2014 Bono needs to consult 1983 Bono about the new album.

[Hollow Island]

Pop is considered a critical failure, and really had no hits on it [though I love the album]. Meanwhile, HTDAAB won 7 (?) Grammy's, had critical acclaim, had a huge hit, and won best album of the year.

You can say that you do not like their recent albums, and speculate that it is because U2 are trying to make radio hits and are second guessing themselves. But you cannot argue with facts. HTDAAB was a huge commercial success (as was ATYCLB, really) and Pop was not.

If you're just referring to NLOTH, I don't know what you mean by their 'current' methods, albums, failures... what other albums are you also thinking of?

Pop got very good reviews when it came out, and yes, it had hits. There is more to the world than America. In Canada the videos were inescapable. Discotheque was a #1 single in Canada, Ireland, and the UK. 3 in Australia, 10 in the USA. Staring at the Sun. Top 5 in UK, Canada, Ireland. Last Night On Earth: 4 in Canada, 10 UK, 11 Ireland. 57 in the USA. Please hit 7 in the UK, 10 Canada, 6 in Ireland.

Pop sold 7 million copies; it was a huge commercial success. It amazes me how people allow history to be rewritten by U2.

I'm not just referring to NLOTH, though it's the clearest example of how they try to force hits.

 

[Hollow Island]

So "current method" only meant the last album?

Because you did say forgettable records, and believe it or not the prior albums don't fit in that category, regardless of your personal tastes or not...



S

I was referring mainly to NLOTH, and yes "current method" applies to their current record, which in this case is five years old.

I think it also applies to Bomb too. It was a commercial and moderate critical success at the time, but the reviews of Pop were just as strong. It's easy to forget that given U2's revisionism. According to Metacritic, Bomb wasn't in the top 100 best reviewed records of the year. Yes, it won Grammy's, but that is completely meaningless.

If you want to see how U2's last few albums are regarded, take a look at their page on RYM. It's interesting.

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7768393

Bomb is U2's second least loved record, well below October and Rattle and Hum (an album which had hits that are still played on the radio regularly).

Pop is pretty low down too, but because it was experiment that many think didn't work. However, the graph indicates that it's stock has increased dramatically in 2013. NLOTH is as high as it's been since 2009 and climbed steadily from 2010-13. Bomb's rating trend has fallen almost steadily since it was released.

 

[JOFO]

Pop got very good reviews when it came out, and yes, it had hits. There is more to the world than America. In Canada the videos were inescapable. Discotheque was a #1 single in Canada, Ireland, and the UK. 3 in Australia, 10 in the USA. Staring at the Sun. Top 5 in UK, Canada, Ireland. Last Night On Earth: 4 in Canada, 10 UK, 11 Ireland. 57 in the USA. Please hit 7 in the UK, 10 Canada, 6 in Ireland.

Pop sold 7 million copies; it was a huge commercial success.

This is all true but you have to admit the overall popularity of the album nowhere matched their previous sucess and that scared the crap outta them, and they forever made excuses about it not being finished, blah blah...etc.
It didn't live up to their expectations of how it would be received.
This was supposed to be U2's next dimension, combining the electronica that was in vogue at the time with classic U2. They probably thought it was their greatest record ever and I'm sure you can dig up interviews of them saying so, but you can't deny their "apologizing" for this album afterwards....hell, I remember one of those "Behind The Music" shows where the narrator went on to say how under performed it was and all this, and even Larry said "we'll never do it again" or whatever.....

 

[Hollow Island]

This is all true but you have to admit the overall popularity of the album nowhere matched their previous sucess and that scared the crap outta them, and they forever made excuses about it not being finished, blah blah...etc.
It didn't live up to their expectations of how it would be received.
This was supposed to be U2's next dimension, combining the electronica that was in vogue at the time with classic U2. They probably thought it was their greatest record ever and I'm sure you can dig up interviews of them saying so, but you can't deny their "apologizing" for this album afterwards....hell, I remember one of those "Behind The Music" shows where the narrator went on to say how under performed it was and all this, and even Larry said "we'll never do it again" or whatever.....

It sold more than Zooropa, and while it sold less than Achtung Baby it started stronger. There are a lot of reasons why albums sell, and none of them have anything to do with quality.

