The album seems to be still progressing...

[The Panther]

When I'm talking about a records importance, I'm referring to the importance in their career....not how much you like, or respect, the type of music they're making at any given time.

I see, so I think this is where we differ -- you are thinking of "importance" as how the band perceive their career profile, whereas I am thinking of "importance" as how U2 will be perceived in the grand scheme of things a hundred years hence.

I dunno, but I seriously doubt that anything they did after Zooropa (so far) is really going to matter to their lasting legacy. For me, U2's success and profile with ATYCLB is comparable to the Rolling Stones' with Tattoo You, a monster album in 1981-82 that also topped the charts twenty years into their career and led to a ginormous US stadium tour. People were talking and writing books about how the Stones' had lasted and were now into their third decade with a huge profile, etc., etc. But today, even thirty years later (never mind a hundred), who rates Tattoo You as one of The Stones' 3 most important recorded moments?

But yes, you have a point, because I do think Bono and Edge nowadays sit around and feel satisfaction at how they sold a lot of product in 2000-2001. (I'm not sure that's a good thing, but I do think it's a thing.)

 

[OpenG180]

First of all: who the fuck said Rattle and Hum was a "flop"? I read too many posts i didn't read yet and i'm not going to search for the author of this stupidity cause i'm on my cellphone. It was fuckin' huge where i live. And i live in a country with continental size. I really doubt it was a "flop" either in North America or Western Europe. Rattle and Hum gained U2 many new fans, i remember the radio played Desire, Angel etc all the time. The fuckin' vinyl was on heavy rotation in ppl's houses and that was my first real contact with U2. And Achtung Baby exists not because Rattle and Hum was a "flop", it exists because U2 felt that the 90's was gonna be a very different kind of beast and to reinvent themselves was the only way to remain successfull and "relevant". So, whoever said it, cut the crap.

 

[Nick66]

First of all: who the fuck said Rattle and Hum was a "flop"? I read too many posts i didn't read yet and i'm not going to search for the author of this stupidity cause i'm on my cellphone. It was fuckin' huge where i live. And i live in a country with continental size. I really doubt it was a "flop" either in North America or Western Europe. Rattle and Hum gained U2 many new fans, i remember the radio played Desire, Angel etc all the time. The fuckin' vinyl was on heavy rotation in ppl's houses and that was my first real contact with U2. And Achtung Baby exists not because Rattle and Hum was a "flop", it exists because U2 felt that the 90's was gonna be a very different kind of beast and to reinvent themselves was the only way to remain successfull and "relevant". So, whoever said it, cut the crap.

I agree with you...R&H was in no ways a "flop", either commercially or in its reception by the fans at the time. That's as stupid as saying ATYCLB was only successful because of 9/11 in that it bears no resemble to the historical facts.

However, where we may disagree is that I do think the the change of direction by U2 that came with AB was at least in part a result of the criticism they got around the time of R&H...that they'd become overblown with self importance and unimaginative. U2 has always been very sensitive to this kind of criticism.

Most U2 albums, for better or worse, are in some measure a response to the album preceding it. In the case of AB and ATYCLB, the response was a dramatic change of direction; in the case of Bomb, for example, it was more of the same (but inferior, IMO) in a desire to hold on to the precious relevance they regained in 2000.

 

[OpenG180]

I agree with you...R&H was in no ways a "flop", either commercially or in its reception by the fans at the time. That's as stupid as saying ATYCLB was only successful because of 9/11 in that it bears no resemble to the historical facts.

However, where we may disagree is that I do think the the change of direction by U2 that came with AB was at least in part a result of the criticism they got around the time of R&H...that they'd become overblown with self importance and unimaginative. U2 has always been very sensitive to this kind of criticism.

Most U2 albums, for better or worse, are in some measure a response to the album preceding it. In the case of AB and ATYCLB, the response was a dramatic change of direction; in the case of Bomb, for example, it was more of the same (but inferior, IMO) in a desire to hold on to the precious relevance they regained in 2000.

We're not in disagreement. And wtf? ATYCLB being successful because of september 11?? It was successful almost a full year before. And in many countries. This is really stupid.

 

[lemonfly]

The first album and the first big flop don't really belong here. Or pre-JT U2.

The breakthrough album, the reinvention and the comeback. So far, JT, AB and ATYCLB are - love or hate the latter - the three crucial albums.

