Does it annoy anyone else when people criticize every U2 album after JT as "not U2"?

[hatrickpatrick]

Does it annoy anyone else when people criticize every U2 album after JT as "not U2"?

JT = Joshua tree.

Seriously, it really irritates me. A lot of my friends say the new U2 stuff sucks because "it could have been written by any band", or that "C'mon, it doesn't have that classic 'U2 sound'" or some such garbage.

I mean the "U2 sound" they refer to is presumably the jangly delay of Streets, and I really think some people need to realize that this sound was the backbone of only one or possibly two albums - it was essentially a "Joshua Tree" sound. Do people really think any band could write 14 albums using that sound just because one album they made using it was their biggest hit? After 2 or 3, they'd run out of ideas and those exact same people would be moaning that "U2 are so repetitive, all their songs use the same old sound and they haven't experimented since the 80s"

*sigh*

 

[CTU2fan]

It bugs me, but not as much as when people criticize everything post-Pop as "not U2".

 

[indra]

U2 has always sounded like U2 to me. ...ok, sometimes I think they sound like a bad U2 cover band, but even then they at least sound as if they are trying to sound like U2.

I wouldn't be too bugged by your friends, not everyone hears the same things the same way.

 

[trevgreg]

My main gripe is some music fans who I talked to in the past saying that "everything they do sounds the same", even if they're complimentary towards the the band's songs overall. I think this usually goes for the their material post-Achtung Baby as well, for some odd reaso. With that in mind, I usually think to myself something like, "Okayyyyy... well let's hear you play, say, Mofo and Love and Peace or Else back to back and tell me if you feel the same way after that."

Same my ass.

 

[Montrose]

The Joshua Tree defined U2's sound for a heck of a lot of people out there. Not everyone adapted too well to the subsequent changes in their sound, or really recognized that U2 always sounded like U2 at the core of their songs.

What I find a little annoying is that U2 could have gone on pouring out JT-ish music for years, except for the backlash they began receiving after Rattle and Rum did just that - gave people more of the same, great music. That backlash fed into the Achtung Baby sound (and one of the greatest albums, ever), yet then the same crowd that a) loved JT then b) resented R&H U2 when they got too 'predictable', went onto c) complain that U2 didn't sound JT-ish enough from Achtung on!

Seriously, some of the Classic Rock crowd just want U2 to release new Wars and Joshua Trees every other year until they die.

I couldn't even be coherent writing the above, it annoys me so much.

 

[alanah]

These days nothing annoys me anymore...like Indra said, not everyone hears the same things the same way.

 

[indra]

My main gripe is some music fans who I talked to in the past saying that "everything they do sounds the same"

I heard this joke which I loved (even though I disagreed with it in regard to the band I heard it about) on this topic.

"They've only made one album -- 15 times!"

 

[trevgreg]

I heard this joke which I loved (even though I disagreed with it in regard to the band I heard it about) on this topic.

"They've only made one album -- 15 times!"

Hehe... something tells me people need to clean the wax out of their ears a bit more.

 

[digitize]

It mainly annoys me because I put TJT well into their lower tier of albums.

 

[salty72]

Doesn't bother me at all. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I enjoy what U2 have put out post JT and to me, that's all that matters.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

Good point about the classic rock crowd wants joshua trees and wars. no, in fact its not a good point. its a GREAT point. Its what keeps them out of upper echelon of classic rock artists in the us. Beatles,Springsteen,the who, elton john,billy joel, rolling stones, pink floyd,led zeppelin, etc. That crowd didn't get anything besides joshua tree. They didn't understand reinvention. They want their music thats derived from blues. And folk. U2 doesn't come from the blues. They liked how joshua tree sounded. But forget anything else. Thats why u2 is still a alternative rock group.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

personally, it doesn't bother me at all. there's plenty of bands out there i don't like and think all their songs sound the same.

 

[eviltwin]

Good point about the classic rock crowd wants joshua trees and wars. no, in fact its not a good point. its a GREAT point. Its what keeps them out of upper echelon of classic rock artists in the us. Beatles,Springsteen,the who, elton john,billy joel, rolling stones, pink floyd,led zeppelin, etc. That crowd didn't get anything besides joshua tree. They didn't understand reinvention. They want their music thats derived from blues. And folk. U2 doesn't come from the blues. They liked how joshua tree sounded. But forget anything else. Thats why u2 is still a alternative rock group.