I cannot deny their apologizing for the record, nor can I deny that they've allowed their perceptions of how it was received to influence how they feel about their own art. They're fucked up. Contemporary reviews of Pop were much better than the Unforgettable Fire, and it destroyed it in terms of sales, but they never apologized for that one. They had more confidence in the 80s than from the mid 90s onward. They lost in in 1995 when they decided to release OST 1 under the Passengers name. Since then they've second guessed everything. Pop seems to be compromised by classic U2isms. But it also feels like every aspect of U2 mashed up together. It's the only record that provides an impression of everything U2 can do, though the songs are not their best.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

Most artists are gonna to sound different 30 years apart . How could 1983 bono know what happens in the industry over the last 30 years.? He wasn't even the same man in 1993. In fact in some ways 2013 bono and 1983 bono have slightly more in common then 1993 bono at the height of zoo tv .

 

[SleepyDeadMan]

Actually Pop, like most U2 records, was very well reviewed by the critics. And it sold quite well in comparison to Bomb worldwide.

I'm going to even respond to bringing up the Grammy's as proof of quality.

Pop as a "critical failure", like R&H bombing, is a nice little piece of revisionist U2 history. If you mean to say that Pop was not as well received by fans, and didn't do as well commercially as most of the records that came before it...well that I agree with.

I also agree that U2 has been trying to make "radio hits". As they've been doing since before Boy.

Sent via owl

Of course I refer to pop as a critical failure relative to other U2 albums. It would be pointless to compare it to some album by some basement band across the street who sold 100 albums. Everything should be assumed to be relative to U2's other work, or else why even start a debate like this? They would all end with us saying, "Well every U2 album ever has been ungodly-successful!"

And since we were talking about CRITICAL reception, it is perfectly reasonable to bring up the Grammy's as support for HTDAAB's critical success. But it goes against your argument so I see why it is convenient for you to shrug it off as meaningless. I agree they're crap too, but millions of people tune in and think they are the real deal.

And last I checked bomb sold more albums in an era when album sales had really started to decline. The music industry changed a lot between 1997 and 2004.

It's absolutely insane to argue that Pop was received better commercially and critically that Bomb.

 

[Hollow Island]

Most artists are gonna to sound different 30 years apart . How could 1983 bono know what happens in the industry over the last 30 years.? He wasn't even the same man in 1993. In fact in some ways 2013 bono and 1983 bono have slightly more in common then 1993 bono at the height of zoo tv .

I don't know about that. 1993 Bono still had the confidence, and Zoo TV was their most political piece of art. It was what they'd been building towards. Politics AND art have disappeared from U2's stage from Elevation onwards. The claw was as silly and empty as anything on the Rolling Stones 90s tours. It looked cool, and that's about it.

 

[SleepyDeadMan]

Pop got very good reviews when it came out, and yes, it had hits. There is more to the world than America. In Canada the videos were inescapable. Discotheque was a #1 single in Canada, Ireland, and the UK. 3 in Australia, 10 in the USA. Staring at the Sun. Top 5 in UK, Canada, Ireland. Last Night On Earth: 4 in Canada, 10 UK, 11 Ireland. 57 in the USA. Please hit 7 in the UK, 10 Canada, 6 in Ireland.

Pop sold 7 million copies; it was a huge commercial success. It amazes me how people allow history to be rewritten by U2.

I'm not just referring to NLOTH, though it's the clearest example of how they try to force hits.

Then by your standards NLOTH was a huge hit too. It debuted at #1 in something like 30 countries and sold over 5 million units, which in today's music industry is damn good. Sure it had not big hits in major markets, but as an album it sold well.

And ATYCLB and HTDAAB were successful by the same token, and even moreso than Pop.

 

[JOFO]

Politics AND art have disappeared from U2's stage from Elevation onwards.

Except for Elevation's version Bullet, where it started with the anti-gun/Charleton Heston thing in the wake of Columbine and then Bono delivered that incredible thing about John Lennon/Mark David Chapman after Edge's solo....
I felt that got overlooked. That was a really powerful performance of Bullet....the last good one in fact.

 

[LemonMelon]

And since we were talking about CRITICAL reception, it is perfectly reasonable to bring up the Grammy's as support for HTDAAB's critical success. But it goes against your argument so I see why it is convenient for you to shrug it off as meaningless. I agree they're crap too, but millions of people tune in and think they are the real deal.

