If an album sells well does that mean its bad?

[Ellay]

I've never seen any talk about the songs causing Elevation to suffer.

Stuck in a moment. great on the album, just didn't work for me live. Thought it brought the whole atmosphere down.

 

[lazarus]

I know the two of you don't get along, but I think that comment was rather unprovoked as I feel U2girl raised some legitimate points.

She is quite right to say that it is harder for U2 to sell albums now than it ever has been. Illegal downloading is rampant, rap/R&B/hip-hop and Britney-pop dominates the charts, and today's popular culture can be very ageist and discriminatory against older acts. I'd love to see the ages of the artists behind all of the albums on the charts when U2 debuted at #1 last year. I bet U2 are at least 10-15 years older than the average, probably more.

In that sense, the success of HTDAAB is absolutely remarkable. So yes, I agree with her that the current success may just be more impressive than Achtung Baby, simply because it's a whole lot harder for U2 to sell in this current climate.

So illegal downloading affects only U2? What about the other artists that are able to sell shitloads of albums. The funny thing is that studies have shown that there hasn't been much drop off in sales, despite what the record companies want you to believe. I'd also argue that the majority of U2's audience wouldn't download it anyway. It's the one hit wonder/single bands who need to worry.

Secondly, the thing about age is a hazy argument. U2 is an anomaly because they've been together for 25 years. Most bands aren't even around long enough to test that theory. As for solo artists over 40, there are too many successful ones to mention. The Rolling Stones' Steel Wheels, which came out 25 years after their earliest recordings (or somewhere around there), went multi-platinum. So it is possible. I'd argue that U2 being around 30 when AB came out wasn't that much less of an age-risk, as the popular, trendy bands tend to be under 25.

Axver, you have a known bias against Achtung Baby, so the fact that you're not impressed with its sales doesn't surprise me. It doesn't change the fact that AB was EXTREMELY ahead of its time and a total curve ball thrown by the band, which still resulted in sales more than double, if I'm not mistaken, of ATCYLB, at least in the U.S. There's not much room for argument.

 

[Axver]

Stuck in a moment. great on the album, just didn't work for me live. Thought it brought the whole atmosphere down.

Again, matter of taste. I've seen a tendency of people on this forum to quite significantly prefer the live version. As the song doesn't really stand out to me in either form (I see it as a fine song, but nothing noteworthy), I have no preference.

 

[Axver]

So illegal downloading affects only U2? What about the other artists that are able to sell shitloads of albums. The funny thing is that studies have shown that there hasn't been much drop off in sales, despite what the record companies want you to believe. I'd also argue that the majority of U2's audience wouldn't download it anyway. It's the one hit wonder/single bands who need to worry.

Legitimate point. Downloading affects everyone and probably impacts the flash-in-the-pan artists more, but it still has an effect on everyone. It is a shame no reliable statistics can show just how many sales have been lost. Without those statistics, it is all just speculation.

Secondly, the thing about age is a hazy argument. U2 is an anomaly because they've been together for 25 years. Most bands aren't even around long enough to test that theory. As for solo artists over 40, there are too many successful ones to mention. The Rolling Stones' Steel Wheels, which came out 25 years after their earliest recordings (or somewhere around there), went multi-platinum. So it is possible. I'd argue that U2 being around 30 when AB came out wasn't that much less of an age-risk, as the popular, trendy bands tend to be under 25.

Now, I've no idea what the sentiment was towards age back when Achtung Baby was released as I was only four. However, what I have observed in teenage culture lately is that age is EVERYTHING. Many teenagers, especially those impressionable ones to whom MTV promotes and (I feel) brainwashes, simply will not give the time of day to older bands. They will scoff at bands like U2 and the Rolling Stones and think of them as bands that their parents like - and, apparently, all parents have crap taste. I'm sure you know the shallow attitudes of popular culture just as well as I do. Again, statistics would be handy, in this situation showing the age demographics of those who purchased HTDAAB and recent Stones records.

