Well how do you define a U2 fan? I don't consider somebody who likes Beautiful Day/Vertigo and then buys ATYCLB/HTDAAB a U2 fan, it's just a fan of that album. I'm sure there were a lot more people like that for ATYCLB and HTDAAB than for NLOTH because of the lead single, "backlash".
Roughly 3 months later, where does NLOTH fall in your album rankings
- Thread starter mikal
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
That would be a good argument if the ability to steal/download the music without buying it was as prevelant then as it is now. In 2004 it was getting there but nothing like it is now.
Regarding the earlier '00 albums being better therefore people rejected NLOTH because it didn't sound like U2 then or what was thought they should sound like - begins to fall into the category of the American Idol type of music.
It just goes to show that a large majority of the buying public fall into the the category of "tell me what I should like/buy.
NLOTH is one of the best albums U2 have put out since Zooropa, POP.
I know they want the next ATYCLB or HTDAAB, but they've been there done that.
They really do know how to do it, and need to follow their talent and not so called critics/opinion. (Not that they've done this so much)
(With that said, there was a tremendous amount of acclaim for this album that was not received by people who don't pay attention.)
I'm not perceiving any "U2 backlash" at all in 2009/2010. If you were a U2 fan back in 1989 or 1997/98, the backlash then (in North America, that is) was significant amongst the "hipper" fan and in the music media. But it was also tempered by the fact that, even though they had fallen out of criticial favor, they were still shifting 7 to 10 million copies of those "failed" albums. As Paul McGuinness said: "Rattle & Hum was perceived in some quarters as a failure, but it sold 10 million copies. That is the kind of failure I can live with."
To contrast those times with now, I don't perceive the same thing happening. U2 are, in my opinion, essentially beyond "backlashes" in a sense now, and have been since 2000-2001. It's true that the album didn't really take off at the mainstream level they all might have hoped for, but I don't sense any hatred for them. If anything, it's more like indifference.
Most "big" bands have one backlash and then they either finish or they soldier on, eventually receiving grudging respect for it. In U2's case, they had two major backlashes, which is amazing because it shows how "big" they are to reach that mainstream level in two decades. But the main reason they're kind of beyond the 'backlash' level now is simply that they're old.
It's kind of like: no matter how annoying and drunk Grandpa gets at a family reunion, he's still Grandpa, so you can't really get mad at him anymore like you could when he was 40.
To contrast those times with now, I don't perceive the same thing happening. U2 are, in my opinion, essentially beyond "backlashes" in a sense now, and have been since 2000-2001. It's true that the album didn't really take off at the mainstream level they all might have hoped for, but I don't sense any hatred for them. If anything, it's more like indifference.
Most "big" bands have one backlash and then they either finish or they soldier on, eventually receiving grudging respect for it. In U2's case, they had two major backlashes, which is amazing because it shows how "big" they are to reach that mainstream level in two decades. But the main reason they're kind of beyond the 'backlash' level now is simply that they're old.
It's kind of like: no matter how annoying and drunk Grandpa gets at a family reunion, he's still Grandpa, so you can't really get mad at him anymore like you could when he was 40.
the difference is, no album even sold 10 million last year. not a one, judging by the list taken from soundscan and posted on here. it's an unfair comparison just to judge numbers like that when nothing is selling like that these days.
unfortunately all these sites are mean and won't make their data public without subscribing to it, but the most i can find out is that rattle and hum did not make it to the top 10 albums of 1989. (since it was released in november, i figured that was a fairer comparison than its initial release of 1988.) nloth was #22 for this year. so even if rattle and hum was #11, that's not too ridiculous of a difference.
basically, if you're going to criticize an album and call it poor-performing, use facts to back it up rather than your opinions and invalid data.
Saracene
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Well, unlike hardcore fans who'll get the album without prompting, casual fans need more persuasion. So if the singles don't take off, and especially if the first single gets an overwhelmingly negative reaction, you're unlikely to win over the casual crowd. Plus, I think that people often reach a kind of "ceiling" with the band where they go, well I already have a few albums by these guys, do I really need another one.
You appear to have completely missed my point, either because I wrote poorly or because you didn't read carefully.
I was not attempting to compare album sales at all. I was just pointing out that the "backlashes" of 1989 and 1997-98 were tempered by big sales, at a time when U2's cultural currency was a bit higher than now. I also stated that I don't feel there is any U2 backlash right now -- there is simply a bit of indifference at the top-40, mainstream level. I was not attempting to denigrate the recent album due to album sales -- if anything, I feel the current album has had neither a positive nor negative impact on the mainstream public's perception of U2. In fact, I don't think U2's album sales from here on in will matter much to the public's perception of them.
