U2,s current incarnation as a pop band!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
shaun vox

shaun vox

New Yorker
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
3,192
Location
LA.cal ROCKnRoll city!
thats what i see it as and im sure most of you can see it too!
atyclb/htdaab and im sure the next album will follow in its steps!


now i understand why i dont like atyclb/htdaab or any new u2 songs!!

im watching R&H dvd right now and it just blows my mind how much they used to rock!!

EDGE's guitar sound use to be inyour face but now its just in the background even if its a bit loud (vertigo) it does not have the same sound and punch to it! bono well he has changed alot!! larrys drums are not loud enough!

so why did u2 change in 2000 why did they take the POP(not the album) route? then they just went with that idea of pop songs and radio airplay and made htdaab!!

bono call me bitch hehehe we need to talk!!!
 
just because the guitars and drums were louder doesn't mean it's better.

I'm not defending them; if you don't like their current synth/loops/super production sound that's cool; to each his own.

but I'll tell you one thing, at least U2 played in tune back then, not like velvet revolver at live 8; that may have been the most embarressing live performance I've heard this year; fuckin a, they can afford techs to tune their instruments, can't they?
 
U2 have never recorded a pop song (that I can think of right now). Pop is perfect melody.

U2 are less guitar driven of late, but they have never been a pop group.
 
they did it because it was different from what they had done previously to the last 2 albums.

It's u2 moving on and being different. They will likely go through another transformation with the next album. It's what keeps them interesting, and relevant.

I do think the production on the last album was a bit too clean, but this is likely because of diff. producers and new equipment in the studio. I'd love it if they recorded the next record with some older equipment and more time recording than the production phase, Earlier/rawer forms of songs.

That said, I really enjjoy ATYCLB and HTDAAB for the great albums they are. Afterall, the Beatles were a major pop band, so were the Stones, etc...

it's about the quality of songs, not the riffs and 15 minute solos. And if u want it loud Shaun Vox, there's this nifty thing called a volume button on your cd player. refer to your manual for more details!! :wink:
 
JOFO said:

but I'll tell you one thing, at least U2 played in tune back then, not like velvet revolver at live 8; that may have been the most embarressing live performance I've heard this year; fuckin a, they can afford techs to tune their instruments, can't they?
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!!!

True, you have to admit though shaun Vox, U2 were great and a VERY compelling and emotional preformance from the band.

forgot to add that the '00' U2 songs evolve alot in the live setting, Beautiful Day, Elevation, Kite, New York, Walk on (thats a tasteful solo), Love and Peace or Else, City of Blinding Lights, Vertigo, and Yahweh sound AMAZING live!!!!
 
I'd like to add:
I think slash is a good guitar player at what he does: playing bluesy solos that steal from page/clapton/beck. however, that group was so awful at live 8 I can't even have a conversation about it at this point. shame really, because there should be more good bands out there now. perhaps audioslave would've been more of a fitting choice that VR at live 8.
 
Like I keep saying, Shaun Vox=Always Drunk

But he brings up a good point, I guess, in that I would have loved if ATYCLB was MORE pop, like in the classic soul/pop sixties sound. The beginnings are there and some songs fit that genre but if they had gone in that direction full-tilt I would have been a thousand times more impressed with that album and their direction. (Do like the Bomb, though).
 
What the hell is wrong with pop anyway? I'd die if I didn't have my Beatles, Big Star, La's, Stone Roses, Oasis, New Pornographers, or Elliott Smith records.

Go grab a copy of Sgt. Pepper's or Rumours and sing along. We won't tell anyone.

You're going to die some day, you know. Smell the flowers while you can.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with pop music(so long as we're talking about real pop music[abba, billy joel, a good portion of the beatles, etc] and not teeny-bopper pop) at all. Honestly, it's silly to condemn a band just for making pop music instead of rock music.

However, I just don't think U2 are very good at making pop music. I think they are :drool: x infinity at making rock music, but I think they need the fire, the balls, and the attitude of rock music to reach their full potential. I just don't think they're all that great at making pop music. Which is why I think the last two records are....well, I think ATYCLB is good but not great, and I think HTDAAB is pretty bland save for 2 or 3 songs.
 
namkcuR said:
I think they need the fire, the balls, and the attitude of rock music to reach their full potential.
Click to expand...

Yep, 'fire, balls, and attitude of rock music' is definitely how I'd define songs like Streets, Bad, and One.
 
HTDAAB is one of the most accomplished and exhilarating albums I've ever heard...

...and that's all I ask for.
 
namkcuR said:
I don't have a problem with pop music(so long as we're talking about real pop music[abba, billy joel, a good portion of the beatles, etc] and not teeny-bopper pop) at all. Honestly, it's silly to condemn a band just for making pop music instead of rock music.

However, I just don't think U2 are very good at making pop music. I think they are :drool: x infinity at making rock music, but I think they need the fire, the balls, and the attitude of rock music to reach their full potential. I just don't think they're all that great at making pop music. Which is why I think the last two records are....well, I think ATYCLB is good but not great, and I think HTDAAB is pretty bland save for 2 or 3 songs.
Click to expand...

Aren't you on a constant rant exactly because U2 is making (more) pop music (than usual)?

I thought Beautiful day, Stuck, Walk on, In a little while, Original of the species and Wild honey is all well done pop. I'd add Sweetest thing - 98 version - too. (that said, I feel Bomb is more "hey let's actually sound like U2" album than pop)

That said, they're better at making bittersweet love songs, ballads and anthemic songs than all-out rock IMO.
 
