GEN
Active topics
  1. I dunno. Not detracting from it at all, but it's easy to argue that JT was pretty commercial if you think about it. Definitely commercially maybe their greatest album.
  2. Originally posted by CMIPalaeo:I have to admit that, perhaps it's just setting myself up for it, but - I'm going to be pretty disappointed if we hear nothing from Pop this year. Come on, even an acoustic version of Staring At the Sun....
    A Miami snippet is pretty likely.

  3. Originally posted by CMIPalaeo:I have to admit that, perhaps it's just setting myself up for it, but - I'm going to be pretty disappointed if we hear nothing from Pop this year. Come on, even an acoustic version of Staring At the Sun....

    I've got a feeling your going to be disappointed, not that I'd write off the possibility but I'm definitely not expecting anything from pop, the fact that it's the JT tour rather than the I&E tour continuing makes it even less likely I feel but you never know. My guess would be we could get staring at the sun and discotheque in 2018 if they're touring SOE by then. Anything else would be a pleasant surprise, especially gone and last night on earth.


  4. nothing against Pop, I'm just an aging purist still keeping faith that nothing post JT will see the light of the day here...

    You young whippersnappers should delight in the fact that you have the opportunity to see the show similar to the original with only the songs they had up to that point! But kids these days... never satisfied.
  5. Originally posted by CMIPalaeo:I have to admit that, perhaps it's just setting myself up for it, but - I'm going to be pretty disappointed if we hear nothing from Pop this year. Come on, even an acoustic version of Staring At the Sun....
    If we got to hear it at a random show in 2011... There's definitely hope I think.
  6. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    I dunno. Not detracting from it at all, but it's easy to argue that JT was pretty commercial if you think about it. Definitely commercially maybe their greatest album.
    Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

    If you listen to what else was topping the charts in 1986-1987, it doesn't sound anything like what's on JT I wouldn't really say it was a "commercial" sounding album at all, one of the singles is a gospel song for Pete's sake! I'd say it was hugely successful (commercially)
    largely due to the following they had already built up to that point, and the fact that it had more than one massive hit single (looking at you Unforgettable Fire - I'd argue Pride is the only real single on that album - if I'm not mistaken, weren't Near Years Day and Pride their only two songs to top the charts up to this point?).

    I think you could stretch an argument to say by U2 standards it was their most commercial album up to that point (what with With or Without You being their first real love ballad), but I'd argue back and say that U2 just became U2 at that point, they had honed their songwriting craft to a point where they could write stellar tunes that both had depth and commercial potential.

    But I don't think I'd say U2 ever put a "commercial" sounding album out until All That You Can't Leave Behind.I honestly think that with every album before it, they were taking creative risks while trying to top the charts. All That You Can't Leave Behind is the first instance of them playing it safe. We all know that though
  7. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
    Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

    If you listen to what else was topping the charts in 1986-1987, it doesn't sound anything like what's on JT I wouldn't really say it was a "commercial" sounding album at all, one of the singles is a gospel song for Pete's sake! I'd say it was hugely successful (commercially)
    largely due to the following they had already built up to that point, and the fact that it had more than one massive hit single (looking at you Unforgettable Fire - I'd argue Pride is the only real single on that album - if I'm not mistaken, weren't Near Years Day and Pride their only two songs to top the charts up to this point?).

    I think you could stretch an argument to say by U2 standards it was their most commercial album up to that point (what with With or Without You being their first real love ballad), but I'd argue back and say that U2 just became U2 at that point, they had honed their songwriting craft to a point where they could write stellar tunes that both had depth and commercial potential.

    But I don't think I'd say U2 ever put a "commercial" sounding album out until All That You Can't Leave Behind.I honestly think that with every album before it, they were taking creative risks while trying to top the charts. All That You Can't Leave Behind is the first instance of them playing it safe. We all know that though
    Ok. Commercially successful. Which to me translates to commercial. But hey, to each his own. And had much more commercial success than ATYCLB, as well.

    I wouldn't really say it was a "commercial" sounding album at all, one of the singles is a gospel song for Pete's sake! I'd say it was hugely successful (commercially)

    I'm a little confused on that statement - is it commercial, or not? you mean it wasn't attempting to sound commercial, and yet it was commercial?

