What happened with HTDAAB - A different perspective perhaps?

[STING2]

When Bono says whatever about HTDAAB being their first album, I agree. It certainly sounds like it. To me it sounds like this is an extremely competent and solid album by a bunch of people who can clearly write a tune and play their arses off, but then pretty much their entire back catalogue sounds like it should come AFTER this one. Like you start with Miracle Drug, get better, mature, learn more, experiment more, experience more and a decade later comes The Unforgettable Fire album. But that was 20 years earlier! It sounds like regression, not progression. And not in a 'back to the basics/roots' good way at all. Like Edge forgot years of nailing his craft, Bono is just beginning as a writer etc, they can put together basic catchy tunes, but not ones yet that give you a feeling of depth or emotional mirroring.

Some see that as their deliberate ploy to get back on the radio, back in the charts, dumb the U2 music back to something very simple and easy to digest, as it's not like the selling/airing music of today ever has what you would call 'emotional depth' does it. I mean, Ashlee Simpson likes to La La and Bono likes to Woo Hoo.

I think Miracle Drug is a better song than any song from the Unforgettable Fire with the exception of UF and Pride. I think BOMB is a better album than UF and the band agrees based on Bono's statements in Rolling Stone. Larry and Edge say the Vertigo tour is the best tour they have ever done.

 

[STING2]

If I took all of the songs off the Bomb and melted them down and used that liquid to try and fuel Hold Me, Thrill Me, it would run out of steam after the opening chord, splutter out and die. That's how watered down the Bomb Gas is. 11 songs couldn't fuel that one song. (IMO)

Before anyone tries to defend that, everyone quickly run off into your iTunes and line up Hold Me, Thrill Me so it comes on straight after Crumbs From Your Table. Listen to them back to back.

Just because a song "rocks harder" does not make it a better song. Do you think Whiplash by Metallica is better than Hold Me, Thrill Me, because it sure as hell would not be able to fuel it according to your example?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Have any Australian airplay stats for those "music first radio stations" to back up your claim that they have NEVER played anything by U2 post 2000?

No I don't. Airplay isn't factored into Australian charts, although you can track overall performance on radio by song and artist, but that is across all radio stations. Individual info is not available to the public and those overall performance charts are only released at the end of each year. U2 of course always feature in the top 5, but that is of course across their whole catalogue.

'NEVER' isn't correct as a statistic. When Vertigo was first released, I head it on this station, once, but not since and none of the Bomb songs following. I suspect Vertigo got some play in the initial week/s, but I never caught it. They played Beautiful Day early on as well, but nothing following. It is noticeable because previously a new U2 album, and every track off it, would receive huge airplay right through every track, including non-singles. The last U2 song to get big airplay as a new song was Ground Beneath Her Feet. You do still hear older U2 songs played on there quite regularly.

 

[Axver]

the band agrees based on Bono's statements in Rolling Stone. Larry and Edge say the Vertigo tour is the best tour they have ever done.

I think what U2 say in ten years' time is a lot closer to the truth than what they say now. Right now, it's all just hype with no perspective. Of course Larry and Edge aren't going to say "you know what? The Vertigo Tour's kinda weak compared to ZooTV, and I really wish it was more like Popmart too." That's not the way to promote your current stuff.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

The radio airplay statistics show that albums like POP and Achtung received more airplay than BOMB despite your claim that BOMB is "watered down" and "more accessible".

STING, honestly, which is more likely to appeal to a wider net of people: Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own, or Mofo? Miracle Drug, or Numb? I enjoy Mofo, my friends enjoy Mofo, it's too complicated and involved for my simplistic pop loving teenage sister, my Mother would hate it and my Grandmother would assume it's a WW2 air-raid flashback. I can handle Sometimes, my friends can handle Sometimes, my sister likes it, my mother loves it and my Grandmother would probably think it's quite nice. It's "more accessible to more people" and if it's scoring less on airplay than the 90's albums that is because (a) radio in the 90's was far, far more diverse and individual in it's playlists, and (b) it's a pretty shit song really and doesn't demand the airplay.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Just because a song "rocks harder" does not make it a better song. Do you think Whiplash by Metallica is better than Hold Me, Thrill Me, because it sure as hell would not be able to fuel it according to your example?

When did I mention "rock harder"? Neither Crumbs nor Hold Me, Thrill Me "rock hard" at all, but that is way way beside the point.

