No Line On the Horizon-The most underrated album not just by U2 but music in general.

[Canadiens1131]

have you been drinking?

Smile and blow me

 

[BGD75]

I have always loved the album. It is my top 3. I was very happy to see them go in this direction rather than something along the lines of the 'Bomb'

 

[PhilsFan]

The album has no direction. It says it's supposed to be a full album, but there's two contrasting sounds on it. It says it's supposed to be experimental, but basically none of it is (only Cedars sounds like something new). It says it's supposed to be atmospheric, but seems to give up on that idea early on. And the single selection basically was three songs that did what HTDAAB did, but worse.

 

[lazarus]

IGCIIDGCT: the "Baby, baby, baby"-part is excellent.

No. It's one of the most generic, uninspired, embarrassing moments of their entire career, that could have come from a million other cheesy classic rock songs.

Baby baby baby
I know I'm not alone
(repeat)

 

[corianderstem]

I know lyrically that part is weak (although it doesn't bother me like it bothers you), but musically, the song becomes more energized at that point, and from that part to the end, the song improves quite a bit.

 

[monsieur fly]

I think NLOTH is somewhat underrated yes, especially when you consider that the worst album of their career got showered with Grammys and five star reviews (I refer, of course to HTDAAB). NLOTH might not quite reach AB or Pop but it boasts plenty of good songs and some nice detours. Even the songs which didn't quite work had potential. After all CT has become an excellent dance number and SUC might have been brilliant had the Edge bothered to splatter it with some original, funky guitar sounds instead of recycling Jimmy Page riffs.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

It's just not a critical darling...which often times, is a very good thing.
Take (insert token hipster act for the moment) or HTDAAB.
Some will love something just because it's perceived as 'in' no matter how good it is.

You can see historical revisionism spread over the years.
Loveless...Ok Computer...even U2's Pop (going the other way) are all examples of it.
There are countless examples, really. Usually it only takes hold after the 'consensus' has beaten itself into the pop culture psyche.

I would imagine that in 5+ years, NLOTH will be seen by a newer generation of bands as an under-appreciated album. But currently, like the 47 thousand trends that preceded us, it's just not jibing. Neither did Rattle and Hum. or Pop. I personally believe this is because, anyone with a relative clue knew that HTDAAB was getting way too much great pub. And this pop-culture blowback could have been predicted as early as 2005. And that's all it is, pop-culture bullshit. It's only underrated by people you shouldn't want to covet as listeners. Unfortunately U2 do.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

Most underrated U2 albums

1. Pop
2. Zooropa
3. NLOTH

Also, agree with this.

Most overrated: October.
That is to say, there are people who actually think it's good.

 

[cobl04]

if we judge U2 albums solely on the first four songs, it's the best U2 album, seriously, NLOTH-Magnificent-MOS-UC is the most kick-ass quartet of songs they've has ever put together.

i sincerely, utterly, totally, completely, absolutely, passionately, incredulously, seriously, emphatically, strongly disagree with that.

 

[intedomine]

Or, those eight tracks + Winter + Soon + Every Breaking Wave + perhaps one or two others that we haven't heard, but surely exist and are surely better and more fitting than 'the middle three' + a more cohesive/rejigged running order? Could have been sublime. An album album, and a really, really good one.

 

[65980]

It's only underrated by people you shouldn't want to covet as listeners. Unfortunately U2 do.

Best comment yet on this thread. And you've summed up a problem with the band's entire career project of the 2000s, in my opinion.

 

[65980]

Zooropa is their most underrated album.

I assume you weren't around in 1993?

 

[djerdap]

Also, agree with this.

Most overrated: October.
That is to say, there are people who actually think it's good.

I think it's great.

 

[U2girl]

I assume you weren't around in 1993?

We're not talking about 1993.

Out of all the albums - and it's a little early for NLOTH to see where it will end up ultimately (and for better or worse, that is the kind of album you get when you "get lost in the music") - yes, that quick EP/gone album is their most underrated. The last one with a thematic cohesiveness, even it includes the error of not putting the Batman song on it. It gets very little mention in the press, unlike the officially labeled "bad" trio of albums, and pretty much any other U2 record. It feels like it's era ate it up, being overshadowed by AB and Zoo TV in the general media.