    Just look at how the singles charted. I guess it all comes down to what commercial means to the individual. Does it sound like anything else at the time? Maybe not. But when the 1st 3 singles peak in the Top 15 in international charts, everyone is hearing it. That's commercial to me. All I'm saying. A record can be groundbreaking and innovative and still be commercial. It might before U2 was trying to keep up with the Kanye's and try sound commercial, but it ended up being that way, nevertheless.

    P.S.- I am no way knocking the JT. I still remember skipping school the day it came out and spending the day driving around town all day blasting it, windows down... I'm merely debating "commerciality" here.
  8. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    Ok. Commercially successful. Which to me translates to commercial. But hey, to each his own. And had much more commercial success than ATYCLB, as well.

    I wouldn't really say it was a "commercial" sounding album at all, one of the singles is a gospel song for Pete's sake! I'd say it was hugely successful (commercially)

    I'm a little confused on that statement - is it commercial, or not? you mean it wasn't attempting to sound commercial, and yet it was commercial?

    Just look at how the singles charted. I guess it all comes down to what commercial means to the individual. Does it sound like anything else at the time? Maybe not. But when the 1st 3 singles peak in the Top 15 in international charts, everyone is hearing it. That's commercial to me. All I'm saying. A record can be groundbreaking and innovative and still be commercial. It might before U2 was trying to keep up with the Kanye's and try sound commercial, but it ended up being that way, nevertheless.

    P.S.- I am no way knocking the JT. I still remember skipping school the day it came out and spending the day driving around town all day blasting it, windows down... I'm merely debating "commerciality" here.
    I think this is a case of misunderstanding!

    Your original comment just sort of made it sound like you thought it "sounded commercial", so I was arguing that it doesn't sound that way. You were responding to someone saying it's their best album with "you could say it's their most commercial", so that's what I assumed. It's not like the Justin Beiber album of its time, if that makes sense. It was weird sounding, but happened to be hugely commercially successful anyway. Like Bono says on that Classic Albums DVD, With Or Without You is a weird sounding song, it just sounds normal because we've all heard it so many times. Compare it to other ballads or songs in general coming out at the time and I don't think anyone could guess it would've been such a hit (if you subtract the fact that U2 was quickly becoming everyone's favourite band by that point).

    That's all!
  9. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
    I think this is a case of misunderstanding!

    Your original comment just sort of made it sound like you thought it "sounded commercial", so I was arguing that it doesn't sound that way. You were responding to someone saying it's their best album with "you could say it's their most commercial", so that's what I assumed. It's not like the Justin Beiber album of its time, if that makes sense. It was weird sounding, but happened to be hugely commercially successful anyway. Like Bono says on that Classic Albums DVD, With Or Without You is a weird sounding song, it just sounds normal because we've all heard it so many times. Compare it to other ballads or songs in general coming out at the time and I don't think anyone could guess it would've been such a hit (if you subtract the fact that U2 was quickly becoming everyone's favourite band by that point).

    That's all!


    I remember the period of UF being the pivotal point and then JT confirming beyond doubt that U2 officially went from being "my" band to the "everybody's" band...

    And when I said "you could say it's their most commercial", I was meaning in terms of popularity and sales and charting singles... the technical commercial stuff.
  10. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]


    I remember the period of UF being the pivotal point and then JT confirming beyond doubt that U2 officially went from being "my" band to the "everybody's" band...

    And when I said "you could say it's their most commercial", I was meaning in terms of popularity and sales and charting singles... the technical commercial stuff.
    So were the same sort of hipsters around then that are around today, who decide to stop listening to a band once everyone gets into them?
  11. Haha. They're a timeless breed. They never go away.

    Although it was a much smaller scale of snobbery back then without all the technology tools to voice your opinion to the world.

    I was glad to share them with the world. The world needed a little culture in the age of Whitney Houston, Buster Poindexter, 2 Live Crew and Michael Jackson. (uh-oh... I sound like that snob guy, don't I?)
  12. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    Haha. They're a timeless breed. They never go away.

    Although it was a much smaller scale of snobbery back then without all the technology tools to voice your opinion to the world.

    I was glad to share them with the world. The world needed a little culture in the age of Whitney Houston, Buster Poindexter, 2 Live Crew and Michael Jackson. (uh-oh... I sound like that snob guy, don't I?)
    Nahhhhhhhh!

    Plus, in this day and age, I don't think anyone would call someone a snob for saying U2 is better than other musical acts. They'd probably call us stupid.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.