Exactly what happened?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

tomtom

Acrobat
Joined
Jun 9, 2000
Messages
489
Location
New York
1997: U2 releases POP.
2000: U2 releases ATYCLB.

What the fuck happened in between these albums to produce such a radical change? The period between R&H and Achtung Baby is well documented by many sources (mainly in U2ATEOTW). But as far as I know, no one has really unearthed what went on in the 4 guys' minds in the late 90s after POP that made them go from one album to the other. I'm not knocking either of the albums, but anyone has to admit that there is a massive difference in almost all aspects of the music.

The lyrics in Pop are highly literate, while in ATYCLB they are almost consciously simple and earthy (some would say cheesy). The guitars are way more subtle and quiet in ATYCLB compared to POP. I would say the biggest difference is the bass: Adam went from basically playing lead on a lot of the songs on POP to just playing the chord notes on most songs on ATYCLB (BD, Walk On, New York, Stuck, Peace on Earth).

So what happened exactly?
 
tomtom said:
1997: U2 releases POP.
2000: U2 releases ATYCLB.

What the fuck happened in between these albums to produce such a radical change? The period between R&H and Achtung Baby is well documented by many sources (mainly in U2ATEOTW). But as far as I know, no one has really unearthed what went on in the 4 guys' minds in the late 90s after POP that made them go from one album to the other. I'm not knocking either of the albums, but anyone has to admit that there is a massive difference in almost all aspects of the music.

The lyrics in Pop are highly literate, while in ATYCLB they are almost consciously simple and earthy (some would say cheesy). The guitars are way more subtle and quiet in ATYCLB compared to POP. I would say the biggest difference is the bass: Adam went from basically playing lead on a lot of the songs on POP to just playing the chord notes on most songs on ATYCLB (BD, Walk On, New York, Stuck, Peace on Earth).

So what happened exactly?

to quote one of the ATYCLB songs:

"mid life crisis"
 
ATYCLB was mostly recorded before ANY of them turned 40, I do believe. Edge and Larry didn't even turn 40 until 2001.
 
Really, if its what you guys are saying then its rather disappointing. The first time they have a commercially lukewarm reaction to an album they backtrack? Doesnt say much about the old balls. I hope thats not what happened...
 
tomtom said:
Really, if its what you guys are saying then its rather disappointing. The first time they have a commercially lukewarm reaction to an album they backtrack? Doesnt say much about the old balls. I hope thats not what happened...

Lukewarm reaction? It's happened at three points in U2's career. October: generally taken as not as good as Boy. U2 go away and make War. Rattle And Hum: U2 get well and truly slammed. They go away and make Achtung Baby. Pop: I think if you listen to bootlegs from the later stages of the tour, you get an insight into the band's mind - I feel at the 12 December 1997, Seattle show in partciular, Bono sounds a bit on the depressed side of life. And listen to the pessimism in some Pop tracks, especially Wake Up Dead Man!

I think U2 were in desperate need of a breath of fresh air, some optimism, and they found it. That came out on ATYCLB.
 
tomtom said:
I hope thats not what happened...

Who cares why? They made a musical choice. You either like it or you don't.

Don't take someone's opinion as to why things happened for fact. The fact is, is that the album was made, take it for what it is.
 
If I didnt take the artist's intent into consideration when I listened to most of U2, I wouldnt have anywhere near as much love for them as I do. Positive or negative, that comes pre-packaged with my U2 fandom, as I am guessing it does for many other fans also. You could say that it is actually what makes U2 unique, why people are so critical of them. You think people like Pride just because its a catchy song?

To demonstrate my point, suppose I gave you a tape that was recorded in the studio that had the following conversation:

Bono - hey boys, lets write a radio song. But with some socially conscious lyrics thrown in so people think its deep.

Edge - yeah, I could play my chuka chuka guitar ad infinitum. Based on the response to Subday Bloody Sunday, it seems to get a lot of people off.

Larry - yeah, also throw in some 'oooohh's a few times at the end. That will really get people to sing a long.

Adam - yeah, because that means more people will buy the single! Yipee!

