what makes achtung baby so experimental?

[Auhiz]

t8thgr8, it's good to have someone to back you up like that, huh?

Earnie awesome posts dude, very interesting read! You explain your reasoning very well. I saw but didn't read the other thread re: Pop overcorrection, but now know exactly what it was referring to.

After reading your posts it really does make me wonder now what the next progression would have been, -if- there was going to be one. How would it have sounded, I wonder? You seem pretty certain that initially they were still pushing down that path, hinting at it with songs like Stateless and The Ground Beneath Her Feet, both of which I love btw. However I'm not convinced that they would have been up to the task of making the next progression regardless of the fan influence.

Do you think there comes a point where the band might feel that the sounds that they create might be be moving too far away from the essence of who they are as musicians? Sorry if that's not clear, what I mean is.. hm. Well, you know how for most people you can usually look at their music tastes and also the type of person that they are, and sort of almost say well yes that music clearly suits them.. it's in tune with their soul, in a sense? They can relate to it, it strikes a chord with them, whatever. What if where U2 were initially headed after Pop turned out to be too much of a departure from the essence of who they are as musicians? What if they reached a point where they could still 'relate' to the stripped down, acoustic core of the songs they wrote as they always have, but perhaps no longer the version once the layers of their new progression had been applied? (Sorry if that doesn't make sense)

Also, I guess there's simply the question of creative peak, as in would they have been up to the task even if it they'd wanted to? All artists, not just musicians, seem to have their creative peak. In the case of writers for eg, their writings shift from being sharp and relevant, to vague or irrelevant dotages. Yeah, just like this post. Although, I think in the case of U2.. the last 2 albums are evidence that their songwriting is still very strong. Give me the acoustic versions of those songs over the stripped down, acoustic versions of the songs on Pop anyday.

(Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting U2 will soon slip into their dotage phase, just throwing it out there..)

 

[Auhiz]

Artists can tackle a huge variety of musical directions, but that doesn't necessarily make them or their music "experimental". No one would ever think of calling Christina Aguilera or Pink "experimental", for example, even though their second albums were drastically different to their first. If U2 have started out their career with an album like Zooropa and then released Boy as their second album, I doubt anyone would have described Boy as an "experimental" album either. It seems like you need to dabble in a very specific style of music in order to be called "experimental".

Yeah true, another example is Pearl Jam who seem to love throwing in one or more 'left-of-centre' songs on each of their albums (since Vitalogy, anyway). You'd hardly consider them experimental though.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I'll never know why US market gets continuously singled out for the poor sales of POP. Here in Australia it wasn't exactly selling like hotcakes either.

It was in the 10 highest selling albums in Australia in 1997. As in, the overall total at the end of the year.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I'm really, really tired and I'm not going to get into another 50 paragraph rant, which I could easily do, except at this point to say -

- I think U2's next shift was coming after Pop, regardless of whether it sold 7 million or 40 million.

- I think that would have gone in a few possible directions and it depends on what was really in the bands head/heart (and we just don't know). My blind guess....

Stateless. Stateless after Pop sounds like The Joshua Tree after The Unforgettable Fire. Imagine UF was a debut album. In parts it's kinda shakey, not so sure of itself. The second album arrives and it's confident. It's assured. It's cleaner. It's got it's shit together. It's learned from last time. It's adjusted it's flight path. Stateless to me really sounds like a song written and recorded by a band who wrote and recorded Pop, heard and identified it's flaws, and corrected them the next time around. The key parts to the formula are identical to anything on Pop (particularly it's closest cousins - If God Will Send and Velvet Dress), but the execution is perfect. But we all know that there'd only be 2 or 3 songs of that vibe on there and there'd be the big rockers as well. I can only drool as my imagination runs wild at what they would sound like. To deny Pop it's mammoth rock status is just plain wrong. It's a mother of a rock album and that may have been the tip of the iceberg that would lead to "Edge falling in love with his guitar again", which, despite the bluster we simply have not heard. Neither ATYCLB or HTDAAB rock as much or hard as Pop. "Restraint" is what has happened to Edge on those two. But what if.... the sound of Edge led the charge from the front. Completely and totally. Achtung Baby pt II, but not as Achtung Baby sounds at all. Achtung Baby ONLY in the sense that it is guitar driven, but compeltely rhythm fueled, but with the BIG sound they were fumbling with on Pop, but yet still basic and clean. I dunno, it's hard. I've ended that early, just cut it short because I'm falling asleep here at my keyboard and can't really put my thoughts together. Even the melodies, structures, of the songs that ended up on ATYCLB & HTDAAB would sound great put the through the post-Pop machine (Bono should have been sent back to the drawing board both times for better lyrics - far, far better), but that's where the differences lie, the changes made not through natural progression but through them - for whatever reason and from whatever source - thinking that everyone was crying out for them to "Simplify it dammit!!! Simplify!"

