Atyclb

[LemonMelon]

1. ab
2. atyclb
3. jt

You should write for Rolling Stone, not waste your time here.

 

[U2Man]

i'll just and not say anything about your choice of zooropa as the best u2 album ever.

 

[alanah]

yupyup! =)

"ATYCLB" is going to be my lisence plate when i get my car. hopefully it's not already taken ;] hahahah
and hopefully U2 fans will get it and say hi to me randomly on the streets!

Ohh that's really a pretty cool idea. I hope you can get your car asap.

My favs are: ATYCLB, AB and JT.

 

[U2Man]

you have great taste, alanah.

 

[WCF]

My three personal favorites:

1. All That You Can't Leave Behind
2. The Joshua Tree
3. Zooropa, which sometimes alternates with Pop

 

[doctorwho]

hellz yea


HTDAAB

Wink aside, I'm not sure why there's this dislike for HTDAAB, yet love for ATYCLB. It's like hating UF or R&H but loving JT (or some combination thereof). I admit, I'm not a fan of JT because I feel all the songs sound the same - and alas, this is the same weakness for ATYCLB, IMO. Too many songs sound similar. But when I say "not a fan", it's relative. Not a fan compared to other U2 work, HUGE MONSTROUS fan when compared to other artists.

HTDAAB has similar sounds to ATYCLB, but it takes everything to that next level, including some new sounds we never heard from U2. "Vertigo", COBL "Love & Peace", "All Because...", "Yahweh" and "Fast Cars" are amongst my most favorite U2 songs. And while I do adore plenty of ATYCLB songs, these HTDAAB songs are more of the U2 sound I love (reminiscent of the old, exploratory of the new).

Overall, HTDAAB beats out ATYCLB in my personal world. I'd rank them AB, UF (that often switches), HTDAAB, Zooropa, ATYCLB and so on.

 

[LemonMelon]

HTDAAB has similar sounds to ATYCLB, but it takes everything to that next level, including some new sounds we never heard from U2. "Vertigo", COBL "Love & Peace", "All Because...", "Yahweh" and "Fast Cars" are amongst my most favorite U2 songs. And while I do adore plenty of ATYCLB songs, these HTDAAB songs are more of the U2 sound I love (reminiscent of the old, exploratory of the new).

So well put! Indeed, HTDAAB is a tougher (as in, less fluffy and quite raw), more personal record. To say it's in any way similar to ATYCLB is ridiculous. I hate those "U2 is repeating themselves" threads...it's like saying that Zooropa and Pop are the same album.

 

[cobl04]

I thought your name was COBL_04 (pronounced cobble-o-for)

I always read it as COBL_04 (pronounced KO-bee-el-for) so

Wild Honey is terrific, always loved it, vocals are great.

And WUDM is LIB done properly? I disagree hearitly my friend.

Love is Blindness is absolutely perferct as it is.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

To say it's in any way similar to ATYCLB is ridiculous. I hate those "U2 is repeating themselves" threads...it's like saying that Zooropa and Pop are the same album.

Yeah, but Achtung/Zooropa/Pop will always be lumped together, rightly or wrongly, as the 'experimental' albums. In the same way, I think ATYCLB/HTDAAB & probably whatever is next will always be lumped together under some term. Maybe the 'singles' albums or something. Sure, there's not a lot on one that sounds much like the other, but they are definitely each others closest relatives. They're U2's only two beginning to end pop albums, and they came one after the other, so no matter whether the guitar is heavier on one, or the songs have a little more sunshine on the other, they'll always be tagged together and forever be described as similar to one another. I agree with that too. You can build a bracket around most of what they've done post-Pop, from the Sweetest Thing to Window in the Skies, and there's a wide sonic/structural variety in there, but what absolutely all of it has in common, at it's base, is that it's all fairly simplistic pop music.

 

[LemonMelon]

Yeah, but Achtung/Zooropa/Pop will always be lumped together, rightly or wrongly, as the 'experimental' albums. In the same way, I think ATYCLB/HTDAAB & probably whatever is next will always be lumped together under some term. Maybe the 'singles' albums or something. Sure, there's not a lot on one that sounds much like the other, but they are definitely each others closest relatives. They're U2's only two beginning to end pop albums, and they came one after the other, so no matter whether the guitar is heavier on one, or the songs have a little more sunshine on the other, they'll always be tagged together and forever be described as similar to one another. I agree with that too. You can build a bracket around most of what they've done post-Pop, from the Sweetest Thing to Window in the Skies, and there's a wide sonic/structural variety in there, but what absolutely all of it has in common, at it's base, is that it's all fairly simplistic pop music.

