R.I.P. 1990-2000

[Spun2U]

Damn, I'm old!!

 

[flybabe]

I was 2 when Achtung Baby came out too

 

[Acrobat Angel]

I was 2 when Achtung Baby came out too

Same here... i so wish i was in my teens during the that era though

 

[doctorwho]

More like when creativity was the goal....not money....not being radio friendly mass consumer market acceptable

And for all this supposed greed, mass consumer market acceptance, radio friendliness, U2 have generated - wait for it - two Top 40 hits in the U.S. in the past 7 years. Yep, two. One didn't even crack the Top 30.

So much for this "mass acceptance" theory of yours.

Yes, U2's songs are more accessible to the public - yet, this is the same complaint I have about the overly adored "Joshua Tree". Of course, I'm the crazy one when I say this, while it's perfectly O.K. to spit out this nonsense now. Whatever.

Bottom line, U2 needed to change after 1997, just as they needed to change after the late 80's and just as they needed to change after 1983. U2 is at that crossroad yet again. Where they go is unknown, but I can understand if it will take them a while this time to work things out. It's tough constantly reinventing one's self, while still trying to stay relevant, despite the big 50 creeping up fast!

 

[shart1780]

Despite the number of no. 1 hits U2 has had, they're a huge, huge band. Notice how people call them one of the biggest band's in the world? Yeah, that's mass appeal.

And by "staying relevant" what do you mean? It seems to me like this is the first ime in U2's career where their "creativity" has actually gone bacwards. U2 talks about never looking back, yet they're making music that's not new for them in any way. If nything it's most similar to their 80's stuff. You talk about how U2 needed to change, but act as if changng into a shadow of their former selves is somehow a progression. There's a reason so many current fans and non-fans have such a problem with the band now.

 

[doctorwho]

Despite the number of no. 1 hits U2 has had, they're a huge, huge band. Notice how people call them one of the biggest band's in the world? Yeah, that's mass appeal.

And by "staying relevant" what do you mean? It seems to me like this is the first ime in U2's career where their "creativity" has actually gone bacwards. U2 talks about never looking back, yet they're making music that's not new for them in any way. If nything it's most similar to their 80's stuff. You talk about how U2 needed to change, but act as if changng into a shadow of their former selves is somehow a progression. There's a reason so many current fans and non-fans have such a problem with the band now.

You mean despite the LACK of #1 hits U2 has had?

Maybe in Ireland or the U.K. U2 have hit #1 more often in recent years, but not in the U.S. Again, so much for this purposeful attempt to gain such mass market appeal. I mean really - are there songs out there that sound like "Beautiful Day" or "Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own" or "City of Blinding Lights" or "Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out of"? These are unique to U2. The only thing U2 is guilty of is sounding like themselves a bit too much on these past two albums. Oh, the horror - a band allowing themselves to sound like, well, themselves.

And U2 has been "mass market" since 1987. This is hardly a new term. One could argue that slow love songs like "With or Without You" and "One" were written for mass appeal - slow love songs always sky-rocket to the uppper echelons of the charts. One could counter that songs like "Pride", "Desire" and "Mysterious Ways" all were meant to be big hits for U2, with their great rock beats ("Desire" even has the classic 4/4 beat, that's so common in all pop rock songs, dominate the song).

So while I agree U2 have taken a look back at their careers, it hardly means their creativity is gone. Again, the songs I list above are very unique to U2 and very unique to the charts. You don't hear today's "hit makers" making songs like that. No one ever complains about Enya sounding the same, yet every album she sells millions of copies basically fine-tuning her own unique sound. No one complains about Coldplay sounding the same. INXS made a career out of their basic sound.

We have been spoiled by the fact that U2 have explored so many styles. So when U2 dare to sound like themselves, suddenly U2 is regressing. Bah! All people have a unique style, whether it's how we dress, write, think, etc. And it's very tough to go against that unique style. U2 have. But when they decide to re-explore what made U2 so unique, fans like you complain. Too bad. You probably just wasted the last 7 years complaining about U2 instead of actually enjoying the music.