 

[Salome]

^ agreed

POP isn't underrated
perhaps it gets a bit too much flack because of being the first album since U2 hit super stardom to disappoint, but that's about it

Zooropa does seem strangely forgotten

No Line ... has the potential to become the most underrated one

 

[doctorwho]

The album has no direction. It says it's supposed to be a full album, but there's two contrasting sounds on it. It says it's supposed to be experimental, but basically none of it is (only Cedars sounds like something new). It says it's supposed to be atmospheric, but seems to give up on that idea early on. And the single selection basically was three songs that did what HTDAAB did, but worse.

Unfortunately, I disagree with you on almost all counts.

One can always cite a few songs on any album that they don't like. If one doesn't like "Crazy Tonight" or "Stand Up Comedy", etc., that's fine. There are songs on every U2 album that I don't like. At best, some I've come to tolerate merely due to the passage of time and repeated listenings.

Assuming that at most, it's just one or two songs that really throw the album off for you, remove them from consideration.

Focus on the rest.

And if NLOTH still doesn't stand out as a great album, then I think you and I have different definitions of great albums. That's fine and perhaps it's the reason why I disagree.

There are plenty of experimental - at least for U2 - songs on NLOTH. "Moment of Surrender" is arguably U2 at their best. But combine that with "Unknown Caller", "Fez: Being Born", "White as Snow" and "Cedars of Lebanon" and you have that more experimental, ambient side that U2 haven't really shown since OS:1 - which wasn't even a U2 album. Add in a few "almost album" tracks, like "Winter" and "Soon" and this point is further emphasized.

U2 did add some rocking songs, like GOYB, but the title track and "Breathe" are amongst U2's best rock songs ever. They rock, without relying on some catchy rift (like GOYB). This is what makes them not only great songs, but great album songs.

And there are a few songs, like "Magnificent", that may be more classic U2 sounding. But what's wrong with U2 sounding like U2? It's that sound that caused many of us to fall for U2.

In other words, NLOTH has some "pop" material on it, but it has great rock songs, classic U2 sound and some wondeful ambient and experimental tracks. The album flows, but not the way JT flows - where all the songs tend to blend together. Rather, the flow of the songs makes sense. GOYB, even if one doesn't like it, is perfectly placed on the album to wake things up.

Overall, this is, for me, one of U2's best albums. I readily put it up there with AB and TUF, my other two favorite U2 albums.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

I agree that the single selection did them no favors.
But most specifically Boots (aka, trying to pass off another Vertigo).

Not that there aren't differences in those two songs, but you have to have a moderately sophisticated ear to tell the difference. How many consumers of music have that kind of ear? Look at the charts.

 

[cjboog]

I agree with the sentiment of the original post that NLOTH is a fantastic, brilliant album that is quite underrated. That said, the important question is -- "Underrated with who?"

No Line is underrated among the general public and many music listeners in general. As an example, RateYourMusic.com is the most popular music rating site on the internet (that I am aware of). The album currently has 2.9/5 after nearly 1,600 ratings. By comparison, Joshua Tree has 3.9/5 and Achtung Baby has 3.84/5. I agree that the album is also underrated by "casual" fans who loved Beautiful Day -- the low sales numbers (compared to past albums) reflect a lot of people probably heard Boots and thought "No thanks" on buying it. Then again, album sales are declining overall and when you adjust for the average album sales per year, NLOTH does not stack up too bad against many previous U2 albums that were thought to be fairly commercially successful.

At the same time, the album did get many extremely positive reviews from critics (perfect ratings from Rolling Stone, Q, Blender, USA Today, People) and an overall positive critical reaction. It is also well loved by the U2 fanbase and I would bet if you took a poll on interference it would rank as U2's 3rd or 4th best album -- right on par with Unforgettable Fire. There have been recent album ranking threads where NLOTH has performed very well.

My own opinion on the album is that take out Boots, Crazy, and Stand Up -- add Soon and Every Breaking Wave and you have about as close to a flawless masterpiece as you can get. That being said, I like all three of those songs to varying extents, and they all work in that they are good songs and they don't "ruin" the album or anything like that. The other songs are almost all fantastic. Magnificent, Breathe, and Moment of Surrender just take me to another world...Overall the album is incredible -- I think it will always remain a favorite among true U2 fans.

