My thoughts on why How to Dismantle sucked

[MrBrau1]

The vast majority of ATYCLB/Bomb bashers DO love the 90's and over and over again we hear their favorite albums are AB, Zooropa and Pop - it's not a baseless assumption. The mantra that keeps occuring "I want experimenting!" comes from that too. Interestingly most of those people like Love and peace and Fast cars on Bomb and Mercy which *oops* sound more like than the 90's than anything else on the last two albums. Yet at the same time they so proudly shout "we don't want repeated sounds!"

Is it because they remind them of the 90's?

U2 will never become the Stones.

Right On! You've just described 80% of this place.

 

[guill]

They need to make a record of hip hop produced by Dr Dre. With featuring of Jay.Z, Eminem and Beyonce.

What's your problem ?.

 

[Swan269]

How about U2 produces an album recorded by Dallas, Dan Lanois, Brian Eno, and Jackknife Lee?

 

[2Hearts]

The Rolling Stones are not 'safe'. I heard they're bringing back "C**ksucker Blues" for the new tour.

 

[the tourist]

How about U2 just makes another record and we all complain about it?

 

[AtomicBono]

I second the tourist's suggestion

I DO want the band to continue finding new sounds to make. I don't another AB or another Pop. There is only one AB, only one Pop. I want the band to find something NEW. Look at the Million Dollar Hotel soundtrack. If they had made a whole U2 record in the vein GBHF, Stateless, and Falling At Your Feet, that would have been a new direction while not merely repeating their 90s work. That is the kind of thing I'm looking for. That said, it's not like I think ATYCLB and HTDAAB are bad records or anything. Just not quite up to par with much of their previous work.

The Million Dollar Hotel soundtrack...well I don't have Falling at Your Feet, but The Ground Beneath Her Feet and Stateless are two of my favourite U2 songs, ever. They're incredible. I would love for U2 to make their next record with that type of sound, maybe taking it further, adding songs like Mercy...experimenting...changing...but we'll see. A nice dirty rock 'n roll album would be nice too - HTDAAB went about halfway there (or maybe more like a third). I'd love to see U2 dive into harder darker rock territory, stuff they hinted at with songs like Exit.

We'll see. Even if it is "HTDAAB part 2" (which many would surely argue is the same as "ATYCLB part 3"), I'm sure I'll love it. But I for one am ready for U2 to experiment again. I want a new sound that will totally knock me off my feet and make me go "THIS is U2? THIS?! No way!!" in the same way I'm sure Achtung did when it came out for many people. But if they choose to return to a more 90's sound, I'd be cool with that too. It IS my favourite era and I'm not ashamed of admitting it. If they continue this sort of back-to-roots thing, sure, whatever, it's U2, I'll love it. I've loved everything this band has done thus far so I don't think they can fuck it up for me. A lot of you people on the other hand...

 

[Axver]

You love this album because it reminds you of the 80s Axver, but we are in the 00s.

Yeah, because Love And Peace Or Else (one of my favourite tracks on the album) would fit PERFECTLY on The Joshua Tree or The Unforgettable Fire, wouldn't it?

 

[starvinmarvin]

Look, it is not wrong for U2 to sound like the 80's, because when it comes right down to it, they are an 80's band.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Why are they an 80's band? Simply because the last third of that decade was when they became huge?

 

[starvinmarvin]

Why are they an 80's band? Simply because the last third of that decade was when they became huge?

Probably the fact that most of their music was created in the 80's would qualify them as an 80's band.

 

[namkcuR]

Look, it is not wrong for U2 to sound like the 80's, because when it comes right down to it, they are an 80's band.

No, no no. Air Supply is an 80s band. Def Leopard was an 80s band. Poison was an 80s band. Bands that maintain their popularity over a span of decades cannot be labeled in conjunction with any one decade.

 

[AtomicBono]

U2 are not an 80's band. U2 are a band that started in the 80's. There's a difference.

An 80's band is a band that was big in the 80's and didn't go much further beyond that... or even if they did, their career height was in the 80's.

You could argue The Joshua Tree as U2's biggest and best album, but you could also argue Achtung Baby. Hell, you could probably argue All That You Can't Leave Behind.