The irony is that bands like the Stones (especially prior to 1968) mastered a huge variety of styles. The same could be said for the Who, Springsteen and Led Zep. It annoys me as much when it gets said about U2 as when people say this about Hendrix or the Stones. And I hate it when "true metal fans" slag off Metallica's Load/Reload (just because they don't understand and would've wanted them to make Ride the Lightning another ten times)

I guess the general audience is extemely myopic and only associates the Stones with blues-rock à la "Exile on Main Street", but you could argue that album was made after Brian Jones' death. Just offset their blues-rock albums like "Exile" (72), "Beggar's banquet" (68) and "Let it Bleed" (69) with earlier eclectic stuff like "Aftermath" (66) or "Between the buttons" and Satanic Request (67).

For example the first four songs on "Aftermath" (US version) are:
"Paint it Black" = an innovative mix of Middle eastern and classic rock before the latter actually existed
"Stupid Girl" = pure pop;
"Lady Jane" = medieval acoustic weirdness ballad;
"Under my Thumb" = Soul/R&B.
Then there's the piano boogie "Flight 505", "Think" (poppy soul) "High & Dry" (folky skiffle) "It's Not easy" (Chuck Berry Rock&Roll)
It ends with "Going Home" (ground breaking 11minutes of slow blues, but nothing like similar dreary stuff from the 70s)
A poppy song about suburban drug abuse was left off the US pressing, but opened the UK version: "Mother's Little Helper". You could say it took the Stones only three years to make their Zooropa, while it took U2 15years

YouTube - THE ROLLING STONES - "MOTHERS LITTLE HELPER"

"Between the Buttons" shows the exact same variety of styles. The instrumentation on those albums not only included guitars (electric and acoustic) but also sitars, duclimer, harpsichord (all played by Jones), flutes, horns, sax, organs (the 6th Stone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stewart_(musician)), etc. In the mean time they also made the psychedelic "Their Satanic Majesties Request" (1967)
YouTube - Rolling Stones - Their Satanic Majesties Request - 02 - Citadel

The Stones have in effect reinvented themselves in 65, 66, 67 (twice!) and 68. They would later make albums like Black and Blue (76) which included Jazz, Funk and Reggae. I wouldn't call it innovative, but it wasn't standard blues-rock, that's for sure.

I can easily make similar analyses for Led Zep, the Who or Springsteen. The bottom line is, I want my bands to innovate.

What good is it to make the same album over and over? The general public however appear to be much more conservative and simply want the same old same old. Critics are as much to blame, when they continu to praise albums like Exile over Aftermath or JT over Pop.

 

[Montrose]

Good point about the classic rock crowd wants joshua trees and wars. no, in fact its not a good point. its a GREAT point. Its what keeps them out of upper echelon of classic rock artists in the us. Beatles,Springsteen,the who, elton john,billy joel, rolling stones, pink floyd,led zeppelin, etc. That crowd didn't get anything besides joshua tree. They didn't understand reinvention. They want their music thats derived from blues. And folk. U2 doesn't come from the blues. They liked how joshua tree sounded. But forget anything else. Thats why u2 is still a alternative rock group.

To take a frustrated step further... U2's return to a 'classic' sound in the early 2000's was embraced by many fans, and it seemed that a lot of the people who were clamoring for 'old U2' suddenly came back on board. Not that the ATYCLB and BOMB records actually sounded anything like War or Joshua Tree, but hey.. they weren't disguising the Edge's chiming guitar anymore, so U2 was *back*!

And yet... now that NLOTH is out - which imho is a great marriage of experimental U2 and strong, traditional U2 - , the band is again getting slagged by some for either not being *experimental enough*, or for being too far out there, or for sounding *too much* like the same ol' group.

There's no winning.

I try to hear all of this as a sort of backhanded compliment to the group. Some of their sounds and eras touched some people so deeply that they simply can't let go. Or it's just a case of familiarity breeding contempt.

U2 are one of the few bands that are truly cross-genre. They have a little punk, a little new wave, a little alternative, a little rock, a little blues, a little country, some pop, a little emo, even, in their repertoire.

Trouble is, you get the rock crowd only wanting their rock from U2, the alternative crowd only wanting experimental stuff from U2, the pop crowd wanting poppy songs from U2 (just not POP songs, I guess), and so on and so forth.

That's why I like to think of U2 music as its own genre, and I just like it for what it is, as a fusion of many styles and eras. When you listen to the current generation of musicians like KoL, Coldplay, the Killers, et al, get tagged as 'the next U2', it's not because they are, or that they're trying to rip off the band (necessarily), but because they're actually trying to make U2-genre music. That's a big compliment.. that U2's style is verging on becoming a 'type' of music itself.... and I'm off on a tangent...

