great article from NME to throw into the Pop/ ATYCLB shit-fest fiasco - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-06-2002, 11:52 PM   #21
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 03:31 AM
great post Foxxern

people who dislike Pop seem to get really bitter when people say they like this era of U2 more than the 80s or 00s, and then the immediate comparisons are made to these periods and Pop is said to be inferior in its emotional and musical landscape, and if you like Pop I guess it means you have soiled the rest of the U2 catalogue, like every fan is supposed to acknowledge that Pop is inferior or something... I can honestly say I like if not love every one of U2's records, now there are a couple that seem to me to be weaker in comparison to other U2 albums, but not to the rest of the artists out there, for instance ATYCLB is not my favorite U2 album, but I like it more than many of the albums released simultaneously by their contemporaries

I think this is why Pop fans get so testy about people bashing it, because every anti-Pop rant goes on about how the songs are trivial or empty and this is supposed to be accepted as gospel

with ATYCLB, people say "it doesn't rock enough," or "it's too dull and mellow," not "it's an empty, soul-less record which somehow how could have been perfect if they had spent another 6 or 10 months remixing the tracks in the studios blah blah blah... "
__________________

The Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 12:41 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer
with ATYCLB, people say "it doesn't rock enough," or "it's too dull and mellow," not "it's an empty, soul-less record which somehow how could have been perfect if they had spent another 6 or 10 months remixing the tracks in the studios blah blah blah... "
Yeah, I never quite understood the "not enough production" sentiment of the anti (and even the pro)-Pop establishment. I think it might have the *most* production of any U2 album to date! (Though Achtung Baby does have more processing, if you can believe it.) I have a friend who is going into recording engineering, and he believes that Pop was actually over-produced. In his opinion, U2 overproduced themeselves with the whole album, and put too much emphasis on the Johnny Cash "Make Me My Album!" mentality to really enjoy the creation of it. When listening to the album, you can almost sense this. It's a very tight record, actually -- almost too tight. Maybe U2 just needed to loosen up a little bit, bring the album to the party a bit more, and people would have had more fun with it. However, the way it is is a reflection of where U2 were at, at the time, and for that there can be no compromise.
__________________

Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 04:15 AM   #23
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,044
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

Yeah, I never quite understood the "not enough production" sentiment of the anti (and even the pro)-Pop establishment. I think it might have the *most* production of any U2 album to date! (Though Achtung Baby does have more processing, if you can believe it.) I have a friend who is going into recording engineering, and he believes that Pop was actually over-produced.
I agree it is more likely overproduced instead of "not enough production"
still since the outcome doesn't sound that well produced to me they might have spent some more time reproducing some of the tracks
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 04:25 PM   #24
Refugee
 
scatteroflight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: a dream landscape
Posts: 1,736
Local Time: 08:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Foxxern


I'm not sure where you would draw that conclusion from. I doubt there is anyone on here who actually hates what U2 represented in the 80s
Check my new sig!
scatteroflight is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 04:52 PM   #25
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 03:31 AM

I'm only bitter that U2 won't play most of their 80s music live anymore, what a pity we only get a handful of songs (and always the same) from those first 4 albums
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 05:04 PM   #26
Refugee
 
scatteroflight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: a dream landscape
Posts: 1,736
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer
I'm only bitter that U2 won't play most of their 80s music live anymore, what a pity we only get a handful of songs (and always the same) from those first 4 albums
Well, I agree with you on that.

*shakes hands cautiously with Wanderer, thinking that the comment about much of U2's 90's music being "empty" might have been a bit unwarranted*
scatteroflight is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 05:35 PM   #27
POP for GIRLS
 
GypsyHeartgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Stuck in the 80's!
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 03:31 AM

I don't even have to say it- I loved what U2 represented in the 80's, and 00's. I hate what they represented in the late 90's. AB is cool. But 80'sU2isBest! (Hey where is that guy?)
GypsyHeartgirl is offline  
Old 09-07-2002, 06:11 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by GypsyHeartgirl
I don't even have to say it- I loved what U2 represented in the 80's, and 00's. I hate what they represented in the late 90's. AB is cool. But 80'sU2isBest! (Hey where is that guy?)
And what, would you say, did they represent in the late '90s?
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 06:25 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 08:31 AM
I've read that article before. Funny stuff, but I can never take NME writers seriously. They appear to treat reviews as a personal star vehicle which is more about showing off how clever and witty they are rather than the actual music they're reviewing.

As for the eternal 80s vs 90s debate, as a later-(beautiful)-day U2 fan I don't hold one decade superior to another, as they both have their pluses and minuses for me. I doubt I'd be as much in love with U2 if there wasn't a funkier, sexier, more playful side to counterbalance their 80s music, which could be almost too overbearingly serious and intense at times. I also find the 90s work to be more complex and sophisticated musically, lyrically and thematically, and with the exception of POP era, it's also my favourite U2 period visually.

On the other hand, if you want to talk about the iconic, distinct U2 sound that will be remembered in the years to come, then IMO none of their 90s flirtations with electronica surpass the sound they've created in the 80s. Which is why I'm often puzzled when somebody talks about the 90s as U2's innovative and pioneering period, when it was in the 80s that they've come up with the style that so many other bands imitate and borrow from.
Saracene is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 07:39 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Saracene
I've read that article before. Funny stuff, but I can never take NME writers seriously. They appear to treat reviews as a personal star vehicle which is more about showing off how clever and witty they are rather than the actual music they're reviewing.

As for the eternal 80s vs 90s debate, as a later-(beautiful)-day U2 fan I don't hold one decade superior to another, as they both have their pluses and minuses for me. I doubt I'd be as much in love with U2 if there wasn't a funkier, sexier, more playful side to counterbalance their 80s music, which could be almost too overbearingly serious and intense at times. I also find the 90s work to be more complex and sophisticated musically, lyrically and thematically, and with the exception of POP era, it's also my favourite U2 period visually.

On the other hand, if you want to talk about the iconic, distinct U2 sound that will be remembered in the years to come, then IMO none of their 90s flirtations with electronica surpass the sound they've created in the 80s. Which is why I'm often puzzled when somebody talks about the 90s as U2's innovative and pioneering period, when it was in the 80s that they've come up with the style that so many other bands imitate and borrow from.
I like your thinking, Saracene. I'm not sure, though, if the 90's material is that much more sophisticated than, say, albums like The Joshua Tree and Unforgettable Fire. Lyrically, thematically, and even musically, I would say that those two albums are comparable, if not better (with the possible exception of Achtung Baby) than anything U2 released in the 90s.
__________________

Michael Griffiths is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×