Were the last 2 albums too contrived?

[GibsonGirl]

Oh, I agree with you Zooty, it's just some of the replies that are putting me right to sleep.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Earnie's post, IMO, essentially feels that the last two albums are too, well, "pop". He feels they lack the depth of prior work. Feel free to correct me Earnie, but that's the message I received from your post.

It's not as simple as pop or a lack of depth in that regard. Pop is a huge tent though. Great pop music is something I love, and something I have no problem with U2 doing. Great pop music is also among the toughest of all genres to pull off. Like I said, I adore Beautiful Day. Think it's fantastic. It does everything pop should doesn't it? Sounds great and natural, does have a bit of depth to it which is great because it's U2, is still very catchy and absolutely relays a feeling perfectly. Try telling me you can listen to that song without wanting to burst outside into the sunshine to hug the first stranger you come across. Try. It's not pop alone. Like any genre, if it's done well - brilliant. If it's done poorly, which in pops case is when it's done as a throw away, concentrating on catchiness alone, 'hooks' in the true sense of the word, then it's not okay. But I rate it the same as any genre. U2 can make pop for all I care. I'm not a fan of whole albums of it from U2, thats for sure, but I'm all for the odd U2 pop-single. Stuck in a Moment could have been if it wasn't so overproduced. In A Little While comes close. It's why I rate ATYCLB well above and beyond HTDAAB. I think the 'pop' was coming out more naturally there, and I think on HTDAAB the big single was more of a concentrated thing.

Even the much maligned Elevation sounds like it had a natural birth. It and Beautiful Day came from the same place to me, Elevation just not executed as well. Beautiful Day had it right by being a mix of sizzle and sausage, Elevation had it wrong by being all sizzle and no sausage (and even plenty of it's defenders round here don't try and push it's defence far past "give it a break, it's just a bit of fun, a part starter for concerts"), and then comes Vertigo which to me is a crime for not even trying to be a sausage but just trying to pack as much sizzle in as possible. Does that make sense? Vertigo always feels to me like they had Elevation, noticed the catchiness of it worked, particularly live, had never really thought about doing songs like that before, saw the single potential, realised the difference between the slower, funkier, less punch-per-second album version and the faster, louder, heavier, more-punch-per-second Tomb Raider mix and used that blueprint when they had the excellent Native Son virtually in the can. Tighten it up. Take the highlights and pack them together. Catchier singalong lyrics ("Woo-hoo" "Hello Hello/Hola"). All about hooking people in rather than real substance. For example, there is plenty of good reason for that Vertigo riff in Native Son. It's springs on you everytime Bono says he just wants to be free and gives you a real image of someone, again, bursting outside into freedom. This tight conversation or attempt to convince, this stressful thing ("Officer, put down the gun") suddenly springs into these big open chords ("To be freeeeeee"). It's a real release from a tense situation. Those big chords came about because it was needed to tell that story, convey that feeling. Switch to Vertigo and the chords have no reason, they're just a catchy riff used continually throughout the song. To me, bad pop. All hook. All sizzle. No sausage. That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy Vertigo for what it is, or Elevation. Vertigo is cool on the radio when I'm driving fast down the expressway. I guess it's just, well, the Foo Fighters pound that shit out album after album. When U2 have done the big pop-rocker, it's always been done with more feeling, witness Beautiful Day. The anti-Vertigo.

BUT I'm straying, it's not about pop music. I don't think Miracle Drug is pop in the same sense. I don't think Kite is. But they still leave me hollow. I don't really know what it is. The point of my post was really saying this: You can tell from the battle lines that are drawn on virtually everything that it's not half the Interferencers are 90's fans, the other half are 80's fans. It's not that half are experimental fans, half are 'classic' fans. The arguments over these last two albums aren't about sounds or eras or whatever. It's just that half of us get one thing out of the songs, something that can't be defined or boxed up, while the other half equally get something else out of the songs, something that can't be defined or boxed up. This 00's pro/against argument IS different to any other "U2 changing shape" argument, eg Rattle & Hum into Achtung, simply because it is not about sounds or themes or image or whatever. If you love both the 80s and 90s music, you can't complain about that side of the past two albums. The simple thing is that something else has been completely stripped out of it for half of the fans. What I'm calling the 'spirit' of it, for us. Miracle Drug makes one person in here cry, makes me yawn. Makes STING2 jump around and declare it the best thing in over a decade, makes me cringe and wonder what the hell happened to the U2 that used to write all that great inspired music, from Boy to Pop. It's not a note to note thing, which we get bogged down it. It's when I listen to the whole CD and get to the last note of Yahweh and think "Well, that did absolutely nothing for me. Why? It's U2 for fucks sake!!! I should feel something... "