Axver, you have a known bias against Achtung Baby, so the fact that you're not impressed with its sales doesn't surprise me. It doesn't change the fact that AB was EXTREMELY ahead of its time and a total curve ball thrown by the band, which still resulted in sales more than double, if I'm not mistaken, of ATCYLB, at least in the U.S. There's not much room for argument.

OK, firstly, I do not have any bias against Achtung Baby itself. By any other band, I would consider it a crowning glory and it has five songs that I believe to be essential classics. In comparison to other U2 works is where I feel it has shortcomings. I am quite capable of appreciating and loving the album, and viewing the statistics reasonably. I didn't say Achtung Baby's sales were unimpressive - I simply said that I feel HTDAAB's are more impressive. Time will, of course, tell. HTDAAB will only remain more impressive if it can have Achtung's staying power.

 

[bathiu]

I know the two of you don't get along, but I think that comment was rather unprovoked as I feel U2girl raised some legitimate points.

She is quite right to say that it is harder for U2 to sell albums now than it ever has been. Illegal downloading is rampant, rap/R&B/hip-hop and Britney-pop dominates the charts, and today's popular culture can be very ageist and discriminatory against older acts. I'd love to see the ages of the artists behind all of the albums on the charts when U2 debuted at #1 last year. I bet U2 are at least 10-15 years older than the average, probably more.

In that sense, the success of HTDAAB is absolutely remarkable. So yes, I agree with her that the current success may just be more impressive than Achtung Baby, simply because it's a whole lot harder for U2 to sell in this current climate.

I should've made a "quote" before making a reply:

2) U2 was riding on the sales from the Joshua Tree/Rattle and Hum period (about AB), while having drop in sales with Zooropa and Pop when they were making ATYCLB

...and that's a huge BS.
She said many times than AB was a "commercial move" from the band, while "defending" ATYCLB... where is logic in that?

What she said there equals with: " a techno record released by a heavy-metal band will sell much because of band's earlier albums"... that's what she said

How is saying "f*ck you" to all that loved their 80's style... an easy move... while going back to a previously succesfull style + making it pop-ishly accesible... a dificult way?

I may agree about the age. But if you're cool like U2, age doesn't matter.

 

[Pero]

If Joshua would be released today, i would be the first to buy it, first single-With or without you my friends who don't know much of u2 say that Wowy is best song u2 ever made.

What got me into u2?
-Achtung baby-just great!!!!!!
-Lemon-these are the days when we look for something other.
-Pop-booom cha discoteque, MOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFOOOOO, or if you didn't understand me: MMMMMMMOOOOOOFFFFFFOOOOO

What makes Achtung better than HTDAAB?
Songs, dude. Htdaab is pussy record, made on the same chewed up recipe:Bono came up with lyrics(not too good) , Edge used his guitar(he didn't sweat at all when he came up with this stuff) and rest is history.

Perfect album doesn't exist. For me it would be a mix of Joshua(Streets, Wowy, One tree hill), Achtung(EBTTRT, One, UTEOTW, FLY, UV, Mysterious ways) and Pop(Discoteque, Mofo, Do you feel loved, Gone,Staring at the sun)

 

[U2girl]

So illegal downloading affects only U2? What about the other artists that are able to sell shitloads of albums. The funny thing is that studies have shown that there hasn't been much drop off in sales, despite what the record companies want you to believe. I'd also argue that the majority of U2's audience wouldn't download it anyway. It's the one hit wonder/single bands who need to worry.

Secondly, the thing about age is a hazy argument. U2 is an anomaly because they've been together for 25 years. Most bands aren't even around long enough to test that theory. As for solo artists over 40, there are too many successful ones to mention. The Rolling Stones' Steel Wheels, which came out 25 years after their earliest recordings (or somewhere around there), went multi-platinum. So it is possible. I'd argue that U2 being around 30 when AB came out wasn't that much less of an age-risk, as the popular, trendy bands tend to be under 25.