I adore Pop as if it were my own child, but I have no problem admitting that it most definitely has it's rushed flaws. There's no doubt that even if it sold double that the band would have seen it to and made the right changes and corrections. I just really wish the reaction to that had been "OK, you fell, learn from the mistake, now get back on that horse dammit!!!" but it wasn't and I think it severely effected what they do. They are still writing the core of what is a great song. Definitely. The above comment about acoustic versions is a good way to put it. What they build on top, where the influences and creativity take hold, that has been stripped right away to virtually nothing. There are hints here and there, but for the most part it is all about being conservative, not progressive. I desperately want to hear where that progression was headed.

Goodnight!

 

[BVS]

exactly what i was getting at, earnie. youre the only one here with any sense

It's too bad that you never stated any of that in your original post.

 

[BVS]

Ok I agree with what most of the latest posters are saying, that the "experimental" was more internal therefore should be considered more as progression.

But isn't this the case for every band out there labeled as experimental?

 

[U2girl]

It seems a lot of fans fear the S word (songwriting) here. Effects and sound bleeps do not make great songs.

Vertigo, All because of you and Love and peace or else rock harder than anything on Pop. Edge in particular is back on the Bomb - I can't remember the last time I enjoyed his playing so much since AB.

 

[LJT]

Does anybody here really like Electrical Storm and Hands That Built America? Both i think are excellent songs, and i am really in love with Hands at the moment ever since i learnt the almost operatic vocal at the end was Bono and not Pavarotti or someone....

I would love to know those that aren't so fond of the last two albums think of these two songs...personally i think they kinda fit with the Million Dollar Hotel material rather than anything off the last two album..I do love the last two albums but i see them more as a platform for U2 to try something else, and i have been thinking that the 'something else' may be the continuation of what they were doing with Stateless/Ground Beneath Her Feet...

 

[Irishteen]

Hands and Storm are great songs, I love hands

 

[corianderstem]

I love Electrical Storm ... but then again, I like the last two albums. Like Bomb a LOT, usually like ATYCLB, but have been known to gripe about it on bad days.

 

[xtal]

I think Zooropa and Achtung Baby were dubbed as experimental only because one of U2's camp suggested it. Either Bono said, "Oh this is not our normal work." Or something of that sort.

And Pop was never seen as a flop until U2 admitted that they could have done better and remixed some of the songs later on. Pop still sold over ten million albums. That, to me, is not a flop. That's Britney's all time highest selling number.

But you know what, I'm just a fan, not a music critic. I didn't know we had so many critics here.

 

[Auhiz]

Earnie - The next progression in full-blown state would have been interesting, some may have enjoyed it, others not. Maybe U2 themselves happened to be in the latter camp once they'd had a little taste? I guess it comes down to each to their own. Looking at a song like A Man And A Woman for instance, would you have liked to have seen the end result of that run through the post-Pop machine? Can't say I would, but maybe others would disagree.

Incidentally I have a clip of Bono & Edge doing an acoustic, work in progress version of Ground Beneath Her Feet (anyone else hear this?), and I think it sounds fantastic in its stripped back form but again I'm sure others would much prefer the processed version. I think it's still great, the essence of the song is definitely still there. But opinions will always vary wildly about this kind of stuff.

LJT, I also think Electrical Storm and Hands are great songs..

And in the vein of what xtal was saying, I reckon partly the reason Achtung and Zooropa were perceived as experimental was the shift in the attitude of the band itself, in the way it played the media game, etc. They revelled in turning their whole image upside down, if not completely smashing it, by all of a sudden poking fun at the whole rock 'n' roll star life of excess, toying with the media where in the past they'd always been upfront and disarmingly honest. Music itself aside, I think that all of this was enough of a radical departure in their behaviour to help convince a lot of people that they'd all of a sudden gone experimental.

 

[t8thgr8]

It's too bad that you never stated any of that in your original post.

that sass will not be tollerated.

