DevilsShoes
War Child
Why do you think the group always seem to come unstuck with the final album of each decade in terms of media/public response?
R&H: This contains some of the best songs of U2's career IMO, but the media gave it a good savaging and the album was seen as proof of U2's egomania. In truth, this could have been part of the 'raise them up, then tear them down' mentality. The Joshua Tree had been critically acclaimed, catapulting the band to the heights of mega-stardom and the next logical step was to give the them a bit of a bruising. Some of the criticisms were valid though.
Pop: For whatever reason the public just didn't get this album. Like pretty much every other release, Pop attempted to reflect the current cultural climate, but perhaps the songs weren't strong or memorable enough (and I say this as someone who loves Mofo, Last Night and Gone), plus Popmart seemed to just alienate a lot of people and leave them scratching their heads.
NLOTH: U2 fandom pretty much adores ths one, but the general public seemed indifferent. In all likelihood they'd be hard pushed to even give you the title of the thing. 'Boots' once again confused people and ensured the whole campaign got off to a rocky start. In the eyes of many fans, the big U2 albums are JT, AB and NLOTH, but for the public it's JT, AB and ATYCLB.
So what goes wrong?
Do the band just fail to read the climate of the moment correctly? Something they always seem to do so accurately at the start of the deacade.
Is U2 overload a factor? Almost certainly in the case of R&H, but less so with NLOTH and definitely much less so with Pop.
Was the problem with 'Boot's' was that it gave the impression of 'more of the same from U2'? Was the problem with Discotheque and Pop that the group had changed too much?
You views on why the final album of each decade in one way or another, fails to strike the right chord.
R&H: This contains some of the best songs of U2's career IMO, but the media gave it a good savaging and the album was seen as proof of U2's egomania. In truth, this could have been part of the 'raise them up, then tear them down' mentality. The Joshua Tree had been critically acclaimed, catapulting the band to the heights of mega-stardom and the next logical step was to give the them a bit of a bruising. Some of the criticisms were valid though.
Pop: For whatever reason the public just didn't get this album. Like pretty much every other release, Pop attempted to reflect the current cultural climate, but perhaps the songs weren't strong or memorable enough (and I say this as someone who loves Mofo, Last Night and Gone), plus Popmart seemed to just alienate a lot of people and leave them scratching their heads.
NLOTH: U2 fandom pretty much adores ths one, but the general public seemed indifferent. In all likelihood they'd be hard pushed to even give you the title of the thing. 'Boots' once again confused people and ensured the whole campaign got off to a rocky start. In the eyes of many fans, the big U2 albums are JT, AB and NLOTH, but for the public it's JT, AB and ATYCLB.
So what goes wrong?
Do the band just fail to read the climate of the moment correctly? Something they always seem to do so accurately at the start of the deacade.
Is U2 overload a factor? Almost certainly in the case of R&H, but less so with NLOTH and definitely much less so with Pop.
Was the problem with 'Boot's' was that it gave the impression of 'more of the same from U2'? Was the problem with Discotheque and Pop that the group had changed too much?
You views on why the final album of each decade in one way or another, fails to strike the right chord.
How odd it was that every decade ends going downhill. Then they seem to pick up the next decade with a stunning album that is well received. You don't think that... no way... maybe.
