Is Achtung Baby's success thanks to Rattle and Hum's failure?

[Achtung_Bebe]

I use the term failure loosely, as I do not personally consider Rattle and Hum to be a failure; however, many critics considered it to be self indulgent (although this was undoubtedly due to their misperception of U2's intentions.)

I just got to wondering if AB would have ever occurred if R&H were not to have been perceived as a misstep. Was it the mixed reception of R&H that encouraged U2 to go away for a while to "dream it all up again," or was it more the turn of the decade/some other reason? I wasn't a fan then, so I'm curious about how the Point Depot speech was interpreted.

If it was the supposed failure of R&H that led to AB, would it be uncouth to wish that HTDAAB was a dud? (I'm joking... sort of)

 

[RademR]

its hard to call R&H a failure, it was hit hard by critics, but reached no. 1 on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

[Achtung_Bebe]

admittedly I don't know everything about the chart rankings of each album, but I do agree it's hard to consider R&H a failure regardless of its chart position. Still, It has been my impression that R&H was misunderstood by many. Surely this must've had some bearing on U2. I guess I'm just curious what U2's mentality was going into the drastic transition of AB and if this misunderstanding had anything to do with it.

 

[WinnieThePoo]

Achtung is such a good album that UF or War wouldve been considered a failure , record is way too good , only joshua tree is better
besides , let's face it , Rattle & hum is not a "cult" cd , despite good songs and a live mix in-between

 

[Aygo]

R%H was not a faillure. It had great propaganda, it went #1 in several countries, it had 4 hit singles (excluding the US where only "Desire" was a true hit) and despite receiving those turned-down reviews by American critics and market, the album was very well received in Europe and Australasia and it sold over 10M copies (correct me if I'm wrong) worldwide. So, I don't think it was a faillue because some folks said they wanted to be on a pedestal that was not theirs...

 

[Layton]

U2 has a history of pushing things too far. R&H is where U2 pushed the serious stone-faced thing too far. They found alot of success with that type of thing, previously, but took it to an ambitious extreme on R&H.

They find things that work and then begin to dream bigger and bigger. Only when things get to big and the ambition bites the hand that feeds it is when U2 finds another way.

So, if you think that HTDAAB is one of U2's more ambitious albums then you might get your wish, Bebe.

For the record, I'd say that R&H, Pop and HTDAAB are similiar types of albums in the sense that they're almost overwhelmed with ambition.

R&H is an album huge in scope. It was trying to capture U2's newfound love for Rock's history, their journey through America, their own evolution of the time and be a point of reference for that tour. That was probably too much scope and that's why it's not ranked highly in U2's catalog.

Pop is an album bulging in sonic ideas and social commentary. All in all, that big ambition to 'make the ultimate album' comes off as a bit hefty feeling.

HTDAAB is also an album bulging with ideas. The ideas aren't sonic in nature, but like that old Coke commercial the ideas are built around trying to make the whole world sing. Basically, HTDAAB is a giant recipe for a brand of open heart surgery that each listener could use to take that next step forward.

Ok, that's the long way of saying that a change might be a comin'.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

What was the reasoning behind the long layoff?

 

[Achtung_Bebe]

They find things that work and then begin to dream bigger and bigger. Only when things get to[o] big and the ambition bites the hand that feeds it is when U2 finds another way.

You make some interesting points. I believe that U2 are very mindful of the public's reaction to their music; as much as they are true to themselves, they want to be the biggest and the best. Sometimes this means making a drastic departure.

I guess my referring to R&H as a failure was a poor choice of words; however, I'd expect most to agree that there was a definate backlash.

 

[AtomicBono]

I think the change after R&H was much like the change after Pop. Rattle and Hum sold well but was murdered by the critics, though I don't think it's considered a "failure" as much as Pop is.

I think the changing times/new decade also accounted for the shift though. I guess the same thing could be said for Pop/ATYCLB.

This may mean we won't get a change until 2010, but I dunno, Bono has referred to ATYCLB/HTDAAB as a "pair of albums" and they've all said things about wanting to experiment again.

 

[J_NP]

Yeah Desire , Angel of Harlem , All I want is you , WLCTT , God Part II , Hawkmoon , some of u2 greatest tunes , and yes it was a faiulure .............

Just to see If I got what you meant , u mean the album as a failure , or the movie ?

 

[J_NP]

It's funny , but again brings up the whole theory which I believe it's very true , specially at that time , and I think there's still a bit of it , it was easy to see a "anti-u2" movement between american and british critics , they were sick of an irish band doing so much sucess , and they were waiting for the right time , the time u2 would step in an unknown territory and they would bomb them mercilessly . i've only read a few things about RH , about u2 in 88 , and they practically called u2 evertyhing but saint , and knowing the power the media has specially in the US , no wonder some people see RH as a failure , despite it's brilliant music. Anyway if it's to call a u2 album at that time a failure , it was great coz it's hard to say that AB would indeed have come the way it did , the whole thing of AB and ZOOTV as a 'f...-you' to the music critics and whoever criticized them couldn't have been better.