I agree. You can put U2's records and periods under broad aural umbrellas representing certain sounds and genres, however, that's not necessarily what bothers me. I think subtle progression is sometimes misinterpreted as repetition, which is my main complaint. HTDAAB isn't a holding pattern, in the same way that JT and UF have things in common, but one is a logical expansion of the other, and that's the way I see ATYCLB--->HTDAAB in the great map of U2's career. I think the next record will be an even purer pop record, perhaps slower, perhaps faster, but differently produced and perhaps even less U2-esque. We shall see.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I agree in that I think the next will be the same, pop wise. The difference I think is that in the past the progression has been based around exploration of sound or boundaries or whatever, now I think it's about having greater success at a mission or better achieving a goal. I think they do want these sort of universal big singles. Songs that will be played on the radio alongside, and with the frequency of, people like Gwen Stefani and Kanye and whoever else. I think that's the driving force there. Maybe so they can still feel relevant. Maybe because they are trying to redefine what a rock band is or can be at their age. Maybe because they just hunger for the commercial success above all else. Maybe because they want to take the U2 message to a generation growing up on aspirational rather than inspirational music. That part is up for debate, the fact that this is their goal is probably not. Notice when they are talking about their music now, it's becoming more and more in terms of size and reach than anything else. So yes, I expect the next one to be another basic pop one. So surface level sonic shifts and structural changes to the make up of the songs, I think, are not where this decade is at. They don't define the records or really share any part in the story of them. The next album could have songs on it that 'sound' soft and melodic, or 'sound' harder and more rockin', or 'sound' like a shot back to Boy or UF or Achtung, or even 'sound' different to everything else they've ever done, but that won't be where the progression is.

Example: Window in the Skies and Vertigo have nothing in common in every way on the surface, but Vertigo is a blood brother to Window, and only a very very very distant cousin of The Fly (you should see the two of them trying to talk to each other - lots of awkward silences. The Fly too distracted by passing girls and the cigarette he's smoking, Vertigo too easily distracted by crumples in his neatly ironed chino's and polo shirt). I expect the next album to perhaps 'sound' dramatically different, but still be nothing more or less than a direct progression from the last two.

 

[coolian2]

1. ab
2. atyclb
3. jt

Nice.

 

[LemonMelon]

I agree in that I think the next will be the same, pop wise. The difference I think is that in the past the progression has been based around exploration of sound or boundaries or whatever, now I think it's about having greater success at a mission or better achieving a goal. I think they do want these sort of universal big singles. Songs that will be played on the radio alongside, and with the frequency of, people like Gwen Stefani and Kanye and whoever else. I think that's the driving force there. Maybe so they can still feel relevant. Maybe because they are trying to redefine what a rock band is or can be at their age. Maybe because they just hunger for the commercial success above all else. Maybe because they want to take the U2 message to a generation growing up on aspirational rather than inspirational music. That part is up for debate, the fact that this is their goal is probably not. Notice when they are talking about their music now, it's becoming more and more in terms of size and reach than anything else. So yes, I expect the next one to be another basic pop one. So surface level sonic shifts and structural changes to the make up of the songs, I think, are not where this decade is at. They don't define the records or really share any part in the story of them. The next album could have songs on it that 'sound' soft and melodic, or 'sound' harder and more rockin', or 'sound' like a shot back to Boy or UF or Achtung, or even 'sound' different to everything else they've ever done, but that won't be where the progression is.

Example: Window in the Skies and Vertigo have nothing in common in every way on the surface, but Vertigo is a blood brother to Window, and only a very very very distant cousin of The Fly (you should see the two of them trying to talk to each other - lots of awkward silences. The Fly too distracted by passing girls and the cigarette he's smoking, Vertigo too easily distracted by crumples in his neatly ironed chino's and polo shirt). I expect the next album to perhaps 'sound' dramatically different, but still be nothing more or less than a direct progression from the last two.

