Axver said:
I've never seen any talk about the songs causing Elevation to suffer.
Stuck in a moment. great on the album, just didn't work for me live. Thought it brought the whole atmosphere down.
Axver said:
I've never seen any talk about the songs causing Elevation to suffer.
Axver said:
I know the two of you don't get along, but I think that comment was rather unprovoked as I feel U2girl raised some legitimate points.
She is quite right to say that it is harder for U2 to sell albums now than it ever has been. Illegal downloading is rampant, rap/R&B/hip-hop and Britney-pop dominates the charts, and today's popular culture can be very ageist and discriminatory against older acts. I'd love to see the ages of the artists behind all of the albums on the charts when U2 debuted at #1 last year. I bet U2 are at least 10-15 years older than the average, probably more.
In that sense, the success of HTDAAB is absolutely remarkable. So yes, I agree with her that the current success may just be more impressive than Achtung Baby, simply because it's a whole lot harder for U2 to sell in this current climate.
Ellay said:
Stuck in a moment. great on the album, just didn't work for me live. Thought it brought the whole atmosphere down.
lazarus said:So illegal downloading affects only U2? What about the other artists that are able to sell shitloads of albums. The funny thing is that studies have shown that there hasn't been much drop off in sales, despite what the record companies want you to believe. I'd also argue that the majority of U2's audience wouldn't download it anyway. It's the one hit wonder/single bands who need to worry.
Secondly, the thing about age is a hazy argument. U2 is an anomaly because they've been together for 25 years. Most bands aren't even around long enough to test that theory. As for solo artists over 40, there are too many successful ones to mention. The Rolling Stones' Steel Wheels, which came out 25 years after their earliest recordings (or somewhere around there), went multi-platinum. So it is possible. I'd argue that U2 being around 30 when AB came out wasn't that much less of an age-risk, as the popular, trendy bands tend to be under 25.
Axver, you have a known bias against Achtung Baby, so the fact that you're not impressed with its sales doesn't surprise me. It doesn't change the fact that AB was EXTREMELY ahead of its time and a total curve ball thrown by the band, which still resulted in sales more than double, if I'm not mistaken, of ATCYLB, at least in the U.S. There's not much room for argument.
Axver said:
I know the two of you don't get along, but I think that comment was rather unprovoked as I feel U2girl raised some legitimate points.
She is quite right to say that it is harder for U2 to sell albums now than it ever has been. Illegal downloading is rampant, rap/R&B/hip-hop and Britney-pop dominates the charts, and today's popular culture can be very ageist and discriminatory against older acts. I'd love to see the ages of the artists behind all of the albums on the charts when U2 debuted at #1 last year. I bet U2 are at least 10-15 years older than the average, probably more.
In that sense, the success of HTDAAB is absolutely remarkable. So yes, I agree with her that the current success may just be more impressive than Achtung Baby, simply because it's a whole lot harder for U2 to sell in this current climate.
U2girl said:
2) U2 was riding on the sales from the Joshua Tree/Rattle and Hum period (about AB), while having drop in sales with Zooropa and Pop when they were making ATYCLB
lazarus said:
So illegal downloading affects only U2? What about the other artists that are able to sell shitloads of albums. The funny thing is that studies have shown that there hasn't been much drop off in sales, despite what the record companies want you to believe. I'd also argue that the majority of U2's audience wouldn't download it anyway. It's the one hit wonder/single bands who need to worry.
Secondly, the thing about age is a hazy argument. U2 is an anomaly because they've been together for 25 years. Most bands aren't even around long enough to test that theory. As for solo artists over 40, there are too many successful ones to mention. The Rolling Stones' Steel Wheels, which came out 25 years after their earliest recordings (or somewhere around there), went multi-platinum. So it is possible. I'd argue that U2 being around 30 when AB came out wasn't that much less of an age-risk, as the popular, trendy bands tend to be under 25.
Axver, you have a known bias against Achtung Baby, so the fact that you're not impressed with its sales doesn't surprise me. It doesn't change the fact that AB was EXTREMELY ahead of its time and a total curve ball thrown by the band, which still resulted in sales more than double, if I'm not mistaken, of ATCYLB, at least in the U.S. There's not much room for argument.
bathiu said:
BTW - did you notice the huge piece of BS from U2girl?
I think we should give her an award for all her "theories"...
bathiu said:
I should've made a "quote" before making a reply:
...and that's a huge BS.
She said many times than AB was a "commercial move" from the band, while "defending" ATYCLB... where is logic in that?
What she said there equals with: " a techno record released by a heavy-metal band will sell much because of band's earlier albums"... that's what she said
How is saying "f*ck you" to all that loved their 80's style... an easy move... while going back to a previously succesfull style + making it pop-ishly accesible... a dificult way?
I may agree about the age. But if you're cool like U2, age doesn't matter.
U2girl said:
I think sales of the last two albums are more impressive than Achtung Baby.
2) U2 was riding on the sales from the Joshua Tree/Rattle and Hum period, while having drop in sales with Zooropa and Pop when they were making ATYCLB