HTAAB---The new Rattle and Hum?

[Marr]

I'd like to say about a thing that realy striked me a while ago.
Don't you think that U2 run away back to the 80s ?
Back to the preaching, back to the radio, back to Bono's political work, back to "saint" image.

HTAAb sound very traditional, almost 100% non-experimental.
Where did the creative energy of AB,ZOOROPA ANd POP go ?
Don't get me wrong i like this record, but I'd like to hear some more "alternative" tracks on it.They often said that this is the ultimate U2 records, their best record. Well for me the best record would be a combination of the 80s u2 and the 90s u2.

I think that an Achtung Baby is needed now, a radical change is needed.Perhaps the 2006 album?
Some people would say they are too old for that.

Well are they?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

seems to me that if it were so easy to make songs as good as "traditional u2," "non-experimental u2" that my ears wouldn't bleed everytime i put on the radio.

creativity and experimentation are two different things...

 

[MrBrau1]

seems to me that if it were so easy to make songs as good as "traditional u2," "non-experimental u2" that my ears wouldn't bleed everytime i put on the radio.

creativity and experimentation are two different things...

Good point. Many on this board are of the opinion that a well written and arranged song requires no creativity. All they care about is beeps and drum machines.

 

[boosterjuice]

Look, it is impossible to please everyone.

Merry Christmas

 

[doctorwho]

I'd like to say about a thing that realy striked me a while ago.
Don't you think that U2 run away back to the 80s ?

Nope

Back to the preaching, back to the radio, back to Bono's political work, back to "saint" image.

Nope, nope, nope and nope.

HTAAb sound very traditional, almost 100% non-experimental. Where did the creative energy of AB,ZOOROPA ANd POP go?

Those albums aren't nearly as experimental as you think.

I think that an Achtung Baby is needed now, a radical change is needed. Perhaps the 2006 album? Some people would say they are too old for that. Well are they?

Enough! Enough to all this nonsense about "experimental" and "change" and "new directions". I really can't stand it any more.

Listen to JT and listen to HTDAAB. I don't hear another "With or Without You". I don't hear another "Trip...". I don't hear another "Bullet...". I don't hear another "In God's Country". These are not the same 25-27 year old "kids" that made JT. They are men now, with wives, children and, most importantly, life experiences. This album isn't about "events"; rather, it's very personal. The music now isn't about "fighter planes", but on how to make peace. This isn't about a trip to Africa, but rather, a way to save the continent. This isn't about trying to live with (or without) a love, but rather a reaffirmation of a love while acknowledging the differences.

People hear new U2 music and if it's too experimental, they aren't interested. They whine and cry, "Where's the U2 I loved?" When U2 produce something that sounds like, well, U2, they cry, "Where's the experimentation?" I really can't take it. Sheesh! You can't have both!

The ultimate irony, though, is that you DO have both. HTDAAB has experimentation with L&PorE and "Fast Cars". It has rocking U2, it has sentimental U2, it has powerful U2. These are some of Bono's best lyrics, IMO. Edge has made this music come alive with sentimental piano and roaring guitar work. Adam is dominant on each track.

I will acquiesce, this music isn't as "innovative" as some past works. But AB-"Pop" aren't nearly as experimental as many claim. AB and "Pop" are full of "verse, chorus, verse, chorus" routines. AB stood out mostly because it was a different sound for U2 only when compared to the highly popular JT era. And, of course, the image change that accompanied AB also made it stand out even more. But when one really listens to AB, it's full of very accessible pop-rock tunes. It's little wonder the album was such a hit. Same with "Pop" (in terms of song structure). Additionally, "Pop" has plenty of "classic" U2 songs - why no criticisms there? Even "Zooropa" - arguably U2's most experimental album (along with UF), has "classic" U2 with "Dirty Day", "The First Time" and "Stay".

Bono isn't "The Fly" any more, but he's not a preacher either. He's probably the closest he's been to his "real" self - a nice cross between the two. And it's this honesty and open attitude that is the most scary - little wonder he wears shades for some "protection". But unlike the JT era, Bono isn't preaching any more. He's DONE. He isn't talking about the injustices of the world, he's correcting them. There's a big difference there - and for anyone to fail to see this is reprehensible. To my ears, this change shows up very powerfully in U2's new music.

You claim this is "back to Bono's political work". Uh... exactly what political work did he do in 1987? Did he meet with Ronald Reagan then? Did he meet with Margaret Thatcher? Did he get debts erased? Did he meet with the Pope? Don't confuse his preaching of that era with the ACTION he's doing now.

