Has any band ever recovered after starting to suck?

[edgeztv2]

I knew this would turn out to be a sensitive topic, but never-the-less an important one.

So far most replies to my question have been of the "how dare you criticize U2?" nature. Well I do dare. I dare because I care

Suppose you don't think U2's albums have started to slip. That's fine. But every band either breaks up or starts to suck at some point. I want some examples of bands that have *recovered* after a string of mediocre albums, if such bands do exist.

With the exception of Aerosmith, there haven't been any good examples brought up so far. Anyone else?

---------

Now, I'll try to address the personal criticism all at once:

These threads are usually started by people with EXTREMELY LOW post counts and recent sign-up dates....suspicious???

Understandable criticism. However, as I stated in my original post, I used to frequent this board in the 2000-2003 timeframe under alias "EdgeZTV". I can no longer log into that account (the hotmail account I used to sign up is no loger valid, so I can't reset the password). Hence I'm starting over.

Why did I stop using this forum? I guess my enthusiasm for U2 waned down to the level of only checking u2log.com and u2.com once in a blue moon after the Elevation tour. To me, U2 started release mediocre studio material, and I have every right to express that opinion.

Why am I posting again? For the same reason. Because NLOTH is the first album I actually kind of like since Pop, and I'm excited about the tour.

Someone else trying to tell fans how to feel about NLOTH. Just because the first two tracks remind one of ... how absurd and presumptuous.
It's not fact just because you wrote it down. How many people do I have to tell this too?

Have you ever learned to write an essay? You don't insert "I think" before an opinion. Anything written by anybody is that person't opinion. That goes without saying.

I think this pretty much invalidates everything else you say...

Dude...you cannot be fucking serious....

If you two can't see how NLOTH resembles Zoo Station, Magnificent resembles Ultraviolet, and Fez resembles Bad, you must be tone deaf. You probably also can't make the connection between Sexy Boots and Pump it Up by Elvis Costello. Am I right?

 

[Axver]

Take Pink Floyd, for example:

1) Piper at the Gates
2) Relics
3) Animals, Wish, Darkside, The Wall
4) The Final Cut
5) A - Pink Floyd, the band, breaks up
B - Roger Waters continues releasing mediocre albums

Given that I'd rank The Division Bell as one of Pink Floyd's top five albums, I would say they in fact demonstrate a band recovering after starting to suck.

 

[edgeztv2]

Given that I'd rank The Division Bell as one of Pink Floyd's top five albums, I would say they in fact demonstrate a band recovering after starting to suck.

I like the Division Bell a lot, but most die-hard Floyd fans would argue that the reunited Floyd without Roger Waters is a different band. RW even sued them to change the band name.

 

[BVS]

I knew this would turn out to be a sensitive topic, but never-the-less an important one.

I think it's your arrogance, opinion = fact that ruined this thread, not that it was an "important" sensitive topic.

If you two can't see how NLOTH resembles Zoo Station, Magnificent resembles Ultraviolet, and Fez resembles Bad, you must be tone deaf.

This is just laughable.

How does NLOTH resemble Zoo Station? Completely different rhythm, one is actually sung, the other isn't, it can't be lyrical content... Seriously what are your arrogant ears hearing?

Magnificent and Ultraviolet, same thing...

But the Fez and Bad comparison has to be the funniest...

One is a two song meld with several changes, and the other is a two chord song... the only resemblence these two may have is that neither has a real chorus, but if that's all you have then you don't have shit...

I'm really anxious to see your answer.

 

[Axver]

I like the Division Bell a lot, but most die-hard Floyd fans would argue that the reunited Floyd without Roger Waters is a different band. RW even sued them to change the band name.

Who cares?

I think they recovered after starting to suck. Should I change my views just because some other fans disagree? Don't tell me what taste to have.

 

[financeguy]

These threads are usually started by people with EXTREMELY LOW post counts and recent sign-up dates....suspicious???

Ok, is this post a pisstake?

 

[BVS]

If you two can't see how NLOTH resembles Zoo Station, Magnificent resembles Ultraviolet, and Fez resembles Bad, you must be tone deaf.

Let's take a poll.

Are there any non tone deaf people out there that see these resemblences?

And if so could you show me how... I don't think the OP is going to...

Will someone educate me please?!

 

[financeguy]

Let's take a poll.

