Were the last 2 albums too contrived?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
financeguy said:



Respectively:

(1) Yes, they will

(2) No, they're not.

1) People have forgetten about POP and Zooropa, while ATYCLB is currently selling at a rate that is better than most catalog U2 titles with the exception of Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree. The fact is, nearly a decade later, U2's worst selling albums over the past year were POP and Zooropa.

2) According to BONO they are right behind Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree. Polling here at interference showed that HTDAAB is 4th best album behind UF, JT, and Achtung.
 
STING2 said:
On the ABC POPMART special in April 1997, Bono did in fact say they were the "Best Band in the World".

Saying that in the general rock environment of 1997 is akin to wandering into Free Your Mind today and starting a thread titled "George W Bush is the greatest President in the history of the United States". Duck and run.
 
I don't think Bono revealing his confidence in interviews is anything new. As was mentioned earlier, in his first Rolling Stone interview, before U2 even had a gold record, He was saying U2 were going to be mentioned in the same breath as The Beatles, Who etc.

The Whole "Best Band in the world" thing definately didn't start post-2000. I remember him saying in a Joshua Tree era interview that when they're "On" band could touch them.

Here's quote from Clint Mansell, lead singer of Pop will Eat itself in 1998

"I think that once you start to think you're the best band in the world you turn into turgid stodge like U2..."

It doesn't really sound like he thought U2 were being inventive, or cutting edge with "Pop"
 
Last edited:
I know Bono has always said that, or similar. I'm just saying there was a big difference between saying that in the "big is best" 80s, the 00s where we are used to such bravado and self promotion from everywhere (thanks hip-hop), and it's accepted, and the 90s where it was like a battle to not be popular, to play in small clubs, to shun spotlight and attention (well, it was the way you tried to allign your image anyway). And there's this U2. They made themselves a target.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
I know Bono has always said that, or similar. I'm just saying there was a big difference between saying that in the "big is best" 80s, the 00s where we are used to such bravado and self promotion from everywhere (thanks hip-hop), and it's accepted, and the 90s where it was like a battle to not be popular, to play in small clubs, to shun spotlight and attention (well, it was the way you tried to allign your image anyway). And there's this U2. They made themselves a target.

I know what you mean about the 90s in regards to trying to "Not be popular" With Kurt Cobain and Grunge there was a bit of a shift back to "punk" attitude. I think there might have been more that attitude in the early 90s though. I think Oasis were pretty much telling anyone who would listen to them for a few years in the mid-late 90s they were the Best. But I definatley agree that for at least part of that decade the "less is more" attitude ruled.
 
CPTLCTYGOOFBALL said:

I think Oasis were pretty much telling anyone who would listen to them for a few years in the mid-late 90s they were the Best.

Yeah, there was Oasis. Oasis though were British, and it worked a treat in the UK. As did U2, Pop & Popmart. U2 didn't skip a beat in the UK. We're talking, really, about the US here, and Oasis never cracked it there, probably in large part because of that attitude.
 
Back
Top Bottom