*cracks knuckles*

I'm going to come right out and say that, while I agree that U2 is indeed going to stay in their current pop vein for a little longer, I believe that you have misinterpreted their reasons for doing so.

Look at what is on the radio today. Does U2 have anything in common with that top 40 scene at all? Of course not. U2 does, however, have their place within it that they may or may not appreciate, but I am quite certain that they wish to take advantage of it. This could be interpreted as "selling out", but that would be missing the point entirely.

Who has U2 been emulating lately? The Beatles. What gets played on FM rock and oldies stations to this day, 30-40 years after release? The Beatles and their contemporaries that stood out.

I propose that U2 is staying in this pop vein not because they wish for commercial success, (or to be "safe", or even so they can make a classic record), but because they wish to be remembered in the future and they believe that this classic pop sound is indeed the most logical genre for them to latch onto at this point so that may happen. Remember what Bono said about WITS being an "eternal song"? I think that illustrates my point perfectly.

If they really wish for commercial success, why would they bother to change up their sound at all, get a new producer, etc? I believe their reasons for recording music have changed since ATYCLB was released. When that album was released, I really think the band wanted commercial success, but, after getting a hit like Beautiful Day (a song that will most likely be played 30-40 years down the road, because it is a modern classic) I think the band finally found what they were looking for in a sound.

For those that cringe at the mere thought of them dragging this sound on any further, think of the classic pop songs that still get played today; "Mrs. Robinson", "Turn Turn Turn", "All You Need Is Love", "San Francisco (Be Sure To Wear Flowers In Your Hair)", etc. Are those the best songs of their respective artists? Probably not. Similarly, this new sound is not the greatest in the band's history, but U2 has never been this close to the "classic-making" magic as they currently are...to making another Beautiful Day.

Everyone here loves 90's U2, but, let's face it, how many U2 songs from that decade are people going to remember 30-40 years from now? One is an exception, but what is that song other than an alternative-rock pop song? It's catchy, memorable, and a full-fledged classic that captures a certain period of time.

And besides, isn't it logical that, as you grow older, you become more interested in leaving something behind (a song, an album, a legacy) that people will remember you by?

I rest my case.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

*cracks knuckles*

I'm going to come right out and say that, while I agree that U2 is indeed going to stay in their current pop vein for a little longer, I believe that you have misinterpreted their reasons for doing so.

Put those fightin' fists down! I think we actually mostly agree completely.

Look at what is on the radio today. Does U2 have anything in common with that top 40 scene at all? Of course not. U2 does, however, have their place within it that they may or may not appreciate, but I am quite certain that they wish to take advantage of it. This could be interpreted as "selling out", but that would be missing the point entirely.

I certainly don't think U2 are selling out or whatever. I also wasn't suggesting that they have anything in common with the generic commercial radio fare of today. I am certain that they do want to be on there though. Badly. Bono says as much regularly, and how he wishes other 'big' bands (Radiohead being one he singled out) still had that sort of ambition, and that they shouldn't be afraid to do so. So, while they don't quite sound like anything else that is big and popular, I do think they are certainly trying to tailor their music to get there.

Who has U2 been emulating lately? The Beatles. What gets played on FM rock and oldies stations to this day, 30-40 years after release? The Beatles and their contemporaries that stood out.

And in 30-40 years plenty of U2 songs will still be getting played in the same way. Maybe they don't understand or appreciate that. Or maybe they don't feel the list of 'classic' songs is quite long enough. However, you can safely say your grandkids will hear a range from Sunday Bloody Sunday to Streets to One to Beautiful Day etc, and they'll carry with them the weight of any of the songs we hear today from 30, 40 years ago. BUT again, essentially we are agreeing. This seems to be their ambition and goal.

I propose that U2 is staying in this pop vein not because they wish for commercial success, (or to be "safe", or even so they can make a classic record), but because they wish to be remembered in the future and they believe that this classic pop sound is indeed the most logical genre for them to latch onto at this point so that may happen. Remember what Bono said about WITS being an "eternal song"? I think that illustrates my point perfectly.

He says 'eternal song', I said in my post above 'universal song'. Again, we're agreeing on this point. It also lends to the need for radio/big single thing, because nothing will be universal/eternal/classic in the future unless it's big now.

It is interesting though, that those other bands they wish to emulate, legacy wise, never needed to make their legacy a goal. It just 'was'. I think where you and I probably do disagree is sort of in this point, which comes on further below. I don't know that they can necessarily achieve this kind of goal by trying really, really hard to create it from scratch. But more of that below...