 

[ozeeko]

hold me thrill me kiss me kill me is just a better written song than anything off HTDAAB......(opinion)

 

[Zoots]

hold me thrill me kiss me kill me is just a better written song than anything off HTDAAB......(opinion)

I agree. And my opinion is just as valid as that of the Grammy arbiters!

 

[STING2]

No I don't. Airplay isn't factored into Australian charts, although you can track overall performance on radio by song and artist, but that is across all radio stations. Individual info is not available to the public and those overall performance charts are only released at the end of each year. U2 of course always feature in the top 5, but that is of course across their whole catalogue.

'NEVER' isn't correct as a statistic. When Vertigo was first released, I head it on this station, once, but not since and none of the Bomb songs following. I suspect Vertigo got some play in the initial week/s, but I never caught it. They played Beautiful Day early on as well, but nothing following. It is noticeable because previously a new U2 album, and every track off it, would receive huge airplay right through every track, including non-singles. The last U2 song to get big airplay as a new song was Ground Beneath Her Feet. You do still hear older U2 songs played on there quite regularly.

Well, I guess the people who program that station have the same opinion as you about U2's new music if they really rarely if ever play new U2. Here in the United States, there are weekly airplay charts for just about every type of music you can think of. It is tracked by Broadcast Data Systems.

Next week, U2 will be at the Grammy Awards where they have received 5 nominations and previously won 17 times, including 10 Grammy's for the past two albums. I don't agree with every thing the Grammy awards nominate, or who actually wins, but the acadamy is made up of 12,000 musicians, artist, producers, engineers all involved in the production of music who take it very seriously. The awards cover everything from Classical music, Country Music, Rap, Hiphop, R&B, Pop as well as Rock, Alternative Rock, Metal etc. While their far from being perfect, they are just as credible as any radio station, magazine, or critic.

 

[STING2]

When did I mention "rock harder"? Neither Crumbs nor Hold Me, Thrill Me "rock hard" at all, but that is way way beside the point.

Well then what did you mean by this statement?:


"If I took all of the songs off the Bomb and melted them down and used that liquid to try and fuel Hold Me, Thrill Me, it would run out of steam after the opening chord, splutter out and die. That's how watered down the Bomb Gas is. 11 songs couldn't fuel that one song."

One Chord, huh?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Doesn't have to have anything to do with "rocking", call it spirit then if you like. The fuel is the spirit of the song. Those 11 songs (IMO) don't have enough spirit/fuel to get past the Bono's opening mumble on the (definitely non-rocking) Velvet Dress. It's in that - the spirit - that I feel they are watered down, not in any rocking sense.

 

[MrBrau1]

This thread's becoming the same old same old.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

This thread's becoming the same old same old.

Indeed, its become rather gruelling

 

[ozeeko]

i feel like HTDAAM is an album which sounds like the "idea" of U2 rather than the real u2

 

[Zoots]

How To Dismantle An Atomic Man?

 

[Axver]

How To Dismantle An Atomic Man?

How To Dismantle An Atomic Marsupial is so much better than that How To Dismantle An Atomic Man crap!

 

[Zoots]

How To Dismantle An Atomic Marsupial is so much better than that How To Dismantle An Atomic Man crap!

What's your point?... that it's in our blood to argue?


In the meantime, nobody's talking about the obvious lack of lyrical complexity in these last 2 albums!

 

[ozeeko]

the mysterious distance between a man and a woman? you don't get anymore mysterious than that

 

[Axver]

the mysterious distance between a man and a woman? you don't get anymore mysterious than that

Shamu The Mysterious Whale is offended. Do you question its mysterious powers?

 

[ozeeko]

shamu can suck my dick...seriously.

 

[Zoots]

Let's keep it strictly 'family fun' in this thread, guys!



Cos that's how the last 2 albums sound anyway!

 

[ozeeko]

sorry what i mean to say was "freedom has a scent like a bucket of raw fish in shamu's tank" the song's are in your blowhole!!!! i feel it when i sit on it...

