Why is everyone suddenly so quick to diss 90's U2?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
God Part III said:
90's U2 > all artists and any album anybody ever did.

My opinion though.

I'll back you up on this and say in a briefer way what I already said in a post, earlier: this is not your opinion, my friend. This is fact. Take it or leave it.

That said, I LOVE the vast majority of work that U2 did in the '80s. I love each and every album, but I'll say that I think The Joshua Tree and Boy probably stick out as better than the rest of that decade, in my eyes. I enjoy some of the work they've been up to, this decade, but I UNEQUIVOCALLY LOVE very little of it, comparatively speaking. They were giants in the '80s, Gods in the '90s, and now, as far as I can tell, they seem to be mock superheroes. I'm not saying that that's necessarily bad...but I think it is true; or that they want it to be...
 
Rewind the clock.
Here's a 1997 Time mag interview i got off the atu2 site.
Notice the Bono swipe at snotty apple and mac users......



Rappin' with Bono

U2's leader sounds off about the band's new album and tour, and about the sad state of rock.

Time Magazine, March 10, 1997

By Christopher John Farley

Electro music, which supplements or replaces the guitar-driven riffs of regular rock with synthesized sounds, isn't new -- R&B dance remixers have drawn on it for years. However, the form is bustling with activity these days. Electro visionaries such as Tricky, Goldie and Carl Craig are pushing its boundaries; youthful trip-hop bands such as the Sneaker Pimps and Morcheeba and the promising avant-dance group the Prodigy are giving what has largely been instrumental musci a voice, fresh faces and heart; and rock vets like Eric Clapton (hith his new band T.D.F.) and David Bowie are tapping into it for inspiration. Now, this week, U2 releases its electro-tinged CD Pop, which features drum-and-bass-driven songs like "Mofo" and dance-rock numbers like "Discotheque." Pop is passionate, futuristic and completely engaging. Lead singer Bono, on the phone from Dublin, talked about his band's bold new direction.


TIME: Your new album isn't going to please everyone -- some people are going to say you guys are just strip-mining underground music forms.

Bono: What I'd say is, "F[uck] right off. We were doing dance remixes when you were still in short pants, you little a[sse]s." When this bogus term alternative rock was being thrown at every '70s retro rehash folk group, we were challenging people to new sonic ideas. If some little snotty anarchist with an Apple Mac and an attitude thinks he invented dance music and the big rock group is coming into his territory, that's ridiculous.

TIME: Will electronic music be big?

Bono: Well, as soon as people start writing that, it kind of stops it in a way, because then you expect too much. It's been a long time since there's been a dance movement, particularly in the U.S. To have hard-core dance on white radio would be crazy. It would be good.

TIME: Pop is a danceable album. Why do you think that alternative rockers typically have been drawn to mosh pits but afraid of dance floors?

Bono: It's a WASP thing. It really is. It's Anglo-Saxon. It's Teutonic. Crashing into each other is just not as evolved as real dancing. I mean as angry as people in hip-hop get, even in gangsta rap, they still have hips. Rock has fallen behind.

TIME: Is rock dead or just resting?

Bono: A lot of what's called rock these days does seem like folk music. It does seem absurd that there are punk rockers in the late '90s rebelling against their parents' music. I can't quite get my head around that. It's "Dad, you suck -- can I borrow your Sex Pistols album?" White-bread rock has, for me, lost its sense of adventure and seems very tired in comparison to hip-hop.

TIME: As usual with U2, there's religious imagery on Pop. Are you a churchgoer?

Bono: I am a believer. But I find it hard to be around religion. I was brought up in a mixed family -- Protestant, Catholic -- and I've seen what religion has done around here, and I'm just nervous of it. But there's one church that if I was living close by I'd definitely be in the congregation. It's in San Francisco -- Glide Memorial. Rev. Cecil Williams there looks after the homeless, gays, straights; he marched with Martin Luther King, he's funny as hell -- pardon the pun -- and you can get an HIV test during the service. Now that's my kind of church.

TIME: Will the Prodigy open for you on your tour? They've got quite a buzz.

Bono: They're literally still making their record -- maybe at the end of the tour we'll get back to them and see. Underworld I would like to have for some of the European dates -- they're really taking this DJ-culture thing to another plane.

TIME: Your tour is a big one; tickets cost between $38 and $53. Isn't that steep?

Bono: If you're going to play big places and you don't want people to be in the back of a muddy field, like they were in the '70s, you then have to try and do something special to make these events in the full sense of the word, and you've got to spend to do that. We want to make, as they say in Ireland, a show of ourselves. We're working round the clock to put it on, and we have 200 people on the road, or whatever it is. It's madness. And I'm not sure we could do it again.


© Time Magazine, 1997. All rights reserved.
 
I don't think it's people dissing U2...it's people dissing the genre...

But it isn't even all the 90's work...it's POP. For some reason, POP seems to define the 90's (unfairly) for the band.