 

[cjboog]

Then again, album sales are declining overall and when you adjust for the average album sales per year, NLOTH does not stack up too bad against many previous U2 albums that were thought to be fairly commercially successful.

Just to clarify for those who may not follow peeling off the dollars bills...

In 2004, HTDAAB sold something like 3.2 million copies in the US while there were something like 667 million albums sold overall.

In 2009, NLOTH sold something like 1.1 million copies in the US while there were about 374 million albums sold overall. When you "adjust" for the decline of CD sales in general... in 2004 terms NLOTH sold about 2 million in the US... probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million in 2000 terms.

SO -- the idea that it had "low sales" contributes to the perception that it was not received well among the general public. And that's not entirely fair when you consider what's happening to CD sales in general.

 

[roy]

i sincerely, utterly, totally, completely, absolutely, passionately, incredulously, seriously, emphatically, strongly disagree with that.

 

[nirniva]

I agree with the sentiment of the original post that NLOTH is a fantastic, brilliant album that is quite underrated. That said, the important question is -- "Underrated with who?"

No Line is underrated among the general public and many music listeners in general. As an example, RateYourMusic.com is the most popular music rating site on the internet (that I am aware of). The album currently has 2.9/5 after nearly 1,600 ratings. By comparison, Joshua Tree has 3.9/5 and Achtung Baby has 3.84/5. I agree that the album is also underrated by "casual" fans who loved Beautiful Day -- the low sales numbers (compared to past albums) reflect a lot of people probably heard Boots and thought "No thanks" on buying it. Then again, album sales are declining overall and when you adjust for the average album sales per year, NLOTH does not stack up too bad against many previous U2 albums that were thought to be fairly commercially successful.

At the same time, the album did get many extremely positive reviews from critics (perfect ratings from Rolling Stone, Q, Blender, USA Today, People) and an overall positive critical reaction. It is also well loved by the U2 fanbase and I would bet if you took a poll on interference it would rank as U2's 3rd or 4th best album -- right on par with Unforgettable Fire. There have been recent album ranking threads where NLOTH has performed very well.

My own opinion on the album is that take out Boots, Crazy, and Stand Up -- add Soon and Every Breaking Wave and you have about as close to a flawless masterpiece as you can get. That being said, I like all three of those songs to varying extents, and they all work in that they are good songs and they don't "ruin" the album or anything like that. The other songs are almost all fantastic. Magnificent, Breathe, and Moment of Surrender just take me to another world...Overall the album is incredible -- I think it will always remain a favorite among true U2 fans.

We have a winner.

 

[Miss_Pop]

I think the person who made this topic wasn't drunk. I agree with that NLOTH is one of the underrated albums or rated not so high as it deserves. The last several months, even years, I've got a feeling that new albums of "old" bands don't receive good reviews or marks of fans (even fans!) undeservdly. Maybe, fans are waiting for the albums like classic ones (regarding U2, like "Achtung baby", "Joshua tree"), but I can't understand why people don't like new GOOD records much, and, most of all, I'm getting angry because of the fact that now the "old" bands prefer to give 80% of their concerts to the "old good hits". Depeche Mode played in their latest tour by its end only 4 compositions from 13, Duran Duran almost always play their hits of 1981-1985, and U2 - do you notice? - pulled "Unknown caller" and "No line..." out of setlist! As for me, it's very strange and it annoys me! I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

I think Pop is U2's most underrated album.

Yes, I agree with you. I agree that Zooropa is underrated in some part, but NLOTH is too underrated. Can anyone explain me why "All that you can't leave behind" is highly rated, as I read in some articles? Personally, I think NLOTH is much more intersting by its arrangements and music than HTDAAB and ATYCLB.

Maybe, I've just got worked up, and forgive me if I have. I'm judging by the situation in Russia where I live.

 

[Tinwal]

NLOTH is a great album IMO. I thought Boots was cool. I agree that Zooropa, Pop and NLOTH are underrated but these (along with AB) are my fave albums because they are pushing the sound of the group. I will never understand why HTDAAB won so many awards. I hope the band continue to put out music that they find interesting even if it is under appreciated. They can afford, and they should, take risks.

 

[Miss_Pop]

I have always loved the album. It is my top 3. I was very happy to see them go in this direction rather than something along the lines of the 'Bomb'.

I'm with you.

I will never understand why HTDAAB won so many awards.

I feel the same about "All that you can't leave behind".