 

[t8thgr8]

Earnie - The next progression in full-blown state would have been interesting, some may have enjoyed it, others not. Maybe U2 themselves happened to be in the latter camp once they'd had a little taste? I guess it comes down to each to their own. Looking at a song like A Man And A Woman for instance, would you have liked to have seen the end result of that run through the post-Pop machine? Can't say I would, but maybe others would disagree.

Incidentally I have a clip of Bono & Edge doing an acoustic, work in progress version of Ground Beneath Her Feet (anyone else hear this?), and I think it sounds fantastic in its stripped back form but again I'm sure others would much prefer the processed version. I think it's still great, the essence of the song is definitely still there. But opinions will always vary wildly about this kind of stuff.

LJT, I also think Electrical Storm and Hands are great songs..

And in the vein of what xtal was saying, I reckon partly the reason Achtung and Zooropa were perceived as experimental was the shift in the attitude of the band itself, in the way it played the media game, etc. They revelled in turning their whole image upside down, if not completely smashing it, by all of a sudden poking fun at the whole rock 'n' roll star life of excess, toying with the media where in the past they'd always been upfront and disarmingly honest. Music itself aside, I think that all of this was enough of a radical departure in their behaviour to help convince a lot of people that they'd all of a sudden gone experimental.

so what change in personality and behavior does u2 have to go to to acheive the achtung level of greatness? what can they possibly act like? and act towards what change since last time it was their own humble and earnest image switched to arrogance and sex? what is their current attitude? and what is the opposite of it?

 

[BVS]

that sass will not be tollerated.

Sass? I was stating a fact, if you want sass take a look at some of your past posts.

Earnie brought a very intelligent analysis to the thread. You claim that's what you were trying to say, but the truth is what Earnie said contradicted what a lot of your post said. Earnie said albums like Zooropa and Pop were still progressive moving forward from AB. Yet you claim AB to the last real album, and make the ever so intelligent analogy that the once hot U2 has now turned into a fat girl.

So don't talk to me about sass, and stick to the debate.

 

[t8thgr8]

Sass? I was stating a fact, if you want sass take a look at some of your past posts.

Earnie brought a very intelligent analysis to the thread. You claim that's what you were trying to say, but the truth is what Earnie said contradicted what a lot of your post said. Earnie said albums like Zooropa and Pop were still progressive moving forward from AB. Yet you claim AB to the last real album, and make the ever so intelligent analogy that the once hot U2 has now turned into a fat girl.

So don't talk to me about sass, and stick to the debate.

ok, you wanna bust my balls?

his post and my post were the same idea worded differently. i never said that pop and zooropa werent progressive or that achtung baby was the last 'real' record. youre putting words in my mouth. now, i did say that achtung baby was the last proper record, in that it was the last time they were together, as a unit, for more than 6 weeks, with little or no outside influences. bono has his voice in top form, edge was all into this new sound, larry was fine, no wrists, backs or whatnots keeping him from performing, adam, chillin.

nowadays, bono has africa to save and everyone believing that its his number one priority. edge is now restrained like a zoo tiger. adam is always on hiatus as soon as the tour ends, larry is too afriad to fuck up the mainstream.

the point of this thread was to analyze the direction of u2 and if theyre capable of achtung baby levels of creativity the next time out.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

It's all guesses, all of it, we'll never, ever, ever know.

Loads of people in here, even the most 110% dedicated fans of ATYCLB and The Bomb happily acknowledge that large parts of both albums are similar or familiar to U2's past, except with an updated sound, and with are far greater technical skill. And I guess that's where there's a disagreement in the fan camp. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that in itself, but it means that what they did wasn't 'the next step'. Moving into what came next to them - who knows - but like I said I bet it would have either been a sound that was the culmination of lessons learned throughout the 90's, a matured sound, a clarity, a clearness, but still using every trick they learned in how to add to their sound and give it new dimensions and meaning. New hips, new bottom end, new rhythm, new emotion. On the surface of that, very few seem to pay attention to how quickly The Edge brought the guitar back in in a big way on Pop, and all the comments following about how he fell back in love with it etc, how they discovered on the tour that it really does sound best when put front and centre etc etc. That to me indicates a guitar heavy album would have come next. 'Punk rock from venus' certainly sounds like something that could come post-Pop, a sound that is all guitar, but assisted to sound like it's from 20 years in the future. The flipside may well have been the '4 guys playing in a room' thing. The natural organic step after Pop may well have been to strip off all the extras.