Are there any non tone deaf people out there that see these resemblences?

And if so could you show me how... I don't think the OP is going to...

Will someone educate me please?!

Usual wankology from you.

Focus in on a few sidepoints the poster made that were largely irrelevant to the main thrust of his argument and attack the post and poster based on that (complete with a few borderline personal insults, also typical of your style), but ignore dealing with the central argument.

And that's because you can't, basically. The premise of the OP is true, and deep down, you know it.

 

[BVS]

Usual wankology from you.

Focus in on a few sidepoints the poster made that were largely irrelevant to the main thrust of his argument and attack the post and poster based on that (complete with a few personal insults, also typical of your style), but ignore dealing with the central argument.

And that's because you can't, basically. The premise of the OP is true, and deep down, you know it.

I can't take the original argument seriously if someone makes such absurd comparisons, uses such arrogance, and signed on for the sole purpose of making this thread.

These weren't "sidepoints", he basically is saying the only reason anyone would like this album is because it reminds them of the past.

But thanks for singling me out, I can always count on you.

But I do like the word "wankology"... I might have to use that someday.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Cosmo needs to weigh in here on a couple of things:

1-NLOTH does NOT sound like Zoo Station. It DOES resemble Ultraviolet (synth) and the fly (guitar) but not enough to make you think that they are the same. I definitely hear the Ultraviolet synth but thats the only part of Ultraviolet I hear.

2-Magnificent does NOT sound like anything off of Achtung! I kind of hear Pride (in the name of love) a bit. Im not saying it sounds like Pride but I can hear it in the guitar a little.

3-Fez=Bad is not even close. I do not see any relation here at all

4-Back to topic- Im going to piss some people off with this but its my opinion, so, U2's "mediocre" albums were Zooropa and Pop. Then ATYCLB brought them back. HTDAAB was also a good album (I like a lot of the songs and I wasn’t the only one...it won album of the year). NLOTH is better than Bomb and on par with ATYCLB.

War- Good
UF-Rising to the top(very good)
JT-Great
RH-Good
AB-Great
Zoo-Avg
PoP-Avg
AYCLB-Their back (very good)
Bomb-Still back(good)
NLOTH-Yep, still here (good/very good…time will tell)

 

[paultjr]

Not to be the typical "U2 can do no wrong" type of fan, but I don't think there's ever been a period of U2 that I would say "sucked." Obviously some albums are greater than others, but if you asked me what U2's worst album is, I can't answer. Least favorite sure, but all their albums are quite good either in their own context or for the time it was recorded/released.

 

[Chief43]

No Line On The Horizon has a totally different progression musically compared to Zoo Station and the vocals are both rythmically contrasting while Zoo Station also has flange attached to the vocals. Very different timbral qualities.

And in terms of Bad and Being Born again different progressions, the vocals are almost chromatic in Being Born while Bad is pre dominantly minor. The guitar effect is the only similarity I can make but that is still a different tone. Moment Of Surrender is nearest to Bad but only in the thematics and the continuity of the structure of the song - but even I'm stretching that.

That is all for now.

 

[believer75]

i knew this would turn out to be a sensitive topic, but never-the-less an important one.

So far most replies to my question have been of the "how dare you criticize u2?" nature. Well i do dare. I dare because i care

Suppose you don't think u2's albums have started to slip. That's fine. But every band either breaks up or starts to suck at some point. I want some examples of bands that have *recovered* after a string of mediocre albums, if such bands do exist.

With the exception of aerosmith, there haven't been any good examples brought up so far. Anyone else?

Your argument is invalid because your opinion, with all due respect, is in the minority. U2 has not had to "recover" as you say it. Their last 3 albums have been very well-received. Just because you believe they have slipped does not make your opinion a fact. There are a few others here who might agree with you, but their success and well-received albums this decade alone invalidates your entire argument. If the albums were bad, no one would buy them, and no one would go to the concert. And they would break up, like just about every other band. But, no they have been around 30 years, and they have not had to "recover." That's what makes them different. Everyone keeps waiting for that "recovery" period. And, it still hasn't happened. You want your money back because they are alive at 33....no wait, alive at 48 or 49??? Wait, that's not rock and roll!!