I would like to respectfully opine that almost every point in this post is incorrect. R&H (the "first big flop"), was a 14m selling monster that also spawned several of the bands best known songs. The " breakthrough album" was in fact War. JT established them as the biggest rock act in the world, but without War they probably would have spent the second half of 1983 knocking on doors in search of a new record deal. The "reinvention" was ofc TUF. Without TUF, they would have been a creatively redundant post-punk band not knowing where they fitted in anymore. Ofc AB was also a big reinvention, but at that point of their career they could have made Joshua Tree 2 with with some contemporary production values and it still would have been a monster. You are correct in saying Atyclb was a comeback - albeit only a commercial one. I most certainly was around for that album, and there was a lot of talk of it being an artistic regression rather than progression. When books are written about the defining landmark albums of the 00's, you can bet the farm Kid A will get a segment for the year 2000. You can also bet Atyclb won't get a mention.

 

[OpenG180]

I would like to respectfully opine that almost every point in this post is incorrect. R&H (the "first big flop"), was a 14m selling monster that also spawned several of the bands best known songs. The " breakthrough album" was in fact War. JT established them as the biggest rock act in the world, but without War they probably would have spent the second half of 1983 knocking on doors in search of a new record deal. The "reinvention" was ofc TUF. Without TUF, they would have been a creatively redundant post-punk band not knowing where they fitted in anymore. Ofc AB was also a big reinvention, but at that point of their career they could have made Joshua Tree 2 with with some contemporary production values and it still would have been a monster. You are correct in saying Atyclb was a comeback - albeit only a commercial one. I most certainly was around for that album, and there was a lot of talk of it being an artistic regression rather than progression. When books are written about the defining landmark albums of the 00's, you can bet the farm Kid A will get a segment for the year 2000. You can also bet Atyclb won't get a mention.

Correct. Correct. And correct. I said it before, War was the album that made U2 big. I think ppl quite often when analysing U2's success and failures (?) concentrate too much in the USA. Songs like NYD and SBS were the breakthrough. By the time of The Joshua Tree they were big already. Joshua made them number 1.

 

[The Panther]

Correct. Correct. And correct. I said it before, War was the album that made U2 big.

Right, and I also agree 100% with LemonFly's post.

But don't discount War in the USA -- it reached as high as #12 on the American Billboard chart, which means it sold a lot of copies. Okay, they weren't played on mainstream radio yet, but they made a major splash (for example, Rolling Stone named them best live band of the year).

 

[Nick66]

Well, I agree that War is the record that made U2 "big". And I also believe that TUF was the real reinvention (at that time) for U2, not JT...and in that way TUF is a more important record for U2 than JT. But that has nothing to do with whether ATYCLB was one of their most important records.

And whether ATYCLB is mentioned in some theoretical book written years from now by the Pitchfork crowd is really besides the point. Again, that's commenting on the musical merits of the record, or whether it was influential (it wasn't), or the records overall place in the 00's music scene. But that doesn't change its status as an incredibly important record in U2's career, which is what I'm talking about.

 

[U2girl]

I would like to respectfully opine that almost every point in this post is incorrect. R&H (the "first big flop"), was a 14m selling monster that also spawned several of the bands best known songs. The " breakthrough album" was in fact War. JT established them as the biggest rock act in the world, but without War they probably would have spent the second half of 1983 knocking on doors in search of a new record deal. The "reinvention" was ofc TUF. Without TUF, they would have been a creatively redundant post-punk band not knowing where they fitted in anymore. Ofc AB was also a big reinvention, but at that point of their career they could have made Joshua Tree 2 with with some contemporary production values and it still would have been a monster. You are correct in saying Atyclb was a comeback - albeit only a commercial one. I most certainly was around for that album, and there was a lot of talk of it being an artistic regression rather than progression. When books are written about the defining landmark albums of the 00's, you can bet the farm Kid A will get a segment for the year 2000. You can also bet Atyclb won't get a mention.

I assume by "flop" we all know why Rattle and Hum belongs here. Yes, it sold a lot. CDs used to back then, and anything by U2 probably would have sold once they got to monster size with JT.

But the real flop was the critics shredded their ego, and their musical direction of selling blues to America. They were also miserable on tour, and the critical opinions were the push that they needed for AB.

I think War and UF belong more in the cult department. Technically, I guess the real breakthrough was Live Aid, but in terms of CD sales and worldwide superstardom, they became huge with JT.

I can also bet ATYCLB will be in the history books on U2's career, particularly given the new relevance after 9/11. I was also around and seem to recall several "third major U2 album" comments by the press. I would also not be sure ATYCLB will be a forgotten record re: 00's, but that's a different issue.