People seem to always want U2 to change. What's so wrong with U2 sounding like U2? Some claim that stagnation causes a stale result. Admittedly, that's happened with plenty of bands (e.g. INXS, one of my favorites), but does HTDAAB sound stale to anyone's ears? Many popular artists have made careers sounding like themselves. How many times have Dylan, The Stones, or Springsteen changed directions or sounds? They continue to sound like themselves and fans adore them for it. But not U2 fans - no way! We demand experimentation, as long as it still sounds like the U2 we love from 1987.

There's a reason HTDAAB is selling so well. Sure, marketing helped. But marketing doesn't cause Triple Platinum sales. All marketing does is give an album an initial boost. After that, it's up to the product to either succeed or fail. Clearly, HTDAAB is succeeding because it's a quality product. This is U2 sounding at their absolute U2 best. They toss in some hints of experimentation, but have plenty of their old familiar sounds - all brought forward to this century.

I don't know if U2 can continue to simply "sound like U2" and guarantee big sales, but I will say that having a few token albums that explore U2's own sound sure doesn't deserve this type of negativity. With the reaction on this forum, you'd think U2 made some sort of album entitled "F*ck Our Fans!".

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

Re: Re: HTAAB---The new Rattle and Hum?

Nope

Nope, nope, nope and nope.

Those albums aren't nearly as experimental as you think.



Enough! Enough to all this nonsense about "experimental" and "change" and "new directions". I really can't stand it any more.

Listen to JT and listen to HTDAAB. I don't hear another "With or Without You". I don't hear another "Trip...". I don't hear another "Bullet...". I don't hear another "In God's Country". These are not the same 25-27 year old "kids" that made JT. They are men now, with wives, children and, most importantly, life experiences. This album isn't about "events"; rather, it's very personal. The music now isn't about "fighter planes", but on how to make peace. This isn't about a trip to Africa, but rather, a way to save the continent. This isn't about trying to live with (or without) a love, but rather a reaffirmation of a love while acknowledging the differences.

People hear new U2 music and if it's too experimental, they aren't interested. They whine and cry, "Where's the U2 I loved?" When U2 produce something that sounds like, well, U2, they cry, "Where's the experimentation?" I really can't take it. Sheesh! You can't have both!

The ultimate irony, though, is that you DO have both. HTDAAB has experimentation with L&PorE and "Fast Cars". It has rocking U2, it has sentimental U2, it has powerful U2. These are some of Bono's best lyrics, IMO. Edge has made this music come alive with sentimental piano and roaring guitar work. Adam is dominant on each track.

I will acquiesce, this music isn't as "innovative" as some past works. But AB-"Pop" aren't nearly as experimental as many claim. AB and "Pop" are full of "verse, chorus, verse, chorus" routines. AB stood out mostly because it was a different sound for U2 only when compared to the highly popular JT era. And, of course, the image change that accompanied AB also made it stand out even more. But when one really listens to AB, it's full of very accessible pop-rock tunes. It's little wonder the album was such a hit. Same with "Pop" (in terms of song structure). Additionally, "Pop" has plenty of "classic" U2 songs - why no criticisms there? Even "Zooropa" - arguably U2's most experimental album (along with UF), has "classic" U2 with "Dirty Day", "The First Time" and "Stay".

Bono isn't "The Fly" any more, but he's not a preacher either. He's probably the closest he's been to his "real" self - a nice cross between the two. And it's this honesty and open attitude that is the most scary - little wonder he wears shades for some "protection". But unlike the JT era, Bono isn't preaching any more. He's DONE. He isn't talking about the injustices of the world, he's correcting them. There's a big difference there - and for anyone to fail to see this is reprehensible. To my ears, this change shows up very powerfully in U2's new music.

You claim this is "back to Bono's political work". Uh... exactly what political work did he do in 1987? Did he meet with Ronald Reagan then? Did he meet with Margaret Thatcher? Did he get debts erased? Did he meet with the Pope? Don't confuse his preaching of that era with the ACTION he's doing now.

People seem to always want U2 to change. What's so wrong with U2 sounding like U2? Some claim that stagnation causes a stale result. Admittedly, that's happened with plenty of bands (e.g. INXS, one of my favorites), but does HTDAAB sound stale to anyone's ears? Many popular artists have made careers sounding like themselves. How many times have Dylan, The Stones, or Springsteen changed directions or sounds? They continue to sound like themselves and fans adore them for it. But not U2 fans - no way! We demand experimentation, as long as it still sounds like the U2 we love from 1987.

