The_acrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Slow day?
.... well, Bono was in Omaha last night.... singing Stand by Me at a wedding....
Better update U2gigs.com!
Slow day?
.... well, Bono was in Omaha last night.... singing Stand by Me at a wedding....
Better update U2gigs.com!
Despite moments of near brilliance ('Please', 'Velvet Dress', 'Gone'), ATYCLB is a much stronger album overall than Pop. The first 7 songs on ATYCLB represent the longest string of unadulterated melody--in its purest form--ever found on a U2 album.
I don't love ATYCLB and never have. But I respect that album well enough, I guess. I get what u2 were trying to do there and while I have my issues with it and always will, I can pretty well stomach it. Meaning the music itself.
HTDAAB is another matter altogether.
Nope. The Joshua Tree was brilliant, Grammy or no Grammy.
I'd rather they steer clear of trying to "manufacture" a hit like they did with GOYB and go for pure experimentation like they did on Zooropa and they showed recently with 'Fez/Being Born'. That's really where U2 excels and the place where I'd like to see them go.
Didn't Larry mention about releasing before the end of the year, & then release again (ie 2 projects). Rather than 'butchering' the DM sessions, could this latest 'in the studio' be amounted to that.
There's also Iovine's Beats internet music service thing that's trying to get off the ground. Could U2 be linked into this in an attempt to curb piracy of their new album? Which also leads onto keeping things under wraps to again, reduce possible piracy.
I think we need a Dangermouse Afro icon!
I just hope that after all this waiting and with obviously dozens of songs recorded across 4 years with at least 3 producers, that we get more than just 11 songs.
Release the older songs like North Star or Glastonbury as B-sides if you have to!
Or just release a 15 track, 65 minute album!
Okay neither situation is likely but we gotta have dreams yeah?
I don't think anyone said that. The main point is that if an album is so terrible (as Bomb & ATYCLB are oftentimes accused by rabid U2 fans), then it probably wouldn't even be nominated for a grammy, let alone SWEEP them while also making history! I'm not a huge fan of award shows, but I know if I were in a band and were recognized at being the best in the world in any music genre, I would feel pretty good about it, and it would be nice if my fans would back me up. I know I was proud of U2 when they kicked everyone's butt with both ATYCLB & Atomic Bomb....but I guess that must make me a naive simpleton according to the elite U2 fan.lol, so because an album has won more grammy's, it's automatically better than the other? I don't even want to know what bullshit has won Grammy awards these days.
Regarding your first point: Very true. Otherwise we would have to concede that The Joshua Tree was not a good album since it won Album of the Year. The fact is, that album captured the attention of a generation. It did it in a very subtle way and, despite it almost demanding that attention, it did it by whispering its way into the consciousness of the mainstream, and then turning that whisper into a scream from the collective rooftop of the mainstream (the 'Streets video from an LA rooftop is not without significance whatsoever)....this was U2's call to the generation, and intentionally cemented them at the very forefront of the mainstream that many a U2 fan despise. Yet it was intentional on U2's part, just as it has always been.And I don't think we could say that an album winning an award necessarily proves that's it's not very good after all.
It does look like U2 values awards. They may or may not engineer records specifically to win them but they usually look sincerely happy about it, esp. in the post-Pop era. Maybe that's because they really were just chasing popularity, or maybe it's because they valued the affirmation more after so nearly losing the mainstream audience.
The main point is that if an album is so terrible (as Bomb & ATYCLB are oftentimes accused by rabid U2 fans), then it probably wouldn't even be nominated for a grammy
lol. Okay, with that logic then Kelly Clarkson's Stronger must be one cracker of an album.. since it won Best Pop Album and all. Maybe I should go pick it up.
Who cares about Grammys? U2. And if you wanted to be the biggest band in the world, you probably would too.No, you should not because i know from your posts you have good taste.
Music is not a competition. It shouldn't be anyway.
So, who fuckin cares about grammy's and such?
Only the few among us who justify their lousy tastes using the "grammy" as something we should value.
May i remind some of you about Milli Vanilli?
Who cares about Grammys? U2. And if you wanted to be the biggest band in the world, you probably would too.
Why must we insist on using extremes to make a point? There's a lot of middle ground between "Terrible" and "a cracker of an album". It appears you completely missed the point.lol. Okay, with that logic then Kelly Clarkson's Stronger must be one cracker of an album.. since it won Best Pop Album and all. Maybe I should go pick it up.
Yup, that's right Van Cleef, that's right. You hit the nail on the head (just following your lead with the sarcasm). Now back to being sincere: U2 have always said they want to be the biggest band in the world, but ALSO the best. They have also continually said that it would be a shame to be great at the art, but bad at the business. So, no, Van Cleef, the biggest does not mean the best, but by no means are the two mutually exclusive.Because bigger is always better, right?
No, you should not because i know from your posts you have good taste.
Why must we insist on using extremes to make a point? There's a lot of middle ground between "Terrible" and "a cracker of an album". It appears you completely missed the point.
Yup, that's right Van Cleef, that's right. You hit the nail on the head (just following your lead with the sarcasm). Now back to being sincere: U2 have always said they want to be the biggest band in the world, but ALSO the best. They have also continually said that it would be a shame to be great at the art, but bad at the business. So, no, Van Cleef, the biggest does not mean the best, but by no means are the two mutually exclusive.
Why do you care so much about what they think and want?
It should always be about what you think, baby...