Ok, so here's what I think U2's problem is.

[shart1780]

Probably sounds like what's been said a million times before, but they really need to stop caring about appealing to the mainstream. This isn't how you remain a classic band. This is how you ride the wave of current trends, then you slowly burn out.

Do you think bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin sat around annylizing what would get them higher on the charts? Do you think they'd compromise great, creative songwriting to appeal to the masses? I sure don't. This is what makes a band classic. It's because a band is creative and daring that they're classic. U2's latest albums won't be considered classics if they don't go back to their more creative ways.

Remember Achtung Baby? Now that was a daring album. Imagine Coldplay making that big of a transformation. That would be HUGE. Zooropa wasn't a huge billboard hit, but it's not considered by many to be one of the best U2 albums simply because it was different and daring. It didn't do as much as AB, but it did what it did GREAT. People appreciate that. ATYCLB and HTDAAB are really good albums, but I already find myself becoming bored with HTDAAB. I find myself listening to Zooropa more.

I think U2 needs to be more spontaneous. The new albums are good, but they dound so calculated and cliche'd. It's like they planned on creating a certain type of songs from the get go, then decided to write these songs. HTDAAB feels too much like an all encompassing greatest hits album.

There has to be that catchy pop rock song (Vertigo)
The mid tempo ballad (Miracle Drug)
The slow emotional ballad (Sometimes)
The funky rocker (Love and Peace)
The stadium rocker (Blinding Lights)
The traditional rock song (ABOY)
The lighthearted love song (Man and a Woman)
The song singing against social injustice (Crumbs)
The ambient depressing song (One Step Closer)
The teary-eyed, sweet love song (OotS)
And the epic God song (Yaweh)

Sure, these are all great songs, but it seems like they sat around a table of charts and graphs determining what songs would be the most accessible and easy to swallow. Albums like Zooropa portrayed a feeling and portrayed it well. This just feels like a collection of their most obvious choices. This is a formula album, and we dont need more of those.

 

[jacknife23]

Their main problem is they're too nice. Stop caring what anyone says and make music they feel like making.

 

[Chizip]

ever since the "failure" of Pop they have been obssessed with becoming "the biggest band in the world" again.

cd's like Zooropa won't get them there, cd's like ATYCLB will.

 

[the soul waits]

I think the difference is SO big between the Zooropa and Pop-U2 compared to ATYCLB and HTDAAB-U2.

Sometimes hard to believe it's the same band. (and moreso visually as musically, imo)

They have changed appearance SO much since! Look at Edge, Bono 10-ish years ago, sure they've aged, but still...they were so much more kickass and inyourface back then.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

i wish people would stop trying to convince the people that like the last 2 albums otherwise, we do apologise

 

[thrillme]

What are you talking about?!, the Beatles STILL appeal to the masses, what is so daring about I wanna hold your hand, she loves you yeah yeah, A hard day's night.

U2's early work was angrier, less polished, and very different from the Beatles early work.

How many Beatles songs are light hearted love songs? Most of the ones I've heard on the radio.

Some people say U2 have blind followers, U2 can do no wrong, ever, but that's nothing compared to some Beatles fans.

Bet you I'll get some angry responses from this.

----------------

A Man and a Woman, might be U2's only lightheared love song, the others are much more bittersweet, have you read the lyrics to With or Without You, Sweetest thing?

Maybe what really bothers people is that, U2 might actually be writing songs they want to, and some fans don't like it. Expecting them to fit to your own idea of what they should be recording.

U2 clearly don't write songs that appeal to the masses, when their own fans don't like their albums.

Some fans don't like Pop, some don't like Achtung Baby, most don't care for October.

Picasso, brilliant artist, but there may be some who didn't like his blue period, ye know.

U2 were teenagers when they started, and are still making albums together, and selling out stadiums. Not a whole lot of bands have done that.

U2's done so much, that for them it's harder to surprise people, so maybe they say, we'll make songs we want to make, and let the chips fall where they may.

If anything, I'd say Atomic Bomb is more of a bass driven album, than the rock guitar album people thought it would be.

If U2 truly wanted to appeal to the masses, they should just record Joshua Tree 2. Atomic bomb is nothing like Joshua Tree, and that's fine by me.

 

[financeguy]

How many Beatles songs are light hearted love songs? Most of the ones I've heard on the radio.

"Ones I've heard on the radio" - that's the key phrase - the vast majority of the Beatles' work is not in the category of light hearted love songs.

Shart1780 makes some good points and I largely agree with him on this.

 

[thrillme]

"Ones I've heard on the radio" - that's the key phrase - the vast majority of the Beatles' work is not in the category of light hearted love songs.

Shart1780 makes some good points and I largely agree with him on this.

Seems calculated to me then. I've not heard any Beatles song played on the radio, that blew me away, certainly not lyrically. Why not release the daring songs as singles? Maybe I'd have a better opinion of them.

U2 released discotheque as a single, discotheque!

"New Year's Day" was a single, but it's not exactly a light hearted love song.

Pride, about Martin Luther King.

It's okay, some people love the Beatles music, I love U2's music.