 

[cypress]

Achtung is such a good album that UF or War wouldve been considered a failure , record is way too good , only joshua tree is better

I disagree. AB is better than JT because it branches off creatively in so many more directions.

The album R&H was not as big a problem as the movie R&H which really was a total disaster from a PR point of view. AB is so good that it would have been a smash hit no matter what album it followed.

 

[J_NP]

I still find funny the whole thing of the RH film , is curious coz now these days the dvd of it sells well and it's well searched , so what changed ? Are the new audiences of u2 that are after it , or people changed their minds ? I start to think when this Imax project comes to the theather , how will it go on the BO , will go again bad , or judgin how the fans went to the tour itself , it could be a pretty hit.

 

[Rachel D.]

If R&H hadn't turned out the way it did, I think U2 might have become a country band. Really. Wasn't Larry planning to record a country album with someone? That would have been horrible! I shudder to think! Everything happens for a reason and Rattle and Hum is good proof of that. (I like to watch Lost. Can you tell? )

 

[X-it 7]

I think more than anything the MOVIE Rattle and Hum was considered a bomb and self indulgent. The album on the other hand was well received.

Interesting idea though. That U2 followed an album where they were considered self indulgent with an album where they were at their MOST self indulgent, or at least perceived that way. Irony at its best. Isn't irony what Achtung Baby was all about? Hmmm.

Good thread.

 

[Layton]

I think more than anything the MOVIE Rattle and Hum was considered a bomb and self indulgent. The album on the other hand was well received.

Have to disagree about the album being well-received. I'll never forget Jon Pareles of the N.Y. Times massacreing the album in his review. Rolling Stone only gave it 3.5 stars, also. Which is the worst rating they've ever given a U2 album other than UF and October. Every album since has gotten at least 4 stars.

Some of the criticisms about U2 wanting to ingratiate themselves into the class of their heroes were ridiculous. The album has some great songs, but objectively speaking it suffers from trying to do to much in terms of scope and ambition. A failure it is not, though.

 

[Hallucination]

I would have to think it was more the movie that was considered a failure rather than the album. Had the album just been released on it's own and not as a soundtrack to the movie there wouldn't be this "black cloud" so to speak hanging over R&H. As for Achtung oweing it's success to the "failure" of R&H I'd say no. Achtung Baby is just flat out awesome. U2's best album in my opinion. R&H might've represented a crossroad in the band's career but it's not the reason Achtung was a huge success. At least not in my mind.

 

[Achtung_Bebe]

Just to see If I got what you meant , u mean the album as a failure , or the movie ?

I mean both the R&H movie and the album really. Since they're both considered part of the same project, and I feel like criticisms of one would have also reflected on the other.

it was easy to see a "anti-u2" movement between american and british critics , they were sick of an irish band doing so much sucess , and they were waiting for the right time , the time u2 would step in an unknown territory and they would bomb them mercilessly

Yes, it seems that when U2 are at their most successful you will find people itching to have a go at them. I suppose this is true of any band. The issue then becomes how to react to the heat generated from this criticism, if at all. In U2's case, I feel like they always find a way to one up themselves and press on.

I found this quote just now:

"Yes, true, we made it hard for people to love, you couldn't put out a more mixed up record. I mean we really worked hard at that. We worked hard at messing it up for the masses and they still went out and bought it. It is an amazing feeling that the audience is kind of as hip as you are."
Bono reflects on the nature of Rattle and Hum, November 1988

a "mixed up record," perhaps because it is a hybrid of live and studio recordings. I think that the issue of scope and ambition may be spot on. While R&H is full of excellent tunes (Desire, Hawkmoon 269, Angel of Harlem, Heartland, God Part II, AIWIY) it lacks a certain cohesiveness, which probably made it an easy target and difficult for some casual fans to get.

U2 have always been ambitious, which is why some people might say they take themselves too seriously i.e. "ambition bites the nails of success" I'd venture to guess this impression developed as eary as 'War' and exists today. Reflecting on U2's past really piques my curiosity about the future. It makes me wonder what is left to accomplish when they've already accomplished so much.

 

[Hallucination]

I'm still dissapointed to this day that the performance of Exit was left off the album.

 

[Achtung_Bebe]

As for Achtung oweing it's success to the "failure" of R&H I'd say no. Achtung Baby is just flat out awesome. U2's best album in my opinion. R&H might've represented a crossroad in the band's career but it's not the reason Achtung was a huge success. At least not in my mind.

I didn't mean to suggest that AB owes its success to R&H as much as to consider whether the departure taken with AB was a direct response to its lukewarm acceptance. True, it doesn't really matter which album were released before or after Achtung Baby it would still rock. It's just that the notion that R&H represents a crossroad in their career means that this were a very critical point. If R&H were to have been wildly praised on all fronts things may have panned out very differently for U2.