I hear the first direction in songs like Stateless, Ground Beneath Her Feet, and possibly the rock side of it in Love & Peace and New York. it's also in some of what they did with the single versions of Pop songs. They certainly have unfinished business there with that sound and feeling, and I doubt the 'finished business' would have sounded like Pop, but definitely would have it's base genes. I hear the second possible direction, the stripped back 4 guys in a room, in things like the last minute of All Because Of You, the original Electrical Storm (and I hear the first in the Orbit mix), Xanax & Wine and Native Son. Either way, we didn't get it. We got a band scared of losing their place, and that became the focus, they didn't take the next natural step, but the step they thought was necessary. We talk about how at each stage of change that the band made, it was perfectly timed, organic, and it worked brilliantly and as each of those dried up they naturally moved into something else - sometimes probably without a conscious decision to do so. Yet at the same time many here champion the fact that as they reached a point where a new shift was going to be ushered in, one that to me could have potentially been their best and most exciting, they actually went BACK on the past ground that had already been dried up and essentially reworked that ground, reworked it in a far more clinical, sterilised way albeit with far tighter songwriting, playing and production. I know not all the songs are 'from the past', but certainly many are and many of you think it's fantastic. That's why I think it's progress interrupted. What would you honestly preferred if you had won a competition to choose U2's direction in 1999? The following two albums to be first up a bridge album that takes in the 90's lessons and new tricks, but uses them in their most brilliant and effective way to back a guitar heavy album, sounding somewhere between Stateless and the Orbit Electrical Storm and Love & Peace and songs we never heard but I'm sure you can imagine that are most certainly owned by the Edge and have a relationship with the rhythm in the same way the songs on Achtung do, but sound nothing like Achtung. Then that album is followed naturally by 4 guys in a room. U2 take it back to the garage and belt out an album that has little to no support. Xanax & Wine, Native Son, Original Electrical Storm with the slower ballads being far closer to strictly acoustic. Both albums support U2's growing songwriting talent and show off their developing tightness as a band, image wise both albums would have seen U2 similar to now, the jeans and t-shirt everyman band. In other words, they've identified and corrected the mistakes made with Pop, but not overcorrected to the point of compromise in any way. Would you like that? Or would you choose what we have with ATYCLB and HTDAAB. Newness only in hints. Mostly a retread. Very safe, very simple, very much aimed at keeping Brand U2 afloat at the top of the charts. Tight songwriting for sure, but songwriting and more importantly song playing that is kept very restrained, never allowed to steer to far away from dead centre in the middle of the road. Quality of the highest for sure. Albums of singles for sure. Big sellers for sure. But albums that are for the first time a change in creative direction that involves little or no creative progression, and when it does it's only in the slightest hints sprinkled here and there.

These posts by me aren't Bomb bashers. They are simply trying to say that the albums we've been given are a response to the commercial/fan reaction to Pop, and are not the natural musical progression from Pop. Whether you like them or not is beside the point of it, the point is that at that post-Pop point they broke with something quite significant, and I for one wish that hadn't happened, and I certainly think that U2 fans had nothing to fear with what was coming next, even if you hate Pop with all your heart and soul. In other words, I wish there'd been more faith in the band back then, and more faith within the band. They should have, now, all the confidence in the world that they are on the mountain top they so crave. I just hope that the fear they had post-Pop has been erased by that, and is not still there lingering to the point where we get more of these albums one after another as they feel it's the only way to stay there. The fork in the road, the overcorrection, whatever they've chosen and done, I don't think it means they are dead in the water creatively (believe me, MANY outside of here do believe exactly that, they really have shifted their market significantly and I think have lost - but also gained - more fans then they actually did with Pop). And I do agree with the original post, that U2 next album around should really nail themselves to a studio without breaks for anyone for a significant period of time. If that means delaying the whole process, so be it, but I think it will certainly help. That combined with the blind faith they always previously had could easily, easily get them back on track, in my opinion. Another Bomb, in one sense, will be the end of them.

 

[Auhiz]

Dude you're reading too much into it!

Kidding, your posts are great and I think you've made your point clear. I don't think anyone will misinterpret you as a Bomb basher either, just someone who would have hoped for a bit more courage from U2 in making more progressive recent albums.

Excellent posts..