This was the point of my original post--it looks like we're in agreement.
I'm leaning toward this theory: NLOTH's relative failure in popularity compared with ATYCLB and HTDAAB is due primarily to the discrepancy in first single popularity, as well as (to a lesser extent) the failure of the other two singles. And I think this failure (of the singles) is due less to the inherent worth of the songs than to the their release timing, release order, and promotion. If U2 had a HOT first single--say as hot as Beautiful Day--you would have seen this album get more 5 star reviews and sell much better-- even with everything else being exactly the same on the album. That's my guess. The hardcore online community is somewhat 'outside' of these factors (i.e. single popularity, critical reception), and therefore can make a more purely subjective assessment of the album than those who are relying on numbers and radio play. And if people don't listen to albums as a whole, then the lack of a 'Beautiful Day' is a major failing. For complete album listeners, it's borderline irrelevant.
I think a little U2 was bound to get less overall loving after succesful 2001 and 2004 (and Bono anti-sentiment and Ageing isn't doing them any favours). Also unlike its two predecessors (being a pop and retro album), NLOTH isn't nearly as coherent in its ideas and execution.
I think that's debatable. I think the first four and the final four tracks of NLOTH are as coherent (as separate '4-pieces' and as an '8-piece') as anything they've ever done. I'm referring to the coherence of ideas, execution, music, and lyrics.
As far as age goes, that's a tough one to figure out. Everything that people say about U2 being old now was being said in 2000 (and probably earlier, although that's as far back as my own fandom goes). U2's in uncharted territory here and they are rewriting the rules for age in rock and roll. We'll only know the negative effects of their age (and whether there is a cut-off or something) in hindsight...and even then we'll be 'seeing through a glass darkly'.
I agree those songs work (and the album as a whole - unlike other U2 post Zooropa albums, I feel like I'm missing something if I don't play it in full).
What I mean though is the general plan: writing pop/accessible/joyful songs on ATYCLB for the most part worked (a few misfires in the second half aside). Writing retro U2, with a more prominent guitar worked for Bomb.
With NLOTH, it's more mixed. I liked Bono's in character writing but he didn't pursue it for the whole album (it's nice to hear they have a tight idea for SOA). Musically, it has some sounds from the 80's, some of the 90's and some 00's with a touch of new (MOS, WAS, maybe NLOTH minus The Fly-ish riff).
Well, even at 40 they were pushing it to try and compete with the young ones on the charts. It was outright incredible it worked with Vertigo, and maybe NLOTH is showing U2 is just too old to be hip and cool and on the charts.
What I mean though is the general plan: writing pop/accessible/joyful songs on ATYCLB for the most part worked (a few misfires in the second half aside). Writing retro U2, with a more prominent guitar worked for Bomb.
With NLOTH, it's more mixed. I liked Bono's in character writing but he didn't pursue it for the whole album (it's nice to hear they have a tight idea for SOA). Musically, it has some sounds from the 80's, some of the 90's and some 00's with a touch of new (MOS, WAS, maybe NLOTH minus The Fly-ish riff).
Well, even at 40 they were pushing it to try and compete with the young ones on the charts. It was outright incredible it worked with Vertigo, and maybe NLOTH is showing U2 is just too old to be hip and cool and on the charts.
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Everything you said is correct except that music today isn't reconized by hard core fan sales. The only thing close to music and or videos are judged by people who can sit on the internet and vote on VH1 for their favorite video or vote over and over for an American Idol.. If you are not doing that and are a U2 fan, (which I've done) face it, U2 are not popular, by mainstreme standards.
CD sales are no longer a factor in what is relevant in music.
U2 still sells out every fucking concert tour, and I don't care what anyone says, that is relevant.
I just can't figure out how they do it.
They are so old and not relevant and no one likes them anymore. Their best music is behind them, blah, blah, blah. and everyone wants them.
Just like any other family, Bono needs Edge to support him because he doesn't think he's as good as he is. Edge needs to do this because Edge knows he is brilliant but humble and has to keep Bono in check. Larry and Adam know all this and pull it all together when needed.
NLOTH is one of the albums I get cravings for. UF and JT and AB come in after.
The_acrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I think U2 finally has passed the point that few other bands have passed. Their reputation alone will ensure many years of successful touring. And I have to give them credit for hanging in as long as they did. Few bands from the 80s survived into the 90s. Few bands from the 90s survived into the 00s. U2 is the only band to endure for that long while keeping their original line-up, and not really fucking up that much along the way.
