Achtung baby/Zoo TV the biggest risk in rock history?

[Mogi]

Was AB the biggest risk for a rock band ever? Throw in Zoo TV, which might of been even a bigger risk than the album.

I have thought over every other conceivable moment in rock history with albums, style changes and tours for as many bands and performers as I can think of, but I have to say I think that AB/Zoo TV has to be the biggest of them all.

They had established themselves as the biggest band in the world and THE band of the moment, even with the critical lashing of R&H.
I think that by doing what they did in 1991 put them in the line of fire with no protection at all and could have been a career killer if they had not pulled it off. Not only did they pull it off, they revolutionized the concert industry.

What does everyone think about this?
Does anyone else have another example from another band or performer that could match or surpass U2 on this one.

 

[Sting]

I don't know enough huge risk albums... as far as I know it does definately seem like the biggest risk. ESPECIALLY how they continued with it even after the big "Grunge" movement which made excess and overproduction look uncool. I know they released AB the same year Nirvana released Nevermind, so U2 couldn't have known that the whole excess kind of scene which they embraced with AB(if not lyrically they for sure did it musically and with their show) was going to be 'destroyed', but even when everyone went Grunge in 1992 following Nevermind, U2 just got deeper and released Zooropa! And than Pop! (Although by that time Dance music was coming back around).

You bring up a good point. I look forward to seeing waht others have to say about it.

But even in the 80s, when on average, music was about sex/drugs/rocknroll, U2 were honest. The things U2 wrote about in the 80s are not obsolete, and as far as i'm concerned, almost none of U2's 80's work is dated. Even when people talk about Bullet the Blue Sky as being cheesy, I don't get it. What, the poem? How is that cheesy? I hear stuff out today that is 50x cheesier than that.

 

[xaviMF22]

what about pink floyd's the wall tour. That was something new that was never done before. I say that band took a big risk

 

[Mogi]

Sting-love your post and totally agree with the 80´s. I guess U2 has always been taking risks.

War child-yeah, I was thinking about The Wall myself and I think that nobody had ever seen anything like that before.
In defense of U2, I think they took a larger risk because the did a complete 180 change with sound and style, especially with the whole Fly/cowboy/Mcphisto bit that Bono got into. I think Floyd had already established themselves for the long haul and after Animals, I think The Wall wasn´t THAT surprising. ZOO Tv after R&H? That is VERY surprising.

 

[Sting]

Sting-love your post and totally agree with the 80´s. I guess U2 has always been taking risks.

I wouldn't say that they were taking a risk in the 80's, because its just what they were (from Boy we could tell Bono meant something and wasn't going to sing about the same crap every other band wanted to. Edge wasn't a guitar hero and Adam and Larry certainly weren't your generic rhythm section both soundwise and in their attitude(Like I read somewhere, Adam was actually very focused on playing becuase he did NOT want to get kicked out of the band, and Larry is just a kind of NO BULLSHIT Drummer and wouldn't do all the showboating... I went through an 80's hairmetal/classicrock phase(still like lots of the tunes though lol) and I just notice big difference in Adam/Larry as opposed to Nikki Sixx/Tommy Lee for example... we are talking 80s ROCK here... )

Someone once said that with The Unforgetable Fire, U2 created a whole new emotional plane in pop music that had never existed until they did it. That is pretty much true, and U2 continued it with Joshua Tree (mixed it with elements of American music) and than took the American Music part even further with Rattle and Hum.

U2 were a bonafide atmospheric, hopeful, and soulful group. They could have made Joshua Tree PT 2 and it would have sold like crazy. They could have done the same thing for the rest of their lives. But true artists can't stand that. And U2 went from soulful and getting more and more minimalist (UF was full of layers and synths... Joshua Tree had lots but some songs had alot less(With or Without You was atmospheric but didn't have TOO many things going on it) and Rattle and Hum was back to basics for the most part (Desire, Angel, ect)... than they went back into excess. I love it. They did totally change. I know U2 wanted to do it, but they could have just stayed the same and maybe had one or two ABish tracks on the new album but still largely stayed the same.

