U2girl said:
U2 weren't listening to the Manchester scene when they made AB, or techno when they made Pop, or pop when they made ATYCLB, and the new rock bands when they made HTDAAB? Or to rhythm and blues and blues for Rattle and Hum, and American music for JT - talk about two albums designed for US - and punk music with their first three albums, and something else for UF?
New fans is what keeps them around, plus incorporating the new and current music in their albums. If that's deliberate, U2 has always been doing that.
Used to be MTV and radio that cut it for the popularity, but that's not enough, not with the downloads, takeover of urban styles in US, the ageist mentality of younger audiences and far more aggresive music promotion in the industry. (US of course, they don't have chart problems elsewhere)
Any band that has a record deal, is in a way selling their music.
I guess I'm one of the "blind followers" who liked the last two albums.
OK, I think some of this is still going around in circles.
I work in entertainment marketing. I have done for the best part of a decade, most of it spent working at a major record label. I am probably the last person on this forum who has an issue with the selling of music or 'art', it's how I earn a living. I also know that from the 'suits' perspective that the Bomb marketing was considered outstanding and ground breaking, and I agree. u2 have pretty much always been on top of the game in that regard. Them flogging their music through every available channel is nothing new. They've been way savvy to it since the Joshua Tree, and had it down to perfection from Achtung onwards. Their only stuff up being Pop in the US (a lot of it's failure was the belief that it was a 'dance' record which indicates a promotion problem). If U2 were asked to get up there and belt out the Fly at the 1992 Super Bowl, I'm sure they would have. That's just me saying; Selling = Ok with me.
What you list above are mostly influences. Achtung was the riskiest thing they ever did musicaly, but it was a natural thing. It was influenced by a myriad of music going around at the time, but at the point where they put it out, there was nothing quite like it on the radio, and there was no way of knowing whether it would sink - and be the end of u2 - or swim, as it did. This was the same for every single album they recorded, bar Rattle & Hum, which still has an ugly stigma attached to it as the 'commercial cash in' album (and I think that one is unfair - I just think the well was dry before they acknowledged it, even to themselves). I believe that U2 make pre-conceived decisions about the general, rough musical direction of an album, or the general rough spirit of the album, but that 98% of it is what comes in the studio, and they believe in that - whatever it is - and put that out there regardless of whatever else is going on. They then cross their fingers, promote, promote, promote and hope that people follow. As that review says, U2 were always about challenging as much as embracing their fans. I think from Pop onwards that has changed. I think the decision making begins and ends with commercial success. It is not about creating the music that is running in their heads - whatever that is - and working their butts off to make it commercially successful. Instead, limiting the boundaries to what is known to be guaranteed airplay (ie pop music) and building songs by numbers that, while better than most of the stuff you'll hear on commercial playlists, is still just that - commercial pop. I believe they do have a definite pre-conceived plan there now, and it is all suffering for it.
Both the main review in this thread, and the one quoted above, get to the heart of the problem, but with varying degrees of acceptance.
U2 have taken 180 turns with their music half a dozen times. It's always been natural and fueled by a creative need. All can agree that U2's stated 180 turn this time around, before anything was released, was to reign it all back in and take it back to the basics. Throw out the drum machines, samplers, hi tech producers and replace it with 4 guys playing straight out rock'n'roll? Fine by me! Is it what they actually did? Not even close.
ultraviolet7 said:
I think that what people call "bland" here is that the 2000+ songs fall in their majority into the classical pop song pattern, songs that fit well in AOR. Namely non-innovative material. U2 didn't use to produce this type of music. I'm not saying that this is good or bad necessarily - it's simply a major change from what they have always done. This band has always in some way or other produced fresh and original material - you could never say that U2's music reminded you of any other artist and it always, at least for me, had a special extra that made listening and enjoying it a unique experience.
This is spot on and it's what I personally don't like (and think many, many, many others feel the same way). It's not that U2 changed direction. It's that on this particular change of direction the things that they actually stripped away were the things that made them U2. I guess it might come down to what you saw in U2 in the first place, and what it is that you have seen in them all along. How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb to me is an example of extremely good pop song writing. That means I weight it up against Maroon 5, Matchbox 20, Goo Goo Dolls etc - and it kicks their a*se. I wouldn't dare measure it against any of the new challening, innovative, creative bands of today. It's not a fair fight. U2 have left one group and slipped over to the other. That may sit well with you, but I think it's really sad. They certainly didn't have to do it either. Who honestly believes that U2 couldn't have produced whatever the f*ck they wanted and still be, at worst, one of the 2 or 3 biggest bands in the world? U2 have always shifted and changed and challenged and embraced and were continualy the massive monster that Bono wanted them to be. I have no doubt that if U2 had actually made the shift they'd promised, to a stripped back, out and out rock band, they would have been successful and made just as much money as Bono wants them to. We'll probably never know though. U2 post-2000 is simply not the same thing that they were in the 2 and a bit decades before. The very core of their music has changed, and it's the very core that made them 'U2'. Once that soul has been ripped out.... they're just a very tight and talented pop band... but they're barely U2 anymore.