 

[GibsonGirl]

Earnie.

 

[doubleU]

I agree!

But what do you think about Earnie's post? The guy makes an excellent post and the people defending the 00s suddenly disappear. No comments 'for' or 'against'.

Are you serious? How do you comment on someone who admits he can't put his finger on it. It's just his feeling.

I find that feeling he's saying is missing.

 

[STING2]

What? The Edge said that? No way! He doesn't even play much guitar on ATYCLB. How can it be his 2nd favorite?




I disagree. What's so obvious? There have been threads criticizing 00s U2 ever since ATYCLB was released! And believe me I know. Because I had a different id here before Mar 05.

I think there are too many of these threads criticizing their recent work because enough people feel so on this board! Did you ever think of that? And don't say that it's probably people who like other bands and that they're just popping up here to dis U2. You don't know that and neither do I. All I know is that there's a handful of people here who feel the same way as I do... and they're not any less of a fan than the 00s defenders! And I also believe that there is no smoke without fire.

Edge did say that at the time of release. Edge wrote much of the music for ATYCLB whether are not you think he played enough guitar or not. Most of the music in the band comes from Edge anyways, whether its on a guitar or not.

The number of threads attacking HTDAAB over the past couple of days is more than at any other time with the exception of when the album was released. Also, when ATYCLB won its Grammy's I don't recall people complaining or launching threads to attack the band and their work.

The fact remains that in the polling that has been done on this website, HTDAAB has placed 4th among all U2 albums with the only 90s album to beat it being Achtung Baby.

As to there being no smoke without a fire, I have seen the criticisms leveled against the past two albums here be thrown at every U2 album since the Joshua Tree when they were initially released.

 

[Zoots]

Try telling me you can listen to that song without wanting to burst outside into the sunshine to hug the first stranger you come across. Try.

It was such a euphoric moment hearing it for the first time!

 

[jonnytakeawalk]

The simple thing is that something else has been completely stripped out of it for half of the fans. What I'm calling the 'spirit' of it, for us. Miracle Drug makes one person in here cry, makes me yawn. Makes STING2 jump around and declare it the best thing in over a decade, makes me cringe and wonder what the hell happened to the U2 that used to write all that great inspired music, from Boy to Pop. It's not a note to note thing, which we get bogged down it. It's when I listen to the whole CD and get to the last note of Yahweh and think "Well, that did absolutely nothing for me. Why? It's U2 for fucks sake!!! I should feel something... "

Absolutely agree

What's missing from ATYCLB and especially Bomb I find very hard to define. All I can say too is it just does nothing for me the way most of the pre 00 stuff did. Like you articulated so well, it's u2 void of the spirit of u2

 

[VertigoGal]

VG, I'm not very religious. I'm more spiritual and believe in one God. So the answer is no.

I think you missed my point

end this silliness and come get your describe on...

 

[Zoots]

end this silliness and come get your describe on...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

It was such a euphoric moment hearing it for the first time!

There is no way you can get through Beautiful Day without turning the volume up four times: When it begins, naturally. The first chorus. The last "Touch me..." which goes into number 4; "What you don't have..." Everytime it comes on you crank it further those four times, you can never quite get it loud enough to satisfy how good it feels. Great, great song.

Meanwhile, Unos, Dos, Tres, Skip track.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i think people are forgetting that pop followed in the footsteps of a TREND!! called. so in that sense pop is contrived too.it was built to appeal to fans of electronic music. I mean mention any album i'm sure i or someone can find a reason to call it contrived. Joshua tree is contrived. they tried equal the beatles white album etc etc With or without is thier biggest commercal song ever. forgot about vertigo.

