GEN
Active topics
  1. Personally, I think that all the hate they get is undeserved, if these albums had come out earlier, before the band went into AB and the 90's experimentation, they would be much better received.
    This is because comparisions with AB, Pop etc will usually end unfavourably for fans of those albums, who are bored or annoyed with the more conservative/ generic style of music they typify. The fact that Bono's vocals start showing their cracks on both albums, doesn't help.

    However I think U2 needed to do a pop & a back to basics album. In the end it just adds to their musical range, and speaks of their musical ability, as a band that is not only avant-garde with a hardcore bunch of dedicated fans but also capable of being solidly mainstream.

    I cannot imagine U2 without songs such as Vertigo or Beautiful Day, which were not only mainstream hits, but also great songs especially the later, which was perhaps their defining song of this decade. For many the songs from these two albums (and the JT trio) typify the U2 sound and thus are a crucial part of the band's identity.

    I wouldn't be a U2 fan without Vertigo and City of Blinding Lights etc. and if I had heard something from AB or Pop such as Zoo Station, I certainly would not have liked it at the time,
    HTDAAB & ATYCLB have converted a lot of people to U2, certainly more than if they had done another Pop.

    With regards to where they stand in the lists, i think October and Boy, War rank below them. They are perhaps around the Unforgettable Fire/ Zooropa level in terms of ranking.



  2. That reads as a contradiction to me....besides, we've established that their last 2 albums have been "back to basics" and the album before that was named "Pop"....
  3. Originally posted by yeah:[..]

    With or without you and I still haven't found were #1 in the US. So was the Fly in the UK.

    Sorry, that was the smart ass me.


    WOWY and ISHFWILF were really nr 1 ?
    Sorry about that then
    I was convinced that Desire was U2's first nr1 in USA
  5. Originally posted by haytrain:[..]

    That reads as a contradiction to me....besides, we've established that their last 2 albums have been "back to basics" and the album before that was named "Pop"....


    I meant ATYCLB was a pop album and HTDAAB was a back to basics one, I think ATYCLB is not quite back to basics, certainly not as much as HTDAAB was, (though definitely back to basics compared to something like Pop).
  6. My first introduction to U2 was unbelieveably ATYCLB and then I worked my way backwards. I listened to POP and couldn't believe that it was the same band that I had fallen in love with because I hated it. In some ways it was great to be in the position of discovering the band at this point because I had so many albums to choose from. I gradually bought them all but knew that I wouldn't bother with POP 'cos it was just not my kind of music. After I had bought and gone crazy about the rest of the albums I decided to give POP another go. By this time I knew what U2 were all about and realised what a great album POP was. Listening properly to the songs it's not about pop music at all it's very deep and meaningful and has an important message about faith and life.
    I really do hope that this album is very different from the last two but not because they were no good but becasue it's the diversity of U2 that makes them great and that's why I love this band so much.
  7. Both albums have their times of excellence.

    ATYCLB: Kite, In A Little While, Wild Honey, Peace On Earth, When I Look At The World, Grace

    HTDAAB: Miracle Drug, Sometimes, City of Blinding Lights, All Because of You, Crumbs From Your Table, One Step Closer, Original of the Species.

    I didn't find them to be letdowns. However, you can't expect U2, or any band for that matter, to be doing what they were doing ten years ago. If you stay the same and static, people become bored and look for something else. I find the lyrics on ATYCLB to be some of the most real - Peace On Earth, When I Look At The World, Kite...whereas HTDAAB doesn't have that.

    I'd say a lot of people don't think of ATYCLB as a step-back or being lame (, but in response to the previous efforts, it was a step-back.
  8. Yes, it was step back. However last two albums are great albums, U2 are what they are because of their steps forward... and I hope new album will be step forward. U2 were always actual and set the direction of modern music (in 80s and 90s). So I hope they will do it again.
  9. Originally posted by drewhiggins:Both albums have their times of excellence.