Can you honestly say that would not affect your listening experience of Pride? And dont tell me thats too ridiculous. To some degree or another, that is exactly most people's sentiment when they accuse U2 of selling out in 00s. Me, I dont know. I'm still not sure and trying to figure it out. Thats why I raised the issue....
 
Last edited:
tomtom said:
If I didnt take artistic intent into consideration when I listened to most of U2, I wouldnt have anywhere near as much love for them as I do. Positive or negative, that comes pre-packaged with my U2 fandom, as I am guessing it does for many other fans also. You could say that it is actually what makes U2 unique, why people are so critical of them. You think people like Pride just because its a catchy song?

So if they had told you such and such was the intent and it was a crappy song, it would make a difference?

Ask yourself have they ever done songs like IALW or Wild Honey? Does the emontional content of Kite lose because of intent? Have you ever heard a solo like WILATW?

I'm sure every artist has great artisitic intent, but the truth is many come out with crap. You can't judge by intent, just content. If you believe the content to be good, or if you believe it to be crap then what does intent have to do with it?
 
Intent doesnt necessarily make content good. But it can definitely affect it negatively. Thats the difference between necessary and sufficient.

Maybe you dont feel that way. If so, more power to you. But I dont think its fair to say that intent shouldnt matter to anyone. Maybe I am naive. But with U2, its not just rock n roll. Intent does matter to me with U2. Like I said before, it wouldnt mean as much if it didnt.

Btw I love both Kite and IALW and my perception of intent figures into both. As it does with the solo in WILATW. Although the lyrics make me puke.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Who cares why? They made a musical choice. You either like it or you don't.

Don't take someone's opinion as to why things happened for fact. The fact is, is that the album was made, take it for what it is.

The shortest post was the best one. :up:

Does it really matter that they changed? Pop was one of their biggest failures comerically, while ATYCLB and the Elevation tour was the most successful of their careers thus far.

You said you aren't bashing either album - but then why throw in comments like "The lyrics in Pop are highly literate, while in ATYCLB they are almost consciously simple and earthy (some would say cheesy). The guitars are way more subtle and quiet in ATYCLB compared to POP. I would say the biggest difference is the bass: Adam went from basically playing lead on a lot of the songs on POP to just playing the chord notes on most songs on ATYCLB (BD, Walk On, New York, Stuck, Peace on Earth)"

You are stating your opinion as if its fact. ATYCLB is my favourite album and that is that.
 
COBL_04 said:
Pop was one of their biggest failures comerically, while ATYCLB and the Elevation tour was the most successful of their careers thus far..

Uhh...how is ATYCLB the most successful album commerically? If I'm not mistaken it wasn't more successful than The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby. And raising ticket prices that much is an easy way to have your tour be more successful than the last one.

I'd argue that the fact they played the material on POP to that many people is a resounding success, considering how challenging it is compared to the rest of their albums, Zooropa notwithstanding.
 
In response to COBL-04...

I think you are getting defensive.

Theres nothing wrong with simpler lyrics. Lennon did it. Springsteen made a conscious shift in his lyrical style from Born to Run to Darkness on the Edge of Town towards simplicity, and it worked brilliantly. I myself have no problem with most of the lyrics on ATYCLB, although a lot of them are crapfests IMO. I dont judge something by how simple or complex it is. That itself is kind of too simple. So my comment about simplicity was not a value judgement in the slightest.

About the bass playing and the guitar - that is called minimalism. Doing more with less. Also not a value judgement. My favourite U2 album is The Joshua Tree, the very epitome of minimalism. My favourite U2 songs of all time? Bad and WOWY. Minimalism all around in the guitar. So once again no value judgements were intended.

About stating my opinion like it is a fact - I dont think 'playing chord notes' is a matter of opinion, buddy. Thats what it is.

And FYI, I dont hate ATYCLB. It isnt my favourite, but I give it plenty of spins. BD, Kite, IALW, the music of NY and Elevation, I love them. I'm even beginning to really love Walk On, and the acoustic version of Stuck is beautiful. So dont be so quick on the button...
 
