"What if" and "U2 relativity".

[salim117]

It's apparent to me that what people think of when they hear U2 is related to (and I'm gonna use HTDAAB as an example):
A.What they know of U2 as a band
B.How much of U2's music they've heard or are familiar with
C.What, if any, is their personal opinion of U2/Bono is.
I was talking to a friend who I gave HTDAAB for christmas to and she was telling me that she really liked the album and how different it was from previous U2 material! Yup, different! I imediately told her how this album has been criticized for exactly the opppsite reason and she couldn't believe it. To her, it was innovative and unique. She likes U2 and is a casual semi-fan, she owns ATYCLB and Achtung. She has no personal opinion of U2 other than they are a very famous rock band. She's not been hammered by negative comments about the bands musical shifts and Bono's socio-political incursions. And that's U2 relativity. Everytime U2 cames out with new material it is never judged on it's merits alone, it's judged on it's legacy, on how much someone may love or hate Bono-U2, etc...etc.
U2's music is a victim of the band's shear "Biggness" & popularity and will never be judged "objectively". That's U2 relativity.
Just imagine what if HTDAAB had been the follow up to Rattle & Hum in 1991. My guess is that it would have been huge! It would not have been out of place in that time but yet it would have been considered revolutionary. Then AB in 1994, Zooropa in 1996, PoP in 2000 and ATYCLB in 2004. How different would U2's present state and relevance be by simply switching the order of these albums. For sure HTDAAB would be cosidered their 2nd masterpiece, followed by their 3rd in Achtung Baby which would have been seen as a natural evolution from HTDAAB.

Or what if there had never been a U2 until now with HTDAAB. I bet you critics would have gone nuts over it calling it the best album if this century!
My point is that we never can judged U2's music on it's merit alone anymore becouse of all the bagadge that comes with being U2. Just look at this form!

Just a thought.....

Salim

 

[yimou]

Or what if there had never been a U2 until now with HTDAAB. I bet you critics would have gone nuts over it calling it the best album if this century!

I doubt it

 

[salim117]

Re: Re: "What if" and "U2 relativity".

I doubt it

You sure?
What do you think your impression of HTAAB would be if you had never heard of U2 and never had listened to a single song of theirs? I bet it be totally different.

 

[yimou]

Re: Re: Re: "What if" and "U2 relativity".

You sure?
What do you think your impression of HTAAB would be if you had never heard of U2 and never had listened to a single song of theirs? I bet it be totally different.

Well if Vertigo ( single ) was the first song i heard by U2, then i doubt that i would have been interested in buying HTDAAB.

 

[ZeroDude]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "What if" and "U2 relativity".

Well if Vertigo ( single ) was the first song i heard by U2, then i doubt that i would have been interested in buying HTDAAB.

The relativity issue would move different people in different, mysterious ways

 

[MrBrau1]

What if Miss Sarajevo was U2's first single?

 

[salim117]

What if Miss Sarajevo was U2's first single?

 

[beau2ifulday]

Re: Re: "What if" and "U2 relativity".

I doubt it

Yeah, I have to agree. I'm not sure that album would have such positive reviews had it been the debut attempt of a brand new band called U2. Their time in the industry benefits them well.

 

[Tarvark]

I think it is pretty much a moot point. Of course fans reactions and critical reactions will be different then the semi-fan.

And besides as much as this might be a bad thing, good music is only one piece of the puzzle. It is the personality, producing and reception of the music that changes everything.

As for your after rattle and hum theory I would have to disagree. The Bomb would not have fit well in to that time period. Atchung was really perfect and revolutionary for that time.

Besides, I at least dont need critical reception or unwelcome to enjoy and to listen to the music. Just bring what you have to the table and listen to it for what it is.

 

[salim117]

I think it is pretty much a moot point. Of course fans reactions and critical reactions will be different then the semi-fan.

You obviously didn't grasp the main idea/point of my post.

