maycocksean, you are spot on and I completely respect that viewpoint. I say in here all the time, if With or Without You and Mofo were from two separate bands, you'd never expect a fan of one to be a fan of the other, nor should you.
For the record, I came onboard the U2 train at Rattle & Hum, although I do vaguely remember The Joshua Tree era and songs from it, they were certainly already familiar when I picked up Rattle & Hum close to its release - I think my older cousins love of U2 actually. I was 14 when Achtung Baby hit, the perfect age to get a musical kick to the head/heart. What for most kids my age at that time was Smells Like Teen Spirit/Nevermind, it was The Fly/Achtung Baby for me. Rapidly, even before Zooropa was released, I'd snapped up several more back catalogue albums, and by the time Passengers came out I was only adding to a complete collection of albums, all of which I adored. Those were real initial 'discovering music' years and I was, at the exact same time, gaining a love and appreciation for Promenade as much as Daddy's Gonna Pay. So yes, Achtung was the bait, and yes I suppose being more attuned to 90s music in general helped as well, but for me, in a way, U2 were releasing a new album every few months there and they were shifting their style and themes dramatically every time.
I guess otherwise for me it's all about what I like and listen to in music. I don't really have a favoured style or sound, but music is something that I do like to be stimulated or challenged with as much as I just 'enjoy' listening to it. Some people are like that with films, with literature, with sport/adventure, with a mix of all of them. I guess for those people that are more open to that (and I'm not suggesting that you are automatically not if you were an 80s fan that was slightly put off by the 90s stuff, at all, I just mean the substance not the surface sound weighs more to you) then you are also more likely to even encourage those changes, or give them a different airing. For me, back in 95, Passengers was initially such a challenge. That fucker was definitely initially a tough one even for the 17 year old that I was, but it was still incredibly interesting to me, and piece by piece, track by track it opened up and from there opened up whole other avenues of music I hadn't at that point explored by other artists. Initially, if I were only interested in the sound or sonic feel of it, I probably would have dumped it on its arse straight away "Where's the fucking guitar? This is U2!"
I know now that if I were an 80's fan from the beginning, following the band, that if I'd developed the same 'musical personality' I would have been more than fine with U2's shift into the 90's based simply on the themes and ideas alone, that shit excites me greatly, and even if an immediate appreciation or love of the change in music doesn't automatically follow, I far prefer artists who do that rather than stay stagnant on a sound or idea. But that is each to their own, and that can shift from band you like to other band you like. There have of course been bands whose shifts I haven't followed and I've dropped off. There's nothing wrong with a U2 fan doing the same. An album like The Joshua Tree casts a wide net, and you should never expect all of it to have followed from the last calm strings of All I Want Is You into the chaotic lightning of The Fly. Or even from the banging rock of Achtung into the electro funk of Zooropa. Or from that to the big boom of Pop. Or even to go back further in time, there are loads and loads of older people who love to declare that U2's last great album was War, and everything since is crap, who clearly hated the transition into the big sweeping vistas that followed.
It's also in that where I know that my distaste, and that of many others, over the past couple of albums shouldn't be too closely linked to the shift from say Rattle&Hum to Achtung. I don't agree that I feel the same disconnection that many others felt then or between other albums. Some of course do, they just don't like the music, they WERE born and bred 90's fans first and foremost and miss that music and those themes. I was ready with open arms to welcome U2 post-Pop. We all knew it was going to be another dramatic shift. We all knew that was going to be this 'return to roots' thing. We all knew those more 'classic' sounds were coming back. I was absolutely fine with that and couldn't wait. It's U2's journey. To me their 90s work is intricately connected to their 80s work, not some wild adventure or fling. Some seem to think it was stepping away from what they 'really' do, and that they returned to that in 2000. Bollocks. If that were the case they would have just recorded 11 Boy's by now. They were doing the exact same thing all along. I think post-2000 IS a part of that. I'm all for them allowing whatever sound from their past to resurface if it fits. I'm all for the themes to shift into joy, hope, reflection, whatever, wherever their old man heads are at. Bring it on. Beautiful Day was an almighty kick off. Perfect. See, I know it's not like R&H to AB. It's not strictly the sound, it's not strictly the theme. I'm not offended by a shift away from the 90s at all. It was due, it's refreshing, I WANTED it. And it's not on where that shift went, essentially. It's just how it's been executed I guess. U2-Lite, as they say. Diet U2. Whatever. All those things I said in another thread about what feels like it's missing now. It's not any individual part of what is there, but a sum of what is missing. I'm 110% okay with every basic ingredient of the past two albums, if they were just not so lacking in 'spirit' or whatever. The songs leave me with absolutely nothing and I hate that. It's not the shift in style or sound, it's the shift in substance.
I'm cool with whatever happens next. I think they need to be more careful with their peaks and troughs. I think it would be wise to learn from Rattle & Hum and Pop and perhaps shift an album earlier than usual. I think another very commercial pop/corporate rock album will have them way too close to Bon Jovi territory and that will lose them way more fans than any shift in sound or style or themes. There is absolutely no room in the U2 catalogue for another trilogy of the following: Vertigo/Miracle Drug/Sometimes. You know what I'm talking about, even if you disagree with my feelings about those songs. Think about where they land in classification. U2 can't afford to do that. As for what any shift is? I don't care. Experimental? Fine, love it, don't expect it to be wild, but I think we all love to hear the new and unknown from U2, I think its a big reason why all of us are fans. Pull in sounds for the past? Go for it. You own them. More broad, open, confident, hopeful music? Brilliant. Do it. Rock? Why not. Where's this fucking "Edge" album we've been promised twice now. Quieter, more thoughtful? Give it to me. Give me something for my headphones at night. Influenced by X style of music that scares the pants off half the fans in here? It shouldn't scare anyone. Have they ever REALLY fucked it up? Nope. They even do pop/corporate rock to absolute perfection. Robbie Williams can only dream of a song like Original of the Species.
In other words, bring it on. I don't care, just please, please, please swim U2 back out to the depths. Please. Stop flapping around in the shallows. Please. Edge can do better. He can play his signature guitar sounds all he wants, just let them fly, don't limit them to a quiet formulatic part in the background or a cliched launch at the end, just before the last chorus. Bono, you are currently one of the most incredibly uniquely positioned individuals of our generation. You are far more intelligent than those lyrics. Tell us what it is really like at the end of a day where you hammer a room of world leaders by day, than front the biggest band in the world by night. Frustration, excitement, hope, anger, depression. I'm sure it's all there, and I'm sure you are far more eloquent in describing it in day to day life than Vertigo or Crumbs or any of these songs come close to suggesting. Don't treat us like an extended Oprah interview. Tell us how you feel about living in a world where you it is necessary that you stoop so low as Oprah Winfrey to *sell* the idea of doing the right thing, rather than humanity being in control as it should. What kind of world do we really live in, where people need Oprah? All of you: Bring the music back in line with the message. Don't worry about charts or airplay or awards or being relevant to the kids alongside the bright shiny pop stars, hip-hoppers and MTV stars of today. You've got loads of commercial breathing space now, use it.
)