 

[Achtung_Bebe]

Let's keep it strictly 'family fun' in this thread, guys!

my 2 cents on this topic... I am confident that U2 has not sacrificed their integrity, or in any other way restricted their artistry, for the sake of being easily accessible/heavily played on the radio or however you want to measure public appeal. We are all aware that in order for U2 to arrive at this point in their career they have had to reinvent themselves along the way... but I do not feel that they base these decisions on projected album sales/accessibility. U2 have not made a habit of repeating themselves in the past, and the recent releases (accessible or not) reflect that. The recent albums as a whole sound very mature to me I do not necessarily agree with the statement made earlier that U2 could have released these albums before UF, JT & others. U2 have always experimented with their sounds, this is just another phase--it's completely understandable if you have trouble embracing ATYCLB or HTDAAB, but it's ok b/c with U2 it's just a moment, this time will pass.

As far as lyrical complexity goes, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." — Leonardo da Vinci

 

[allbecauseofu2]

with or without is more accesible then any song they did ever. thats it. all of em. even WTSHNN and ISHFWILF. U2 CLEARLY trancends the 80's and obviosly have hits since the 1980;'s. thier not even called a '80's " band casue they have had far too many hits since then and massive sucess etc. oh i do need to even motherfucking say that even? lol. DUH ....................................................... however, when i hear with or without you, it freezes for me a moment Causes i was growing up in the 80's and i remember that song and watched it and liked and connected with as a "80;s" song. casue i didn;'t know anything about u2 then. Still havn;t found is kinda like that too but not as much as WOWY was for me. That song can make me forgot about the rest of thier music and get back those feelings i had back then. very hard to do that now. almost as if u2 was a one hit wonder with that song. thats about as best as i can descibe it.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What happened with HTDAAB - A different perspective perhaps?

Many in here have claimed that albums with U2's "more complex" work is their least accessible material, and the results from radio airplay and sales clearly show that is not the case.

U2 have tried on EVERY album and tour, to sell as many albums and tickets as possible! That has been a goal of U2's from day 1 that has never changed.

Well I can agree with that. Although, accessibiity and popularity are not the same thing. Saying song X hit #11 and song Y hit # 35 doesn't mean song X was more accessible, it only means it was more popular, so it doesn't actually prove anything. It just means at the time, they were more popular for whatever reasons.

As to your second paragraph, while I agree, I'd also add that while U2 wanted to sell as many albums and tickets as possible with POP, for example, they certainly took a riskier path to grand commercial success.

How they presented the music, the tour, all something very unproven. The idea of stripping back to the bare essentials and going back to basic songwriting has been around as long as music has been around. So the complexity is the risk of acceptance, the risk of it being accessible to a larger crowd.

The path taken with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, for better or worse, was a proven commodity in the realm of popular music. When people talk about Achtung or POP vs these two albums, I think they are talking about the risk of failure/acceptance and how that balance was flushed out in the last 6 years. They'll tell you themselves they tried to make albums with potentially 10 singles on them. Hell, Mofo and Numb WERE singles. That is the difference, it can't be pointed out any clearer by myself.

"We can't have another Pop fiasco" I can just see them saying it.
I am sure they wanted to make band records and song records or they wouldn't have done it in the first place. But don't try to sell me that they didn't take a more accessible route than the previous 3 albums, because they did.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

the unoffical rule i've heard is that if u have a studio album that sells 1 million or more u are still cosidered revelant and still have some affect on pop muisc. the biggest example of a artist coming back from the commercal dead is by far and away is santana "supernatural". or in other words if u have a one million sellar or more u have permission to perform 3 or more new songs,lol, like duran duran who would have do all the old classics and not realy any room for the "new" stuff.

 

[U2girl]

This is by no means an HTDAAB bashing thread, just an in-depth (mostly) lyrical analysis!

This is how I see it. After bouncing back from the darkest depths of Wake Up Dead Man with the brilliant Beautiful Day and an overall optimistic and 'sunny' (but often too simplistic) album, U2 had a choice!

1. They could either get back to writing lyrically complex songs, creating great soundscapes and imagery like they did in the past... OR...

2. They could continue trying to reach the widest audience possible by creating beautiful melodies with strong sing-along verses and choruses, albeit sacrificing lyrical complexity!

Option 2 was the ticket to not just staying as the biggest band in the world but leaving no doubt in anybody's mind that they were indeed on par with the Beatles! I'm still not entirely sure which option I prefer personally. After all, I do enjoy that 'high' of being in the midst of not just the whole stadium but the whole world singing along to my favorite band. But then again, I think Option 1 could have really showcased some of Bono's best songwriting, on par with the classics!

I'm including my own descriptions of certain songs to further make my point clear...