 

[gareth brown]

I think Zooropa and Achtung Baby were dubbed as experimental only because one of U2's camp suggested it. Either Bono said, "Oh this is not our normal work." Or something of that sort.

Good luck trying to prove Achtung Baby and Zooropa are both in the same vein as The Joshua Tree and The Unforgettable Fire

seriously, though I don't think they would have needed Eno or whoever to say 'Whoa, guys...this is nothing liking your previous work!' for people to realise U2 were changing a fair bit and going for different sounds!

 

[MrBrau1]

I believe U2's movement after Pop was organic. It was coming whether Pop sold 3 million in ths US or not. They'd been on outer space for almost 10 years, and a change was in order.

I submit the following interview execerpt:

Revolver (US Magazine, Winter 2000)

Intriguingly, U2's move toward simplicity began during the Popmart tour, inspired by an unlikely figure. "It was a DJ that may have sent us down this road" Bono says. "When we weren't tight enough at the start of the last tour, we had to find time to rehearse. So we ended up at one point in the basement of a hotel in Washington DC. Howie B, whom we'd worked with on Pop, was DJing the tour, also helping out front during the shows with effects and mixing with our own sound guy. Howie was at this rehearsal, acting as a kind of producer.

"We couldn't get all the gear in, because it was all in the trucks on the road. We had a rented bass, drums, Vox AC30 and a PA at this rehearsal-nothing else. Howie walks into the room as we're playing, a 3 piece, and a singer, and he just starts going 'What's going on here? What is that sound you're making?' And we just go 'Howie, this is rock music.' And he's like 'Wow, the sound of the bass and drums is so incredible.' So he started removing effects at the live shows, and by the end of the tour there were very few loops or treatments. He said 'It's really odd, the more I'm taking out, the bigger the sound is getting.' And then he said 'That's the kind of record you should make next."

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I kinda referenced that story in my post, about them discovering that on the tour. It was that review that I was thinking of. I definitely think that 'stripped back' was one of the two possible organic directions they could have gone in, either on the next album or the one after with the halfway bridge album in between. However, I think there's a big difference between the creative need or drive or experiment that would have been them making the '4 guys in a room' music, or whatever else had come to them and been their direction, and the commercial need or drive that led them to put up the rules and boundaries that determined the music we got (which while sounding stripped back is most certainly not 4 guys in a room and in fact probably has more production work, more 'computer' hours logged than all the 90's albums combined). Whether Pop sold 5 or 50 million copies doesn't make a difference to whether or not the change was coming, it most certainly was, but it's 'failure' is what determined how the change was managed. The story of Larry effectively trashing an album that was good to go (one that DOES sound like it was very stripped back, very raw, very close to 4 guys in a room) by saying that he wouldn't take it on the road unless it had more hits on it is a major point where you see the difference between organic inspiration and commercial consideration.

Do you really think that the last two albums are U2 moving forward? Better songwriters and song players maybe, depending on how you like your song structure, but do you think they are progressions? Truly?

 

[BVS]

Do you really think that the last two albums are U2 moving forward? Better songwriters and song players maybe, depending on how you like your song structure, but do you think they are progressions? Truly?

Interesting question. I think the songwriting has improved with songs like Kite, Sometimes, Miracle Drug, and Original. But isn't better song writing a progression?

I mean Miami was a very progressive piece musically for the band but a step back lyrically. So what if they kept progessing on those lines? Would we still be listening? Probably not.

Let's face it, it takes all elements. And yes U2 has been very conservative sound wise with the last 2 albums, but the one thing I've been trying to get out of this debate is who are the challengers? Who's progressing further than them? Have we thought about the fact that maybe they stepped back a little because if you reach too far no one listens to you?

 

[t8thgr8]

yeah, another bomb could indeed cash them out. but as far as those two latest albums are concerned, im convinced that they were necessary for what's next.

u2, from what i understand, was on the brink of total alienation of its fans. they sounded nothing like the early days of their music, which was what they were originally percieved to be. the sound was different but the music was the same. some people were scared off, and after popmart came the choice.

if u2 chooses to further push the fans' patience and releases something more extreme than pop, is it possible to shock the world once more? what else can they do to destroy the 80's image? was there even anything left to destroy? the only outcome was leaving everyone either lost or intrigued. if they fail to connect with the masses, they are done. risky.