If they really wish for commercial success, why would they bother to change up their sound at all, get a new producer, etc? I believe their reasons for recording music have changed since ATYCLB was released. When that album was released, I really think the band wanted commercial success, but, after getting a hit like Beautiful Day (a song that will most likely be played 30-40 years down the road, because it is a modern classic) I think the band finally found what they were looking for in a sound.

For those that cringe at the mere thought of them dragging this sound on any further, think of the classic pop songs that still get played today; "Mrs. Robinson", "Turn Turn Turn", "All You Need Is Love", "San Francisco (Be Sure To Wear Flowers In Your Hair)", etc. Are those the best songs of their respective artists? Probably not. Similarly, this new sound is not the greatest in the band's history, but U2 has never been this close to the "classic-making" magic as they currently are...to making another Beautiful Day.

Again we agree in general, only probably differ when it comes down to our individual opinions on whether or not it will actually come to anything. I'm a huge fan of Beautiful Day. I think it's the shining example of everything U2 can be if they want to be pop, but retain their spirit/soul. Everything U2 can be if they want to return to a more classic sound, while keeping it fresh.

But here is where I return to my point about forcefuly trying to create a legacy versus a legacy that naturaly occurs. Songs like Beautiful Day, or One, or those others by other artists you list above, I am sure are not made with 30-40 years down the line in mind. You say yourself that you think what U2 have been doing since is with that in mind. Eternal songs etc. Can you force that? I'm not so sure. Do songs like Original and WITS stack up against One and Beautiful Day? Or Streets? Or All I Want is You? I say no, not even close. Not as songs and certainly not as eternal/universal songs, considering they sunk the first time around without a trace. And I'm not sure they'll ever be able to pull it off doing it that way around. I'm sure they can still create a song like that. I'm sure lighting can just as easily strike in the studio now as ever before, or God walking in the room as they like to say, but I don't think they can build God from scratch and force him into a song. If you know what I mean. I don't think Mrs Robinson was made to be a classic pop song. I don't think One was either. I think WITS was, and it shows, as it has all the pieces built in, but you can just tell in there somewhere that it's an empty song. That's where you can tell the difference - God wasn't in the room when WITS was created. It's the element missing that separates it from a song like Beautiful Day.

Everyone here loves 90's U2, but, let's face it, how many U2 songs from that decade are people going to remember 30-40 years from now? One is an exception, but what is that song other than an alternative-rock pop song? It's catchy, memorable, and a full-fledged classic that captures a certain period of time.

That's true, but how many from this decade so far in that elite upper, upper echelon? Beautiful Day, and..... hmm....

(I wouldn't put Vertigo in that Beautiful Day/One category, but it will be just as remembered, but more as a hit than a truly classic song. It will be remembered simply because it was fucking everywhere, but it was forcefuly so, not just naturaly. No other U2 song has had the, umm, 'outside assistance' that Vertigo had in getting there).

What about Walk On, and WITS, and Original, and Sometimes, and Stuck in a Moment, and City of Blinding Lights etc? In 30-40 years they will be just as lost as Discotheque and Staring at the Sun and many other 90s songs. Those ones singled out because ALL are deliberate attempts at big singles. U2 desperately wanted Staring at the Sun to be the Wonderwall of that summer. Bono had a bet with ?Eno? that Stuck in a Moment would be a # 1 single (I guess it probably was in the UK) and he calls WITS an 'eternal' song. None of them will ever come close to One or Beautiful Day. It never works when you force it. You say above that they have never been this close to classic making 'magic' as per Beautiful Day. Thats it, in a wanky way, it is magic when it happens. I think the harder they try, the further away they are.

And besides, isn't it logical that, as you grow older, you become more interested in leaving something behind (a song, an album, a legacy) that people will remember you by?

I rest my case.

Agreed totally. I completely understand the sentiment and have no problem with them feeling that way. Perhaps they don't realise they are 99% of the way there. I don't think they'll be able to force it to happen though. I think they need to just let it all fly and see what sticks.

 

[U2girl]

If they were that desperate for success we'd be getting songs about bling bling, cars and babes and production by Timbaland, Dr Dre or Kanye. Of course it's all about selling out in the 00's - I won't be surprised if the next album gets as much flack as its two predecessors in here.