There's a reason HTDAAB is selling so well. Sure, marketing helped. But marketing doesn't cause Triple Platinum sales. All marketing does is give an album an initial boost. After that, it's up to the product to either succeed or fail. Clearly, HTDAAB is succeeding because it's a quality product. This is U2 sounding at their absolute U2 best. They toss in some hints of experimentation, but have plenty of their old familiar sounds - all brought forward to this century.

I don't know if U2 can continue to simply "sound like U2" and guarantee big sales, but I will say that having a few token albums that explore U2's own sound sure doesn't deserve this type of negativity. With the reaction on this forum, you'd think U2 made some sort of album entitled "F*ck Our Fans!".

Whew, my eyes hurt.
But i agree

 

[mikal]

i still don't get what's so wrong with U2 sounding like U2.

 

[david]

Rattle and Hum, the new songs on it at least, were actually quite expiremental for a band like U2.

 

[GibsonGirl]

i still don't get what's so wrong with U2 sounding like U2.

Neither do I. And I'm sick of this constant "why have they stopped experimenting?" crap. U2 does not NEED to experiment to make great music. Can't you all be happy that they did experiment and leave it at that? The "experimental" albums were great, but it just seems like a lot of people here want U2 to go Radiohead on us and do a Kid A or something like that.

Oh and I agree with you completely, doctorwho.

 

[MrBrau1]

Neither do I. And I'm sick of this constant "why have they stopped experimenting?" crap. U2 does not NEED to experiment to make great music. Can't you all be happy that they did experiment and leave it at that? The "experimental" albums were great, but it just seems like a lot of people here want U2 to go Radiohead on us and do a Kid A or something like that.

Oh and I agree with you completely, doctorwho.

I just hope all the people complaing about U2 not being "experimental" enough on ATYCLB and HTDAAB have worn out their 1st copy of "Passengers- Original Soundtrack I", and bought a 2nd copy.

 

[U2DMfan]

I'd like to say about a thing that realy striked me a while ago.
Don't you think that U2 run away back to the 80s ?
Back to the preaching, back to the radio, back to Bono's political work, back to "saint" image.

Back to the 80's? No. I think this is just an absolute misconception. ATYCLB wasn't back to the 80's either. Different era for the band. U2 can't go back to the 80's, even if they wanted to, and they don't want to.

As far as Bono and his image. He's a 44 year old humanitarian.
When he was 24 he was a blowhard. At least now, he's trying to put that do-good energy to use and actually "doing good". I am proud of him and proud to be a fan.

HTAAb sound very traditional, almost 100% non-experimental.
Where did the creative energy of AB,ZOOROPA ANd POP go ?
Don't get me wrong i like this record, but I'd like to hear some more "alternative" tracks on it.They often said that this is the ultimate U2 records, their best record. Well for me the best record would be a combination of the 80s u2 and the 90s u2.

I'll go with what drwho said. Those albums weren't THAT experimental. Basically pop/rock songs. Sure, there was the occasional 'Miami' or 'Lemon' etc, but for the most part, they were just rock songs. I think part of their brilliance during that period was how much they fooled the public wit their IMAGE change.

As for the latter part. I think HTDAAB is sort of a cross between 90's and 80's. Of course that would depend which songs you and I are talking about.

They aren't too old to make another "Achtung' or 'Zooropa' or even a 'Joshua Tree', they just aren't going to do it.

You have to figure that each album, and it's efforts, recording and touring can take upwards to 5 years to produce etc. So these men, alreayd in their 40's are going to donate half-a-decade into completely repeating themselves.

U2 are not repeating themselves on HTDAAB or ATYCLB. Anytime I read that, I just have to shake my head and try not to be a pretentious music snob. They simply aren't repeating themselves.
Well, in light that it's the same 4 members playing basic rock instruments, yeah i guess they are repeating the excercose of making rock music, other than that no.

And basically I disagree with your assesment overall. If you don't care fo rthe album, don't like it because of the songs. Not because of the images, or the success or any of that. You are cheating yourself if you forsake the music over the other bullshit.

And if you don't like the music, then listen to something else.
That's the easiest thing of all.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

You know I'm glad the younger fans like AB-Zooropa and Pop. Those are a trinity of albums that unlike most U2 trinities start with the best album and slowly regressed. I'm not saying Pop is $h*t, because there a few songs that I rank among my favorite U2 songs, but AB kicks that albums @$$.