    ATYCLB: Kite, In A Little While, Wild Honey, Peace On Earth, When I Look At The World, Grace

    HTDAAB: Miracle Drug, Sometimes, City of Blinding Lights, All Because of You, Crumbs From Your Table, One Step Closer, Original of the Species.

    I didn't find them to be letdowns. However, you can't expect U2, or any band for that matter, to be doing what they were doing ten years ago. If you stay the same and static, people become bored and look for something else. I find the lyrics on ATYCLB to be some of the most real - Peace On Earth, When I Look At The World, Kite...whereas HTDAAB doesn't have that.

    I'd say a lot of people don't think of ATYCLB as a step-back or being lame (, but in response to the previous efforts, it was a step-back.


    I agree, but come on, BD doesn't warrant a mention on that list? Or the Ground Beneath Her Feet?

    And incidentally I thought Crumbs (or OSC) was the worst song on Bomb.

    But I absolutely agree with the change thing, they always evolve their sound, its what keeps them on top of the rock pantheon. Otherwise they would have gone the way of the Who or the Stones, just play the same old hits and tour forever.
  10. Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

    I agree, but come on, BD doesn't warrant a mention on that list? Or the Ground Beneath Her Feet?

    And incidentally I thought Crumbs (or OSC) was the worst song on Bomb.

    But I absolutely agree with the change thing, they always evolve their sound, its what keeps them on top of the rock pantheon. Otherwise they would have gone the way of the Who or the Stones, just play the same old hits and tour forever.



    Beautiful Day or Ground Beneath Her Feet don't rate a mention. At all. As you can tell, I like the basic stuff better like One Step Closer. Also stuff like instrumentals and 25 to 45-minute-epics and 40-minute music videos.

    About the Stones...I don't see them playing the same hits over and over. In fact, this last tour had several songs which they haven't played for a good while, and they have released an album in that time with 16 very good songs, and constantly releasing live stuff to keep the flow happening - plus you've got numerous bootlegs of theirs to keep you going; 40 years worth of it! But the constant 'greatest hits' packages start to become same stuff, different box.

    Several very popular artists and bands seem to survive on greatest hits packages alone. It makes you wonder...can they record new songs? The great thing is, U2 have only done a greatest hits three times - and each is from a different decade.
  11. What was wrong with Beautiful Day? Just because it was a massive mainstream hit doesn't mean its crap. It was a song that defined the band.
  12. Mainstream doesn't bother me in the slightest; if I don't like it I turn it off and put on something which does appeal to me. I think there's other songs which defined U2 (One, Streets, With or Without You, I Will Follow, A Celebration...), plus the overplaying of said song got to me in the end.

    There were much better songs from ATYCLB which would have made a killer first single, but I guess it meant to U2 that after the so-called 'mess' and 'failure' of the whole 1995 - 1998 experiment, 'it was a Beautiful Day'. After such a brilliant masterpiece of Pop and Passengers, we come...back to basics? Now U2 seem to be scared to take risks and want to appeal to the kids and the chart hippies and the fancy radio executives and DJs, who like this 'new-age music' I hear playing in shopping centres and record stores and disposable noise, who feel they must get a number one to know they've done the job right. U2 are relevant 33 years later, but must they dumb it down to the nth degree?

    Give me Dark Side of the Moon, October, Boy or Thick As A Brick any day. This is that band that dared to go against all the odds, yet now we get songs like Elevation and Fast Cars! The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby are considered two of the greatest albums in rock history. It stands to see whether they can surpass the critics as this next record being the greatest yet.

    That said, U2 music isn't disposable, but it can be unfavourable. It worked for the critics, but for me, it just didn't work. It doesn't mean I don't like the song, I just favour other tracks over them. They took a risk with Achtung Baby and look where it got them. They took a risk with Zooropa, Passengers and Pop, and in my books that took some real balls.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.