 

[allbecauseofu2]

the point about the stones and zeppelin reinventing themselves is true, but the classic rock crowd doesn't see it that way. It doesn't register that way. Their reinvention is just accepted without question. U2';s is seen as "weird". For led zeppelin, it was either a heavy rock/metal song or a folk unplugged song. Thats how the masses see it. They had a ton of other rock, and non rock influences. It wasn't that simple for them but their fanbase thought it was. But thats just whatever to them. U2 uses electronic beats, and forget it.

 

[Max_theHitman]

I tell my friends that it is called "EVOLUTION". Any band must evolve their sound and tecnique to take another step forward in life. If they don´t they will be up a Joshua-Tree like an old monkey. So Evolve in your sound and music
U2 has don epretty good so far.

 

[bigjohn2441]

no, even though JT is their best album by a mile.

 

[gvox]

If it's not U2, who is it?

 

[allbecauseofu2]

yea its some other band after JT. Its the u2 starship. lol. like the Jefferson airplane/starship.

 

[Laura M]

U2 has always sounded like U2 to me. ...ok, sometimes I think they sound like a bad U2 cover band, but even then they at least sound as if they are trying to sound like U2.

I wouldn't be too bugged by your friends, not everyone hears the same things the same way.

I don't know what my friends think about U2. I like them. That's all that matters.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

yea its some other band after JT. Its the u2 starship. lol. like the Jefferson airplane/starship.

vertigo's like their we built this city.

 

[last unicorn]

I don't know what my friends think about U2. I like them. That's all that matters.

Who? U2 or your friends?

 

[mikal]

i'm generally annoyed by about 95% of the posts here.

 

[djerdap]

i'm generally annoyed by about 95% of the posts here.

And yet you keep coming back for more...

 

[mikal]

it's my crack.

 

[cobl04]

i could not possibly give less of a fuck.

but you people who make these threads whenever someone says something bad in the media about u2, you provide me with entertainment, so, keep it up.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

if vertigo is we built this city, then whats u2;s sara or nothings gonna stop us now? lol. wasn't that starships other 80's hits?

 

[A stor]

Not really......I have my own musical taste and you have yours.

 

[Bono's shades]

To take a frustrated step further... U2's return to a 'classic' sound in the early 2000's was embraced by many fans, and it seemed that a lot of the people who were clamoring for 'old U2' suddenly came back on board. Not that the ATYCLB and BOMB records actually sounded anything like War or Joshua Tree, but hey.. they weren't disguising the Edge's chiming guitar anymore, so U2 was *back*!

And yet... now that NLOTH is out - which imho is a great marriage of experimental U2 and strong, traditional U2 - , the band is again getting slagged by some for either not being *experimental enough*, or for being too far out there, or for sounding *too much* like the same ol' group.

There's no winning.

I try to hear all of this as a sort of backhanded compliment to the group. Some of their sounds and eras touched some people so deeply that they simply can't let go. Or it's just a case of familiarity breeding contempt.

U2 are one of the few bands that are truly cross-genre. They have a little punk, a little new wave, a little alternative, a little rock, a little blues, a little country, some pop, a little emo, even, in their repertoire.

Trouble is, you get the rock crowd only wanting their rock from U2, the alternative crowd only wanting experimental stuff from U2, the pop crowd wanting poppy songs from U2 (just not POP songs, I guess), and so on and so forth.

That's why I like to think of U2 music as its own genre, and I just like it for what it is, as a fusion of many styles and eras. When you listen to the current generation of musicians like KoL, Coldplay, the Killers, et al, get tagged as 'the next U2', it's not because they are, or that they're trying to rip off the band (necessarily), but because they're actually trying to make U2-genre music. That's a big compliment.. that U2's style is verging on becoming a 'type' of music itself.... and I'm off on a tangent...

My only quibble with this is I'm not sure the modern bands that get compared to U2aren't trying to make "U2-genre" music, but just get labeled as the next U2 because of superficial resemblences such as a chimey guitar sound, and/or members of the band saying they admire U2 - neither of which are bad things in and of themselves, it just doesn't make them the next U2.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

it depends how how big this band got. this "next u2". if they get big enough, and enough time goes by, u2 becomes the "first whatever this band is called". Like i told someone the other day, who had never heard of the cure, i said they the "original emo". they were depressed before you born. lol.