The point is, U2 isn't an 80's band. U2 is TIMELESS.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

The vast majority of ATYCLB/Bomb bashers DO love the 90's and over and over again we hear their favorite albums are AB, Zooropa and Pop - it's not a baseless assumption. The mantra that keeps occuring "I want experimenting!" comes from that too. Interestingly most of those people like Love and peace and Fast cars on Bomb and Mercy which *oops* sound more like than the 90's than anything else on the last two albums. Yet at the same time they so proudly shout "we don't want repeated sounds!"

Is it because they remind them of the 90's?

U2 will never become the Stones.

Love and Peace is my favourite, yes, but not because it sounds like the 90s (and I don't think it does anyway). But I prefer Xanax & Wine over Fast Cars (which also sounds nothing like the 90's), and while Mercy is good, I'm most definitely not in the "all hail Mercy" fan club at all. It's not that great to me. And why does it sound like the 90's?

I happen to love the 80's and the 90's equally and I personally don't see the two stereotyped groups in here at all. I think you need to read posts more carefully, notice who writes what and even what they name as their favourites in regard to albums/songs/sounds, what they'd like to see as U2's direction etc. I honestly think you only skim read on the surface of most posts. I could just as easily do the same and stereotype you as well as someone who is musically and conceptually ignorant, who is completely locked in in redundant categorisations of fans and ridiculously simplistic definitions of ideas and music who only seems to occasionally surface to hysterically scream treason at all those who simply find that 100% of U2 doesn't do it for them 100% of the time, and happen to enjoy discussing such topics in a mature way (granted that is not all who do discuss them). But I wouldn't do that because I don't believe it.

U2girl, don't fear. Plenty of us believe that The Unforgettable Fire is as exciting or far more so than Zooropa. That 'experimentation' is the same as, not the opposite of, the 80's.

 

[starvinmarvin]

U2 are not an 80's band. U2 are a band that started in the 80's. There's a difference.

An 80's band is a band that was big in the 80's and didn't go much further beyond that... or even if they did, their career height was in the 80's.

You could argue The Joshua Tree as U2's biggest and best album, but you could also argue Achtung Baby. Hell, you could probably argue All That You Can't Leave Behind.

The point is, U2 isn't an 80's band. U2 is TIMELESS.

Nope. They came out in the early 80's, made the vast majority of their music in the 80's, and had the biggest impact on the musical world in the 80's. They evolved in the early 90's, adopting a Euro electronica sound, but it was just window dressing. Instead of breaking new musical ground, as they did for UF and JT, they instead FOLLOWED 90's trends. For the most part, the 90's experiment was a success, but it wasn't really U2. They were just pretending, just "dreaming it all up again," as it were. Now U2 has returned to its roots and once agin sounds like "u2,' which is to say that they sound like the band's original 80's sound. As a logical extension, they sound like the 80's again because they are an 80's band. yes, they are still around, and are still making great music, but they are at heart an 80's band.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Sorry, that last post was a bit harsh. I agree that there are people who seem to believe that in 1990 the four original members of U2 retired and were replaced by new guys and draw this massive dividing line between the 80s and 90s. Those guys then retired in 1999 and were replaced again by the original foursome. That does go both ways though. There are definitely also some in here, the occasional poster or post, who will trash the 90s as a silly diversion from the 'real' U2, as if it was always a mistake that was awaiting correction.

I think it's those people, and those who happily and easily divide the majority of U2 fans into one side or other of that belief, who are the ignorant ones who haven't been paying attention. The majority, most definitely don't believe that, and don't see any difference between the 80s U2 and the 90s U2 and see it as one line of growth, not two alternate bands as the stereotypes suggest. That's just dumb.

 

[starvinmarvin]

Sorry, that last post was a bit harsh. I agree that there are people who seem to believe that in 1990 the four original members of U2 retired and were replaced by new guys and draw this massive dividing line between the 80s and 90s. Those guys then retired in 1999 and were replaced again by the original foursome. That does go both ways though. There are definitely also some in here, the occasional poster or post, who will trash the 90s as a silly diversion from the 'real' U2, as if it was always a mistake that was awaiting correction.

I think it's those people, and those who happily and easily divide the majority of U2 fans into one side or other of that belief, who are the ignorant ones who haven't been paying attention. The majority, most definitely don't believe that, and don't see any difference between the 80s U2 and the 90s U2 and see it as one line of growth, not two alternate bands as the stereotypes suggest. That's just dumb.

Agreed. The 90's weren't a mistake for U2. If they wouldn't have changed, they would not be around today. Therefore even people who don't like the 90's U2 should be greatful.