 

[Chief43]

Your argument is invalid because your opinion, with all due respect, is in the minority. U2 has not had to "recover" as you say it. Their last 3 albums have been very well-received. Just because you believe they have slipped does not make your opinion a fact. There are a few others here who might agree with you, but their success and well-received albums this decade alone invalidates your entire argument. If the albums were bad, no one would buy them, and no one would go to the concert. And they would break up, like just about every other band. But, no they have been around 30 years, and they have not had to "recover." That's what makes them different. Everyone keeps waiting for that "recovery" period. And, it still hasn't happened. You want your money back because they are alive at 33....no wait, alive at 48 or 49??? Wait, that's not rock and roll!!

. There are definitely a group of people that would agree with the OP in the sense that U2 are over the hill but it is a clear minority. There is too much bashing which is dismissive and expressed as an undeniable fact.

 

[edgeztv2]

Who cares? I think they recovered after starting to suck. Should I change my views just because some other fans disagree?

I'd completely agree with you if it actually was the same band.

My point is that the Division Bell was recorded by a different band from the original Pink Floyd. If Edge, Larry, and Adam, plus Edge's wife Morleigh, and a bunch of outside musicians put out an album without Bono, could you call that U2?

This is exactly what the 90's Pink Floyd was: David Gilmour and his wife Polly Samson, Nick Mason, Rick Wright, and a whole bunch of outside musicians. Pink Floyd without Roger Waters (the majority singer and songwriter) is really like U2 without Bono. In other words, not the same band.

Don't get me wrong - I *really* liked the new Floyd's music. But it's "Floyd" in name only.

Just compare the writing credits for any original Floyd album to any post-RW album:

The Dark Side of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

versus

The Division Bell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Momentary Lapse of Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't tell me what taste to have.

You probably didn't see the part where I said, "I like the division bell a lot".

 

[edgeztv2]

Focus in on a few sidepoints the poster made that were largely irrelevant to the main thrust of his argument and attack the post and poster based on that (complete with a few borderline personal insults, also typical of your style), but ignore dealing with the central argument. And that's because you can't, basically. The premise of the OP is true, and deep down, you know it.

Thanks for backing me up. Yep, that's so typical.

 

[believer75]

Thanks for backing me up. Yep, that's so typical.

I have to say, that cartoon is funny!

 

[sue4u2]

If you two can't see how NLOTH resembles Zoo Station, Magnificent resembles Ultraviolet, and Fez resembles Bad, you must be tone deaf. You probably also can't make the connection between Sexy Boots and Pump it Up by Elvis Costello. Am I right?

There you go again with that opinion thing, that I haven't written any essays about.

Not to be the typical "U2 can do no wrong" type of fan, but I don't think there's ever been a period of U2 that I would say "sucked." Obviously some albums are greater than others, but if you asked me what U2's worst album is, I can't answer. Least favorite sure, but all their albums are quite good either in their own context or for the time it was recorded/released.

 

[Axver]

I'd completely agree with you if it actually was the same band.

Most bands go through line-up changes. Woop-dee-doo.

 

[Yahweh]

If you havent liked the last 3 albums move on youve already wasted 10 years of your life listening to them.

Your opinion is not fact it is opinion. If people like this album that does not mean they are tone deaf, they just like different music then you do. Get over it.

I hope you dont buy any tickets to the new tour either because hopefully somebody that enjoys the current music more will get to see it rather then somebody that doesnt.

Kiss the future fuck the past.

 

[edgeztv2]

Closing arguments

signed on for the sole purpose of making this thread

Funny you should keep saying that, yet I joined this forum in 2000, had a few hundred posts under my old account, and lost interest in it, all before you even got here!

Yes, I returned to this forum after a 7 year hiatus for the sole purpose of making this thread. Why? Because I've waited 7 years to get this off my chest.

----------

Now, let this post be my closing argument before I leave it up to the reader to make up their own mind.

----------

I personally knew it to be true in 2002 but now there's no denying it. U2 will never again make a perfect album.

I thought ATYCLB was pretty good, thought HTDAAB was okay, and even now think NLOTH is pretty damn good. But they all have their flaws. They're imperfect.

The Unforgettabe Fire was perfect, so was JT, so was AB, so was War, and Boy. So were even Zooropa, Pop and RH, with the exception of one or two songs each. So were Sgt. Pepper's and Darkside of the Moon. So was Radiohead's The Bends and Pearl Jam's Ten.