 

[DreamOutLoud13]

Earnie.... you put everything into perfect perspective. I've been blaming the lyrics and the watered down sounds, but you hit the nail on the head. We're missing the spirit.

I guess what I'm trying to say is....

Will you marry me?

 

[thrillme]

Yes, the ONLY reason people like ATYCLB and Bomb is because they sold a lot and won Grammys.
Nothing to do with making up their own minds and actually liking what they heard on the albums.
Of course, some opinions here are more equal than others.

Is that sarcasm?

I liked "Atomic Bomb" after a few listens, *Adam you rock sir!* There is more to the albums than Bono's lyrics, you realise that right? ("you" as in the general "you," not specifically U2girl) To say each band member sat around thinking, hey this song will be a hit, this one won't...unless they're good at guessing what people will like, but the reactions to every new album proves otherwise.

"All That" took the longest time to grow on me. "Rattle and Hum" is still touch and go, I rarely listen to it all the way through whereas the others I can save a song or two.

+++

Earnie Shavers: Meanwhile, Unos, Dos, Tres, Skip track

Adam only gets to lead a song every so often, and this one during the verses, and you skip,

+++

"City" started out as one of the outtakes from the "Pop" album, Adam's best work to some.

I dunno, I think this was Adam's album but bass players...they get no respect.



+++

"Achtung Baby" was nominated for album of the year wasn't it? Obviously it wasn't experimental enough if it got noticed by the Grammy voting committee.

+++

Vertigogal: have you guys ever tried debating religion with someone? just curious...

I have but usually end up in a mutual stalemate.

Check out "Free Your Mind" if you want to have a go though. It's one thing to argue over U2's albums, religion and politics will really make it seem a bit silly to be split over albums made by the same band. Then try it at a forum where there is no common bond among the posters.

You might actually come to "enjoy" these ____album vs. ____album threads.

+++

In short, over time I've come to like all of U2's albums save a song or 2 on a few albums, and "Rattle and Hum" which I listen to sporadically.

 

[U2girl]

Is that sarcasm?

Yes.

 

[Axver]

Edge did say that at the time of release.

So what? Of course he's going to say that. It's called promoting the album. He's not going to say "well, you know, it's actually not that good ..." because that's not how you get people to buy your disc!

And there's countless examples of bands (including U2) releasing an album that, at the time, they thought to be great, but a few years down the track, their opinion changed.

 

[U2Man]

There is no way you can get through Beautiful Day without turning the volume up four times: When it begins, naturally. The first chorus. The last "Touch me..." which goes into number 4; "What you don't have..."

Funny, because that's actually where I turn it off.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i think i know what needs to be done.

 

[AtomicBono]

And there's countless examples of bands (including U2) releasing an album that, at the time, they thought to be great, but a few years down the track, their opinion changed.

*coughpopcough*

nice post Earnie, very well written. I don't really agree though, because I do feel the magic, the spirit, whatever you wanna call it. I hope next album you can too. But it's nice to read a post that's beyond "OMG LOL I HAITZ ELEVATIONZ MOLEZ R DUM LOL"

 

[rjhbonovox]

The last 2 albums are ok but by U2's previous standards are crap. Too much thinking about how many copies there gonna sell than whether they really believe in the music their making. Kinda reminds me of David Bowies Lets Dance album era, which he now says was crap and he only made the album cos of his desire to sell shitloads of albums, which worked. Its funny though cos it took David Bowie about 10 years to realise Lets Dance was crap where as I knew when I first heard it. A bit like after hearing U2's last 2 albums, although it took me a few times more after hearing them to realise what ordinary music their now making. Music for today but long forgotten tomorrow.

 

[Utoo]

In a way, I think it's kind of funny that we're still responding to a thread started by someone who was just banned for being a troll.....

 

[Axver]

i think i know what needs to be done.

You totally win.

