Had "All That You Can't..." not been well received, would the band have retired?

[theu2fly]

Had "All That You Can't..." not been well received, would the band have retired?

Naturally they have the funds to, but if "Beautiful Day" was not received well at all, and the album didn't sell like it did, would the band still be together to this day? They were coming off of a high/slump of Popmart, not being well received in America, in need of some kind of rebirth, had this not been their saving grace, would the band had merely faded away? (no pun)

 

[Zoo360]

No.

I think they probably would have gone back in the Acthung Baby direction.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

quite possible, but impossible to tell.

 

[ozeeko]

I think they would've had to reinvent themselves again. On the upside, BOMB might've never happened, and the whole 'U2's-music-as-spiritual-balm for the post-911 world' era might have not happened either. That would have been fan-effing-tastic, if you ask me.

 

[nirniva]

No.

I think they probably would have gone back in the Acthung Baby direction.

*creates time machine to go back in time and make ATYCLB a flop*

Spoiler

I actually quite like ATYCLB, but given the choice between the second half of the '00s and more delicious irony...

 

[Rachel D.]

I think they would have gone away for several years (5-7) and then come back with something totally different.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

yeah, i'm inclined to think they would've just reinvented themselves again. there's the oft-quoted "two crap albums and we're done" - granted atyclb would've been the second album commercially, but i honestly think they mean that as two albums they think suck.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I think it's possible, they were really rattled by pop's perceived failure, (though I think they are far too harsh on themselves) and for that to happen again with their next album, a return to a more familiar sound, may have left them thinking it was time to call it quits. but like Headache said, it's impossible to tell.

 

[Saracene]

I think the band would simply have tried another approach. But in terms of public reception, it would have been much much harder for U2 to get back to the top after two less-than-successful albums, rather than one.

 

[b_digg]

this is an interesting topic, I have often thought about the importance of this song (from a 'continued commercial success' point of view) as perhaps the most important song the band has written.

Im pretty sure the band also views the song in this light also.

There version of the Rolling Stones start me up; basically the two bands were in similar points in their careers; and both were comeback songs they needed.

Unlike the Stones though; i hope its not U2's swan song in terms of relevance.

 

[cobl04]

^ what song?


and no way in hell.

 

[KEVIN051269]

If ATYCLB had flopped we may have got some 'Pop' songs on this tour

 

[gherman]

I think thats a fair question and I don't think they would have retired. The U2 we know today would be vastly different today.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

if they didn't break up because of it then they'd probably have become R.E.M. and just finish up with the last U2120 degree tour show at the Jones Beach Amphitheater.

 

[zoopop]

In my opinion U2 would have become a much different band. As much "ATYLCB" bashing goes around here their was some magic in the air when the band released/promoted the album. The back to basics approach (promoting) was pretty refreshing for a band of U2's stature and the time period. Rock n Roll was pretty much dead.

And seeing U2 in arenas in 2001 was perfect for the time. I don't want to ATCLB saved U2's career but it changed it. And if it flopped I don't think U2 would toured as much this decade.

 

[mad1]

I dont think if ATYCLB failed they would have backtraced to heavy 90s time. nor 80s.

if anything, they would prob attempt another album after 5 years, with more knowledge on the sound they went wrong on, and try to fix it.

hard to know.

I mean, it could flop but still sell pretty well, which keeps U2 in shape and still goin, really.

 

[nielsgov]

I don't think they would've retired (we'll never know of course) but I do think they wouldn't have been able to become as big as they are again today. They probably wouldn't be doing stadium tours now.

 

[peter88823]

I wouldn't think they'd just retire because of bad reception. U2 could have just released albums and became less popular if this happened. But this didn't happen, and U2 are very popular !!

 

[U2girl]

No. I don't think U2 would retire after a weekly received album. They didn't after Rattle and Hum or after Pop. Instead, like those two times, they would reinvent themselves.