They are now in an awkward position. NLOTH/U2 are completely IRRELEVANT in this current music scene. And yet, the U2 360 tour is well on track to being the most succesful concert tour ever. They are in grave danger of becoming the next Rolling Stones. Completely irrelevant in today's music scene, yet still sell a boatload of tickets and gross hundreds of millions. If nobody is going to buy their new albums anyway, why spend a lot of time/effort/money recording a new album when you can just throw something together, release it and focus their efforts another mega-grossing tour.
Maybe this is just another backlash like in 1988 or 1997. A natural reaction to the great success they had 2000-2006. The question is, will U2 do what it takes to get out of this slump again, or will they just coast along until they fade away? They are too old (and set in their ways) to do another re-invention Achtung/Zooropa phase, and they've already playd their "back to basics/retro" card. So what can they do now? They're on the verge of 50. I hope they can bounce back at least one more time and then maybe end on a high note.
They are now in an awkward position. NLOTH/U2 are completely IRRELEVANT in this current music scene. And yet, the U2 360 tour is well on track to being the most succesful concert tour ever. They are in grave danger of becoming the next Rolling Stones. Completely irrelevant in today's music scene, yet still sell a boatload of tickets and gross hundreds of millions. If nobody is going to buy their new albums anyway, why spend a lot of time/effort/money recording a new album when you can just throw something together, release it and focus their efforts another mega-grossing tour.
Maybe this is just another backlash like in 1988 or 1997. A natural reaction to the great success they had 2000-2006. The question is, will U2 do what it takes to get out of this slump again, or will they just coast along until they fade away? They are too old (and set in their ways) to do another re-invention Achtung/Zooropa phase, and they've already playd their "back to basics/retro" card. So what can they do now? They're on the verge of 50. I hope they can bounce back at least one more time and then maybe end on a high note.
Couldn't agree more.
"Completely irrelevant" might be overstating it -- I'm not sure anyone is "relevant" in the hyper-everything / digital music age -- but you make another good point.
Logic suggests you are right again, but I wouldn't bet against the old codgers yet. Some people (including me) thought they were likely washed up in 1990-91, yet they made a stunning about-turn and entered a second career phase, just as vital creatively (and successful commercially) as the first. Even more people, including me, were certain they were washed-up by 1999-2000, and then they made another stunning commercial comeback (of artistic value, too, but of more debatable quality). They've been navigating uncharted waters for 9 years or so, so only they know where they're going.
I agree with everything you said but if anyone can be 50-something and relevant, it's them.
ozeeko
Refugee
I think it would be wise for Bono and Edge to stop being "rock stars". Mick and Keith, as old as they are, they can get away with being rock stars. Know why? Because they were from the beginning!
U2 were never your typical rock stars. They were anti-rock stars in the 80s, and ironic rock stars in the 90s. But never were they all out irony free rock stars. That is, in my opinion, not until Vertigo came out!
U2 being straight up "rockers" always just felt wrong to me.
When i hear people say "i want the new album to rock" i say "heeeellllll no!" Unless by rock you mean dark moody sound paintings similar to AB. But garage band riffs? I don't think i can handle any more of those tunes.
What should U2 do? They look at these tunes: MOS, WAS, COL, F-BB...and say "these sounded like the start of something new, let's explore that world some more"...and then look at GOYB, SUC, Breathe and CT and go "it was fun while it lasted". They need to STOP being "rock stars" in the traditional sense, and start being U2, the alternative to "rock", again.
U2 were never your typical rock stars. They were anti-rock stars in the 80s, and ironic rock stars in the 90s. But never were they all out irony free rock stars. That is, in my opinion, not until Vertigo came out!
U2 being straight up "rockers" always just felt wrong to me.
When i hear people say "i want the new album to rock" i say "heeeellllll no!" Unless by rock you mean dark moody sound paintings similar to AB. But garage band riffs? I don't think i can handle any more of those tunes.
What should U2 do? They look at these tunes: MOS, WAS, COL, F-BB...and say "these sounded like the start of something new, let's explore that world some more"...and then look at GOYB, SUC, Breathe and CT and go "it was fun while it lasted". They need to STOP being "rock stars" in the traditional sense, and start being U2, the alternative to "rock", again.
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
What?
What is a rock star in the the traditional sense??.
(as I listen to a commercial for Nascar, playing Bad)
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I think that the difference with the reception of these 3 albums is different in a tridimensional way.
ATYCLB/HTDAAB were very well received and got some of U2's strongest reviews since JT/AB. The deal is that, after the hype died, these two albums, in some paradoxal way, started to get some of U2's more negative reviews and hype ever.