Last edited:
COBL_04 said:

Does it really matter that they changed? Pop was one of their biggest failures comerically, while ATYCLB and the Elevation tour was the most successful of their careers thus far.

Only really in America.

COBL_04 said:

You said you aren't bashing either album - but then why throw in comments like "The lyrics in Pop are highly literate, while in ATYCLB they are almost consciously simple and earthy (some would say cheesy). The guitars are way more subtle and quiet in ATYCLB compared to POP. I would say the biggest difference is the bass: Adam went from basically playing lead on a lot of the songs on POP to just playing the chord notes on most songs on ATYCLB (BD, Walk On, New York, Stuck, Peace on Earth)"

You are stating your opinion as if its fact. ATYCLB is my favourite album and that is that.

The thing is, all those things are fact. It is a fact that the basslines on ATYCLB are more simple than Pop, that the lyrics were more simplified and that Edge's guitar was more subtle. Those statements can easily be proven true of false (in this case true) making them fact.
 
What happened? What happened was that they spent almost the entire decade of the 90's not sounding like U2 and pushing the envelope as far as they could. It's documented that Howie B was enthralled at how the band sounded when they were just playing by themselves in a room with their instruments without all the tape loops and bells and whistles and said something to the band.

Maybe they listened to him? It's documented that Bono wanted ATYCLB to be a soul album and an album about joy. He said that it's easy for people to write about misery, but it's harder to write about pure joy.

I think that's what happened.
 
^ :yes: Indeed.
Also, in that recent issue of Mojo magazine, Larry says that they had the feeling they were straying too far from the core of U2 to feel comfortable making that style of music. So in a way they did press a panic button, but not because of sales, but because of the music.
I also think that they didn't press that panic button after the release of Pop and its sales figures, but before Pop was even released. In various interviews they said that during the recording of Pop they already felt they went too far into 'dance territory' and were already returning to more conventional ground. However, since they didn't have time to finish it, Pop sounds as it does. But with a little more time, it maybe would have sounded like the link between Zooropa and ATYCLB.
 
COBL_04 said:
Does it really matter that they changed? Pop was one of their biggest failures comerically, while ATYCLB and the Elevation tour was the most successful of their careers thus far.

The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby (and supporting tours) both wipe the floor with ATYCLB in terms of commercial success.

Popmart also had higher attendance than Elevation, though that's obviously because Popmart played stadiums and was a genuine world tour.
 
Maybe they just got sick of doing the same old thing again, and felt more comfortable with a straighter album

ATYCLB and HTDAAB are still as different as the other albums they had done in the past.
 
tomtom said:
I myself have no problem with most of the lyrics on ATYCLB, although a lot of them are crapfests IMO...... So my comment about simplicity was not a value judgement in the slightest.

Dude, how can you say you have no problem with the lyrics, then say but a lot of them are "crapfests," and then say you're not judging them? :scratch:


You want the short of what happened? Bono's dad got sick. They had more kids. They had less of a reason to see the world as sardonically as they did in AB, Zooropa and Pop, and more reason to find the beauty in the life that we have. Even though you didn't come out and say it, and you'll deny this in your next post, by making such a fuss about the change between Pop and ATYCLB, you make it seem like U2 had never had such radical changes between albums before. I don't see why anyone who knows the history of U2 should be surprised at such a change.

And how long must we sing the song of "U2 sold out with ATYCLB?"
 
Axver said:


I think U2 were in desperate need of a breath of fresh air, some optimism, and they found it. That came out on ATYCLB.

:yes:


Perhaps they just got sick of the extravagance of the entire Achtung Baby --> Zooropa --> Pop era. Tired of playing up to the audience. Tired of all the costumes and the crazy hats. Tired of all the experimentation (musically and in terms of style).
Personally? I can draw similarities between All That You Can't Leave Behind and The Unforgettable Fire/Joshua Tree eras. The more stripped down approach. Sure, it might not be as inyourface as the alternative, but it was successful. They probably had a wakeup call around the time of Popmart - criticisms of the album, criticisms of the shows, less packed stadiums.
It's as if they were trying to somehow reinvent themselves again, except this time around, it lacked the authenticity of ZooTV. But they have the loyal following. They don't have to always re-invent themselves to ensure success. Perhaps they just came to terms with this once and for all.