Metacritic scores for Album of the Year:

2001: Steely Dan - Two Against Nature (77)
2002: O Brother Where Art Thou - OST (83)
2003: Norah Jones - Come Away With Me (82)
2004: Outkast - Speakerboxxx/The Love Below (91)
2005: Ray Charles - Genius Loves Company (N/A)
2006: U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (79)
2007: The Dixie Chicks - Taking the Long Way (72)
2008: Herbie Hancock - River: The Joni Letters (N/A)
2009: Robert Plant & Alison Krauss - Raising Sand (87)
2010: Taylor Swift - Fearless (73)
2011: Arcade Fire - The Suburbs (87)
2012: Adele - 21 (76)
2013: Mumford & Sons - Babel (63)
2014 - Daft Punk - Random Access Memories (87)

Some points of interest:

-Out of these 13 albums, only 1 won the annual Pazz & Jop critics poll (Speakerboxxx/Love Below), which is the most comprehensive list of its kind
-Two of these albums were clearly legacy picks and barely registered any sort of critical attention, hence the N/A
-Less than half received the "universal acclaim" designation for albums scored 81 or higher
-Babel's 63 is just pathetic, that's one of their worst picks ever

So no, the Grammys aren't a useful tool for determining critical standing.

 

[Hollow Island]

Then by your standards NLOTH was a huge hit too. It debuted at #1 in something like 30 countries and sold over 5 million units, which in today's music industry is damn good. Sure it had not big hits in major markets, but as an album it sold well.

And ATYCLB and HTDAAB were successful by the same token, and even moreso than Pop.

Sure the album sold well. It's not regarded highly though, and it wasn't nearly as successful as what came before.

 

[Hollow Island]

Of course I refer to pop as a critical failure relative to other U2 albums. It would be pointless to compare it to some album by some basement band across the street who sold 100 albums. Everything should be assumed to be relative to U2's other work, or else why even start a debate like this? They would all end with us saying, "Well every U2 album ever has been ungodly-successful!"

And since we were talking about CRITICAL reception, it is perfectly reasonable to bring up the Grammy's as support for HTDAAB's critical success. But it goes against your argument so I see why it is convenient for you to shrug it off as meaningless. I agree they're crap too, but millions of people tune in and think they are the real deal.

And last I checked bomb sold more albums in an era when album sales had really started to decline. The music industry changed a lot between 1997 and 2004.

It's absolutely insane to argue that Pop was received better commercially and critically that Bomb.

The reviews that Pop got were comparable to the next two, and to Zooropa. Pop got very good reviews. I don't think I said it was received better than Bomb. It got good reviews and has hits.

The Grammy's have nothing to do with critical reception. Did Pavement ever get a Grammy? Nirvana? Stereolab? Animal Collective? Those bands are critically revered, and the Grammy's are completely ignorant as to what is A) good, and B) respected. The Grammy's don't reflect critical consensus any more than a quarter pounder represents organic beef.

Bomb wasn't in the top 100 best reviewed albums of 2004.

 

[SleepyDeadMan]

Metacritic scores for Album of the Year:

2001: Steely Dan - Two Against Nature (77)
2002: O Brother Where Art Thou - OST (83)
2003: Norah Jones - Come Away With Me (82)
2004: Outkast - Speakerboxxx/The Love Below (91)
2005: Ray Charles - Genius Loves Company (N/A)
2006: U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (79)
2007: The Dixie Chicks - Taking the Long Way (72)
2008: Herbie Hancock - River: The Joni Letters (N/A)
2009: Robert Plant & Alison Krauss - Raising Sand (87)
2010: Taylor Swift - Fearless (73)
2011: Arcade Fire - The Suburbs (87)
2012: Adele - 21 (76)
2013: Mumford & Sons - Babel (63)
2014 - Daft Punk - Random Access Memories (87)

Some points of interest:

-Out of these 13 albums, only 1 won the annual Pazz & Jop critics poll (Speakerboxxx/Love Below), which is the most comprehensive list of its kind
-Two of these albums were clearly legacy picks and barely registered any sort of critical attention, hence the N/A
-Less than half received the "universal acclaim" designation for albums scored 81 or higher
-Babel's 63 is just pathetic, that's one of their worst picks ever

So no, the Grammys aren't a useful tool for determining critical standing.

