna have to come up with a better argument.

I thought that the opening acts for Popmart signalled the beginning of their second-guessing themselves. Their first opener was Rage (a popular band, but not huge with a lot of U2 fans, and with lots of artistic credibility). Then the album and tour were struggling, and it seemed like they freaked out and decided that they needed some mainstream, middle of the road acts to attract fans to come to their shows, which is why they got Smashmouth and Third Eye Blind on the later legs of the tour.

 

[digitize]

I love Pop. It's my second or third favorite U2 album (after AB, probably tied with NLOTH). But I'm not sure U2 would have been around to give us NLOTH if they hadn't have made ATYCLB after Pop.

I think the right word for albums such as TUF, AB, Zooropa, Pop and NLOTH is "arty", not "experimental".

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

They should never have changed after Achtung Baby. Pop and ATYCLB were both like old guys trying too hard to fit in, Pop by saying look at how funky and weird we can be, ATYCLB by saying look how humble and settled we are after our career but both seemed to have a chip on their shoulder over getting old. Bomb was them trying to repeat ATYCLB and NLOTH was like them trying to be 'experimental' but neither worked. They should always just be themselves and stop trying to prove anything. Sorry but the truth is they are too old now to be shocking, relevant or innovative and they look silly trying too hard.

 

[bigjohn2441]

^ U2 is gay.

 

[BVS]

I thought that the opening acts for Popmart signalled the beginning of their second-guessing themselves. Their first opener was Rage (a popular band, but not huge with a lot of U2 fans, and with lots of artistic credibility). Then the album and tour were struggling, and it seemed like they freaked out and decided that they needed some mainstream, middle of the road acts to attract fans to come to their shows, which is why they got Smashmouth and Third Eye Blind on the later legs of the tour.

Usually opening bands are booked well ahead of time and I doubt U2 really thought they would bring more people in with these bands.

 

[MrPryck2U]

They should never have changed after Achtung Baby. Pop and ATYCLB were both like old guys trying too hard to fit in, Pop by saying look at how funky and weird we can be, ATYCLB by saying look how humble and settled we are after our career but both seemed to have a chip on their shoulder over getting old. Bomb was them trying to repeat ATYCLB and NLOTH was like them trying to be 'experimental' but neither worked. They should always just be themselves and stop trying to prove anything. Sorry but the truth is they are too old now to be shocking, relevant or innovative and they look silly trying too hard.

They should have never have changed? This coming from a person with anarchy in their name.

U2 don't need to prove anything. They've pretty much done it all.

 

[Diemen]

^ U2 is gay.

I think you know better than this, bigjohn.

 

[Harry Vest]

Man you are obsessed with Pop, aren't you?

I like Pop, but I honestly think it was U2 at it's height of uncertainty. It's a very non-cohesive album, similar to Bomb, and at a lesser extent NLOTH.

It starts out with this embrace of the electronica sound that was really growing at the time but died an early death. Then it had a few tunes that were closer to the AB sound, and then it finished with these very unpolished songs that sounded like updated older songs. I remember Billy Corgan interviewing U2 at the time and he said, "I'm amazed, you released a U2 greatest hits album but with all new songs." It was a compliment, but he was right, it was an album that was all over the place and trying to grab the past and future at the same time.

I still think it's a great album, just overrated by a few people like yourself...

I love DYFL it sucks they couldn't pull it off live. Same with Angels...

I love MOFO, Gone, Please...

Last Night and SATS could have really been something.

Miami just flat out sucked.

PM just eh...

WUDM the biggest disappointment of the album. Great concept, great lyric(and some of the worse), the previous versions were kick ass; and then we get this?!?!?!?! I still like it, but it's the biggest neutering job U2 has ever done.

Sorry, but anyone who says "Wake Up Dead Man" is the biggest "disappointment" of the album...well, I just can't take seriously...besides "Gone" it's one of the albums shining moments.

 

[HCL]

Things go the way they're supposed to.
If sometimes, these things go in ways we do not approve, either we deal with it or we...
bitch


Answering the question: No, I really like the way things went. My favorite song was released in this era and Go Home/Bomb are what got me into U2. Had they took another path, I might not be here right now enjoying so many great songs. Hell, they might not be here even.
I have no problem with ATCYLB, Bomb or NLOTH. They're all among my favorite albums.

 

[BVS]

Sorry, but anyone who says "Wake Up Dead Man" is the biggest "disappointment" of the album...well, I just can't take seriously...

Oh the irony.

Anyways if you read my post I say it's a disappointment compared to what it used to be, if the Salome tapes were never released there would be nothing to compare it to and it would be fine...

besides "Gone" it's one of the albums shining moments.

Ok, but what does this have to do with my post?

Why the "besides"?

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

They should have never have changed? This coming from a person with anarchy in their name.

I mean they never should have changed just for the sake of changing, just to say 'hey look at us ain't we weird what do you think of that' or 'look at us now how earnest we are again.' I want them to just do it, man, whatever moves you and don't over think it.

and I do love the Achtung era best, wouldn't mind if they just stayed that way.

U2 don't need to prove anything. They've pretty much done it all.

They've done more than enough. Still ever once in awhile I hear someone say 'all their songs sound alike' and I want to punch them!

 

[ozeeko]

Just want to say...that it doens't matter to me the musical direction they went with POP. I don't care about what bandwagon they were jumping on or whatever, following the electronica scene and trip hop scene and all that. While that does make the record interesting, it wouldn't be the same without amazing songs, and that's what made me love the record after being confused about it for the four years after it was released. Fuck the influences, the songs are stellar! That's what i was trying to say previously about the shift in U2's songwriting. At the time of POP, they were writing in a way that was much more subtle. That's why the record didn't hit me at the time. With AB, the songs were immediate but always remained great, didn't get old. With POP, the songs were far from immediate, didn't hit me til later. With their newer stuff, and with the exception of most of the songs off ATYCLB, the songs hit me immediately, and then they get OLD, and i quickly TIRE of them. I think U2 were always writing moody songs, ever since their career started. It wasn't just in the 90's. For God's sake, BOY is a dark record. OCTOBER is pretty bleak. WAR is dark. UF is trippy dark. JT is dark despite the anthemic sounds. So is R&H. AB, obviously. Zooropa, yes. And of course, POP, probably their darkest. I think they should've gone further down that path with POP. Of course, i do like ATYCLB, but not in the same way as every album b4. I feel the same way with NLOTH. Loved it when it was leaked, was claiming it as one of their best. But now...i'm just never in the mood to listen to it, and when i do....it's just ehhh okay. So forget about the musical direction they went with POP, i'm going with the songwriting direction. Forget the fact that a song features electronic drums and techno sounds, the song was just way more interesting than the type of song they write today. This is me speaking honestly about them, if you have a problem with it, just remember that IT IS MY OPINION!

 

[dan_smee]

If they kept going I don't think we'd ever see new U2 music again. We'd definately never have gotten this tour, or stage etc.

I think they needed ATYCLB and HTDAAB to afford them license to explore more, and the next 2 albums may be a progression in a new direction, similarly that AB afforded them Zooropa, and eventually Pop.

 

[U2girl]

No.