 

[peter88823]

I don't think a band can just retire because of negative reception. If ATYCLB had negative reception, U2 would continue making albums but they would be less popular than today.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

But it was well received.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

No. I don't think U2 would retire after a weekly received album. They didn't after Rattle and Hum or after Pop. Instead, like those two times, they would reinvent themselves.

yea... and it's fairly accepted that if the reinvention after rattle and hum, achtung baby, had failed, that the band may well have gone their separate ways.


aaand all that you can't leave behind was the "reinvention" after pop... sooooo 1+1=? it's not exactly a stretch to say it could have happened in some form... perhaps not permanently, but perhaps a solo bono album or a long break. alas, thankfully, we'll never know.

 

[65980]

Like most public people with ambition and large egos, U2 (okay maybe not Larry) like to mythologize themselves, to a certain extent. So, in mainstream interviews we get the old, exaggerated chestnuts about how the band almost broke up in 1990-91 until the magical moment that the chords of "One" arrived, and about how if they make "two crap albums" they're gonna have to quit, etc., etc.

I guess this is all more-or-less rubbish. They made a clear attempt to re-connect with a mainstream, mass audience in 2000 and succeeded, but had they failed I suspect not that much would have changed. Perhaps they would have started scaling down a bit more than they are now (well, how could they not?), but I don't think anything would be drastically different.

 

[Screwtape2]

It sounds weird to say but I think we still would have gotten Bomb or an album very similar. The band will say anything to justify their actions. To honest I do not think they truly believe half of it. Like 65980 said, they tend to mythologize themselves. So if taking on Britney Spears failed (remember that bizarre philosophy?) then I suspect the band would have gotten very pretentious and tried to start a new punk rock movement to combat pop music. Consider how much Bono goes on about punk rock. Would it surprise anyone if the band tried (and very likely utterly failed) to reproduce that time when their sales were dropping? The result would probably be an album full of Vertigo's, ABOY, LAPOE and so on.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Like most public people with ambition and large egos, U2 (okay maybe not Larry) like to mythologize themselves, to a certain extent. So, in mainstream interviews we get the old, exaggerated chestnuts about how the band almost broke up in 1990-91 until the magical moment that the chords of "One" arrived, and about how if they make "two crap albums" they're gonna have to quit, etc., etc.

I guess this is all more-or-less rubbish. They made a clear attempt to re-connect with a mainstream, mass audience in 2000 and succeeded, but had they failed I suspect not that much would have changed. Perhaps they would have started scaling down a bit more than they are now (well, how could they not?), but I don't think anything would be drastically different.

it's fairly well known that they were at the brink during the berlin sessions, from a variety of sources besides the band, including flannagan in his book.

they also almost broke up in the early 80's over jebus.

 

[b_digg]

^ what song?


and no way in hell.

Sorry i was referring to Beautiful Day

 

[65980]

it's fairly well known that...

Statements starting like this usually boil down to: 'I have no evidence.'

...they were at the brink during the berlin sessions, from a variety of sources besides the band, including flannagan in his book.

Are any of that "variety of sources" objective (i.e., non-band affiliated) eye-witnesses? I doubt it. My memory of Flanagan's excellent book is that he joined the band on the ZooTV tour, and that he was present for some of the recording of Zooropa, but that he was not present for any of the Achtung sessions. And most of what he writes about it is based on what the band members -- conscious that he was writing a book -- told him.

I'm not saying they didn't have their difficulties at that moment, but I think what happens with ultra-famous groups is that they tell the story one way and then feel duty-bound to repeat the same story year after year to lend it credence. Then, eventually, no one can remember what actually happened.

For further reference, see The Beatles' notoriously innaccurate memories of what (didn't) happen to them...

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

okay. the moon landing was shot in a studio, too. oh, and the mob killed JFK. twice.

 

[BVS]

What if Boy was called Girl?

What if Bono cut his hair in 1986?

What if Rattle and Hum was filmed in 3D?

What if Bono had long hair during Pop?

What if they had kept Dik Evans?

Time machine threads are fun...

 

[mad1]

Bono woulda looked AWESOME with long hair in PoP!