 

[bonocomet]

Right, and I also agree 100% with LemonFly's post.

But don't discount War in the USA -- it reached as high as #12 on the American Billboard chart, which means it sold a lot of copies. Okay, they weren't played on mainstream radio yet, but they made a major splash (for example, Rolling Stone named them best live band of the year).

Oh it was played on mainstream radio. New Years Day and Sunday Bloody Sunday were played to death, to the point I got so sick of them at the time. My loss, because my fandom didn't kick in until later, but I definitely remember hearing U2 on the radio ALL the time then.

 

[Niceman]

To some fans especially those in the younger crowd it may very well be!

Besides, there would probably be no Interference as we presently know it without Beautiful Day, since without this song, U2 might have called it quits long ago, and I couldn't imagine life being perfect without Interference (only kidding). In my humble opinion, it's their most perfect single to date, even beating WOWY, but by a very, very narrow margin.

BTW, not to be a nerd but oddly enough Bad was never a single. It almost was, though, wasn't it? Isn't there mention in a book somewhere that it was slated to be the third one off UF?

Bad's single is called Wide Awake in America.

 

[Niceman]

The problem with the argument those making the argument that ATYCLB wasn't one of the most important records of U2's career is that they are typically unable to separate the records importance from their own dislike of it, and 00's U2 in general. Obviously the two having nothing to do with one another.

The argument usually goes something along the lines of "Everything U2 did in the 00's was crap blah blah blah and U2's legacy stopped at Pop". Which I guess is sound reasoning if your only criteria of a records importance is whether you personally liked it and its progeny.

I don't think 00's U2 is their best incarnation, but that doesn't blind me to seeing ATYCLB's incredible and undeniable importance to their career. No, it's not the most important, but it's definitely in the top 3. I'd almost say that those dismissing its importance weren't around back then...to see how U2 almost fell off the radar completely, and weren't the biggest band in the world, and how they'd fallen out of favour with a huge part of the public, and how dispirited they were with the reception to Pop, and how ATCYLB's success was by no means assured...but I know some of them were. Dismissing ATYCLB as merely the start of a the "3rd decade" for U2 displays, sorry, a profound misunderstanding of what was going on with them back then, and operates under the wrong assumption that U2 was going to be successful no matter what.

The massive success of 00's U2, the incredibly popular records, the tours, the huge numbers of new fans, getting played on the radio all the time, Bono's incredible increased stature on the world's stage and yes, becoming the biggest band in the world again, along with everything else that came during that period (including the all important and precious "relevance") was bought with the pop culture capital from ATYCLB.

Of course, we have no way of knowing what would have happened to U2 if they'd, say, doubled down on the direction they were going with Pop. But had ATYCLB not been as successful as it was, U2 would not be what they are today. ATYCLB was the reason, for better or worse, that we got Bomb and NLOTH, along with the tours that came with those records.

Whether you like the music from that period, or any of the other things that went with 00's U2, or wished they'd went in a different direction is completely beside the point.

I'm a big fan of NLOTH and HTDAAB. My big problem with U2's 00 material is the lack of albums.

I don't think the band would have been over without Beautiful Day. That's hyperbole. Yes, it was great that U2 had a big popular single. It also sucked to see my favorite band back then get all the flack they did for putting out a crap album.

I still say it's madness to say ATYCLB was more important than Boy, War, The Unforgettable Fire, and Rattle & Hum. Let alone, Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree.

I can appreciate the opinion that ATYCLB was the band's 7th most important album. It isn't that for me, but I'm fine with that. To rank it higher than that seems to either ignore history or to just be calling it your 3rd beloved. I think those why argue that way care too much about the sales. If the album had never come out and HTDAAB waited until 2004, would much have changed? Did U2 discover new sonic territory on ATYCLB? No. Would HTDAAB have sounded very different if they'd skipped ATYCLB? Probably not. But you can't say any of the albums afterwards would have sounded the same if War or The Unforgettable Fire not happened. And without Boy? We wouldn't even have a band to talk about.

I've been a fan since 1987. To suggest I didn't know what was going on at the time is mistaken. I just think U2 like to get hyperbolic when they write their history. ATYCLB was an important album. But certainly not in the top 6. 30 years from now, it's not one of the 6 albums which will get listened to the most.

 

[Niceman]

The first album and the first big flop don't really belong here. Or pre-JT U2.

The breakthrough album, the reinvention and the comeback. So far, JT, AB and ATYCLB are - love or hate the latter - the three crucial albums.