First off, I think a large majority of those albums that won album of the year are insanely popular amongst 'commoners' and casual music fans. Yes, I'll give the legacy picks are silly.

Second, I'm not going to let my argument shoot off on a tangent about the Grammy's. HTDAAB was received better than Pop by a fairly wide margin. Just compare certifications in major markets: US - 3x pt, UK - 4x pt, Oz - 4x pt, Canada - 3x pt for Bomb; whereas for Pop we have US - 1x pt, UK 1x pt, Oz - 1x pt, Canada - 3x pt. There are a bunch of others obviously, and Bomb wins almost every time, and usually by a decent amount. And all this was at a time when album sales as a whole were down quite a bit!

Metacritic doesn't have a score for Pop, so you can't point out that HTDAAB received only generally favorable reviews from Metacritic as a reasonable argument because we can't compare it to Pop. However, many articles about Pop include that Pop got "mixed" reviews.

In the end, it is just silly for you to say that Pop was received as well as HTDAAB.

I made the claim that HTDAAB was a bigger commercial success than Pop. It was.


Also, I missed this gem from you earlier:

And it sold quite well in comparison to Bomb worldwide.


Refer to above numbers, and remember that album sales were lower as a whole during Bomb's time than Pop's.

I don't get what you're even arguing... the numbers don't lie.

 

[SleepyDeadMan]

The reviews that Pop got were comparable to the next two, and to Zooropa. Pop got very good reviews. I don't think I said it was received better than Bomb. It got good reviews and has hits.

The Grammy's have nothing to do with critical reception. Did Pavement ever get a Grammy? Nirvana? Stereolab? Animal Collective? Those bands are critically revered, and the Grammy's are completely ignorant as to what is A) good, and B) respected. The Grammy's don't reflect critical consensus any more than a quarter pounder represents organic beef.

Bomb wasn't in the top 100 best reviewed albums of 2004.

Refer to above post, the real debate had nothing to do with the Grammy's.

It had to do with what you said here:

It's interesting that attitude led the creation of classic albums while their current method of operation has led to forgettable records and critical failures.


Relative to Pop, none of the recent albums are critical failures. (I am aware NLOTH didn't have a big hit single by u2 standards.) ATYCLB is certainly regarded by many as a classic and had hits. HTDAAB definitely had hits. Both albums did very well, too, commercially. The only album that Pop may have outperformed is NLOTH. But you made it seem like all of u2's recent works are forgettable and critical failures. Then you said Pop was neither.

Well, if Pop is neither, then it must logically follow that HTDAAB and ATYCLB are neither as well.

Now, whether or not they are forgettable to YOU is your opinion. Maybe you hate everything u2 has done since the 90s. That's fine, but don't make it seem like the world feels the same way. It's just inaccurate. The numbers above prove that.

 

[Aygo]

I don't know about that. 1993 Bono still had the confidence, and Zoo TV was their most political piece of art. It was what they'd been building towards. Politics AND art have disappeared from U2's stage from Elevation onwards. The claw was as silly and empty as anything on the Rolling Stones 90s tours. It looked cool, and that's about it.

Have to agree with it.
The "claw" looks impressive and magnificent, but it has no meaning or connection to the band's work, to NLOTH, to... anything. Even Elevation's graphic (and basic) heartshaped stage section is stronger than the claw.
I'll always percept the 360º Tour as a sterile spectacle in terms of content, as more as a self act-consolidation show, filled with jukebox hit performances, tired hits, uninspired and insipid songs and a few nice surprises. But I look at the setlists, and everything seems disjointed, out of context, the transitions are some of the worst I remember. The show lacks a theme, an aura, besides a mere rock stadium showbusiness act.
The same to the politics. U2 stopped being really politic a long time ago, to me.

 

[SleepyDeadMan]

^^

Yes, I do have to agree with THAT. Good of you to highlight it - I had missed that!

Part of the problem with the NLOTH era was the lack of carrying a theme throughout the tour. It made the 360 tour seem like a farewell tour more than anything else!