 

[cmb737]

Do you think bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin sat around annylizing what would get them higher on the charts? Do you think they'd compromise great, creative songwriting to appeal to the masses? I sure don't. This is what makes a band classic.

I would love to see U2 regain some of the attitude of their earlier successes and failures...but still love them. One point about all those bands that you called classic, however: EACH of them broke up prematurely. (Yes, I am aware Floyd is still around, but without Waters it's a broken band) I am a firm believer in the fact that a band that does that aids its legacy by the "what if" factor. They never faded away, if you catch my meaning. Consider some other bands that are considered classic, and broke up prematurely (reuiniting excluded as outside the point, because in many ways they were already considered classic by that time, and are reuniting for other rea$ons):

Nirvana
The Police
The Eagles
The Pixies
Rage Against the Machine
Janes Addiction
Cream
Bruce Springsteen and the E Steet Band




The list goes on and on...

There isn't a great history of bands staying relevant or even good for 25 years. (The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Grateful Dead?) My point is that breaking up before you are supposed to is often a mechanism for being seen in a different light than slowly fading. I hope U2 calls it quits while on top.

 

[financeguy]

Seems calculated to me then. I've not heard any Beatles song played on the radio, that blew me away, certainly not lyrically. Why not release the daring songs as singles?

the Beatles released plenty of daring songs as singles. The fact that they don't happen to get played on the radio, or the radio where you live, means diddley squat.

Really, all you've shown in your post is your total and utter ignorance of the Beatles.

It is possible to 'love U2' and 'love the Beatles'!

 

[mikal]

i love how people knock bands for making appealing albums. i used to be the same way, and then joined a band myself, and wanted to make money.

 

[cmb737]

I have no idea the age of any of the posters on here, but in my own experience, I needed to mature a bit before I was able to appreciate the Beatles and in particular John Lennon for the geniuses they were.

I agree with Financeguy, if you really cannot appreciate what the Beatles did than you are ignorant. They changed music. They changed the way bands operated. They were the ones that popularized bands writing their own songs and performing them. Every pop band since draws on them for inspiration whether they know it or not. U2 would be the first to admit it as well, I am sure. At one point they had 8 of the top 10 songs on the Billboard top 10 at the same time. They are without question the greatest band of all time, and it's not a threat to U2 fans and music either. It is okay to like more than one band.

 

[yimou]

Ahhhh the good old Beatles vs. U2 arguement.

The Beatles have rocked the socks off peoples feet since the early 60´s. But since the band have not existed for decades then they are legends with a status nobody will ever reach again. They left on a high note and had the two most influencial musicians in the group.

U2 have only removed socks with their music since the release of Boy and anyway then the music biz changed with The Beatles. Every band since have been left to stand in the shadow of John, Paul, George and bingo... Ringo.

I love The Beatles but i do believe that a band like U2 have pushed the bar even further than The Beatles did. But they will never get the same credit as The Beatles. And who cares ?? Maybe one day people will say - Do you remember the good old days with Bono, Edge, Adam and Larry -

BTW. Beatles made a better concert movie though it was scripted. A hard days night pisses all over Rattle and Hum

 

[cmb737]

BTW. Beatles made a better concert movie though it was scripted. A hard days night pisses all over Rattle and Hum

Everything else aside, HDN was nominated for two oscars and was on the cutting edge of film noir at the time. Rattle and Hum is just in black and white.

 

[thrillme]

the Beatles released plenty of daring songs as singles. The fact that they don't happen to get played on the radio, or the radio where you live, means diddley squat.

Really, all you've shown in your post is your total and utter ignorance of the Beatles.

It is possible to 'love U2' and 'love the Beatles'!

Sure, but I don't.

There's a radio station that I swear plays a Beatles song every 30 minutes, I'm not ignorant of their music.

Because I don't like the Beatles music, I'm ignorant.

I have to mature to appreciate their music, what, the last half of their career?

I see, and if people don't like U2, "oh well we can't all like the same thing." People criticise U2, "get over it", people criticise the Beatles and they're immature, ignorant, and don't know anything about music?

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

U2 isn't the only band I listen to, I listen to a lot of bands, different genres even, just because the Beatles don't appeal to me, that means I'm ignorant?

I'm well aware how much U2 look up to the Beatles, most people do, I don't.

I know it's very very very hard for people to fathom someone not adoring the Beatles, but it does happen.

I just don't see the genius in I wanna hold your hand, whatever that song that goes, "l-m-n-o-p I think your swell and I know you do me well", a hard day's night, most of their early work.

U2 weren't as skilled musicians, as they came out of the punk ethic, but still, took a while for Bono to write light-hearted songs.

Bono did say, the Beatles have musicianship U2 could never touch, but U2 have a weight, the Beatles couldn't touch, I'll give the Beatles that, musicianship.

I do like the Rolling Stones, the Clash, Pink Floyd, Bob Marley, unfortunately the Who have licensed a bunch of their songs for commercials, that I sometimes turn the radio when one of their songs come on, as I think it's a commercial, but I do like some Who songs.