if u2 chooses to remind the masses that they are indeed still the same band, they win old fans back and possibly gain new ones. safe, and at the moment, wise.

i choose the all that you cant leave behind path. it was exactly what they needed to do. they desperately need to remind everyone that the trademark was still there. the people couldnt handle the ride u2 were taking them on and needed a pit stop.

after atyclb comes the next choice.

make a record that gets back on track and pushes ahead, or make a record that loads more passengers. they chose the latter and now the passengers theyve already picked up are getting restless. i think they have repaired what was broken completely and can go ahead with this ride as planned and the masses are comfortable with any drastic change because they know u2's true self isnt gone. its just got a different sound. the next (hopefully proper) record should pick up where pop left off excluding the currently rumored tour record. the 2006 record would naturally just extend the atomic bomb thing they have going on.

what could follow is a more raw, guitar oriented, dark extension of atmoic bomb in '06 then when they see the world is ready for something more, the breakthrough 2008 or 09 record. the one where no one will be sure its them or what to think of it, ala achtung baby. we can only hope.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Have we thought about the fact that maybe they stepped back a little because if you reach too far no one listens to you?

That there is where the fan fear I think is. The assumption that what comes after Pop, if it is to be progression, has to be further reaching, further left field, further off into space as Mr Brau says. That's not true at all. I think Pop was actually the beginning of reigning it back in. U2 knew that, for example, Passengers was a step too far for 'U2', but it was still something they wanted to try and something they needed to do for their own satisfaction. So they did it. And that is one of the two very reasons why it's a Passengers album not a U2 album. I mean, a lot of the songs on Pop are far more mass market digestable than the ones on Zooropa, far more U2/rock market digestable. They'd reached the peak of that curve somewhere in there with Passengers, not Pop, and they were on the way back down to earth again. The songs on Pop, for the most part, are following a 'normal' simple rock/U2 structure, unlike Zooropa, unlike Passengers. The guitar is running the show and their electronica affair is this time beefing the bottom end and giving the songs the traffic jam clutter they need to be effective given the themes. But the point is, after 2 albums that stray far from it, the song structure and guitar are well and truly back on that album. In a big way. And that's what I believe would have dominated from there onwards. They were coming back to earth with a more simplified sound naturally anyway.

Progression with songwriting? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how you judge songwriting. I think Zooropa pounds Original of the Species into the ground in a songwriting competition. Stay kills Miracle Drug etc etc. I think they've aimed for the classic pop song structure (they're not developing songs, patient songs, subtle songs, environment or emotion songs, they are - for the most part - up front, immediate, hook and chorus pop songs) and they have hit the nail on the head. I think they did that better than they could have 10 years ago, 20 years ago, but I think whatever structure they went for, their songwriting is, as you would expect, getting better and better anyway. They've always written songs with pop sensiblilites - Pride, One, Stay, With or Without You, All I Want Is You, Discotheque etc etc - but not out and out pop songs, so it's hard to judge. But for the sake of the argument, I will say they progressed as song writers, even though I think it's a distasteful style of song they are aiming to write now. They've also progressed as musicians. Not just on the album, but I can hear it live as well. They're kicking fucking arse up there. But that's a different kind of progression, I mean, if they hadn't gotten any better or tighter with their game after 25 years you'd be worried....

But musical or creative progression is a bit different. It's the part that will guide the songwriting, the lyrics, the structure, how it's played and why it's played that way. That's where I see little to no progression. And progression in that area does NOT have to equal left field or steering further and further away from what is the core of what they do. It's just the desire in the best musicians and bands to keep moving forward and onwards into new ideas. Something that U2 did better than anyone else. Easily better. Not something they've done for two albums now.

Am I answering questions? I write a hell of a lot and write it quickly and get kinda caught up in it....

 

[Dr. Lemonseed]

One thing I would like to keep in mind is the place U2 were at in their lives. 1997, the guys are 36, 37. 2000 rolls around and they're clocking into their 40s. Edge himself said that they were in a totally different place for Pop than with ATYCLB.

The darkness of the 90s albums was lifted. Given that Bono sings about where he's at, it makes me wonder if he didn't have some sort of serious religious experience around 1998. Look at Mofo: "Looking for to save my soul." or "God has got his phone off the hook" or "wake up, dead man." That's dark, heavy shit. I have no doubt that the whole band was mired.