I think that WITS was the last we have seen of the "U2 pop" incarnation. I think New Orleans experience for Edge and the new recording location will indicate the shift in music they talked about. Look at the Arabic sounds of Fast cars or the glam rock through Zooropa filter sound of LAPOE. Those don't sound like anything U2's made before.

As for classics: people say BD but I don't see it. A hit, a massive single, sure. But I don't think it's up there with the 80's classics or One. I think COBL is the only song in the 00's that had a shot at being a classic.

 

[julesz]

I agree. You can put U2's records and periods under broad aural umbrellas representing certain sounds and genres, however, that's not necessarily what bothers me. I think subtle progression is sometimes misinterpreted as repetition, which is my main complaint. HTDAAB isn't a holding pattern, in the same way that JT and UF have things in common, but one is a logical expansion of the other, and that's the way I see ATYCLB--->HTDAAB in the great map of U2's career. I think the next record will be an even purer pop record, perhaps slower, perhaps faster, but differently produced and perhaps even less U2-esque. We shall see.

Really enjoyed reading all the posts, i like the analogy made of the link between UF and JT with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, i think you've definitely got a point there. I think it's interesting that POP got mentioned alot in the top bracket. I really like PLEASE and the whole atmospheric and lyric of If You Wear That Velvet Dress.
I'd love to think they could stumble on yet more sonic reinvention like if not in the same vein as AB. Maybe they will strike a balance of experimental and hit singles on one album, i'd love to think so.
I suspect that sounds like Original of The Species as well as fast cars may carry over and progress into their next album who knows?

 

[LemonMelon]

Ernie, since your post is so large and spread out, I'll just answer without quotes because I just woke up and I'm lazy.

I'm glad we mostly agree, and I wish a good percentage of the forum would get that as well. The 00's seem to be pegged as the "sellout" years and the "safe" years, and I think they are just looking at it from a surface level.

So, we have concluded that such longevity in their songs is important to them, but the question is whether or not they are going about it in the right way. As I said before, are these songs that have lasted 30-40 years really the greatest songs by the artists they came from? Are Mrs. Robinson and All You Need Is Love really "God was in the room when this was recorded" kind of songs? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. A lot of that is up to taste, how it makes you feel, and what memories you attach to it. A big part of what makes these songs classics is because of the airplay they received. I don't care what anyone says, "Heroin" by Velvet Underground is an absolutely classic rock song, but it will never be remembered in the way that those other songs that received airplay will. So, as you can see, this is where the whole "selling out" thing gets its weight, and the band is indeed walking a fine line, but you have to look at the motive, not simply the action.

Now, how many songs from this decade will be considered classics years down the road? Certainly more than from the 90's. Beautiful Day is a given, but Walk On, Stuck In A Moment, and perhaps even SYCMIOYO are the ones closest to the door. Certainly, U2 never had that many "classics" to choose from in the 90's. In the 80's, however, classics were plentiful: SBS, New Year's Day, Pride, Bad, Streets, ISHFWILF, WOWY, Desire, and All I Want Is You were all up there.

This is when it gets interesting. Look at both decades and you'll see that they give little to no answer as to whether or not U2 is going about their search for classics the right way. In the 80's, U2 wasn't trying, and look what they came up with! In the 90's, they definitely weren't trying and got nothing. The 00's is the first decade where U2 has actually tried to make classic music, and, so far, they've broke even. There are some classics, sure, and I happen to love the albums, but I think the overall attempt is detrimental to their legacy, at least when it comes to making albums. When it comes to making singles, you can't argue with results.

So, is this newfound pining for the "eternal song" really that damaging? I must say that it's hard to tell at this point, considering they've only released 2 albums in the last 7 years. Let them release 2 more albums (with, presumably, more "classic" singles) and we'll have more to talk about.

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

I really don't know, what most of this fuzz here is about– too much sun, folks? U2 is "selling out"?

Wow, but maybe I should tell you as a long-time fan now (nearly 25 years with the guys and their music), that I do get to hear this point of view again and again and again. At the best it's boring, at worst (as now) it really gets on my nerves.