Axver, you have a known bias against Achtung Baby, so the fact that you're not impressed with its sales doesn't surprise me. It doesn't change the fact that AB was EXTREMELY ahead of its time and a total curve ball thrown by the band, which still resulted in sales more than double, if I'm not mistaken, of ATCYLB, at least in the U.S. There's not much room for argument.

Downloading affects everyone. Surely we can all remember the articles in early 00's when the industry sold less records.
As for artists selling big, how many of those have been around as long as U2, and are not just the "hottest new thing"?

Why is it hazy? There are lots of bands who have been around longer than U2, and their contemporaries, who can only wish they'd sell as much as they do. Also, we're talking about bands, not solo artists. (Sting came out of Police, Springsteen came out of E street band, Prince and Dylan have accompanying bands too)

Today there's a huge difference between being 30 and making music and being 40, 40+.

You don't have any thoughts on the past sales and diferent music industry points?

 

[pax]

BTW - did you notice the huge piece of BS from U2girl?
I think we should give her an award for all her "theories"...

I do hope you have thoroughly read and understood the forum FAQs. If you have not, I suggest you do so.

These kinds of attacks on other members are completely unnecessary and are not allowed at Interference.

Thank you.

 

[U2girl]

I should've made a "quote" before making a reply:



...and that's a huge BS.
She said many times than AB was a "commercial move" from the band, while "defending" ATYCLB... where is logic in that?

What she said there equals with: " a techno record released by a heavy-metal band will sell much because of band's earlier albums"... that's what she said

How is saying "f*ck you" to all that loved their 80's style... an easy move... while going back to a previously succesfull style + making it pop-ishly accesible... a dificult way?

I may agree about the age. But if you're cool like U2, age doesn't matter.

Keep up inventing facts and being rude. You're good at that.

- Peeling off dollar bills forum can provide sales info, Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum definitely sold more than Zooropa and Pop. So that is no BS.

- I never said AB was a commercial move. All I said was U2 is inspired by music that they listen to, when they are making an album.

" a techno record released by a heavy-metal band will sell much because of band's earlier albums" Now this is a wild theory if I ever heard one. What are you talking about?!?

The only easy way for U2 would be making Joshua Tree part II or Achtung Baby part II. U2's music, for most part, is already accesible.

 

[bathiu]

I think sales of the last two albums are more impressive than Achtung Baby.

2) U2 was riding on the sales from the Joshua Tree/Rattle and Hum period, while having drop in sales with Zooropa and Pop when they were making ATYCLB

That's the whole YOU... you're saying something and then you're saying it wasn't you... and you're telling me I'm inventing facts?
Of course I'm being rude. When I see someone that is blind in his own visions, living with his own theories and is blind and ignorant at everything else... not to mention is spreading false claims... then I AM RUDE.

///note to paxetaurora - it wasn't an attack on a person, only an attack on the person's post, I would advise (after getting reports from her on any other member) searching for her all posts to see in what kind of arguments she was involved in, not only with me being one of the sides///

Like I said before... about what is quoted above... it's like saying that a techno record by heavy-metal band would sell OK because of their previous albums-> so it's nothing special/impresive, while it would be dificult for them to sell record with their "back to roots" music afterwards....
This analogy works perfectly to what you said.
AB in no way was riding on JT's period.. it was building it's fan base from the begining.
The only albums that were "riding on other album's" hype were R&H after JT and Zooropa after AB and ATYCLB that was promoted as being back to 80's but never being one.


That's what you said U2girl (quote) and there is no way you can change that by once again twisting other people's words.

 

[pax]

I see what you're saying, bathiu, but there is no need for that kind of rudeness. Keep in mind that this is, after all, a U2 message board, and perhaps we can allow for some subjectivity.

That said, I'm not impressed with the direction of this thread, and I think it has run its course.