 

[Mogi]

Now that you mention the UF, I do believe that was quite risky for U2 at that moment in their career too. Coming off of War, they had the chance to blow their celebrity wide open with their 4th album. They could have gone over the top on UF, but they threw everyone off on that one. Pure genius IMO and one of the most underrated albums in rock history. Big kahunas to release the UF on the tails of War.
I even think that Zooropa and was quite risky for their careers at the time. Zooropa went way further with the dance and electronic rhythms than AB and in turn, I believe, opened up the market for electronic dance music at that time. For example, NIN had a massive underground following, and honestly, I think because of Zooropa (and with AB before it), the mainstream was exposed to electronic music on a mass scale with Zooropa, released in 1993 in the middle of grunge.
1994 NIN´s "The Downward Spiral" was the breakout album of the year. IMO, I think they have to thank Zooropa for this (even though NIN were more exerimental and envelope pushing than U2). Hell, let´s throw Radiohead´s "Ok Computer" and "Kid A" in there to make things interesting. I really believe these albums were ABLE to exist on a mass scale because the biggest band on earth did take the massive career risks of AB/Zoo TV/Zooropa that could have thrown the daddy of them all of monkey wrenches in their career.

 

[tommycharles]

Biggest risk in rock history? Um....Tommy. Or perhaps putting out BoRhap as a single. Probably not Achtung Baby.

 

[xaviMF22]

Now that you mention the UF, I do believe that was quite risky for U2 at that moment in their career too. Coming off of War, they had the chance to blow their celebrity wide open with their 4th album. They could have gone over the top on UF, but they threw everyone off on that one. Pure genius IMO and one of the most underrated albums in rock history. Big kahunas to release the UF on the tails of War.
I even think that Zooropa and was quite risky for their careers at the time. Zooropa went way further with the dance and electronic rhythms than AB and in turn, I believe, opened up the market for electronic dance music at that time. For example, NIN had a massive underground following, and honestly, I think because of Zooropa (and with AB before it), the mainstream was exposed to electronic music on a mass scale with Zooropa, released in 1993 in the middle of grunge.
1994 NIN´s "The Downward Spiral" was the breakout album of the year. IMO, I think they have to thank Zooropa for this (even though NIN were more exerimental and envelope pushing than U2). Hell, let´s throw Radiohead´s "Ok Computer" and "Kid A" in there to make things interesting. I really believe these albums were ABLE to exist on a mass scale because the biggest band on earth did take the massive career risks of AB/Zoo TV/Zooropa that could have thrown the daddy of them all of monkey wrenches in their career.

I think you are giving U2 way too much credit. You are making it seem like U2 is the most riskiest band in the world

 

[roy]

Was AB the biggest risk for a rock band ever? Throw in Zoo TV, which might of been even a bigger risk than the album.

I have thought over every other conceivable moment in rock history with albums, style changes and tours for as many bands and performers as I can think of, but I have to say I think that AB/Zoo TV has to be the biggest of them all.

They had established themselves as the biggest band in the world and THE band of the moment, even with the critical lashing of R&H.
I think that by doing what they did in 1991 put them in the line of fire with no protection at all and could have been a career killer if they had not pulled it off. .

Nah, they went out of their way to include enough radio friendly songs on the album (WGRYWH, MW, EBTTRT, TTTYAATW, UV) to ensure it wasn't a flop. I thought everyone knew this.

 

[Mogi]

think you are giving U2 way too much credit. You are making it seem like U2 is the most riskiest band in the world

I am giving credit where I think credit is due. Of course, there are many more bands who exceeded U2´s musical level of creativity. I think Radiohead(who is my second favorite band) has passed U2 in that category at this moment.
I think U2 should get more credit for what they have done. I don´t know how many times I have heard that U2 has influenced no one. Bullshit. That is a insane assesment from anyone thinking that. Listen to most of the new indie rock today and you can hear at least a little U2 in there somewhere.
If you go back to 1993 and think about what other mainstream bands where doing something like Zooropa and Zoo TV, I think you would be hard pressed to come up with some names.
When you have millions of people around the world listening to "Numb" and thinking WTF??? That is a big musical risk. I don´t think mainstream society, especially the casual music fans who bought Zooropa just because U2 was massive at that time, were really ready for what was about to hit them.
Was Zooropa that cutting edge? No, there was much more in the underground at the time. But considering that most people in general were into grunge and rock at that time, Zooropa probably came over as risky, odd, and alternative.
Thus, I think it and Zoo TV was a big risk and I think having a mega band like U2 embrace this type of music made it easier for other underground bands like NIN, Prodigy, Orbital and more to be able to get into the marketplace easier.
Maybe they could have done that without the early 90´s U2. That is debatable. But I think that the early 90´s U2 shook the foundation as much as grunge did (I might be asking for a whipping on this one!!!).