- In '84, when TUF came out (and I bought it as my first U2 album), there were many so-called fans turning their back to them, because it "didn't sound like U2", that it was "too commercial", that U2 "had betrayed their punk roots".
- In '87 even worse - yes, younger dudes, not everybody praised TJT in these days: "What's all this US stuff about?", "Why do they change their looks that way?", "Now they only want to embrace the masses"
- In '88 the (sad) highlight of this behaviour, I watched from this kind of fans: "No, this is now way too commercial", "made for the US market", "this is the end of U2", "what a sell-out" etc.
Unfortunately U2 themselves were shaken by these stupid reactions from media and fans. Till today they analyze this album in a schizo way, sadly not believing too much in the beauty of RAH's great songs and sounds.
- In '91 & '93 & '97 I bought three revolutionary albums (AB, ZOOROPA, POP) – never exepected, never heard before – new sounds, new looks. Then this was a disturbing & in the same way challenging experience for me as a fan (maybe the highest step I had to climb with 'my' band). And though (because) this revolution in music business happened, I heard the same fans' crap again: "now they hail the rave scene", "now they really turned their back on their old fans" etc.
- In '00 I bought ATYCLB with nice catchy tunes, unfortunately produced too flat, too radio-friendly. It didn't blow me away as an album (but as a tour) as did their pre-decessors, but I liked it. Now, media and mass audience have praised this "comeback-album" until this day, "a re-surrection", "back to old form".
- In '04 with HTDAAB this kind of worshipping got scratches: In the press, the album was estimated slightly worse. And as I have to read here, too, a lot of fans are bitching this collection of beautifully written, performed and produced songs again and again.

To put it together: "HELLO, HELLO?" You are talking about a rock band, that came from punkish albums (it never was punk really). A band, that has travelled through and has created different musical landscapes – and a band, that has had real commercial success only after their third (!) album, then aiming to be the biggest/greatest/best (whatever you want) band in the world. Bigger than or at least to be in the same footsteps as the Beatles – pure megalomania is part of the U2 concept, friends! Since '83, latest since '87 they are at the top of the international business and they have been making fortunes up there as part of the deal.
"We do this for our living" Bono said as "Thank you for giving us a great life", which means creative liberty AND commercial success. There's no sell-out, there never was. U2 want to make fine music, that stands the test of time – and they want to make money. That never changed, it never will as long as this band will stay together. And forever may they run ...

 

[U2girl]

"Same shit, different decade."

 

[Marien]

ZOOTVTOURist, I quite agree with you.
I don't know what's in U2 minds, if they want to have a universal song or whatever, I know an artist wants to express himself, what he wants to express depends on the moment, his feelings, his interests, his age, etc., I know an artist wants his work to last because his art is more than a job for him and I know an artist wants to live on his art, as the only way to feel free.
I think magic is the most important of the few things an artist has in his beginnings, of course if he's an artist he's got a gift, as he achieves more powerful skills, magic seems less necessary to get "correct" works, but if he doesn't risk and calls for magic, he'll never get "great" works again, we have all seen lots of stars recording the same album with a different title again and again, U2 never do that, they evolve from one point to another and then they jump, without looking at the height, that's why they stand there after almost 30 years, some people want or wish to follow them, some others don't, it's their choice, it's OK. But for those who think they're selling out I will say one more thing, they can do that because they can afford it.

 

[gherman]

I love it when U2 "sells out"

Keeps things interesting

Sell your souls boys

 

[powerhour24]

I love selections of ATYCLB, the 90's were fun but the return to traditional guitar rock needed to come sometime (I disagree with those haters that say it's them repeating successful sounds because it certainly doesn't sound like JT or AB or War, just more stripped down) but just as with HTDAAB, by the stuff left off you can see that the boys and producers seem to be writing off some superior and more creative material.

BD, Walk On, Elevation as a fun rocker, Kite , In a Little While all excellent, the acoustic version of Stuck is far superior IMO and while most people hate Peace on Earth I really like it. But tracks like Wild Honey, and Grace...not so much. New York and When I Look At The World, my opinion on them fluctuates.

But if you were to put stuff like Levitate and close the album with The Ground Beneath Her Feet instead of Grace, that'd be a killer.

 

[ahittle]

I think BD has already lodged a place in the zeitgeist. Might not be a favorite around here, but chances are your uncle has heard the song at a football game or something. There was also a ton of money behind that song as a kickoff on their comeback campaign.