Last edited:
I don't get why HTDAAB is so disliked on these boards, sure its no Achtung Baby or Joshua Tree, nor is it anything particularly new or ground breaking, but its a damn site better than many of the stuff in the charts, and an improvement on the (IMO) dissapointing ATYCLB (which wasn't that bad either, just a tad overrated).

I prefer their 90's stuff to their current style, but that doesn't mean HTDAAB is crap just because it isn't as daring as their 90's albums.

Sometimes you can't make it on your own, Love and peace or else, Crumbs from your table and Original of the species are all great songs, IMO.
 
I don't think HTDAAB is disliked around here at all. I think it's 90% adored by those in here. It is what it is. It appeals to some for various reasons, and is a turn off to others for probably the same reasons. That's a common feeling in here, outside of here just among the people I know, in the media etc etc. Personally I do think it's a great album in one sense, and in that sense I give it a 5/5. In another sense it's still, despite a million posts on the topic, hard to describe how I feel about it. I actually heard Snow Patrols album in it's entirety for the first time on Friday night (I know, a year late). It's when I'm listening to things like that that I find myself disappointed in The Bomb the most.
 
U2girl said:

"hey let's actually sound like U2"
Click to expand...


Aaah, but what is U2's sound? Boy? Joshua Tree? Zooropa? There's absolutely no reason why the sound of Where The Streets Have No Name is any more U2 than the sound of Mofo. The sound of U2 on The Joshua Tree is the sound U2 were making when they first really became the biggest band in the world, so it is therefore the sound most casually tie in as U2's 'original sound', but we all in here damn well know it wasn't U2's original sound, and that that sound didn't hang around for long either. Whatever it is that is U2's sound, it should be liquid, fluid, ever moving. To suggest that if at some point U2 had a sound, a sound that was theirs that they have since diverted from is like putting a post into the riverbed and saying that it is marking off a particular spot of water. The water is continually moving past it. While I think U2 definitely have a sound, one that is equally evident on Boy as it is on Zooropa as it is on The Bomb, I certainly don't believe that there is any one incarnation of that sound that IS U2 more than any other. It's the journey that that sound took that impressed me the most. That you can hear it running from Out of Control straight into One Minute Warning. Why in gods name U2 threw the hand brake on, I don't know. I don't believe that journey has a goal or a conclusion. That's simply not what music is. So I don't buy that a band can go 'as far as they can go'. I don't buy that U2 needed to go commercial-retro for any reason other than their inherent need to be massive and a deliberate decision to aim for the masses first and foremost. It seems to be the only thing they want and need now.
 
All of those things, though like you said, most people would probably connect "U2 sound" to their 80's albums. They definitely shifted from that sound in the 90's.

Jangly Edge guitar sound, epic Bono vocals. Sound familiar enough?

IMO Vertigo reminds me of their first two albums, Miracle Drug and City of blinding lights sound like UF, One step closer sounds like 90's U2, Yahweh and Crumbs sound like JT - time U2, A man and woman and Original would have fit well on ATYCLB, intro to Love and peace sounds like something off Zooropa.

All because of you sounds like The Who, though for some reason the double vocal and the way the guitar swings in the verses remind me of Even better than the real thing. Sometimes in some ways sounds like a quiet 90's U2 song.

See what I mean?

I believe all U2 eras/incarnations go as far as they can.
 
U2girl said:
All of those things, though like you said, most people would probably connect "U2 sound" to their 80's albums. They definitely shifted from that sound in the 90's.

Jangly Edge guitar sound, epic Bono vocals. Sound familiar enough?

IMO Vertigo reminds me of their first two albums, Miracle Drug and City of blinding lights sound like UF, One step closer sounds like 90's U2, Yahweh and Crumbs sound like JT - time U2, A man and woman and Original would have fit well on ATYCLB, intro to Love and peace sounds like something off Zooropa.

All because of you sounds like The Who, though for some reason the double vocal and the way the guitar swings in the verses remind me of Even better than the real thing. Sometimes in some ways sounds like a quiet 90's U2 song.

See what I mean?

I believe all U2 eras/incarnations go as far as they can.
Click to expand...


come on now you are just making things up hahaha!!

vertigo sounds nothing like any song off their first two albums, vertigo sounds like elevation!!!
same goes for the rest!!!
if it sounded like their eairley stuff i would still have the CD in my collection!!!
lol!
 
Well Shaun I'm glad to see you learned how to spell.

But I guess they must play rehashed late 80's drawn out guitar solos and keep the same exact guitar sound they've had since 87 to be rock...I mean just ask your friend Slash.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well Shaun I'm glad to see you learned how to spell.

But I guess they must play rehashed late 80's drawn out guitar solos and keep the same exact guitar sound they've had since 87 to be rock...I mean just ask your friend Slash.
Click to expand...

OHHHHHHH SNAPP. :ohmy:

:wink:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well Shaun I'm glad to see you learned how to spell.

But I guess they must play rehashed late 80's drawn out guitar solos and keep the same exact guitar sound they've had since 87 to be rock...I mean just ask your friend Slash.
Click to expand...

would you tell jimmy page/hendrix/clapton or brian may to change their sound? i think not thats the sound of rock&roll my friend! and in these troubled times of music we need that sound back! so im very proud of slash to get that sound back!!!
he,s got it going on girl friend lol!
he could just play some power cords and have a crappy amp sound and make pop music so he could get on the radio and make alot off $$$$ but NO!! im very proud of SLASH and you should be too (if you like rock&roll that is) lol!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
289
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
748
lazarus
lazarus
W
A Boy Falls From the Sky is some U2's best work
Replies
3
Views
2K
zoocarolina
Z
L
Play Do You Feel Loved, Babyface, Some Days Are Better Than Others, Playboy Petition
Replies
8
Views
741
rosephile
R
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom