If we were taking bets....

[Kieran McConville]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
Seriously? Wow, that one to me fit right in with the direction of TGBHF. lol. And I love Edge's guitar work in it. Oh well, each to his/her own, I spose. I'm completely with you on the limit-pushing tho. It's their ability to do that which really keeps me interested. In any case, I'm sure whatever happens in the next year, we fans will all have something to bitch and whine about.

It goes with the territory, I think.

-sula

And on that note, I shall retire. Too tired.

 

[electrical storm]

Release me now!

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

WILATW did give me a jolt initally, I must admit. But I never go to it anymore. I listen from Walk On to New York, that's it. That's the album IMO. The rest is fluff filler from a band of this caliber. I like Stuck live, but the album version is too constructed, rigid. Sounds like TLC, Waterfalls.
Wild Honey is brilliantly simplistic.

I think Zooropa was residue from AB. It wasn't a trend-setter IMO. AB was more of a departure than a trend. It went against the grain instead of cultivating a new direction. POP was trendy-oriented, but I contained very interesting tunes.

My hope is that they do what THEY want with the next album, not what the corporate machine says will sell more records. Let's face it, ATYCLB was a record built for many reasons....one reason I believe was to make up for the failures from the POP tour, to put make a bundle back that they basically lost last time around. AND it was built to recapture the attention of the fair-weathered fans in the mainstream market. etc. etc. etc.

I do think these things curbed some creativity and made for a safe album.

Let the next album be less safe. Let it be intentionally careless. Not careless by default (see POP).

Whatever they make I'll be happy.

 

[U2girl]

My bet is 2002, maybe even before the summer tour of Europe starts.

I wish people would stop putting ATYCLB down and sayin it's "safe". Like it or not, it IS a great album, with both critical acclaim and commercial success (probably safe to say it will sell over 10 million copies).
On top of that, it helped push the tour's success and an incredibly succesful year for the band.
It's also the best possible answer to 90's experimental period IMO. It shows how good U2's songwriting can be.

Not to mention it sounds unlike anything else out there, how is it "safe" ?!?

True, some songs are closer to pop than U2 has ever been before, but what's so bad about trying new things? Isn't that what U2 has always been about?
Yes, some songs are very U2-ish (which is a weird argument anyway - if you're U2, you're bound to sound like U2 in one way or another).

Also, i really don't buy that the album is supposed to be some kind of "making up to the fans" after POP. (though U2 has made better albums than POP, let's face it)

And i honestly don't think U2 has ever listened to music corporations or whatever as far as their music is concerned. Why do you think they tried so many different things over the years? Because they wanted to try and expand their horizons.
They were never about humoring the music industry, and they are certainly beyond humoring anybody/anything at least since JT.

------------------
"We feel like this is unfinished business - there's things for us left to do and that's why we still do it." - Larry

"For us, each night on stage has to be like it's the last night on earth. That's the way our band operates-we can't play the songs unless we're fully into them." - Bono

"The music itself will tell you where to go." - Edge (about recording)

"It's an elevation thing." - Adam (when asked why there's pictures from airport on ATYCLB cover)

get your head out of the mud baby



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 01-04-2002).]

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

naive response.
U2 sold-out this time around. Period. It's as black and white as the scenes they play under. Maybe that's difficult for some fans to swallow. ATYCLB is a good album, we all know this. But it IS safe. Mr. Evans has even eluded to it, saying it might have been too neatly packaged.

As far as doing what labels want -- Paul McGuiness isn't a label. He does setup a lot of doings tho behind the scenes. He's a shrewd biz guy out to make money for the band, and himself in the process.
The Superbowl and NBA thing is a prime example of this bands sell-out state of late. It's all marketing.

Ok, I should stop getting down on U2 now. Sometimes it's fun to play the devil's advocate tho.

 

[U2girl]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
naive response.
U2 sold-out this time around. Period. It's as black and white as the scenes they play under. Maybe that's difficult for some fans to swallow. ATYCLB is a good album, we all know this. But it IS safe. Mr. Evans has even eluded to it, saying it might have been too neatly packaged.

As far as doing what labels want -- Paul McGuiness isn't a label. He does setup a lot of doings tho behind the scenes. He's a shrewd biz guy out to make money for the band, and himself in the process.
The Superbowl and NBA thing is a prime example of this bands sell-out state of late. It's all marketing.

Ok, I should stop getting down on U2 now. Sometimes it's fun to play the devil's advocate tho.

If you're talking about the album being too "radio friendly",
a) what's wrong with lots of radio airplay?
b) i got two words for you: Joshua Tree.
2 No.1 singles in US which i don't think has happened to U2 ever since.
But does anyone ever say JT was too radio friendly? Nooooo.
Also, wasn't JT best selling album in US at the time? And the fastest selling album in UK of all time? (in terms of making it to No.1)

Also we were talking about the album, not the various TV appearances. (i agree, there's a lot of that, but i don't mind since it's about getting new fans and introducing U2 to younger generations)

ps: If they're selling out, how come they only toured US and Europe? Shouldn't they be playing more continents&countries as if they were selling out?

U2 (except 90's stuff) has always used strong, honest, simple ideas with big tunes melodically speaking. If that's safe, FINE.


[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 01-04-2002).]

 

[Dorian Gray]

Could someone please define 'selling out'?
Thank you


------------------
And I felt like a star...

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

I never said 'radio-friendly.' I love to hear them on the radio. What I said was sell-out. You know, trying to appeal to all ages, all colors, all animals, all planets, all worlds, in order to be the biggest, most visible entity out there.

I'm really starting to appreciate REM for their unwillingness to compromise.
Stipe even said that U2 plays the rock star image thing really well and that being the biggest has always been important to U2.

Biggest doesn't translate to best tho.

IMO U2 is better than REM, but Stipe made a good point. It's all relative. And it's all opinion.

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

lets put the self-promo thinking aside. The music is what matters. And RH are pioneers like the Beatles IMO.

 

[U2girl]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
lets put the self-promo thinking aside. The music is what matters. And RH are pioneers like the Beatles IMO.

Not true IMO.

Once you start songwriting, you immediately owe it big time to the Beatles.
All of today's music (except hip hop/rap or techno) does.
It's the same pattern used all over again. And no one has (and no one ever will) match Lennon/McCartney at it.

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

L/M were genius. The music was genius.

But in relative terms, RH has the best shot among today's crop to be heralded as one of the best in history, along with U2 of course.

It's obviously too early to tell either way really.

Songwriting is one thing, songs are another IMO. The Beatles had George Martin, who deserves A LOT of credit for what they created. Without him, they would have been a very good band who writes great lyrics. I doubt they would be seen as the genuises they are today.

 

[U2girl]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:


It's obviously too early to tell either way really.

Well, time will tell.

Obviously, studio/production can help a lot (same can be said for anyone today).

But essentially, the ideas for songs (and the desire to experiment) came from the songwriters.



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 01-04-2002).]

 

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
lets put the self-promo thinking aside. The music is what matters. And RH are pioneers like the Beatles IMO.

I own a couple Radiohead albums including Amnesiac, and yes it is fantastic. I think Amnesiac is one of the greatest albums of the year. But I dont think Radiohead are pioneers, nor are they trying to be. (no I dont think ATYCLB is a particluarily groundbreaking album either)
Great music like that on Amnesiac has been done before...(IMO)


------------------
And I felt like a star...

 

[Kieran McConville]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:

I think Radiohead are the Beatles of our time, we just don't realize it yet. Maybe that's cliche to say...but they have it all. And look at how they've evolved through the years. And they've done it without being in the spotlight. Can you imagine their status if they had half the corporate engine U2 had and has?![/B]

Mostly, I agree with that. I know it's a terribly oooold argument here on Interference, but Radiohead get a disgustingly bad rap from many U2 fans, it seems. You don't even have to like them, just give them credit for what they've done. To go from 'Creep' to 'Karma Police' or 'Airbag' in a couple of years is phenomenal. Similar to U2 in some ways, it boils down to creative restlessness. And whoever thinks Kid A and Amnesiac have no tunes should listen again.

I'd define 'selling out' in a similar way to the above poster. What's wrong with trying to be all things to all people? Well, nothing if you've got the talent I guess, but doesn't it spread your vision a bit thin? You know, this trap where you as a band can't talk about this or that subject because it might offend someone, and diluting your art in the process. That's selling out. To be fair I don't really think U2 are there yet.

And as for the business side, I think we'll leave that to the band and it's record label, yes? I've enjoyed the fact they've been very successful over the years, of course, but for God's sake they're not a football team.

 

[U2girl]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
I never said 'radio-friendly.' I love to hear them on the radio. What I said was sell-out. You know, trying to appeal to all ages, all colors, all animals, all planets, all worlds, in order to be the biggest, most visible entity out there.

I'm really starting to appreciate REM for their unwillingness to compromise.
Stipe even said that U2 plays the rock star image thing really well and that being the biggest has always been important to U2.

Biggest doesn't translate to best tho.

IMO U2 is better than REM, but Stipe made a good point. It's all relative. And it's all opinion.