OPTION 1 Vs. OPTION 2
Native Son Vs. Vertigo
I think Native Son's lyrics are far superior to most of Vertigo which is good fun but doesn't mean much, to me at least!

On the run... officer put down the gun
Native son... I never wanted to own one
Native son... both of us want to be someone
It's so hard... is it so hard for a native son to be freeeeeeeeeeeee?
That last line in the chorus flows so beautifully, it's awesome! Not to mention, the breathtaking 'Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...' bridge!

Then again, I prefer the more pronounced riff in Vertigo and the instrumental bridge 'without' the claps! And the line 'the girl with crimson nails has Jesus round her neck' sounds cool to sing along to! A serious rock song or a cool sounding, fun EBTTRT-ish number? I don't know.

All Because Of You (alternate) Vs. All Because Of You

Next to it
I was so close to it
I had the universe decoded
Then the atom split
What a great opening verse!!! I like how it starts (musically) without the unnecessarily ear-piercing sound from the album version. I also like how Bono sings all the lines in the chorus the same way instead of going 'Aaaahll because of you' for the second line. The excellent bridge can of course be found on the album as well!

Tough / Sometimes (alt)(?) Vs. Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own

I prefer this verse...

When I was a young boy, in the suburb of cedarwood
I wanted to be great
'Cause good would not be good enough
Now that I'm older
I don't see things any clearer
Nearer now, but still a long way off

...to the overly simple...

We fight all the time
You and I... that's alright
We're the same soul

How many times will Bono use the words 'soul' and 'kneel'? I really like the meloncholy strings in this version. I think it suits the subject matter much better than the happy bounce of the opening notes on the album version.

That said, I prefer the album version for how it really builds up towards the end... the SING verse sounds so much stronger and better on the album! Yeah, this one's a toss up!

I don't want to go on comparing the 'what might have been' songs with the 'what we got eventually' ones, but you get the drift! I guess there's good and bad in both versions. The good thing is... since most of us own all these rare songs and outtakes anyway, we can listen to whatever version we like depending on our mood.

But I still feel... nobody can deny the fact that with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, U2 abandoned lyrical complexity and art to more upbeat sing-along material that has a tremendous potential to reach the widest audience! If I had to over-simplify it... it's almost like a choice between great lyrics and great music And as it may be evident from my rambling post, I'm still unsure as to which option I prefer! How about you guys?

U2 knew they got to the end of an era after Pop, during Popmart Bono was already talking about a more direct album - also consider he had a major health scare in between Pop and ATYCLB which likely influenced his writing.

Since ATYCLB started a new era, it was fair to expect another direct album. I wasn't aware U2 was openly competing with the Beatles, as for being the biggest band - "we want to fight the music on the charts", "we worked very hard to be number 1 in US" - that wasn't the 00's current, "hit-making" U2 talking. It was the 80's U2, and belive it or not, the band thought Pop would be huge in America (not in the way most people think, but anyway) . Ironically, the "alternative" U2 of the past decade had bigger hits than anything the "sell out", "radio" 00s U2 has released as a single. U2 may talk about being the best band, but they sure never minded being the biggest.

In addition, you'll notice most of the "get back in the public eye" and promotion work for the last two albums happened in the US. Things completely changed there when the urban genres kicked out everyone off the charts, and pop got big. Last but definitely not least, a gang of 40 year olds in a rock band getting on radio and charts? Dream on. 1991 or 1997 U2 relatively easy gets into Top 10 in the US, post 2000 they work their ass off and they can't get past, what, 23? See what I mean?
If U2 was all about making money, they would use the hip hop producers with their last two albums.

Lastly, one possibility why they promote themselves so much in US after Pop is they're with Interscope there. Perhaps the new label = new rules.

OPTION 1 vs OPTION 2
Native Son may have better lyrics but it doesn't have the punch they were looking for in a lead single. Also, as Lillywhite has said, Bono tried singing Native son lyrics over Vertigo music but it didn't work.

Tough vs Sometimes
I much prefer the "we fight all the time" verse to the sappy "when I was a young boy", let alone the cheesy alternative version music that cannot compete with the haunting album version. The amazing chorus (go Lillywhite!) and far better build up help too.

All because of you alt vs album
Hard choice, alt has great lyrics but musically I prefer the album version. A tie?

I thought "kneel" and "soul" repetitions had to do with having a theme, similar to "sun" and "moon" on AB or "sky", "fire" on JT. Guess I was wrong.