I'm still dissapointed to this day that the performance of Exit was left off the album.

Yes! I would not be opposed to losing ISHFWILF in favor of Exit; BTBS even. Actually, Exit might have fit nicely in place of BTBS on the album.

 

[J_NP]

Gotta agree with something , Achtung was anyway an awesome record , despite everything , it was good on its own of course , but to me is undeniable that it had a special feeling because of RH , like I said I see a little bit of "u2's revenge" on it , in a way like they showing to people and critics they could still make masterpieces with fresh and different sound and also it was also an answer not only musically , but also to who criticized them for being "saints" , too much serious , too much correct , the whole thing , and with ZOOTV it got even funnier the answer , the thing of really being rock stars , besides shining in showing "the best of television " .

Also about zootv , was it only or did you ever notice u2 kind of really gave attention to RH songs on zootv , of course the best answer is coz it had been their last record , but it always catched my attention , that despite losing in number to JT , the RH songs always had a special place in the concert , Angel of Harlem was the one that started the acoustic part , and Desire for 90% of the tour was the encore opening . Even interesting it was these 2 songs got brand new versions . All I want is you despite being played full only a few times , but it had a snippet everytime and also WLCTT was played as well a lot of times in the acoustic . To me this was also a way of u2 trying to say "these songs really matters and they can be the highlights of the tour" no matter what critics said .

 

[doctorwho]

Lots of misinformation in this thread regarding charts and sales.

In terms of sales and hits, R&H was #1 in the U.K. and the U.S. It sold 5M copies in the U.S. - U2's second biggest selling album at the time. R&H produced two big hits in the U.S., "Desire", which went Gold (U2's first Gold single in the U.S.) and "Angel of Harlem". These songs hit #3 and #13 on the U.S. Billboard charts, respectively. However, both "When Love Comes to Town" and "All I Want Is You" charted in the Billboard Top 100, which makes four top 100 hits in the U.S. - far better than U2's last four albums ("Zooropa" through HTDAAB).

As for the "failure" aspect of it... it's true, critics thought U2 was placing themselves up there with the "greats" by recording with Dylan and B.B. King and others - when, as we know, U2 was paying homage to them. Still the movie, well, it's not really that good. It's fun to see from a fan perspective, but that's about it.

However, I don't think AB came out of any "failure". The album sold very well and produced several hits and the movie was a Top 10 hit as well, making over $8M in the U.S. just at theaters (a good sum for that type of film, especially in 1988). And I think U2 could have withstood the critical bashing too.

I won't say that this bashing didn't play any role, but I think the real reason for the change in sound was because U2 needed to do something different. All of them complained about the Love Town tour - how they felt they were a jukebox of U2 hits. They had lost their passion, it seems, even if it didn't show in concert. Bono talked about destroying the "myth of U2". This was key. It seemed that people placed U2 above humans - almost too holy. AB and the ZOO tour restored U2's humanity.

So even if R&H was a super success, I have a feeling that U2 were going to change anyway. First, it's in their nature - see the change from "War" to UF. Second, it was a new decade - time to start fresh. Third, the crashing of the Berlin wall played a role, as did the war in Iraq. Fourth, U2 were itching for a change from what they had done.

Keep in mind that while recording AB, Adam and Larry weren't all that key on making these big changes - they wanted more music like what U2 had done. So it's not as if the entire group was ready to just abandon their recent sound because of the critics. I think Larry and Adam wanted a more natural evolution, whereas Bono and Edge wanted a more abrupt change. They came together with "One" and the album seemed to flow from there.

Hence, I think the change would have happened regardless. I think the better question is whether we would have had ZOO TV if R&H or the Love Town tour was viewed more positively (by both fans and critics). I think AB - or something close to AB - would have been created. But would U2 have been so willing to make a change in their appearance if they weren't so adamant on destroying the "myth of U2"?

 

[Ellay]

I was one of the legion of people that became a U2 fan because of AB, so I don't think that it was successful because of R&H's 'failure'

At the time, I'd seen rattle and hum on the shelves, but I'd never considered buying it, or the Joshua tree or any other u2 albums either

AB was quite simply an outstandingly awesome album in it's own right, that's why it was successful.

 

[Achtung_Bebe]

Lots of misinformation in this thread regarding charts and sales.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

Hence, I think the change would have happened regardless. I think the better question is whether we would have had ZOO TV if R&H or the Love Town tour was viewed more positively (by both fans and critics). I think AB - or something close to AB - would have been created. But would U2 have been so willing to make a change in their appearance if they weren't so adamant on destroying the "myth of U2"?

That's a splendid point. It appears there were other factors contributing to U2's new sound e.g. the turn of the decade; however, the ZooTV production was so decidedly extravagant that it seems like if things had gone differently in their careers prior, they may not have gone through with such a drastic change in their overall image.