I hope the band continue to put out music that they find interesting even if it is under appreciated. They can afford, and they should, take risks.

Yes. As I read in one music article, it was said by one journalist that sometimes "failed" in the charts song is not bad sign. Controversial, but, as for me, can be sometimes true.

 

[djparky]

GOYB was a poor lead sinlge- Magnificent was the more obvious choice- but then it bombed (here in the UK anyway) as the second single- so perhaps it wouldn't have made any difference. CT barely scraped the Top 40 singles and that was probably as much to do with the Blackberry ad as anything else

I personally like the album alot- but those 3 songs in the middle really mess up the mood of it- aside from perhaps feeling that they "needed" a mainstream song or two- I can't see why they weren't brave enough to carry on with some of the more interesting stuff that flanks those 3 songs

as for sales- in comparison it didn't do so well, but then aside from Lady Gaga cd sales have crashed through the floor in the last couple of years- and I believe NLOTH was the second best selling album in the US behind Lady Gaga last year

U2 seem to have lost confidence in it- my guess is that the next album will see them going back to Beautiful Day/ Elevation/Vertigo mode to try and get that "hit" single again- but will be interesting to see what happens- they may have slipped into that nether world where they simply can't get a big hit song anymore

 

[djparky]

I think the person who made this topic wasn't drunk. I agree with that NLOTH is one of the underrated albums or rated not so high as it deserves. The last several months, even years, I've got a feeling that new albums of "old" bands don't receive good reviews or marks of fans (even fans!) undeservdly. Maybe, fans are waiting for the albums like classic ones (regarding U2, like "Achtung baby", "Joshua tree"), but I can't understand why people don't like new GOOD records much, and, most of all, I'm getting angry because of the fact that now the "old" bands prefer to give 80% of their concerts to the "old good hits". Depeche Mode played in their latest tour by its end only 4 compositions from 13, Duran Duran almost always play their hits of 1981-1985, and U2 - do you notice? - pulled "Unknown caller" and "No line..." out of setlist! As for me, it's very strange and it annoys me! I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.



Yes, I agree with you. I agree that Zooropa is underrated in some part, but NLOTH is too underrated. Can anyone explain me why "All that you can't leave behind" is highly rated, as I read in some articles? Personally, I think NLOTH is much more intersting by its arrangements and music than HTDAAB and ATYCLB.

Maybe, I've just got worked up, and forgive me if I have. I'm judging by the situation in Russia where I live.

having been a Duran fan since the early days- yes they pretty much always play the hits from 81-85 plus a handful of others from later years. much as I like the songs it gets tedious hearing them every time. I know with DD that they try different songs, but lose confidence in their ability to play them, so revert back to the ones they've played the most

Saw Dep Mode on the SOTU tour and they only played 4 new songs (and not the best ones either)- the other new tracks got dropped very quickly. That said the previous tour had alot more new material in it. Oasis played more or less the same songs on every tour from Be Here Now onwards- plus 4 or 5 new album songs depending on which album they were touring with

and they do this because they're playing to 80% of the audience who are probably casual fans who want to hear the hits- and U2 are aware of that as well.

I saw Green Day recently and I fell into the 80%- I wanted to hear the hits not obscure album tracks that I don't know- they played all the songs I wanted to hear- Green Day fanatics are probably quite bored of Jesus of Surburbia or Boulevard of Broken Dreams- but I loved hearing them

 

[Swan269]

I think the media bought it too hard and quick. (i think most people view it as a grower) and U2 I think has "undersold" some real parts of the album that make it interesting. Its like they only sold a couple of "colours", unlike POP and Achtung in which the band really went to the limits to show all angles of what they were trying to do (IMO).

 

[Niceman]

I think it's an amazing album! Under-rated, over-rated? It certainly has been a "sleeper." The world didn't notice it!

 

[zooropop40]

Why does it matter what the general public thinks? I mean art is personal, and I think if YOU like the album than that is all that matters. U2 needs to stop focusing on what is "cool" and "popular" and just focus on making the art they want to make. It may be "underrated" by the general public, but when you look at history there are countless things the general public have been wrong about. Do I personally think NLOTH is underrated? Sure. But does it matter to me as a listener? No, not really.

 

[shart1780]

I think people are forgetting the fact that this guy said it's the most underrated album by ANY band.