And what's so wrong about appealing to all ages? I think it's impressive that, say, a 15 year old and a 50 year old can both enjoy U2's music.

U2 has always been ambitious to be the biggest band there is.

"Best band in the world"? That's up for critics and history to decide.
What's a best band anyway? Best selling, best loved by critics or best songwriting?

I think what Bono meant by that was best in terms of relevance of their music-messages in particular, amazing tours, longivity of their career combined with the amount of sold albums over the years, number of hits (or Top 10 songs), original sound of the band, charisma of the singer, the ability to compete (and beat, i might add) today's top acts...they're the best band in the world, but then again, i'm a fan. Of course they're No.1 IMO.

Who else, if not them?

REM or Radiohead (most commonly named as U2's rivals for the title) are IMO too obscure to be contenders for the title.

Last but not least, it's a fact that no 90's band has managed to give any serious competition to U2.



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 01-04-2002).]

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

I agree with you.
To me, best band incapsulates those things......but I think the music should stand slightly above all that other stuff.

If you put REM next to U2 and compare MUSICALLY......REM is pretty tough to put in second. I'm not a big fan of REM's, but I do try to be objective. Their music, longevity, etc. IS a very close second IMO.

I think Radiohead are the Beatles of our time, we just don't realize it yet. Maybe that's cliche to say...but they have it all. And look at how they've evolved through the years. And they've done it without being in the spotlight. Can you imagine their status if they had half the corporate engine U2 had and has?!

 

[Dorian Gray]

I asked you this already Exit_to_the-North but I think you may have missed it, where are from?

------------------
And I felt like a star...

 

[sulawesigirl4]

well, I think any discussion about "selling out" ,while interesting, is ultimately destined to end in inconclusivity. The reason? As much as we might like to we can't get inside the band's heads and know why they make the music they do. It could be the sincere desire to make exactly the music that you find on ATYCLB. It could be the calculation to deliberately produce the album so that it will appeal and sell across a broad spectrum of audiences. Bottom line: we don't know. In the end it all comes down to personal preferences and opinions. And that is ok.

One thing I would like to note: whatever they may have planned, it's a fact that U2 could NEVER have imagined how the events of 9/11 would contribute to the re-discovery of this album. They made music that fit the events no one could have foreseen.

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

It was eerie how those events changed the album's vibe. and Bono's father passing, Joey Ramone......it made the album more relevant in it's message. Before 9-11 people were gaga about BD and Elevation. Now I listen to POE or NY or Walk On, the heavy shit, the stuff that really says something, and I appreciate those sentiments much more.

I'm from the East Coast. Somewhere between Miami and Maine.
Outside Philly.

 

[U2girl]

Another thing Bono may have meant was the sense of team spirit in the band. Sure, he's the frontman and all, but U2 is really a unit made of 4 people. Each one of them contributes to the specialness of the band in his own way-it's not like Bono gets over exposed deliberately.
(they always use terms "we" or "our band" or "U2" in interviews)

I wasn't talking about Sep 11th when i said relevance of their music. I meant that their music can stand the test of time, it has an enduring quality. I meant relevance in the sense that their songs touched so many generations over the years.

Also, i don't think that anyone today can be "today's Beatles". I don't think there's a band that would be so advanced to lead. Too much has been done in the past.
Rather, there are several bands pushing and positively challenging each other.



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 01-04-2002).]

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

Have you listened to The Bends? Amnesiac?
RH is before their time. Unlike anyone.

 

[U2girl]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
Have you listened to The Bends? Amnesiac?
RH is before their time. Unlike anyone.

Yep, Bends.

No Amnesiac (i did see the videos, and i thought the music was too complex and strange).

I think the Beatles did so much in terms of songwriting and lasting quality of music that no one can be "Beatles of our time". They set the standards forever. Even know, the "verse-chorus-solo-ending" formula (they were the first to really make it big with it)is used in music. Not to mention they were the first famous band with a classic rock band line-up (4 people, 2 guitars, bass, drums), or the first foreign band to be No.1 in US (which is hard to achieve even today)

And they promoted themselves big time.



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 01-04-2002).]

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Ummm...if Radiohead were to be the Beatles, wouldn't they have to market themselves a bit more? I'm a bit fuzzy on my music history, but it seems to me that they weren't exactly shy about self-promotion.

I love Radiohead and all, believe me, but I think comparing them to U2 is like apples and oranges.

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

The jump from The Bends to OK Comp. to Amnesiac is proof to me that they will someday, if they haven't already, create music that will be revered for generations.
True, alot has been done before...but this band is becoming one that pushes our imaginations and emotions in new directions. Amnesiac is a good example.
Maybe check it out.