 

[AtomicBono]

Nope. They came out in the early 80's, made the vast majority of their music in the 80's, and had the biggest impact on the musical world in the 80's. They evolved in the early 90's, adopting a Euro electronica sound, but it was just window dressing. Instead of breaking new musical ground, as they did for UF and JT, they instead FOLLOWED 90's trends. For the most part, the 90's experiment was a success, but it wasn't really U2. They were just pretending, just "dreaming it all up again," as it were. Now U2 has returned to its roots and once agin sounds like "u2,' which is to say that they sound like the band's original 80's sound. As a logical extension, they sound like the 80's again because they are an 80's band. yes, they are still around, and are still making great music, but they are at heart an 80's band.

So Achtung Baby was U2...pretending.

I'm not even sure if I want to touch that one.

And you're trying to say their biggest impact was in the 80's? I beg to differ. Every tour from ZooTV onward they have made innovations that have influenced and changed the way bands tour - the idea of a "b-stage" out into the audience, the giant LED screen, ect. "One" is arguably U2's most important and well-known song ever. Also, the U2 wannabe bands are more abundant now more than ever.

Plus, you can say the new albums sound like the 80's all you want, but the fact is they're a blend of retro-U2 with a whole new sound - they're not solely ripping off the "classic" U2 sound, though I'm sure others would disagree. The 00's are a new era of U2's music, a new sort of evolution, not a return to the 80's, and U2 never could have gotten there without the 90's. Face it, the 90's is a legitimate and important part of U2's history.

A band that has remained relevant for 25 years cannot be bound to one decade.

 

[starvinmarvin]

So Achtung Baby was U2...pretending.

I'm not even sure if I want to touch that one.

And you're trying to say their biggest impact was in the 80's? I beg to differ. Every tour from ZooTV onward they have made innovations that have influenced and changed the way bands tour - the idea of a "b-stage" out into the audience, the giant LED screen, ect. "One" is arguably U2's most important and well-known song ever. Also, the U2 wannabe bands are more abundant now more than ever.

Plus, you can say the new albums sound like the 80's all you want, but the fact is they're a blend of retro-U2 with a whole new sound - they're not solely ripping off the "classic" U2 sound, though I'm sure others would disagree. The 00's are a new era of U2's music, a new sort of evolution, not a return to the 80's, and U2 never could have gotten there without the 90's. Face it, the 90's is a legitimate and important part of U2's history.

A band that has remained relevant for 25 years cannot be bound to one decade.

Look, u2 released 6 albums that had a similar sound from 1980-89, and became the biggest band in the world. From 1991-1998 the adopted a new "trendy" sound to cover up their old bag wrinkles, gradually becoming less respected and influential in the process. Then they have spent the last 5 years returning to their 80's sound, although they do add some modern production values as well. I know you love AB, and I do too, but the fact remians that it was a diversion. A fantastic diversion, but a diversion nevertheless.

 

[rock888nwo]

well said

 

[namkcuR]

Look, u2 released 6 albums that had a similar sound from 1980-89, and became the biggest band in the world. From 1991-1998 the adopted a new "trendy" sound to cover up their old bag wrinkles, gradually becoming less respected and influential in the process. Then they have spent the last 5 years returning to their 80's sound, although they do add some modern production values as well. I know you love AB, and I do too, but the fact remians that it was a diversion. A fantastic diversion, but a diversion nevertheless.

That's no fact. It's your opinion. And it's rubbish.

And, the 80s sound was far more 'rock'. The 00s sound is far more 'pop'. They're not the same. Although COBL does seem like it's trying awfully hard to emulate 'Streets'.

 

[starvinmarvin]

That's no fact. It's your opinion. And it's rubbish.

And, the 80s sound was far more 'rock'. The 00s sound is far more 'pop'. They're not the same. Although COBL does seem like it's trying awfully hard to emulate 'Streets'.