But, as I said in a previous thread those albums are not all U2 is about. It's no different than us "older" fans voicing our love for the 80's U2. Even though U2's last couple of albums "hint" at those first 5 or so albums, U2 is not U-turning and going back strictly to that sound.

The songs on this new album were made after years of learning their craft. The song writing on these past two albums is nearly flawless. Oh, they have laid an egg or 3 on the past two albums combined, but they're not the smelly, rotten kind, just a wobbly song here or there.

The one song here that gets lambasted without mercy on this board is "Peace On Earth". I think the younger fans are more offended by the title, or the sentiment in the song than the actual music. Like "Please" it's another take on the "Sunday Bloody Sunday" theme. I don't particularly love that song, but I don't find it "drivel" or "frivilous crap" as I seen it called. It's a good pop song that may be only average for U2.

And you know image is only part of the package, and sometimes just a mask for U2. The Fly was to make U2 seem "hip", and relevant in a new decade. However, I still don't understand MacPhisto...yeah sorry about that. But don't blast Bono for following his true convictions or passions. We should all be so lucky to have the freedom and finance to follow ours.

 

[jick]

ATYCLB wasn't enough to heal the wounds off POP. So HTDAAB is still part 2 of the POP healing process. U2's ego were badly bruised that POP sold so poorly in America. U2 up to now still feel they need to win America back so they are still writing America-friendly tunes.

So U2 still aren't in ambitious risky music mode that characterized their more European-type music with Achtung and Zooropa. Perhaps in their next album they'll be back to that mode, who knows.

Cheers,

J

 

[U2girl]

While HTDAAB does show Edge sounding like himself, I don't think it's the sound of 80's U2 - this album or ATYCLB for that matter.
(except maybe City of blinding lights which could be straight off Unforgettable fire)

I don't care whether they experiment or not, what I care about is whether the songs are good. And they are.

I do think they will use a new producer for the next album.

 

[Salome]

Rattle and Hum, the new songs on it at least, were actually quite expiremental for a band like U2.

hahaha
that's actually very true


I think it's ironic that the fans who claimed the hardest that U2 only managed to survive because they didn't stick to their 80's music in the 90's
are now pretending that U2 could go on the same foot as in the 90's


this is a new direction no matter how you look at it
and no matter whether you like it or not


U2 would have destroyed themselves if they had tried to continue their 90's approach to music though

 

[Oregoropa]

This post has been brought to you by Jim Beam.

 

[Zoovation]

@doctorwho:

Thanks for your post. You are so right.

 

[grbounds]

Look, it is impossible to please everyone.

Merry Christmas

hahahahah you must mean "happy holidays"

 

[Marr]

I see my views aren't very popular lately but that's the price you pay for controversial ideas.

Yet, I still belive, that "the good old U2" isn't good enough.This is not Aerosmith or The Rolling Stones, this band should still be exciting, bringing new people in.

You can't sell the same thing to the same old crowd forever.
They want new material, all the stuff's been reapeted too many times.
Remember that qoute?

So let me ask you--where did THAT U2 go?
I don't care about the sales.
POP didn't do well in America? So What! You can't judge an album by it's sales! Britney Spears sells a lot of records, Faith No More were sometimes not even in the first 100 of the best selling albums.
Who's making better music?

This whole thing isn't about money for me, and and think i isn't about money for U2. POP was a great record, they don't have be sorry for it, apologies for this album.

Besides this album did very well in Europe.
You know Morrissey once wrote a song "America is not the World"

I want U2 to be the best abnd in the world, for you U2 beeing the biggest band is enough. I rest my case.

 

[TheFlyOnTheWall]

They often said that this is the ultimate U2 records, their best record. Well for me the best record would be a combination of the 80s u2 and the 90s u2.

U2 has to have at least two best albums. Two masterpieces - one from the 80s, and the other from the 90s. That's, of course JT and AB. You can't expect sth better than that in the future. Except if in the 00s, they do another 'Achtun Baby', which means sth completely different from previous catalogue. Something that you'd call 'best' not having to compare it with that two albums.

And no, they're never too old for any kind of music. Music's not physical work

 

[TheFlyOnTheWall]

While HTDAAB does show Edge sounding like himself, I don't think it's the sound of 80's U2 - this album or ATYCLB for that matter.
(except maybe City of blinding lights which could be straight off Unforgettable fire)

I don't think the sound of COBL fits well on UF...

 

[Aardvark747]

I don't think the sound of COBL fits well on UF...

Kind of agree with you...but I can also sorta see how it would.

I dont think that makes much sense.