 

[U2Man]

Wait. Wait. Wait a minute here. Wait just a minute here ... Bono's not hot?!!?!? man now I have to delete all my pictures of him and stop going to PLEBA way to RUIN MY LIFE!!

Now you wait a minute, girl. I thought Zootlesque was the hottie! Now I have to delete all my pictures of him and stop going to ZOOBA


I love the way you write, btw.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

Re: Re: What happened with HTDAAB - A different perspective perhaps?

Ironically, the "alternative" U2 of the past decade had bigger hits than anything the "sell out", "radio" 00s U2 has released as a single.

So what does this truly tell us?

The listening public/buying public comparatively have a large amount of apathy for the 00's U2 music. You can debate the reasons, but there is little doubt that this is the case.

Yet the albums have sold rather well.

Basically singles and chart success don't mean anything, anything at all, yet Bono and the boys will go out of their way to tell you how much they covet it. They will even re-record an entire album to 'get it right'. They want hits, and they aren't getting them. You can debate the reasons why, but there is little doubt this is the case.

So if the general public is apathetic about them and they can't get the hits they covet, the questions are they failing to accomplish their goals or are they just chasing down the wrong path? Is this an artistic impulse to want to have hits? Or might it just be an ego thing?

Personally, I think they've been around so long and have hit the top of the mountain in popularity only to fall down the same mountain of popularity, and have explored different realms of music that they finally just wanted to make an album/or albums that was/were such a big success it could buy them an extra decade of doing whatever they wanted to do. They could do it financially either way, but what is the point? I think they wanted to make it worthwhile. The big question is, are they failing and what does it mean, creatively, commercially and in terms of the longevity of the group.

I say it goes one of three ways:
A-They pull a Rattle and Hum/POP and don't learn their lesson of treading on the same ground for too long with another album of 'whatever this is'.
B-They take the popularity they've earned in the last 5 years and use it to branch out musically and politically with a message and a sound that will either catapult them or doom them.
C-They decide that they are going to give it one last shot, creating the perfect album, take 5 years and go out with a bang, it's not a hit or miss proposition, it's a one shot finish.

I lean heavily towards A, in about 2008, another album down this path. B is the longest shot and C, I think if they look at the last 5 years as some kind of failure, they might just say 'one more go around'. They pay lip service to wanting to keep writing music for years and years, but that is wishful thinking.

If they could bang out an album every two years, they would have a lot more room to play with in terms of the creative/popularity bubble.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Re: Re: Re: What happened with HTDAAB - A different perspective perhaps?

I lean heavily towards A, in about 2008, another album down this path. B is the longest shot and C, I think if they look at the last 5 years as some kind of failure, they might just say 'one more go around'. They pay lip service to wanting to keep writing music for years and years, but that is wishful thinking.

If they could bang out an album every two years, they would have a lot more room to play with in terms of the creative/popularity bubble. They want to be popular, yet they don't seem to act like it.

Well, we all talk about this 'trinity of albums' thing with U2, but fail to ever recognise that what U2 see as their biggest failures/mistakes have both been the 3rd albums on these fabled trinities. Rattle&Hum and Pop. Maybe U2's lessons learned would include pulling off the "tear it apart and rebuild" a little quicker this time around. It all depends on how they are viewing this phase. I'm not convinced that it's a musical direction/cycle like the early 80's/late 80's/90's. I'm not sure that it's more a sign of a complete shift at the very core of what U2 are trying to acheive. In which case, even if there is a noticeable shift in musical style or influence, the level of writing/style and position of the music will likely stay the same. There is diverse music on the Bomb, probably moreso than any other U2 album, but it's all still falling in the same category, hitting the same level. Is that making sense?

I don't trust U2 to try anything deliberate. Deliberate is where their perceived failures have been (R&H, Pop) and where my perceived failures are (The Bomb). So certainly not (C) for me. I sincerely hope U2 never, ever pre-plan their last album, and I fear they've started to pre-conceive what they want the album to be in a commercial sense (in a different way to before). U2 are at their best when it's free flowing, natural, inspired etc. At their worst when it's pre-conceived, forced, targeted. If they spent 5 years trying to go out with a bang, I honestly fear the result. I'd rather them spend 6 months quickly running with a spark of inspiration and releasing that with little or no care for it's intentions or results. The thought of that excites me greatly. If they do that and tour and decide that's it, so be it.