U2 was, for the most part, a rocknroll band right up til the last lick of Zooropa. For them to go off into "Disco/HipHop World" with POP...well...it was a shock none-the-least.

Nobody expected it, and the majority of the die hard "rocknroll U2" type shunned the album at first. It took quite a while for the album to grow on folks (and I'll admit, myself as well).

Now, while POP is not the "complete" album it could have been, it still ranks as a great album. But, sadly, POP (along with October) is always going to be the red-headed-step-child of the family of albums that are U2.

-DaveC
 
If U2 hadn't made the music they had made in the 90's they would have broke up in the early 90's. They wouldn't have made it in the UK Hall Of Fame and only The Joshua Tree would be known as a classic album. But for the 90's they wouldn't have been the most special band this planet has ever produced. Their best music was created in the 90's, their most creative music was made in the 90's, and their best albums were made in the 90's. And anybody to diss 90's U2 music is a complete asshole who knows absolutely nothing about creative, inventive & exciting music, and I am a fan that became a fan in the mid 80's thru their 80's music. In the 80's they were learning how to make great music, in the 90's THEY WERE MAKING GREAT MUSIC!!!!!!:wink:
 
To me U2 is a better band because of the different sounds they came up with in the '90s. I can cling jealously to the past like anyone, but 11 albums that sound like Boy, War, JT, etc, would get pretty boring. Their ability to evolve while still pumping out awesome music is one of the things that sets them apart.
 
It's also not fair to compare, there were twice as many 80's albums.
 
I don't care if they mean Zooropa or Pop, cos these albums are GREAT albums which were received with great reviews by the same asshole critics who now say they are crap albums. Can't speak for the USA critics cos I don't know how the albums were received but I know that the USA public didn't like them cos they are stuck in a time warp where if music is a little bit different then they go off it straight away.

Bono said something on the Radio yesterday when Jo Whiley asked him that she had heard some members of the band didn't like the Pop era stuff and Bono replied that "WE got to ARTY for the Americans in the 90's" which is why, in my opinion, U2 made "ALL That You Can't Leave Behind", to sell shitloads in the USA again. They are not pushing the boundaries anymore but are still making good music, and making sure that it still sells shitloads in the USA. Which makes me think that U2 are not as an exciting band that they were 10 years ago. Still maybe its cos there getting old, like me.:wink:
 
I don't the the article you posted is an idictment of Apple at all. I think it's towards the people who know nothing about music using artificial means to make music.
 
I was one of those "old-school" U2 fans who wrote off Pop when it first came out. I've since come to appreciate it a lot - sure, it's not an album I listen to all the way through without skipping, but it has some amazing songs. As for Zooropa, it is way more "alternative" and interesting than anything Nirvana or Pearl Jam ever did (nothing against either band, I like both of them, especially PJ, I just don't think they totally reinvented the wheel). As for AB, well, that's pure genuis and an undisputed classic by just about everyone. And you can't lump AB in with the '80s classics because it was the birth of an entirely new sound and image for the band that would come to define the entire decade for them!

I also remember the great reviews from U.S. critics that both Zooropa and Pop got in the media when they first came out - maybe not every critic liked them, but as I recall a lot of them did.
 
Flying FuManchu said:
One thing about Achtung Baby.... While mainstream American music was seemingly sounding regressive during the early nineties.... Achtung was definitely a breath of fresh air.

for a few months anyway, then Nirvana broke and everything really changed, Achtung Baby is a classic, a masterwork IMO, but it wasnt earth shattering in its impact as say Nevermind was(regardless of your view on its quality, its impact cannot be denied)

the place Achtung Baby had its most impact was on stage, Zoo TV changed a lot more in music than AB did on its own. It was really the first full fledged multimedia show by a major rock act.
 
Never has a band's legacy benefitted from a premature death more than Nirvana. If Cobain had had the will to go on living, he'd have fallen so far down the ladder by now that he'd be a staple on Celebrity Mole. I wonder how many now-irrelevant grunge rockers are wishing they had thought to blow their brains out before Kurt did. As far as the impact they had - well I guess if you consider inspiring every teenager with a guitar to play the same four-chord progression from Teen Spirit over and over again, and spawning the likes of Stone Temple Pilots a GOOD thing, then I guess you have a point.
 
Last edited:
Zoocoustic said:

Where I'm going with this post is that now suddenly these reviewers are saying that the ENTIRE 90's was a mistake. I hadn't heard anyone bash the entire decade before but Rolling Stone and at least a couple of other reviews I've read have said that.

Critics bend the way the wind blows.

The 90s were U2's most brilliant period.
 
caragriff said:
the worst is when the band disses their 90s stuff.
i hate when they bust on pop.
they are total revisionists.
i love pop just the way it is.

:yes: Absolutely. The reworking of the Zooropa/Pop material for Best Of to make it more mainstream, almost apologising for excessive experimentation was a move I'd never expected U2 to make. :down:
 
Back
Top Bottom