 

[yimou]

I think that an Achtung Baby is needed now, a radical change is needed.Perhaps the 2006 album?

I am with you Marr... Though i dont want them to simply make another Achtung baby,, I just want something more exciting than what they produce now

 

[Yahweh]

Dont expect to see an album like Achtung Baby POP or anything else that of that mold from a band that will be in their late 40s when the next album comes out.

U2 are not idiots they are good at the business they know what is going to sell them records at this time, and let me tell you it certainly isnt doing Discotheque with a wheelchair. Not to say that U2 are old and feable but when it coms to the music industry they are really quite ancient, so doing an album like Achtung Baby, Zooropa or POP for them at this point in time unfortunately has its fait written and is bound to fail.

If U2 had a smaller fanbase maybe we would see these types of albums but U2 have always wanted to be the biggest show on earth and doing another POP album they certainly would not be that.

I am happy with what U2 are doing and readily admit the reasons why they are doing it, U2 doing conventional tunes is certainly better then U2 not doing tunes at all.

 

[boystupidboy]

Experimental/non experimental/old u2/new u2/u2ish.........BORING,NOT INTERESTED.All i'm bothered about is if i like the latest album .HTDAAB is a stonker of an album,up there with the best they have done.Thats good enough for me

 

[amniar]

Rattle and Hum is not like HTDAAB because Rattle and Hum is rubbish.

 

[U2_Guy]

Dont expect to see an album like Achtung Baby POP or anything else that of that mold from a band that will be in their late 40s when the next album comes out.

U2 are not idiots they are good at the business they know what is going to sell them records at this time, and let me tell you it certainly isnt doing Discotheque with a wheelchair. Not to say that U2 are old and feable but when it coms to the music industry they are really quite ancient, so doing an album like Achtung Baby, Zooropa or POP for them at this point in time unfortunately has its fait written and is bound to fail.

If U2 had a smaller fanbase maybe we would see these types of albums but U2 have always wanted to be the biggest show on earth and doing another POP album they certainly would not be that.

I am happy with what U2 are doing and readily admit the reasons why they are doing it, U2 doing conventional tunes is certainly better then U2 not doing tunes at all.

You are right, U2 aren't Depeche Mode. But they should try mixing the conventional with the unconventional a bit more on the next album. Of course, the premise is: good unconventional music, not just unconventional music. Most ppl here are confusing things a bit, saying conventional music = good music and unconventional music = bad music, like it's some sort of maths.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Achtung Baby and Pop were not particularly experimental albums. They feature very traditional song structures.

I suspect that if U2 had Eno and Flood add a few bleeps and bursts of static to the intro to COBL some of the whiners here would go nuts over U2 making "experimental" music again.
In fact, that is exactly what Eno did with Achtung Baby.
Read Flanagans U2 At the End of the World. U2 went into the studio in Berlin and spent months messing around with Lanois.
At the end of the process they felt like they were getting nowhere coming up with a new U2 sound.
Then Eno entered the process, added a few cacophonous sounds, and keyboard blips and bleeps and voila!! U2 had "reinvented" their sound and made an "experimental" album.
Studio enhancements to traditional song structures do not "experimental" make. All it does is jazz up a song.

I do wish the boys would make a song as rocking as the Fly again. Not because it's "experimental", (it's decidedly NOT), but because it's a great song.

 

[U2_Guy]

Achtung Baby and Pop were not particularly experimental albums. They feature very traditional song structures.

I suspect that if U2 had Eno and Flood add a few bleeps and bursts of static to the intro to COBL some of the whiners here would go nuts over U2 making "experimental" music again.
In fact, that is exactly what Eno did with Achtung Baby.
Read Flanagans U2 At the End of the World. U2 went into the studio in Berlin and spent months messing around with Lanois.
At the end of the process they felt like they were getting nowhere coming up with a new U2 sound.
Then Eno entered the process, added a few cacophonous sounds, and keyboard blips and bleeps and valoi!! U2 had "reinvented" their sound and made an "experimental" album.

Eno and Lanois produced ATYCLB and the whiners here say it's the most conventional U2 album ever... Those whiners are never happy...

 

[U2_Guy]

I suspect that if U2 had Eno and Flood add a few bleeps and bursts of static to the intro to COBL some of the whiners here would go nuts over U2 making "experimental" music again.

Eno helped to produce Love and peace or else. This song has the "few bleeps and bursts of static" in it's intro. I don't see the whiners going nuts over U2 making "experimental" music again... Ah those whiners...