I feel that 2000's general backlash was bigger than the Pop's backlash and, while Pop's quality has been growing lately on the last years (and the "Pop is a dance music album" myth as been disbelieved), I'm not sure that the same's gonna happen with NLOTH's 2 antecessors.
The deal with NLOTH seems different. Definitely, NLOTH didn't attract the overall public's attention (I feel that even Pop was more or so sucessful as NLOTH in this aspect). I think this might be one of the main reasons why NLOTH's reception and critiques have been pretty consistent, whether when it was released or now, a year later.
Plus, there's something that I hear a lot that I didn't about ATYCLB or HTDAAB, which is the idea that nobody listened to those songs and that there are too much good gems that the public didn't get the chance to listen to.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I don't think so. I don't think that the media and the critiques would've forgive U2 if they used the same "formula" they did on the last two albums (strong very catchy first single, which is track 1 as well, etc etc etc).
If we're reminded, NLOTH didn't attract better reviews because of the songs that were still pasted to the last two albums' environment.
The thing is that U2's second guessing (as always on this decade) left them half way in everything little thing about NLOTH.
NLOTH is a departure from ATYCLB/HTDAAB, but some moments are too stuck in those albums; "Get On Your Boots" looks like "Vertigo" part II, but in the end is not as catchy and as "friendly" as it seems at "first sight" (so, it's not "in your face", but it's not too underground for U2); they wanted to go ahead with things like "Being Born" and "Moment Of Surrender", but they couldn't avoid "Crazy Tonight" and "Stand Up Comedy"... I think these are the main reasons why (even though for me NLOTH is much better than ATYCLB and HTDAAB), it struggled to get attention and better reviews, because the public/critics felt it.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I don't know what you're talking about...
I think Bomb may have not aged as well as it was originally received but ATYCLB's reception has remained pretty consistent.
I'm not sure how you are judging which backlash was bigger but there is no way the "2000's backlash" is bigger than Pop's. You can't argue it from a sales perspective, a concert perspective or a critics perspective...
What are you basing the "Pop's quality has been growing lately" statement on? That doesn't even make sense.
NLOTH was still the second biggest seller of the year, so how anyone can say it didn't attract the public's attention is a little perplexing.
I think Bomb may have not aged as well as it was originally received but ATYCLB's reception has remained pretty consistent.
I'm not sure how you are judging which backlash was bigger but there is no way the "2000's backlash" is bigger than Pop's. You can't argue it from a sales perspective, a concert perspective or a critics perspective...
What are you basing the "Pop's quality has been growing lately" statement on? That doesn't even make sense.
NLOTH was still the second biggest seller of the year, so how anyone can say it didn't attract the public's attention is a little perplexing.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Bingo. I don't know if U2 has already thought about it, but it's pretty clear and inevitable that they're becoming the exact same thing that Rolling Stones are these days.
But it is no one's fault but U2's. They're the ones who choosed to revive the past for too much time and who tryed to compete with newer acts that have completly different audiences, specially in an era where the industry changed violently. U2 didn't notice that that and they're losing the battle because they thought they could compete with someone who are in a different category.
Plus, a huge part of U2's consistent backlash of the 2000's decade is due to... Bono (as almost always).
I'm amazed that once again a short period of time I agree with ozeeko. To the "audiences' eyes" U2 were never the typical rock back, whether we're talking about the members' posture or U2's career moves or sonic landscapes. The fact that they constantly renewed the way the presented that "anti-rock" stereotype is probably the main reason why they were able to stay relevant in the mainstream for so many time until a few years ago.
Plus, Bono has really become The Fly and that certainly agravates the backlash created around the band. And this time it's gonna take more to erase it, because U2 allowed the same kind of backlash for too many time.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Nobody talks about NLOTH for many months ago. NLOTH's mediatic hype was way shorter than the other albums, even Pop maybe. In a general way, in the overall public, everybody knows that U2 has a sold out worldwide stadium tour with a huge stage, but who remembers "Get On Your Boots" and NLOTH's name today?I don't know what you're talking about...
I think Bomb may have not aged as well as it was originally received but ATYCLB's reception has remained pretty consistent.
I'm not sure how you are judging which backlash was bigger but there is no way the "2000's backlash" is bigger than Pop's. You can't argue it from a sales perspective, a concert perspective or a critics perspective...
What are you basing the "Pop's quality has been growing lately" statement on? That doesn't even make sense.
NLOTH was still the second biggest seller of the year, so how anyone can say it didn't attract the public's attention is a little perplexing.