 

[The Slow Loris]

Ron Wood interviews Bono - YouTube

Imagine if someone showed Bono this video??

"Bands now take YEARS making a record. We took, I think, 3 or 4 months to make The Joshua Tree. That's too long to make a record. I don't want to spend that much time making a record next time." - Bono

Wow. Is this the same guy?

 

[allbecauseofu2]

360 they were off their game. They sounded like they believe in NLOTH then stopped believing in it. You can't do that. Looks like you don't know what your doing

 

[Aygo]

Ron Wood interviews Bono - YouTube

Imagine if someone showed Bono this video??

"Bands now take YEARS making a record. We took, I think, 3 or 4 months to make The Joshua Tree. That's too long to make a record. I don't want to spend that much time making a record next time." - Bono

Wow. Is this the same guy?

Be careful, you'll be in the "dissidents black list" after having posted this.
(Or... There'll be coming hundreds of "credible" explanations for Bono's perspectives' changes in 30 years).

 

[Aygo]

^^

Yes, I do have to agree with THAT. Good of you to highlight it - I had missed that!

Part of the problem with the NLOTH era was the lack of carrying a theme throughout the tour. It made the 360 tour seem like a farewell tour more than anything else!

I think there's some sort of parallelism between Pop/Popmart and NLOTH/360. For different reasons.
U2 made complaints that they had almost no time to rehearse for Popmart, also to properly "finish" Pop, and that it was a mistake to let McGuinness book the shows in 1996 without the band being sure and secure about the album's conception.

The NLOTH/360 is different but related. It seems that the "claw" and the tour's concept (I don't think that the show had a proper concept besides sounding like a farewell tour, as someone mentioned above) were conceived somewhere during the Vertigo Tour(?) or right after it ended.
U2 only went to Morocco post-18 Singles/Rubin sessions. And we also know that NLOTH could've sound much different, more atmospheric (with no forced hit songs), more uncompromised if the band didn't panic for the lack of hits and if there were no second guessing.
That means that, if NLOTH was more loyal to what it probably sounded before being "overcooked", the "claw" stage could've been shelved for a future tour/occasion, and so, have a simple set up for smaller venues (like it seems they're planning to do now).
Or... It means that if they wanted a colossal stadium tour, with a massive stage whose design could be used for U2 to design whatever concept they wanted (which they ended not to do it)... Since the stage design was already chosen, NLOTH should've sound much different, eventually more "pop", previously planned to have lots of hits and "stadium songs" (which NLOTH don't have); which means that NLOTH should've been "designed" according to a tour stage/concept that was already pre-defined.

We ended up not having neither one, neither the other in full.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

Yea their is some parallelism between both tours. But as I see they were in different places . u2 were def legends in 1997 but not immortals. Not of the biggest and perhaps best of all time. If they retire in 1998 they are not quite as high on the all time list as if they retired in 2010. ATYCLB proved they could be successful and relevant in yet a 3rd decade. That's what made them take that next step into being one of the greatest bands of all time. And vertigo just drove it home even more. And then NLOTH with respectable success just kept adding on, etc.

 

[Hollow Island]

Second, I'm not going to let my argument shoot off on a tangent about the Grammy's. HTDAAB was received better than Pop by a fairly wide margin. Just compare certifications in major markets: US - 3x pt, UK - 4x pt, Oz - 4x pt, Canada - 3x pt for Bomb; whereas for Pop we have US - 1x pt, UK 1x pt, Oz - 1x pt, Canada - 3x pt. There are a bunch of others obviously, and Bomb wins almost every time, and usually by a decent amount. And all this was at a time when album sales as a whole were down quite a bit!

Metacritic doesn't have a score for Pop, so you can't point out that HTDAAB received only generally favorable reviews from Metacritic as a reasonable argument because we can't compare it to Pop. However, many articles about Pop include that Pop got "mixed" reviews.

In the end, it is just silly for you to say that Pop was received as well as HTDAAB.

I made the claim that HTDAAB was a bigger commercial success than Pop. It was.


Also, I missed this gem from you earlier:

And it sold quite well in comparison to Bomb worldwide.


Refer to above numbers, and remember that album sales were lower as a whole during Bomb's time than Pop's.

I don't get what you're even arguing... the numbers don't lie.