 

[Tarvark]

I definatly did. People are looking at U2 out side of the music and forming opions there. U2 is not judged solely on the music but on everything.

And I am saying of course they are. We dont live in a vacum. I am saying everyone will have their own reactions and that cant be changed. Its not realitivity it is just us.

 

[Lancemc]

Yeah, and that still wasn't the point. Was it?

 

[Meghan]

Well I understood what Salim meant, (or at least I think I did) and it makes pretty good sense to me.

Maybe thats just because I am a fan of new-ish U2 as well as the older stuff though.

 

[PopFly]

I'm not sure if HTDAAB is the best example of this relativity, though. Had Pop been released in 1997 by a band releasing their first album, critics would've been been falling all over themselves hyping up this new 'U2' act as the next big thing.

 

[U2DMfan]

Most of U2's great reviews and most harsh criticsms come directly from their legacy. In this respect, I am not sure you could ever make an accurate guess as to how any of their albums would be received without the others.

Personally, I think U2 would have been done years ago had they, 1)not released Achtung or a similar progressive album when they did 2)not only didn't try to progress their own sound, made something that was in some respects seen as derivative of their 80's sound.

I don't think HTDAAB is the U2 80's sound at all, but without U2's progression thru the 90's you would have to view HTDAAB in 1991 as a "lay-up" sequel to JT/R&H, and in that respect it probably would have sent U2 spiraling down the hole that most 80's bands went in the early 90's.

It was a near miracle that Achtung and Zoo TV worked as well as it did, in the rock climate of 1991. If you take that away from U2 at that point, you are stripping them of their greatest progression.

If you want to ignore that, only to judge HTDAAB fairly, then fine.
You would also have to ignore all the rest of the albums as the same standard. Arbitrarily plugging in HTDAAB in Achtung's slot
takes away one of the bands greatest moments in the architecture of their own sound.

But you can't qualify the merits of HTDAAB alone, as a U2 sound progression without the others.

If you want to act as if HTDAAB is their first album, just to see how well it would stack up to today's music scene. It would be entirely subjective and up to you how good the music is to you.
But if you want to imagine the reception, it would only be worse.

Would it stand a better chance of having a big chart success?
Who knows, 2 of the 3 singles have already basically flopped here in America, the other one, Vertigo peaked lower than Beautiful Day and about 25 spots lower than Discotheque.

I'm just saying that is the reception even with the U2 brand on it.
Take that away and just imagine what the lukewarm reception would be. You could argue that it might have an opposite effect because there would be no pre-conceived notions about U2, but you tell me who else would be buying it that hasn't already bought it. The casual fan would probably not care either way about the legacy if they like the music, they buy it. The ardent U2 fan buys it almost solely because of that. Where would the additional listeneres come from?

I think HTDAAB would be an afterthought to most people without the legacy and credentials of the U2 name on it. Because even if it was the best album of this year, by a debut band, it wouldn't have any cultural signifigance other than being another good pop rock record to file away among a stack of good pop rock records. It is not sonically adventurous enough to capture the elitist press, it is not established enough and doesn't have enough big hits to capture the mainstream lapdogs.

It would be a good album lost in the abyss of a pop music hellhole, like so many other albums are. This of course, assuming that it would have been U2's first album. What U2 has to offer is everything relative to their history in addition to the new music, which is entirely relative to their history. So needless to say, it's a difficult premise, of which I would see nothing but negatives.

Because if you take that away, you tell me what would distinguish HTDAAB from any number of other good records out there. It's not likely that we can really do that, seeing how we are all fanatics, who's fanaticsm is relative to U2's history. It's the most critical part of why we love the band. We can't do that and I wouldn't want to.

So you tell me what would U2 have going for them now, that they don't already have, minus their legacy. Where would the new listeners come from, that they don't already have. Who are the people who would praise the album, who already haven't done so?