Rattle and Hum was not a flop. It spawned some of the most popular U2 songs of all time and sold gobs of records. It even had a real movie in the movie theatre. Don't let how long ago that was cloud your memory as to how big that was.

There would be no U2 without Boy. I think that's a little more important than what happened 20 years after.

And there would be no U2 sound without War and The Unforgettable Fire. There'd be nothing for U2 to ape as they demonstrated they were "back" in 2000.

 

[Niceman]

Ummm, it allowed them to still be around and not completely go off the map at the age of 40. It allowed them to get a fresh start, and get a whole new generation of fans. It allowed them to be at the top of the world for the third time, when most rock bands their age were/are either dead, broken up, or dried up creatively. It made them relevant again when their music was a perfect match for the grieving nation after 9/11.

NEVER believe the hype from the haters.

If ATYCLB had never come out and they waited until 2004 for HDTAAB, they would have done well all the same.

 

[Niceman]

This is quite possibly the most stunningly wrong post I've ever read on here. Which is saying something.

Without any substance in your reply, you're not saying anything more than, "I profoundly disagree."

And???

 

[Niceman]

I see, so I think this is where we differ -- you are thinking of "importance" as how the band perceive their career profile, whereas I am thinking of "importance" as how U2 will be perceived in the grand scheme of things a hundred years hence.

I dunno, but I seriously doubt that anything they did after Zooropa (so far) is really going to matter to their lasting legacy. For me, U2's success and profile with ATYCLB is comparable to the Rolling Stones' with Tattoo You, a monster album in 1981-82 that also topped the charts twenty years into their career and led to a ginormous US stadium tour. People were talking and writing books about how the Stones' had lasted and were now into their third decade with a huge profile, etc., etc. But today, even thirty years later (never mind a hundred), who rates Tattoo You as one of The Stones' 3 most important recorded moments?

But yes, you have a point, because I do think Bono and Edge nowadays sit around and feel satisfaction at how they sold a lot of product in 2000-2001. (I'm not sure that's a good thing, but I do think it's a thing.)

I agree. As much as I love POP, it's the U2 1980-1993 which will get listened to in 100 years. I don't think the short term sales matter all that much. Otherwise, we'd have to say Britney Spears was more important than U2.

 

[Niceman]

I would like to respectfully opine that almost every point in this post is incorrect. R&H (the "first big flop"), was a 14m selling monster that also spawned several of the bands best known songs. The " breakthrough album" was in fact War. JT established them as the biggest rock act in the world, but without War they probably would have spent the second half of 1983 knocking on doors in search of a new record deal. The "reinvention" was ofc TUF. Without TUF, they would have been a creatively redundant post-punk band not knowing where they fitted in anymore. Ofc AB was also a big reinvention, but at that point of their career they could have made Joshua Tree 2 with with some contemporary production values and it still would have been a monster. You are correct in saying Atyclb was a comeback - albeit only a commercial one. I most certainly was around for that album, and there was a lot of talk of it being an artistic regression rather than progression. When books are written about the defining landmark albums of the 00's, you can bet the farm Kid A will get a segment for the year 2000. You can also bet Atyclb won't get a mention.

 

[U2DMfan]

U2 does a lot of mythmaking on their own behalf.
Some people around here repeat those myths - continually.
After all, if Boner said it - or another band member - then it must be true.
Because they are always honest, sincere and forthright about their own music.
They would never spin reality to suit their own needs, whether it was 'selling' a current album or spinning a previous album's legacy in order to 'sell' a current album.

Among other things, this is how POP became a "failure". Or how Rattle and Hum is a supposed "flop". There is a disconnect between the reality that most everyone resides in and the reality that U2 uses to excuse away their creative decisions. For the perfect example, it's a lot easier to disavow the 'POP experiment' in order to say 'this is what we are all about' when they decided to get played on the radio as much as humanly possible.

And here is an example of how some are able to defend it...Someone started a thread a while back suggesting that U2 make apologies for a lot their 90's work (or something to that effect). The mistake they made was using the term 'apology' which gave the typical crowd an excuse to break out the semantical courtroom defense. Requiring 'evidence' of U2 apologizing for something. In other words, always deferring to the band - and their words on these matters. Because EVERYTHING is justified by the band - somewhere. Bono has manipulated (as far as he's concerned) their legacy to the point he has an outright defense for everything. Including defining 'sell out' for himself.