I never said that Pop sold better, I said that it was received just as well. I was around at the time and read all the reviews, and they were very good. Spin and Rolling Stone loved it. It was not a critical failure, it sold very well, and it had hits. It just did better other places than it did in the USA.

 

[SleepyDeadMan]

I never said that Pop sold better, I said that it was received just as well. I was around at the time and read all the reviews, and they were very good. Spin and Rolling Stone loved it. It was not a critical failure, it sold very well, and it had hits. It just did better other places than it did in the USA.

Yes you're correct, between you, nick, and lemon mellon I got a few peoples points mixed up. You didn't say that.

I feel like we're seeing near eye to eye, but I still think it's a stretch to say that Pop was received just as well as Bomb when Bomb outsold it [in an era when sales were down as a whole] by a pretty reasonable margin.

Again, I personally love Pop, but if we're talking about how the two albums were received by the general audience, it seems that Bomb did better.

 

[SpiralStaircase]

Ron Wood interviews Bono - YouTube

"You little bastard!"

 

[The_acrobat]

360 they were off their game. They sounded like they believe in NLOTH then stopped believing in it. You can't do that. Looks like you don't know what your doing

This is perhaps the best quote I've ever read regarding NLOTH and the 360 tour. The tour didn't fit the album AT ALL! Imagine if U2 had done a stripped down arena show for NLOTH, and decorated the stage similar to their studio setup in Fez, with rugs laid out, (fake) green plants, etc. Obviously the stage would've had to have had more going on visually, screens, lights, etc. But the general motif could've looked similar to this.

U2 recording in Morocco (Fez, Unknown Caller, Magnificent) - YouTube

Really 2005/6 was the time to do the 360 Tour. The whole Vertigo/360 degrees theme could've really worked, and they certainly could've sold the tickets, hot off the success of ATYCLB and HTDAAB and Vertigo being a huge international hit. The 2009 shows had them playing 7 NLOTH songs, which was cool. I figured they'd back that off a little bit in the 2010 shows, but I couldn't believe they only played 4 and then 3 songs from the album. I figured that they'd drop songs like Breathe and UC and throw in SUC or Fez into the 2010 shows.

 

[Aygo]

This is perhaps the best quote I've ever read regarding NLOTH and the 360 tour. The tour didn't fit the album AT ALL! Imagine if U2 had done a stripped down arena show for NLOTH, and decorated the stage similar to their studio setup in Fez, with rugs laid out, (fake) green plants, etc. Obviously the stage would've had to have had more going on visually, screens, lights, etc. But the general motif could've looked similar to this.

U2 recording in Morocco (Fez, Unknown Caller, Magnificent) - YouTube

100% this. NLOTH asked for a more intimate (eventually unplugged) environment, small rooms, with the decoration and design set you described, and it's kind of pity that the band discarded many of the experiments, soundscapes, output that Morocco had. Even though they're jam sessions yet, there's a difference of something that got lost between the versions (and the sounds) of videos like these and the final product.
That "Unknown Caller" chorus is an example. I'm one of those who didn't think that the final lyrics are a sin, but what they're singing in this video is a bit more "happy" and less awkward.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

I remember judas priest was touring for their new album in 2008. Then in the middle of the tour they kinda got sidetracked and performed their 30 year old album British steel in its entirety . I was like way to sell the new stuff. lol.

 

[AndrewCowley]

I remember judas priest was touring for their new album in 2008. Then in the middle of the tour they kinda got sidetracked and performed their 30 year old album British steel in its entirety . I was like way to sell the new stuff. lol.

Springsteen gets it right of course. In his long shows he can easily play two complete albums from the past and still have heaps of time for new songs. The solution is to play longer. Wish U2 would do that.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

They would have to play less shows to even attempt to play 3 hours. And I think they would still screw it up. lol. They wouldn't get it. They would end up playing a 3 hour version of their average 2 hour set. If I see a 3 hour show I want one album in in its entirety like tuf or ab. They would end up playing every safe hit plus a lot of stuff from the new album. But not the entire new album . lol. Can't do that. And play a few rare tracks but not enough. Somehow it would be cool and suck at the same time.

 

[AndrewCowley]

Lol or they'd revert to old tricks like Vertigo x2 to fill in time.