So that is my answer to the second question. The first question I think is pretty hard to give an accurate answer, only to say that there isn't a single thing that would lead someone, trying to be objective, to think HTDAAB would be more succesful than Achtung in 1991. To me it is just preposterous.

 

[salim117]

...to think HTDAAB would be more succesful than Achtung in 1991. To me it is just preposterous.

Never ment to say anything like that. AB is in a league of it's own. Just trying to say that U2 was huge during that time but HTDAAB would not have had to endure the comparisions to AB or the expectations that U2 created in the 90's in terms of pushing boundarys and musical experimentation. It was all a what if.

I know that most established bands have to deal with their albums being judged on parameters that that have nothing to do with the music, but you have to admit that when it comes to U2 these biasses are multiplied ten fold!

And I really must disagree with you in regards to where HTDAAB stands in terms of its musical relavence. But I have my opinion and you have yours.

 

[U2DMfan]

Never ment to say anything like that. AB is in a league of it's own. Just trying to say that U2 was huge during that time but HTDAAB would not have had to endure the comparisions to AB or the expectations that U2 created in the 90's in terms of pushing boundarys and musical experimentation. It was all a what if.

I know that most established bands have to deal with their albums being judged on parameters that that have nothing to do with the music, but you have to admit that when it comes to U2 these biasses are multiplied ten fold!

And I really must disagree with you in regards to where HTDAAB stands in terms of its musical relavence. But I have my opinion and you have yours.

HTDAAB would not have had to endure the comparisons to Achtung, but it would to The Joshua Tree. I am saying one the biggest reasons Achtung worked so well, was it was such a huge departure from that sound.

I was 16 when Achtung came out, and was then and always have been heavily into music. As objective as I possibly can be, I can say I don't think HTDAAB would have worked anywhere nearly as well as Achtung did. For many reasons, my posts generally are too long anyways so I'll try to explain further in a different post if you want.

The point I was making was that even now, with U2's huge legacy it pales in comparison, as fair as popularity both in sales and in critical acclaim.

I dont agree with your second part totally . I think any succesful band has more pressure, the more their back catalog increases.
U2 has no more pressure to "repeat" than Radiohead or probably a few other bands. Perhaps we can agree that there is a higher standard among the elites, as opposed to the average band.

As far as HTDAAB and it's musical relevance, I am not trying to take pot-shots at the album. I certainly don't hate it or love it, I think it's pretty much down the middle for me.

What I was trying to say, maybe I didn't articulate it very well, was that no matter how good it is, or relevant to you or me, if it was by a new band called U2, their first album, it would actually have less success and relevance because the whole idea strips the band of their legacy.

Without that legacy, who else that is not already on the bandwagon, would they gain from not having the brand name of "U2". So it would be negative no matter what you ask me. The theory doesn't change the quality of the album, it would change how it is recieved. It would be less relevant by default without U2 being U2.

I am saying the reception with U2's legacy goes both ways.
And if you take it out, you also lose a lot of good things. HTDAAB as a piece of work is what it is. Anyone can decide for themselves what they think it is. To ask that people look at it seperate from their pre-conceived notions about U2, is to take both good and bad and toss it out the window. So, the album quality wouldn't change but it's relevance would, I think for sure.

Hope that was a little clearer, I'd like to hear what you think.
The problem is, I just type so long my posts read like novels sometimes.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

actually, if this had been their first release, i would've thought to myself "gee they sound just like everyone else out there these days."

 

[LMP]

Yeah, and the sound itself would be different because of all of these new bands channeling U2, and id U2 were a new band themselves, the music world would be ruled by Gwen Stefani and Fity Cent, also known as the Apocalypse

 

[kerc]

U2DMFan, those are very intelligent posts.

I've com to accept that U2 has lost its edge (no pun intended), and are not wanting to experiment anymore. When they did Achtung Baby they somehow managed to grasp the zeitgeist and channel it into a record. I think they have been losing that "ability", or are no longer that interested...

I like HTDAAB, but I gotta face that U2's maximum creativity phase has passed.