Whereas the charge itself, which is essentially that U2 disavows parts of their past to suit their present - is absolutely indefensible. They do it with every album cycle. Therefore if you disagree with the U2 camp's version of events, it's only your own bias.

It's sort of like the U2 version of cable news.
There is a false narrative to uphold.

 

[Nick66]

If ATYCLB had never come out and they waited until 2004 for HDTAAB, they would have done well all the same.

This makes no sense whatsoever. This is like saying "If Star Wars had never come out in 1977, Lucas would have waited until 1980 for The Empire Strikes Back."

I'm sorry, your reasoning is not sound. Without ATYCLB, there never would have been a Bomb. ATYCLB is what set the tone for the other two records that decade. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.

 

[Nick66]

I'm a big fan of NLOTH and HTDAAB. My big problem with U2's 00 material is the lack of albums.

I don't think the band would have been over without Beautiful Day. That's hyperbole. Yes, it was great that U2 had a big popular single. It also sucked to see my favorite band back then get all the flack they did for putting out a crap album.

I still say it's madness to say ATYCLB was more important than Boy, War, The Unforgettable Fire, and Rattle & Hum. Let alone, Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree.

I can appreciate the opinion that ATYCLB was the band's 7th most important album. It isn't that for me, but I'm fine with that. To rank it higher than that seems to either ignore history or to just be calling it your 3rd beloved. I think those why argue that way care too much about the sales. If the album had never come out and HTDAAB waited until 2004, would much have changed? Did U2 discover new sonic territory on ATYCLB? No. Would HTDAAB have sounded very different if they'd skipped ATYCLB? Probably not. But you can't say any of the albums afterwards would have sounded the same if War or The Unforgettable Fire not happened. And without Boy? We wouldn't even have a band to talk about.

I've been a fan since 1987. To suggest I didn't know what was going on at the time is mistaken. I just think U2 like to get hyperbolic when they write their history. ATYCLB was an important album. But certainly not in the top 6. 30 years from now, it's not one of the 6 albums which will get listened to the most.

Once again, you're confusing your own musical preferences with how important a particular record is. If you really think the story around U2 in 2000 was that they were getting "flak for putting out a crap album", clearly, you're living in an alternate reality. Because what I remember was pretty much glowing reviews, a sold out tour, a Superbowl performance, Grammy Awards, becoming the "biggest band in the world" again, and one of the biggest comebacks in rock history.

Given that I'm talking about observable facts, and you're talking about which records you like, I really don't think we can find much common ground here.

 

[Niceman]

This makes no sense whatsoever. This is like saying "If Star Wars had never come out in 1977, Lucas would have waited until 1980 for The Empire Strikes Back."

I'm sorry, your reasoning is not sound. Without ATYCLB, there never would have been a Bomb. ATYCLB is what set the tone for the other two records that decade. Whether you like it or not is immaterial.

I don't see HTDAAB as a sonic progression from ATYCLB. It's certainly not a sequel the way that Empire Strikes Back was. There are some great songs on HTDAAB. I still hear them on TV and the radio, but I don't see anything about the sonic landscape which didn't originate before 1999. Both of these albums were an attempt to use a "classic" U2 sound and concentrate on songwriting. It was a noble experiment and had some successes. The sound was already old loooong before Kite was a twinkle in Bono's eye.

On the other hand, there could be no Get On Your Boots without Vertigo 5 years before. I do see a progression there.

 

[Niceman]

Once again, you're confusing your own musical preferences with how important a particular record is. If you really think the story around U2 in 2000 was that they were getting "flak for putting out a crap album", clearly, you're living in an alternate reality. Because what I remember was pretty much glowing reviews, a sold out tour, a Superbowl performance, Grammy Awards, becoming the "biggest band in the world" again, and one of the biggest comebacks in rock history.

Given that I'm talking about observable facts, and you're talking about which records you like, I really don't think we can find much common ground here.

If you're not aware of the credibility which the band lost with their 2000 releases, you're not talking to a lot of music fans. To this day, whenever I tell ANYONE U2 is my favorite band I get a look of sympathy.

This never happened prior to 2000.

 

[Niceman]

U2 does a lot of mythmaking on their own behalf.
Some people around here repeat those myths - continually.
After all, if Boner said it - or another band member - then it must be true.
Because they are always honest, sincere and forthright about their own music.
They would never spin reality to suit their own needs, whether it was 'selling' a current album or spinning a previous album's legacy in order to 'sell' a current album.