 

[Judah]

I agree with what Earnie said also. Or at least understand it. (The biggest change for me in the last two albums is Bono's lyrics...they seem more literal now...like Stipe's...some see that as a weakness, some strength. For me, personally, they're speaking to me and sticking to me, overall.) However, in all the comments about U2's music, everyone always directs, or puts whatever they're feeling, onto U2...i.e. "it's U2's fault (or credit) that i'm not feeling (or still feeling) their music...it's missing something." Nobody says "Well, i'm not feeling the spirit...i think, perhaps, i've moved on. Or the band and I are just on divergent paths now." Could happen.

 

[STING2]

The last 2 albums are ok but by U2's previous standards are crap. Too much thinking about how many copies there gonna sell than whether they really believe in the music their making. Kinda reminds me of David Bowies Lets Dance album era, which he now says was crap and he only made the album cos of his desire to sell shitloads of albums, which worked. Its funny though cos it took David Bowie about 10 years to realise Lets Dance was crap where as I knew when I first heard it. A bit like after hearing U2's last 2 albums, although it took me a few times more after hearing them to realise what ordinary music their now making. Music for today but long forgotten tomorrow.

Bono considers HTDAAB to have the best set of songs they have ever recorded, but that because they did not fit together they the songs did on Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby, its their 3rd best album instead of being their best.

Edge said when ATYCLB came out that ATYCLB was their 2nd best album after Achtung Baby.

ATYCLB has won 7 Grammy awards, HTDAAB has won 8 Grammy awards. Never before in history have two consecutive albums received that many Grammy awards. No one will be forgetting these albums any time soon and they are right behind Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree in terms of quality.

 

[STING2]

So what? Of course he's going to say that. It's called promoting the album. He's not going to say "well, you know, it's actually not that good ..." because that's not how you get people to buy your disc!

And there's countless examples of bands (including U2) releasing an album that, at the time, they thought to be great, but a few years down the track, their opinion changed.

mmm, I see, you don't think its the 2nd best album they have ever done, so now we all need to believe the Edge is lying to promote the album? If that the case, why not come out and say its the best album they have ever made?

Notice, they never attempted to rank Zooropa or POP in statements they made during the promotion period for those albums.

 

[financeguy]

Notice, they never attempted to rank Zooropa or POP in statements they made during the promotion period for those albums.

In those days, U2 didn't need to tell themselves, or the marketplace, that they were shit hot.

They just knew it.

When a band starts telling themselves they're the best in the world, you know they're starting to lose their mojo.

 

[If you shout...]

Notice, they never attempted to rank Zooropa or POP in statements they made during the promotion period for those albums.

Yes they have. Do your homework.

There was a time (we call it 1996-1997) when Bono referred to the Holy Trinity as Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop. This was even on television...a pity less than seventeen people watched.

I'm not trying to be crazy or nothin', and I don't think I have much else to say. But you're spectacularly wrong, either way. I don't know if I'm proving or disproving anybody, but that particular comment is a-not-okay.

 

[financeguy]

No one will be forgetting these albums any time soon and they are right behind Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree in terms of quality.

Respectively:

(1) Yes, they will

(2) No, they're not.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Respectively:

(1) Yes, they will

(2) No, they're not.

 

[STING2]

In those days, U2 didn't need to tell themselves, or the marketplace, that they were shit hot.

They just knew it.

When a band starts telling themselves they're the best in the world, you know they're starting to lose their mojo.

On the ABC POPMART special in April 1997, Bono did in fact say they were the "Best Band in the World". I also recall a lot of statements along those lines from Joshua Tree/Rattle And Hum era. Hell, go all the way back to BONO first interview with Rolling Stone in 1980 and he states that they are going to be one of the greatest bands of all time, up with the Beatles, the Stones and The Who.

 

[STING2]

Yes they have. Do your homework.

There was a time (we call it 1996-1997) when Bono referred to the Holy Trinity as Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop. This was even on television...a pity less than seventeen people watched.

I'm not trying to be crazy or nothin', and I don't think I have much else to say. But you're spectacularly wrong, either way. I don't know if I'm proving or disproving anybody, but that particular comment is a-not-okay.

Refering to it has part of a trinity of albums is not the same as actually ranking it, certainly not the same as saying its their second best album or the best album. Also, the TV show your talking about was watched by 2.4 million people in late April 1997.