 

[Mogi]

Sorry, that first part of my last reply was a quote from xaviMF22, not mine.

 

[roy]

I don´t know how many times I have heard that U2 has influenced no one. Bullshit. That is a insane assesment from anyone thinking that. Listen to most of the new indie rock today and you can hear at least a little U2 in there somewhere.

The thing is these bands are 'musically' influenced by 80s U2, not the 90s version. 90's U2 looked good and produced some great tours but at the end of the day the music that was produced wasn't very original, hence the lack of musical influence.

If you don't agree, name a top band that was influenced specifically by their 90's music...

 

[xaviMF22]

think you are giving U2 way too much credit. You are making it seem like U2 is the most riskiest band in the world

I am giving credit where I think credit is due. Of course, there are many more bands who exceeded U2´s musical level of creativity. I think Radiohead(who is my second favorite band) has passed U2 in that category at this moment.
I think U2 should get more credit for what they have done. I don´t know how many times I have heard that U2 has influenced no one. Bullshit. That is a insane assesment from anyone thinking that. Listen to most of the new indie rock today and you can hear at least a little U2 in there somewhere.
If you go back to 1993 and think about what other mainstream bands where doing something like Zooropa and Zoo TV, I think you would be hard pressed to come up with some names.
When you have millions of people around the world listening to "Numb" and thinking WTF??? That is a big musical risk. I don´t think mainstream society, especially the casual music fans who bought Zooropa just because U2 was massive at that time, were really ready for what was about to hit them.
Was Zooropa that cutting edge? No, there was much more in the underground at the time. But considering that most people in general were into grunge and rock at that time, Zooropa probably came over as risky, odd, and alternative.
Thus, I think it and Zoo TV was a big risk and I think having a mega band like U2 embrace this type of music made it easier for other underground bands like NIN, Prodigy, Orbital and more to be able to get into the marketplace easier.
Maybe they could have done that without the early 90´s U2. That is debatable. But I think that the early 90´s U2 shook the foundation as much as grunge did (I might be asking for a whipping on this one!!!).

I agree with you on some points, yea U2 was doing very unique things and they deserve credit for that. What I disagree with you the most on is Achtung baby' s and zooropa's influence on OKC and kid A. Jonny has even stated that he disliked achtung baby. Kid A was born because the band as a whole needed to do something different; in order to survive.

 

[xaviMF22]

The thing is these bands are 'musically' influenced by 80s U2, not the 90s version. 90's U2 looked good and produced some great tours but at the end of the day the music that was produced wasn't very original, hence the lack of musical influence.

If you don't agree, name a top band that was influenced specifically by their 90's music...

yea achtung baby was more influenced by the sounds of that time, especially industrial music.

 

[Bono's shades]

AB was a risk, but I think both Radiohead and the Beatles have made risks just as big if not bigger during their careers.

 

[GibsonGirl]

I think Floyd had already established themselves for the long haul and after Animals, I think The Wall wasn´t THAT surprising.

Yes, because the In The Flesh tour really hinted that, in the years to come, the Pink Floyd would build a giant wall across the stage and play behind it. It wasn't surprising at all that the fans couldn't see the band for a significant portion of the show.



Man, that was never done by anyone before and has never been done by anyone since, excluding Roger Waters' recreation of the show in Berlin. It's about as original as original comes and it was definitely risky. Audiences tend to want to see the band that's playing when they've paid for a ticket. I don't think anyone knew what was coming. The music could have hinted at it, but I really don't think anyone expected to be standing there at the middle of the show, watching animations on a giant white wall with the band playing behind it. In that respect, The Wall was much more risky than Zoo TV could have ever been. At least you could see U2 all the time!

While Achtung Baby is my favourite U2 album, you have to admit that U2 were trend-hopping at the time. Even though they risked losing their eighties era fans, they still had a high possibility of gaining many new fans with their new, alternative sound. Having a couple of definite radio-friendly songs didn't hurt either. It's not like they were at risk of flushing their whole career down the loo by simply trading in the cowboy hats for the leather, or the clean guitars for the distorted guitars. It was actually very smart of them to adapt to the changing musical environment. They probably would have eventually faded if they had have stuck with the country-ish American rock of JT and R&H. But their transformation and the live show was by no means the riskiest of all time. Not even Zooropa was the riskiest move made by any band in musical history, though it was more dangerous for U2 than Achtung Baby ever was.

 

[doubleU]

If you don't agree, name a top band that was influenced specifically by their 90's music...

Garbage

Radiohead (I think the transformation between Pablo Honey, which was very "grunge like" to the Bends owes a lot to U2 early 90's)

Ours - the frontman in an interview talked about he and the singer of Powderfinger were having a conversation about how AB was their musical bible.

It's all over the place, I think you are blind not to see it.

 

[LMP]

When any band makes a change in their current sound to a different one of course it'll be risky, they could be deemed "sellouts" and lose a chunk of their audience, gain new fans, but lose the new fans when they do something else.

I agree that Pink Floyd's move was the riskiest thing ever done by a band, atleast that I know of. The Beatles deciding not to tour anymore and just record was risky too. Radiohead's change is sound was risky too, look at how the board is divided in the B&C for Pete's sake.

so in conclusion, Achtung Baby/ZooTV was ambitious and risky, but there's been bigger risks.

 

[xaviMF22]

When any band makes a change in their current sound to a different one of course it'll be risky, they could be deemed "sellouts" and lose a chunk of their audience, gain new fans, but lose the new fans when they do something else.

I agree that Pink Floyd's move was the riskiest thing ever done by a band, atleast that I know of. The Beatles deciding not to tour anymore and just record was risky too. Radiohead's change is sound was risky too, look at how the board is divided in the B&C for Pete's sake.

so in conclusion, Achtung Baby/ZooTV was ambitious and risky, but there's been bigger risks.

 

[MrBrau1]

Who cares if it was risky. You can't listen to risky.

The record and tour were brilliant.

Who listens to a record or leaves a show thinking:

"The music sucked, but it was risky and strange, so it's good."

On second thought, don't answer that.

 

[Meghan]

Ours - the frontman in an interview talked about he and the singer of Powderfinger were having a conversation about how AB was their musical bible.

Yay! I knew there'd be a Powderfinger/U2 link somewhere.

 

[david]

I don't think it was that big of a risk. It seemed just too calculated. They were very aware of their 80's image being worn out so the next logical step was to change their image and sound giving them longevity and continued commercial success.

 

[SleepyDeadMan]

Who cares if it was risky. You can't listen to risky.

The record and tour were brilliant.

Who listens to a record or leaves a show thinking:

"The music sucked, but it was risky and strange, so it's good."

On second thought, don't answer that.

exactly, mr.brau1

 

[doctorwho]

The thing is these bands are 'musically' influenced by 80s U2, not the 90s version. 90's U2 looked good and produced some great tours but at the end of the day the music that was produced wasn't very original, hence the lack of musical influence.

If you don't agree, name a top band that was influenced specifically by their 90's music...

I would argue that a band like Coldplay was easily influenced by 80's U2, with their more ambient and softer sound. Trouble is, I think Coldplay could be SO much better if they actually listened to some of the more rocking moments U2 had during that time as well.

As for 90's U2, especially AB, I'd say bands like Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, etc. are heavily influenced by that time - and perhaps recent times as well. These artists create more rocking melodies that fool around with some guitar and vocal effects. When I told someone I liked some Franz Ferdinand, he replied, "That's because they sound like U2." For some younger folks, U2 is AB and on, not "War" - JT.

 

[LMP]

more younger bands say Boy is an influence on their music than other U2 releases

atleast the Killers did