 

[shart1780]

You mean despite the LACK of #1 hits U2 has had?

Maybe in Ireland or the U.K. U2 have hit #1 more often in recent years, but not in the U.S. Again, so much for this purposeful attempt to gain such mass market appeal. I mean really - are there songs out there that sound like "Beautiful Day" or "Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own" or "City of Blinding Lights" or "Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out of"? These are unique to U2. The only thing U2 is guilty of is sounding like themselves a bit too much on these past two albums. Oh, the horror - a band allowing themselves to sound like, well, themselves.

And U2 has been "mass market" since 1987. This is hardly a new term. One could argue that slow love songs like "With or Without You" and "One" were written for mass appeal - slow love songs always sky-rocket to the uppper echelons of the charts. One could counter that songs like "Pride", "Desire" and "Mysterious Ways" all were meant to be big hits for U2, with their great rock beats ("Desire" even has the classic 4/4 beat, that's so common in all pop rock songs, dominate the song).

So while I agree U2 have taken a look back at their careers, it hardly means their creativity is gone. Again, the songs I list above are very unique to U2 and very unique to the charts. You don't hear today's "hit makers" making songs like that. No one ever complains about Enya sounding the same, yet every album she sells millions of copies basically fine-tuning her own unique sound. No one complains about Coldplay sounding the same. INXS made a career out of their basic sound.

We have been spoiled by the fact that U2 have explored so many styles. So when U2 dare to sound like themselves, suddenly U2 is regressing. Bah! All people have a unique style, whether it's how we dress, write, think, etc. And it's very tough to go against that unique style. U2 have. But when they decide to re-explore what made U2 so unique, fans like you complain. Too bad. You probably just wasted the last 7 years complaining about U2 instead of actually enjoying the music.

No. 1 hits doesn't determine how big a band is. Saying that U2 isn't mainstream just because they don't have a huge number of huge hits is silly. Their albums and concerts sells like CRAZY. The band is in the spotlight all the time. The band is HUGE. One of the biggest in the world. Maybe your definition of mass market appeal is different than mine, but I can't see how anyone could say that U2 isn't still a big thing.

It's not even the fact that U2 are sounding like themselves that gets to me. It's the fact that they're more boring now (granted, I still like their music). Almost every album in their past was a progression in some way. Achtung was different than R&H (WAY different), Zooropa was different than AB and POP was different than Zooropa. es, they all had a more industrial/electronic feel to them, but the band was definitey profressing. You talk about how U2 needed to change after POP. but look at what they changed into. They changed into a moreboring version of their past selves. They didn't move on at all.

The lyrics got worse, the instrumentation got worse, the band's edge was gone (compare Bono of Zoo TV and POP to the Bono of today). They started singing songs about soul and how we should love eachother instead of more complesx themes from the rest of their career. The band's a big cuddly teddy bear compared to what they used to be. I doubt we'll ever hear another song with the emotional complexity of songs like UTEOTW, The Fly, Love is Blindness, Lemon and Wake Up Dead Man again. The band is in no way challenging anymore. Ys, they're good, but nothing they have written in the past 7 years has made me go "holy crap, now THAT is some crazy, cool stuff". It's all layed out for you on a overproduced silver plateer and dosen't take any digesting. It gets more boring over time. This is what makes the U2 of today mainstream.

Whether U2 are on the charts really isn't my concern at all. I can't fault them if they are. I just want U2 to progress as a band. If the mainstream accepts it, cool. If they don't win some grammies over it it's no big deal either. They shouldn't even consider such things anymore. A lot of bands can sell millions of Copies by sounding the same, but that's not the point. I don't judge artistic greatness by how much a band sells.