Every U2 album after Pop, however, while still good, successful, and most of all, still very much appreciated, is not ground breaking and doesn't come close to perfection. Everyone seems to like NLOTH here. I do too. But will it ever be a defining album for U2 when people look back on it 20 or 30 years later? Of course not.

------------

Thanks for reading. I'll leave you with that scene from Trainspotting.

------------

SICK BOY

It's certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life.​

RENTON

What do you mean?​

SICK BOY

Well, at one time, you've got it, and then you lose it, and it's gone for ever. All walks of life: George Best, for example, had it and lost it, or David Bowie, or Lou Reed -​

RENTON

Some of his solo stuff's not bad.​

SICK BOY

No, it's not bad, but it's not great either, is it? And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it's actually just shite.​

RENTON

So who else?​

SICK BOY

Charlie Nicholas, David Niven, Malcolm McLaren, Elvis Presley. -​

RENTON

OK, OK, so what's the point you're trying to make?​

Sick Boy rests the gun down.

SICK BOY

All I'm trying to do is help you understand that The Name of the Rose is merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory.​

RENTON

What about The Untouchables?​

SICK BOY

I don't rate that at all.​

RENTON

Despite the Academy award?​

SICK BOY

That means fuck all. The sympathy vote.​

RENTON Right. So we all get old and then we can't hack it any more. Is that it? SICK BOY

Yeah.​

RENTON

That's your theory?​

SICK BOY

Yeah, Beautifully fucking illustrated.​

RENTON

Give me the gun.​

 

[Scorpionac]

It's like a suicide note...

If you havent liked the last 3 albums move on youve already wasted 10 years of your life listening to them.

Wow. I hope no one's so obsessed they've spent that long with those albums!

 

[Hemlock]

And Fez is amazing, but only because it sounds like Bad.

Fez sounds like Bad? Are we listening to the same songs?

 

[edgeztv2]

Most bands go through line-up changes. Woop-dee-doo.

Dude, while you clearly just don't get it, I realized your post signature is rather hilarious!

I love Echo & the Bunnymen, so I Googled that quote from Ian M., and discovered an absolute gem on Google books! This is the funniest thing I've seen in a while:

Turquoise Days: The Weird World of ... - Google Book Search

 

[BVS]

Funny you should keep saying that, yet I joined this forum in 2000, had a few hundred posts under my old account, and lost interest in it, all before you even got here!

Yes, I returned to this forum after a 7 year hiatus for the sole purpose of making this thread. Why? Because I've waited 7 years to get this off my chest.

I only said it once...

Yet you still haven't backed up what you said. 7 years and still not able to back up what you say, that's just sad...

 

[edgeztv2]

Fez sounds like Bad? Are we listening to the same songs?

Yes, the the same songs with the same (delay pedal) guitar effect.

Sure, it takes some imagination for these comparisons. But surely you (and the crazy number of people fixated on this) can muster it?

But that's not even close to the point. The point was that NLOTH could be "merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory," as Sick Boy eloquently put it.

 

[BVS]

But we aren't on the same drugs as you and Sick Boy...

 

[edgeztv2]

Yet you still haven't backed up what you said.

What? I've written maybe a thousand words in this thread, all presenting clearly stated ideas.

What is it that you think I didn't back up? I presented my opinion, i.e., that U2's albums are generally on a downward trend. I cited lots of things: specific albums, specific songs, specific lyrics, and examples from other bands' work.

If by "haven't backed up" you mean haven't convinced you, that's fine. Taste in music is, after all, rather subjective. I can float an idea out there but it doesn't mean that I'm going to try to convince everyone when we're talking about music.

7 years and still not able to back up what you say, that's just sad...

Now this is the kind of sentence that defines a troll. Your comments are void of any ideas or meaningful arguments yet you repeatedly try to make personal insults. I guess, as another commenter pointed out, you have a reputation for that on this forum. And that's all I'm going to say about that...

 

[BVS]

What? I've written maybe a thousand words in this thread, all presenting clearly stated ideas.

I'm still looking for the comparisons of those songs...

 

[Chief43]

And JT can not be considered perfect when it is an album that relies on the first half to make it phenomenal. Achtung Baby and Pop I see as their two definitive albums that are close enough to perfection. I take your ideas into consideration as you make some fair points besides the 'perfect albums' and the comparison of some U2 songs.