What happened then? I think they cleaned up, maybe got off of whatever experimental drugs they may have been doing (whole different discussion...), and reexamined their relationship with God. I'd go so far as suggesting that their "experimentalism" largely paralleled their evolving spiritual health.

I almost see a revelation of "Jesus, boys, how far have we strayed...?!?" in the path of excess. The irony of Achtung BECAME them by Pop. Also, Zooropa shows their embracing of materialism, etc.

If we remember that Bono always sings from the place he's at, I don't doubt there was some drastic shift around 1998.

 

[bread n' whine]

Yeah, in my opinion the only problem with Zooropa is that it's inconsistent. The best parts of it (the first five tracks minus "Babyface") are as good as anything on Achtung if not better, and for that matter so is "Where the Streets Have No Name." So is "A Sort of Homecoming." Achtung Baby is simply their best album because it's a great album of great songs and great music and great lyrics and great atmosphere. And because it has just enough darkness in it and just enough light. But any attempt to provide vague new agey reasons why the band sounded "real" there rings false with anyone who hasnt been around this board long enough to get used to it. Maybe the fall of the Berlin Wall and what they were seeing in that city helped their creativity, brought them down to earth, helped them write less restrained music. But how can you go back and say politics was "diluting" their old stuff. We all have our favorites, but I hope a lot of people would agree with me that "Sunday Bloody Sunday" is just, in some way, their BEST song, and inarguably their least restrained, most passionate, most in tune with each other and with the world around them. And I've never lived in either the UK or Ireland, not to mention Belfast, and first heard "Sunday Bloody Sunday" after hearing "Beautiful Day." And didn't even like it that much instantly. So I don't think I'm biased.

As for the U2 of the past few years sucking, it's not just because they weren't all in the room together. I find ATYCLB approximates that feeling much better than Pop, and Pop is still a better album.

 

[jacobus]

Earnie Shavers wrote:....Another Bomb, in one sense, will be the end of them.

exactly!
Earnie you are my hero...great posts of you in this thread. another lame duck like the socalled bomb and atyclb and it woul d be better they call it a day. i want more experiments. LAPOE, ABOY (esp. the last minute of this song!) are great rock-tunes. they should ignore the album sales figures and record an unsafe and more experimental album as ACHTUNG BABY was. i don't like the often cheesy sounds of w. orbit at all....(but he has done great work on blurs' 13). they should bring on Rick Rubin behind the desk next time.

 

[bread n' whine]

Rick Rubin hardly guarantees something good (he's produced like 5 top ten CDs recently, the best of which is by Shakira and probably not the kind of sound you were going for), and rocking doesnt mean good or experimental.

Listening to Weezer's Maladroit straight through a couple times will prove both my points.

Or Audioslave's Out of Exile, if you're really a masochist.

 

[Axver]

One thing I would like to keep in mind is the place U2 were at in their lives. 1997, the guys are 36, 37. 2000 rolls around and they're clocking into their 40s. Edge himself said that they were in a totally different place for Pop than with ATYCLB.

The darkness of the 90s albums was lifted. Given that Bono sings about where he's at, it makes me wonder if he didn't have some sort of serious religious experience around 1998. Look at Mofo: "Looking for to save my soul." or "God has got his phone off the hook" or "wake up, dead man." That's dark, heavy shit. I have no doubt that the whole band was mired.

The thing is, it seems some fans wish U2 had stayed in that same dark place, even though that would've destroyed the band, particularly emotionally. Listen to bootlegs from later in the Popmart Tour: that's not a happy band. And I don't think commercialism and a lack of success can be blamed for that, as they had quite the opposite! In Europe, they broke the world record for the largest paying crowd to see a single act without support (150,000 people at Reggio Emilia) and finally played in Sarajevo. They finally got to go to South America and played to packed stadiums night after night. And yet, despite that, the band were obviously not happy.

What happened to them emotionally after that? Well, I think we get a hinting at it with the story of Adam having a powerful conversion experience not long before the ATYCLB sessions. From the midst of the depression, U2 found hope. And hope is in much of what I hear on the latest albums. Beautiful Day, Walk On, Grace, Miracle Drug, City Of Blinding Lights, Original Of The Species, et cetera.

But how dare U2 make well-structured, inspired, hopeful music. How dare they express what they genuinely feel!

 

[jacobus]

@bread n' whine:
next time i wanna get a more raw sound (i call it rock) and more experiments. i don't wanna get another safe and boring (imo!) album.