Mabe if U2 would "re-explore" their older sounds in a somewhat new and creative way I wouldn't care at all. It's just that everything they do now seems so simple and calculated. It's not in the least bit challenging.

 

[doctorwho]

Mabe if U2 would "re-explore" their older sounds in a somewhat new and creative way I wouldn't care at all. It's just that everything they do now seems so simple and calculated. It's not in the least bit challenging.

In your opinion. I would argue that "Beautiful Day", "Stuck...", "Kite", "Walk On", "Vertigo", "Sometimes...", "City...", and especially, "Love & Peace" and "Fast Cars", are all quite challenging. The latter two songs are also very forward thinking - sounds we haven't heard from U2 before. So while the songs retain the essence of U2 (just as "One", "Stay", "Staring at the Sun", etc. did all during U2's supposedly "esperimental" period), they also move forward and are more challenging. I simply do not hear songs like these on the radio, which is probably why U2 aren't dominating the singles' charts any more. It's a shame too - we could actually do with less Clarkson, Timberlake and a host of R&B/rap combos that spit out any crap (using some disco song from the 70's as a backrground loop).

I also bring up charts because while you may not care who is #1, the argument made earlier in this thread was that U2 did all of this to be "accessible". Accessible means numerous big time hits - and I'm not seeing that (at least in the U.S. - the market U2 always wants to conquer). Hence, it seems to me that if U2 really wanted to be so accessible, they wouldn't make these types of songs. But they decided to re-explore their own sound and it worked, IMO. Again, I don't hear Enya challenging herself, yet her albums are beloved. I don't hear Coldplay or the former INXS revamping their sound. Even REM worked within the confines of their unique sound (barring a few exceptions).

Also, I wonder what people really want U2 to do. Keep in mind, they are approaching 50. So what exactly should U2 do to still stay "hip" and not appear "lazy"? "Vertigo" was a big modern rock hit, suggesting to me that U2 are relevant in perhaps the biggest and pickiest market - and that's not a small feat. But I guess some are never satisfied.

 

[Chill Mike D]

Jesus, I was almost 15 when Achtung Baby came out.

 

[toscano]

And for all this supposed greed, mass consumer market acceptance, radio friendliness, U2 have generated - wait for it - two Top 40 hits in the U.S. in the past 7 years. Yep, two. One didn't even crack the Top 30.

So much for this "mass acceptance" theory of yours.

Yes, U2's songs are more accessible to the public - yet, this is the same complaint I have about the overly adored "Joshua Tree". Of course, I'm the crazy one when I say this, while it's perfectly O.K. to spit out this nonsense now. Whatever.

Bottom line, U2 needed to change after 1997, just as they needed to change after the late 80's and just as they needed to change after 1983. U2 is at that crossroad yet again. Where they go is unknown, but I can understand if it will take them a while this time to work things out. It's tough constantly reinventing one's self, while still trying to stay relevant, despite the big 50 creeping up fast!

"Top 40 hits", where are we ? 1981 ???

Does anyone even sell singles anymore ?

Yes, they felt they needed to change after 1997, they weren't adored by the masses for Pop/Popmart and that's what Bono craves. He's made no secret of wanting to be the "biggest band in the world", not the best mind you, but the biggest.

 

[BVS]

Notice how people call them one of the biggest band's in the world? Yeah, that's mass appeal.

And by "staying relevant" what do you mean? It seems to me like this is the first ime in U2's career where their "creativity" has actually gone bacwards. U2 talks about never looking back, yet they're making music that's not new for them in any way. If nything it's most similar to their 80's stuff. You talk about how U2 needed to change, but act as if changng into a shadow of their former selves is somehow a progression. There's a reason so many current fans and non-fans have such a problem with the band now.

Notice they've done that since 1987. There is no big change in popularity from the 90's to now except for a small drop with Pop.

So show how they went backwards. Show me which song from the 2000s sound like they could have fit on previous albums... I've very curious.