I don't know if others noticed it, but one thing I've been noticing is that some albums (from popular bands/artists) that received poorer critics or even some backlash started to earn some recognizement and even considered as unfairly overlooked great albums by some general public (specially on the internet community). Pop has been one of those albums.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Pop was released in the day and age that U2 should have been at their height, this album should have exploded, they were still in the day and age of MTV as well... so it's mediatic hype given the context should have been huge and yet it for the most part fizzled(mainly due to the Disco video and the Vegas opening night fiasco in my opinion). So the two aren't even coparable... The industry and scene are completely different, and age has a lot to do with it. Given this context U2 is actually doing pretty well for themselves, no where near Rolling Stones status yet.
I love Pop, I think like NLOTH it's disjointed, but still a solid album. But I think this is wishful thinking on your part. I don't think it's reception has changed all that much. Not in here, and definately not outside the world of U2 internet sites. In fact I think if anything it might be the opposite, I think out of all U2 albums, this and War have the most songs that sound dated...
These 'historical summary' threads are always interesting, but no simplified theory or scenario ever does justice to the reality. I do, however, agree that there's something to the notion that U2 had, pre 2000s, managed to become super-popular only by subverting the idea of pop/popularity in the current music scene. JT vs. the mid/late 80s, AB/Zoo TV vs. grunge (becoming rock stars when being a rock star had never been less cool). The problem is that you need a really fucking great album to do this, to subvert the current music scene. I still think U2 can do this if they're willing to try. I think that they almost went there with NLOTH; the initial plan certainly seemed to be more in this direction. But there is a bigger risk with attempting something ambitious that's 'out of time'--total irrelevancy/rejection from modern music listeners. If it works, you're game-changers. If not, you're simply out of touch.
I'm keeping the faith.
I'm keeping the faith.
If U2 aren't supposed to revive the past, and they aren't supposed to compete for a new audience, what are they supposed to do? Dump Radiohead-like material on the old pre-Achtung Baby fanbase?
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
But to keep on making and presenting something new doesn't have to conflict what you suggested...
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
So, according to this post, there are only three potential artistic directions an artist can persue:
1. Remake their early work
2. Sell out
3. Purposely befuddle their fanbase
If U2 is as creatively vital at this stage of their career as so many here claim them to be, I think they can manage a record that retains their classic sound and ideals while utilizing creative song structures and production. Hell, they almost got there with NLOTH. I just hope they aren't satisfied with falling a few feet short.
roy
Refugee
Eh....NLOTH was the 4th best selling album in the entire world released in 2009. Name me a Rolling Stones album that comes anywhere near to that in the last 20 years.
IRRELEVANT my arse.
People who spout these lazy arguments need to get a grip.
^
also don't get why so many people see NLOTH as a commercial failure. It might not have sold as much as previous albums but if you call it a failure when an album sells more than 3.5 million (in the current music industry) you're not easily satisfied.
also don't get why so many people see NLOTH as a commercial failure. It might not have sold as much as previous albums but if you call it a failure when an album sells more than 3.5 million (in the current music industry) you're not easily satisfied.
ozeeko
Refugee
It's not that us fans see NLOTH as a commercial failure, it's that U2 themselves see NLOTH as a commercial failure. And that's never a good thing.
The_acrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Yes, NLOTH was still one of the year's biggest sellers despite a hit single. A LOT of people bought it (or illegally downloaded it) based solely on the U2 name. I can list probably 10 people I know who bought or "obtained" the album who simply do not like it. I know all music is subjective, but I also know that most of them are casual fans who do not like it because it doesn't sound like classic U2. My brother, formerly HUGE fan (almost as much as me 
) feels NLOTH is an average album full of average musicianship. Another friend, who came into U2 during HTDAAB days, says the only good songs are Crazy Tonight and NLOTH. He also said "every time Bono gets a haircut, U2 make a bad album"... he almost got punched for that remark.
So while it sold a decent amount considering the state of the industry/economy, that doesn't mean it was well received or even well liked. Personally I love the album, but I felt most of the songs fell flat live. My wife, on the other hand, thinks it's U2's best album, so who knows?
) feels NLOTH is an average album full of average musicianship. Another friend, who came into U2 during HTDAAB days, says the only good songs are Crazy Tonight and NLOTH. He also said "every time Bono gets a haircut, U2 make a bad album"... he almost got punched for that remark. So while it sold a decent amount considering the state of the industry/economy, that doesn't mean it was well received or even well liked. Personally I love the album, but I felt most of the songs fell flat live. My wife, on the other hand, thinks it's U2's best album, so who knows?
Similar threads