Among other things, this is how POP became a "failure". Or how Rattle and Hum is a supposed "flop". There is a disconnect between the reality that most everyone resides in and the reality that U2 uses to excuse away their creative decisions. For the perfect example, it's a lot easier to disavow the 'POP experiment' in order to say 'this is what we are all about' when they decided to get played on the radio as much as humanly possible.

And here is an example of how some are able to defend it...Someone started a thread a while back suggesting that U2 make apologies for a lot their 90's work (or something to that effect). The mistake they made was using the term 'apology' which gave the typical crowd an excuse to break out the semantical courtroom defense. Requiring 'evidence' of U2 apologizing for something. In other words, always deferring to the band - and their words on these matters. Because EVERYTHING is justified by the band - somewhere. Bono has manipulated (as far as he's concerned) their legacy to the point he has an outright defense for everything. Including defining 'sell out' for himself.

Whereas the charge itself, which is essentially that U2 disavows parts of their past to suit their present - is absolutely indefensible. They do it with every album cycle. Therefore if you disagree with the U2 camp's version of events, it's only your own bias.

It's sort of like the U2 version of cable news.
There is a false narrative to uphold.

Not only 100% right, but this is important to understand. U2 may tell you R&H was a flop, but that doesn't mean this isn't 100% at odds with the facts. It's just like dropping The Fly from the best-of and including the First Time.

 

[Nick66]

Not only 100% right, but this is important to understand. U2 may tell you R&H was a flop, but that doesn't mean this isn't 100% at odds with the facts. It's just like dropping The Fly from the best-of and including the First Time.

Once again, you're just making things up. U2 never, never called R&H a flop.

As far as U2 losing "credibility" with ATYCLB, I'm sure you might have been content for them to continue going even further in the direction they took Pop, selling less and less records to an ever-dwindling fan base, and until they finally became a niche band. But the band wasn't content with that, and whether you like it or not, they decided staying on the radio and having mass appeal was more important to them than what the Pitchfork crowd, and you, think of them.

Given the choice between being Radiohead and U2, they decided to be U2.

 

[Niceman]

Once again, you're just making things up. U2 never, never called R&H a flop.

As far as U2 losing "credibility" with ATYCLB, I'm sure you might have been content for them to continue going even further in the direction they took Pop, selling less and less records to an ever-dwindling fan base, and until they finally became a niche band. But the band wasn't content with that, and whether you like it or not, they decided staying on the radio and having mass appeal was more important to them than what the Pitchfork crowd, and you, think of them.

Given the choice between being Radiohead and U2, they decided to be U2.

U2girl called it a flop. U2 has painted it as a failure.

Now you're getting emotional about ATYCLB. I actually have no problem with the direction they went. I would have had less than no problem with something else in the direction of POP, but I understand that it was time for them to come back from the realms of experimentation and concentrate on songwriting in a more plain style. That was fine with me. I've been following U2 long enough to know this is SOP.

Now..... which do you want?

Should I explain why I personally don't think the album was completely successful? I could, but that's not really what we're discussing. How satisfied I was and wasn't isn't issue the issue.

How "important" the album was in the big scheme of things was our topic. I don't think ATYCLB opened up any new sonic territory. It lost them a lot of credibility, and minus that lead single it probably wouldn't have done very well. I could not imagine them recording AYTCLB without having done Boy, War, and UF first. They used the tools they invented on those records to make ATYCLB. So which album is more "important?" The one where they invented the sound? Or the one where they aped it?

EDIT: As far as them deciding to be Radiohead or U2, you're right and they made the right call. Radiohead's "experimental" music all sounds the same to me now. I'd rather hear ATYCLB than In Rainbows any day.

 

[nielsgov]

When is the new album coming out?

 

[Niceman]

when is the new album coming out?

1997.

 

[Niceman]

Achtung Baby - 1991
Zooropa - 1993
Passengers - 1995
POP - 1997

ATYCLB - 2000 (3 years)
HTDAAB - 2004 (4 years)
NLOTH - 2009 (5 years)
NEWALBUM - 2015 (6 years)

Since POP, each album has taken one year longer than the previous to come out, so we can expect the new album in 2015.

 

[Von Schloopen]

When books are written about the defining landmark albums of the 00's, you can bet the farm Kid A will get a segment for the year 2000. You can also bet Atyclb won't get a mention.

Who cares? Kid A sucks.

The only book that matters is the one you write for yourself.

You guys love to play on this image of not caring what other people think when all you really care about is what other people think.

 

[cobl04]

Kid A sucks.

Factually incorrect.