Sorry, but I am right, and you, my friend, are not

 

[the tourist]

Songs Of The 80s:

Out Of Control
Stories For Boys
Boy/Girl
Another Day
Twilight
11 O'Clock Tick Tock
Touch
A Day Without Me
Things To Make And Do
I Will Follow
An Cat Dubh
Into The Heart
The Ocean
Another Time Another Place
Electric Co.
Shadows And Tall Trees
Gloria
I Fall Down
I Threw A Brick Through A Window
Rejoice
Fire
Tomorrow
October
With A Shout
Stranger In A Strange Land
Scarlett
Is That All?
J. Swallow
A Celebration
Trash Trampoline And The Party Girl
Sunday Bloody Sunday
Seconds
New Year's Day
Like A Song
Drowning Man
The Refugee
Two Hearts Beat As One
Red Light
Surrender
40
Treasure
Endless Deep
A Sort Of Homecoming
Pride
Wire
The Unforgettable Fire
Promenade
4th Of July
Bad
Indian Summer Sky
Elvis Presley And America
MLK
Boomerang I
Boomerang II
The Three Sunrises
Love Comes Tumbling
Bass Trap
Sixty Seconds In Kingdom Come
Jesus Christ
Where The Streets Have No Name
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
With Or Without You
Bullet The Blue Sky
Running To Stand Still
Red Hill Mining Town
In God's Country
Trip Through Your Wires
One Tree Hill
Exit
Mothers Of The Disappeared
Luminous Times
Walk To The Water
Spanish Eyes
Deep In The Heart
Silver And Gold
The Sweetest Thing
Race Against Time
Helter Skelter
Van Diemen's Land
Desire
Hawkmoon 269
All Along The Watchtower
Angel Of Harlem
Love Rescue Me
When Love Comes To Town
Heartland
God Part II
All I Want Is You
Hallelujah Here She Comes
A Room At The Heartbreak Hotel
Dancing Barefoot
Unchained Melody
Everlasting Love

Total, 93 songs

Songs Of The 90s:

Zoo Station
Even Better Than The Real Thing
One
Until The End Of The World
Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses
So Cruel
The Fly
Mysterious Ways
Trying To Throw Your Arms Around The World
Ultraviolet
Acrobat
Love Is Blindness
Alex Descends Into Hell For A Bottle Of Milk
Satellite Of Love
Lady With The Spinning Head
Night And Day
Salome
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)
Paint It Black
Fortunate Son
Can't Help Falling In Love
Zooropa
Babyface
Numb
Lemon
Stay
Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car
Some Days Are Better Than Others
The First Time
Dirty Day
The Wanderer
I've Got You Under My Skin
Slow Dancing
Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me
United Colours Of Plutonium
Slug
Your Blue Room
Always Forever Now
A Different Kind Of Blue
Beach Sequence
Miss Sarajevo
Ito Okashi
One Minute Warning
Corpse
Elvis Ate America
Plot 180
Theme From The Swan
Theme From Let's Go Native
Bottoms
Viva Davidoff
Discotheque
Do You Feel Loved?
Mofo
If God Will Send His Angels
Staring At The Sun
Last Night On Earth
Gone
Miami
The Playboy Mansion
If You Wear That Velvet Dress
Please
Wake Up Dead Man
Holy Joe
North And South Of The River
Pop Muzik
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
I'm Not Your Baby
Two Shots Of Happy, One Shot Of Sad
The Ground Beneath Her Feet
Never Let Me Go
Falling At Your Feet
Stateless
Dancing Shoes

Total songs, 74

Songs Of The 00's:

Beautiful Day
Stuck In A Moment
Elevation
Walk On
Kite
In A Little While
Wild Honey
Peace On Earth
When I Look At The World
New York
Grace
Summer Rain
Always
Big Girls Are Best
I Remember You
Don't Take Your Guns To Town
Beat On The Brat
Electrical Storm
The Hands That Built America
Vertigo
Miracle Drug
Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
Love And Peace Or Else
City Of Blinding Lights
All Because Of You
A Man And A Woman
Crumbs From Your Table
One Step Closer
Original Of The Species
Yahweh
Fast Cars
Neon Lights
Are You Gonna Wait Forever?
Ave Maria
Xanax & Wine
Beautiful Ghost
Native Son
Levitate
Smile
Flower Child
Love You Like Mad

Total Songs, 41

80s: 93
90s: 74
00s: 41
total songs: 208

U2, therefore, is...

44% 80s
36% 90s
20% 00s

 

[U2girl]

Love and Peace is my favourite, yes, but not because it sounds like the 90s (and I don't think it does anyway). But I prefer Xanax & Wine over Fast Cars (which also sounds nothing like the 90's), and while Mercy is good, I'm most definitely not in the "all hail Mercy" fan club at all. It's not that great to me. And why does it sound like the 90's?

I happen to love the 80's and the 90's equally and I personally don't see the two stereotyped groups in here at all. I think you need to read posts more carefully, notice who writes what and even what they name as their favourites in regard to albums/songs/sounds, what they'd like to see as U2's direction etc. I honestly think you only skim read on the surface of most posts. I could just as easily do the same and stereotype you as well as someone who is musically and conceptually ignorant, who is completely locked in in redundant categorisations of fans and ridiculously simplistic definitions of ideas and music who only seems to occasionally surface to hysterically scream treason at all those who simply find that 100% of U2 doesn't do it for them 100% of the time, and happen to enjoy discussing such topics in a mature way (granted that is not all who do discuss them). But I wouldn't do that because I don't believe it.

U2girl, don't fear. Plenty of us believe that The Unforgettable Fire is as exciting or far more so than Zooropa. That 'experimentation' is the same as, not the opposite of, the 80's.

Struck a nerve huh?

If you didn't notice my "remind you of the 90's" comment was sarcastic, referencing the post earlier in this thread that ATYCLB/HTDAAB are liked because they sound like the 80's. Just because you don't think Love and peace (intro, drums, end solo) and Mercy (could be straight from AB, music, lyrics, right down to the vocal) don't sound like the 90's doesn't make it fact. And most definitely just because you didn't like ATYCLB/HTDAAB does not make it the Interference law no.1. And while I'm sure it will break your heart, not everyone in here thinks some of their 90's output is all that.

Same goes for the 80's/90's U2 comments you made - again, just because you don't want/can't see the differences between those two, doesn't mean there aren't any. Since you brought up the divisions, seems to me a few people here - including you - seem to believe the only and real U2 only exists from 1990-1997 and 1998 - present is crap. I guess that division is perfectly ok. Hello double standards.

The old and tried tactics of some 90's fans - if all else fails, insult people.

The "I just don't love everything U2" defense is a bit funny when over 90% of your posts are nothing but bashfests of last five years of their career. Yup, nothing says "I'm a fan of this band" better.

This thread wasn't talking about Unforgettable fire, and while that album is an expansion of U2's sound - of course, they got new producers - it's a lot more straightforward sounding than Zooropa.

Lay off the egotrips already.

 

[U2DMfan]

Since you brought up the divisions, seems to me a few people here - including you - seem to believe the only and real U2 only exists from 1990-1997 and 1998 - present is crap.

It is entirely more accurate to say that a lot of people think U2 from 1980-1998 were quite genius and since then maybe not so much.

But in your argument, you need the seperation of the 80's and 90's for effect, I am not buying it. It's not a wholesale collective of "decade" fans. It seems those who take issue with the latest music, are doing it seperate from U2's entire back catalogue. Meaning 1980-right up until ATYCLB came out.

There are plenty of people who think U2 did hardly any wrong up until 2000. It's only casual to turn that into 80's vs 90's, IMO.
It only makes it easier to defend.

 

[U2girl]

Understatement of the year - "since then maybe not so much". Oh and the 1980-1987 era barely gets mentioned by those people, not beyond the obligatory "yeah I like the 80's."

Is it that hard to differ between 80s vs 90s U2 debate, and the 90s vs 00s U2, and the whole history - vs 00s debates?
(I was talking about the radical opinions, not whole decade fans)

As for the "one band, enough of the separations" shtick by some (chopping down Joshua Tree and all that never happened right?), it would be a lot more credible if the amount of "foul" cries at the 80s - 90s talk would happen at the (insert era, but most often 90s) - 00s talk.

ATYCLB/Bomb constantly get compared to their catalogue (to their 90's output, actually). Particularly by their critics.

 

[the tourist]

No one enjoyed my % comment? Sad.

 

[Ellay]

No one enjoyed my % comment? Sad.

That's because Out of Control, Stories for Boys and Boy/Girl were technically written and recorded in the 1970's, so I couldn't possibly respond to an incorrect post.

 

[TheFly84138]

haha, people are still debating what U2 era is better. i still say How to Dismantle is overrated and crap.

 

[rjhbonovox]

haha, people are still debating what U2 era is better. i still say How to Dismantle is overrated and crap.

It s very overrated on this forum, but not crap. I would say its an average album in U2's catalogue, still better than a lot of bands but then U2 were never an average band. Maybe they have just become one.

 

[shaun vox]

why make an album if its going to be average? which atyclb and htdaab are!! is it for $$$