Ever read a Beatles vs. Rolling Stones or the Who, threads? Now those are interesting.

The Beatles vs. U2 threads are actually boring for the most part.

 

[typhoon]

"l-m-n-o-p I think your swell and I know you do me well"

What the hell? Are you thinking of the Turtles' "Elenore"?

 

[Irishteen]

I like the Beatles, but I just don't really get there songs, sure some of them are brillant, Yellow Submarine is allows a good song to play, Lucy in the sky with diamonds, and JHard days night, great film.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

why is it that some people thing U2 have a problem, just because some people dont like an album? maybe they arent making the album for YOU.

 

[rjhbonovox]

The amount of threads that are slagging the last 2 albums goes to show that U2 are on a downward slide, unfortunately.

 

[TwoAmericas]

I think the difference is SO big between the Zooropa and Pop-U2 compared to ATYCLB and HTDAAB-U2.

Sometimes hard to believe it's the same band. (and moreso visually as musically, imo)

They have changed appearance SO much since! Look at Edge, Bono 10-ish years ago, sure they've aged, but still...they were so much more kickass and inyourface back then.

 

[roy]

The amount of threads that are slagging the last 2 albums goes to show that U2 are on a downward slide, unfortunately.

You mean the vocal minority? I seem to remember HTDAAB, quite rightly, coming 3rd in Interference's best album poll, a better reflection of fans/members opinion wouldn't you say?

 

[MrBrau1]

You mean the vocal minority? I seem to remember HTDAAB, quite rightly, coming 3rd in Interference's best album poll, a better reflection of fans/members opinion wouldn't you say?

RJ is on a run of being wrong about almost everything.

 

[roy]

RJ is on a run of being wrong about almost everything.

rjhbonovox is a total wind-up merchant. I know I shouldn't give him the attention he craves, but sometimes....

 

[mikal]

[rj]omfg!!111 im so contrivershol!!!111[/rj]

 

[rjhbonovox]

rjhbonovox is a total wind-up merchant. I know I shouldn't give him the attention he craves, but sometimes....

Damn you guys have me soooooo wrong!

 

[rjhbonovox]

You mean the vocal minority? I seem to remember HTDAAB, quite rightly, coming 3rd in Interference's best album poll, a better reflection of fans/members opinion wouldn't you say?

Yeah but the thing is after the next album is released many fans on here will be placing that 3rd and saying oh my god what a great album this is and it definetly beats HTDAAB cos that sucked big time and blah blah!

 

[roy]

Yeah but the thing is after the next album is released many fans on here will be placing that 3rd and saying oh my god what a great album this is and it definetly beats HTDAAB cos that sucked big time and blah blah!

Really......

What long standing pattern (and I mean long standing, over the course of U2's long career) are you basing this on? Is there really a tendency for U2 fans to do this, as you have stated?

I would love to know, otherwise I would have to judge that your opinion on this subject is crap, just like 99.999% of your posts

 

[namkcuR]

Rjhbonovox is right, roy and Brau are wrong. People tend to overrate the most recent release. It's a natural thing, I suppose, because it sounds the freshest, because they haven't yet listened to it a bagillion times like they have the rest of the albums. It's not a putdown on anyone, it's just the way it is. The most recent release tends to be overrated. Also, if you remember that poll, after every round went by later in the contest where HTDAAB survived, there was a great big chorus of people vocalizing their disbelief that people were putting this thing through over the likes of War, The Unforgettable Fire, Zooropa, Pop, etc.

 

[roy]

Rjhbonovox is right, roy and Brau are wrong. People tend to overrate the most recent release. It's a natural thing, I suppose, because it sounds the freshest, because they haven't yet listened to it a bagillion times like they have the rest of the albums. It's not a putdown on anyone, it's just the way it is. The most recent release tends to be overrated. Also, if you remember that poll, after every round went by later in the contest where HTDAAB survived, there was a great big chorus of people vocalizing their disbelief that people were putting this thing through over the likes of War, The Unforgettable Fire, Zooropa, Pop, etc.

Please give me some actual evidence which states U2 fans have a consistent tendency of doing this or just like RJ I'm going to accuse you of bullshit, trying to push your own agenda. For the record I'm a fan since 1984 and don't recall such a pattern of shifting opinion.

Once again, back your claims, if you can.

 

[MrBrau1]

Rjhbonovox is right, roy and Brau are wrong. People tend to overrate the most recent release. It's a natural thing, I suppose, because it sounds the freshest, because they haven't yet listened to it a bagillion times like they have the rest of the albums. It's not a putdown on anyone, it's just the way it is. The most recent release tends to be overrated. Also, if you remember that poll, after every round went by later in the contest where HTDAAB survived, there was a great big chorus of people vocalizing their disbelief that people were putting this thing through over the likes of War, The Unforgettable Fire, Zooropa, Pop, etc.

You honestly think U2 fans would've voted Zooropa a top 3 album in July 1993, or Pop a top 3 album in 1997?

U2 lost fans in droves with those 2 albums. If we had internet polls from those 2 time periods, you'd be amazed.