Its 1993 . . . Instead of Zooropa, U2 releases 'Bomb'

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Oregoropa

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
4,144
Location
Polish-American Stronghold PA
What if this had been the case? I see shades of AB, Zooropa, Pop, and ATYCLB more than anything else in HTDAAB.

What would your feelings be about the album at that time?

How would U2 history have changed ?

Eleven years later (2004) would this be a classic U2 album or a step back?
 
Last edited:
No... U2 wouldn't be U2 without Zooropa...

I think Bomb in 2000 is a thing that many people expected... instead of that...:madspit: :no: :scratch: :yikes: ATYCLB "thing"...
 
I think U2 did the right thing in the 90s by experimentation....and truely I believe they would have made another experimentation album in 2000 if it wasnt for POPs failure in the US market.

POP did great everywear else.
 
iota said:
I think Zooropa was an important album. But release Bomb in the place of Pop and the universe makes sense again.

This was the best reply I've read this entire weekend! I hate to admit it - but I agree.
 
bathiu said:
No... U2 wouldn't be U2 without Zooropa...

I think Bomb in 2000 is a thing that many people expected... instead of that...:madspit: :no: :scratch: :yikes: ATYCLB "thing"...

one word.... Kite.
 
I personally cannot imagine or comprehend the concept of U2 without Zooropa. It just ... defies the nature to which I am accustomed. To a point, I could imagine Hut Dab instead of Pop or ATYCLB, but a world without Zooropa does not feel right.
 
All in all, I have no major complaints about the albums U2 has released, or the order in which they were released. I'm just thrilled to be able to listen to so much great music from them!

HTDAAB is a classic, whether released in 1993 or 2004.
 
i actually think atyclb was really important. maybe not what everyone was looking for ... but you know all those people who grew up listening to rock from their older syblings but then when they came to college listened to pop music instead? almost all of them own atyclb. i think they feel better about themselves in terms of their music tastes. it's like the one cd from that time period where if you have the image of a pop junkie...it brings you respect from other music fans. i think in terms of rebuilding a fan base and keeping their name around, atyclb was important because it gave the masses what they wanted. now that they have reformed the base, htdaab will be recieved much more readily as a stroke of genius, rather than an old band trying regain its popularity (which is what atyclb succeeded in doing for non hardcore fans). i wouldn't want htdaab wasted for that purpose ... convincing idiots that u2 was still awesome. now that the idiots know that u2 is awesome, and depend on the fact that u2 is awesome to keep believeing that they like good music, htdaab will blow everyone away.
 
If Bomb were released in 93.... the music scene would've changed dramatically. I think the garage and punk rock revolution would have started a lot earlier than it actually did.

WHYWHY.
 
grbounds said:


one word.... Kite.

kite= one of U2's best songs ever

atyclb is a great album, i really dont understand why everybody is slagging it off...........
 
iota said:
I think Zooropa was an important album. But release Bomb in the place of Pop and the universe makes sense again.

:drool: NO!!! i WANT THEM ALL!!!

EVERY ALBUM MADE BY U2 HAS ITS GREAT MOMENTS... ...EVERY ALBUM.

for example, last month I suddenly rediscovered MOFO (studio version)... ...what a brilliant piece of music!!!!!!!!:drool:

so now I don't like it, I simply luuuuuuuuuuve it!!!:love:
 
Zooropa, baby......uncertainty was the guiding light.

Zooropa was essential and stands out to me as the most unique U2 album with some of my favorite songs (Dirty Day, The Wanderer, Stay, Zooropa). I can't be without those songs.
 
I love Zooropa too. Its not like I want to replace it. My question is how would have fans reacted to HTDAAB if it had been released then.

Personally, I think some of us might see it as equal or superior to AB which for many people didn't become a classic until later.
 
Man, that would have been a disaster! if that happend U2 wouldn't be the band they are now. They're all the better for the experiemental tendancis I feel. I hope for more extravegant sounds in future from them. The records of the '90's are my favourite one's including The Passengers project.
 
I recall October 31, 2000... such a great and magical day. Listening to ATYCLB for the first time was quite an experience. This bashing is getting a little rediculous. We should just start one big thread where everyone can bash ATYCLB all they want, therefore reducing the chances of having to read it in every good God damn thread! RAHH!! This thread doesn't even have anything to do with ATYCLB, but sure enough people take any chance they can to give a good badgering.

But yea... had it been released in 93, U2 would have seemed like an unstoppable juggernaut to the world.
 
Last edited:
U2_Guy said:
HTDAAB is the record we were expecting in 2000. Not ATYCLB.

And ATYCLB was the record we were expecting in 1997, not POP.

POP is the odd man out.

Cheers,

J
 
...actualy.... you're wrong!!


There's more U2 (passion, soul, lyrics...etc) on Pop... then on ATYCLB...
+ Pop is far more better as an album...
ATYCLB is for me just a 5 track EP, not a full album (rest of the songs should be forgoten or be some b-sides at best...
 
The U2 catalog would not be complete without In A Little While, Kite, the acoustic Stuck In a Moment, and the Hallelujah Mix of Walk On as well as Do You Feel Loved, If God Would Send His Angels so all you POP and ATYCLB haters can suck it! :wink:
 
Hey, why can't U2 have a dud album or track? Even the Beatles released Please Please Me, which had maybe three great songs on it... Why the pressure to hit nothing but homeruns?

If you don't stumble, you can't grow. And Pop, their biggest "failure" is in my top 4 favorites by the band...
 
All U2 records suck except "Boy". They had such potential and they blew it. The've been blowing it for nearly 30 years. They sold out after "Boy" by using producers and instruments and actually selling their music!!!!!
 
Dont know about the rest of you but I personally feel that you can not judge an album till at least a year after release, the reason being, Anticipation, Expectations, Emotions.
New unheard material always produces a reaction good or bad, in both cases each reaction is an elevated opinion,
Let the dust settle wait till there is crumbs on our table and we will be one step closer to knowing the truth about this album.
 
adam3000 said:
All U2 records suck except "Boy". They had such potential and they blew it. The've been blowing it for nearly 30 years. They sold out after "Boy" by using producers and instruments and actually selling their music!!!!!

Bingo!! An Interferencer after my own heart. Truth be told though, Boy was a bit of a let-down after the brilliance of U2-3.

:madspit:
 
doctorwho said:


And "U2-3" was a letdown after those live performances they did to win the talent contest. :mad:

Yeah, well I'm way cooler than any of you guys, because I've been out on music as a whole since the invention of that stupid phonograph. I refuse to sell out to "recorded music."
 
doctorwho said:



HTDAAB is the record YOU were expecting in 2000.

I wasn't.

I adore ATYCLB.

It's exactly what I wanted in 2000.

Please don't put words in my mouth or presume you speak for all fans.

HTDAAB is the record we (the coolest mofos U2 fans) were expecting in 2000.
 
Back
Top Bottom