That is, of course, entirely subjective, but that's how i've always perceived it to be.
 
RELEVANCE


They crave it like Coldplay crave jumpsuits.

I think they also saw how Radiohead's OK Computer, released in 1997 like Pop, was accepted widely as being brilliant by critics, but didn't translate into widespread acceptance by the public.

More than anything, U2 are the "people's band," and this means everything to them, I believe.
 
Last edited:
Popmartijn said:
^ :yes: Indeed.
Also, in that recent issue of Mojo magazine, Larry says that they had the feeling they were straying too far from the core of U2 to feel comfortable making that style of music. So in a way they did press a panic button, but not because of sales, but because of the music.
I also think that they didn't press that panic button after the release of Pop and its sales figures, but before Pop was even released. In various interviews they said that during the recording of Pop they already felt they went too far into 'dance territory' and were already returning to more conventional ground. However, since they didn't have time to finish it, Pop sounds as it does. But with a little more time, it maybe would have sounded like the link between Zooropa and ATYCLB.

what that guy said
 
U2Man said:


Very true.

Out came a brilliant album, though.

Indeed.

Some good points being made in this thread. I do think a lot of it had to do with the backlash of Pop. Same thing happened with Rattle and Hum, as Axver said. As much as I love Pop (and believe me, I do LOVE Pop), I'm sort of glad that U2 was forced to switch directions. Diversity is one of the things I admire about the band. It's possible that U2 could have continued down the experimentation and ironic route and produced some brilliant stuff, but I do think they would have sacrificed relevancy. Their ability to change with the times but still stay true to themselves and the music they want to make is what has kept U2 at the top for the last 25 years. I know a lot of fans want U2 to be more like Radiohead or whatever, and while I do love Radiohead and admire them, personally? I like having my favourite band at the top of the world.
 
tomtom said:
1997: U2 releases POP.
2000: U2 releases ATYCLB.

What the fuck happened in between these albums to produce such a radical change? The period between R&H and Achtung Baby is well documented by many sources (mainly in U2ATEOTW). But as far as I know, no one has really unearthed what went on in the 4 guys' minds in the late 90s after POP that made them go from one album to the other. I'm not knocking either of the albums, but anyone has to admit that there is a massive difference in almost all aspects of the music.

The lyrics in Pop are highly literate, while in ATYCLB they are almost consciously simple and earthy (some would say cheesy). The guitars are way more subtle and quiet in ATYCLB compared to POP. I would say the biggest difference is the bass: Adam went from basically playing lead on a lot of the songs on POP to just playing the chord notes on most songs on ATYCLB (BD, Walk On, New York, Stuck, Peace on Earth).

So what happened exactly?

Had to get back in the charts....so made catchy chart music......dah dah dah Beautiful Day bah de dah.....:wink:
 
Axver said:


The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby (and supporting tours) both wipe the floor with ATYCLB in terms of commercial success.

Popmart also had higher attendance than Elevation, though that's obviously because Popmart played stadiums and was a genuine world tour.


Careful now... comparing eras isn't always so easy.

JT and AB also benefitted tremendously from the advent of the CD. Many people bought JT and AB on tape or vinyl - only to then buy it on CD as well (this was especially true for JT).

Also, neither JT or AB endured the download era.

U2 is one of the top selling artists since 2000, which is incredible when one realizes that they are also one of the most downloaded artists of this decade. If people couldn't illegally download their work, one wonders how much better ATYCLB and, now, HTDAAB would have sold.

Lastly, both JT and AB have been around a lot longer than ATYCLB. So they have had years to gather catalog sales. U2 have sold millions of albums in catalog sales in the SoundScan era. ATYCLB hasn't had as much time to enjoy these catalog sales.

If we compare first year sales only, ATYCLB and HTDAAB match VERY well with JT and AB.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom