Up to the latter part of the 80's U2 were all about the music, as hackneyed as that sounds They didn't want and didn't need huge stages or pyrotechnics. On the Joshua Tree tour (their zenith in my opinion), it was a simplistic linen backdrop with the Joshua Tree printed on it. Walk on stage, bang, bang, bang, bang. Amazing.
When the Joshua Tree tour reached America and the rest of the world an already eager audience went fucking nuts. This spelled the beginning of the end for U2. Having previously taken popularity in his stride, Bono instead began the ascent up his own asshole, turning from fiercely passionate and engaging frontman to a preachy annoyance in strange glasses with an incredibly stupid accent. How this affected the rest of the band is another matter, but it began the decline in popularity. Their shows evolved from captivating, emotionally charged melting pots to pretentious stage personas, the band swaggering in round in camp outfits and floating in giant lemons.
The focus shifted away from the music and onto Bono's 'saviour of the world' mission. Pop, although quite a good album, was not, quintessentially, U2. Ultimately this diversion led to a decline in popularity with the general public seeing Bono as an increasing annoyance - his rallying cry to give aid to poor countries not reaching past the gates of his Monaco mansion where he enjoys a tax-free existence.
I like many others think U2 imploded after The Joshua Tree. I remember seeing an interview with The Edge during the Zoo TV tour, when he said he believed that their “best work wasn’t behind them, it was in front of them”. It was, perhaps, a rather ironic precursor to what I believe has been their downfall, that during this interview giant TV screens and cars were being winched into place for the next chapter of that particular circus
The last two albums have been dull and mediocre. They've lost their edge (pardon the pun) and I think U2's downfall has been that they've progressively tried to cover over the widening cracks - their ever-increasingly extravagant shows being one example.
If they took a long, hard look at themselves they'd realise that the root cause of their disappointment starts with themselves not with the fans.
OMG! have you seen them in concert? it is still a great experience. i always love how people say they lost it after The Joshua Tree. actung baby was a great record and so was POP. they were different from The Tree but still great records. POP was a vrey well done written record with songs like Please, Wake up dead men amoung others. ther eare peopel who liek to go to shows where it seems liek an experience. U2 provides that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people who go to U2 shows don't have a good time. What I am saying is that underneath all the fancy stage and technology is a band that's a shadow of it's former self.
everyone that has posted thus far disagrees. you're just looking for reasons to hate on U2... I'm guessing both those other bands you listed you already hate too. how about pearl jam? they've brokered deals with target, made a ton more with this album than they have in the past, and have made no secret that they're trying to break back into the limelight. were you bitching about them for it?
Well then maybe everyone who posted is in love with U2?? I don't have a problem with that and I'm not hating on the band, I just used them as an example. And FYI I work for Target so that didn't bother me at all. Though I do think Backspacer is their worst album.
ah, so pearl jam can talk about sales and it doesnt bother you becos it benefits your company, but if u2 does, they're soulless whores? so if you worked for the label u2 is on, would it not bother you anymore while pearl jam would?
many of the people that posted disagreeing with you say they don't really like u2. this isn't some u2 superfan beatdown, your argument is just lame. which is why nobody else is buying it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people who go to U2 shows don't have a good time. What I am saying is that underneath all the fancy stage and technology is a band that's a shadow of it's former self.
i dont know if that's true. october is not a good album. neither is pop particularly. for the biggest band in the world, u2 honestly has ALWAYS had a spotty history when it comes to full albums. even the unforgettable fire had some duds. i think you're re-writing history a bit there. yes, the stage show exploded, but that was intentionally in line with the band's change in direction with achtung... one of the best albums any band has ever done. they went too far with pop, but then scaled back remarkably with the next 2 albums. this tour is the first time since pop where they've done that elaborate stage set up, and they have said they don't intend to do anything quite like it again once they finish. i would agree that they seem a little lost and uncertain of where they want to go at the moment, but i don't think they're a shadow of their former selves. they just had their obligatory stumble album/tour, as they have done multiple times throughout their career.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,209
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people who go to U2 shows don't have a good time. What I am saying is that underneath all the fancy stage and technology is a band that's a shadow of it's former self.
i dont know if that's true. october is not a good album. neither is pop particularly. for the biggest band in the world, u2 honestly has ALWAYS had a spotty history when it comes to full albums. even the unforgettable fire had some duds. i think you're re-writing history a bit there. yes, the stage show exploded, but that was intentionally in line with the band's change in direction with achtung... one of the best albums any band has ever done. they went too far with pop, but then scaled back remarkably with the next 2 albums. this tour is the first time since pop where they've done that elaborate stage set up, and they have said they don't intend to do anything quite like it again once they finish. i would agree that they seem a little lost and uncertain of where they want to go at the moment, but i don't think they're a shadow of their former selves. they just had their obligatory stumble album/tour, as they have done multiple times throughout their career.
I agree and don't think for a moment Pearl Jam has had there failures too. I think PJ would have the same difficulties if they hit the worldly big time as U2 appears to have done through the years. October was not very good, Boy I loved, War very good, UF 75% good so yes it has been up and down with as far as U2 albums. However, if you love the band and it's music with it's ups and it's downs like some do with Pearl Jam. I didn't like at all their 2006 release Pearl Jam and I STILL don't but I still love their music overall and I don't foresee that changing anytime soon.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people who go to U2 shows don't have a good time. What I am saying is that underneath all the fancy stage and technology is a band that's a shadow of it's former self.
Have you seen them in concert recently, if at all?
I have seen evey tour since The Unforgettable Fire, most multiple shows. (Only 1 Pop show).
The tie in to the stage set which began with ZooTV was morabout enhancing the music, not overshadowing it. Also as they grew and began playing stadia at the end of the Joshua Tree tour, they knew they'd need something to make the stadium concert experience worthwhile for those in the cheap seats. This is not exclusive th U2, you have seen some of what the likes of The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd have done with stadium concert staging I assume. As fife mentioned, the 2 tours prior to this one, Elevation and Vertigo had very little excess staging save the runway which allowed concertgoers to get closer to the band, so I don't see how they used extravagance to cover their cracks. Musically they are still solid live. You may not enjoy the post Joshua Tree material, but some of it (Achtung Baby as a whole and various pieces of the other albums, usually the non radio stuff) is some of their strongest work.
this is the first time probably since pop (or maybe at all?) that they haven't had a lot or decent amount of buzz around their album
I was about to mention "Pop". Do you remember that whole album was kind of a slant on the easy, casual nature of music? Its a similar thing to what Clayton talked about in the article. The band were then disappointed that they rushed "Pop" out, and that ultimately, when they listened to it later on, they didnt think it sounded right. U2 lost a lot of money on the Popmart Tour, but when asked about it since, they dont focus on the money they lost on the mismanaged tour (usually laughing it off as a joke).....but they do focus on how they still feel the album sounds underdeveloped or incomplete.
U2 have more money than they need, anyone who believes they feel aggrieved about how much an album earns should wake up.
this is hilarious, and sad all at the same time. Nowhere in the article is it even IMPLIED by any of the band members that they are disappointed that they didn't get more money. They are disappointed in the current business model of the music industry. It is utterly preposterous to believe that a band that gives away millions to charities all over the world gives a rat shit how much money they make.
I don't like a lot of U2's music, but I think the OP took WAY too many liberties in making gross assumptions from that article. You were fed from the journalistic trough, and you ate it all up.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I know it's off topic, but of anyone who saw U2 on the 360 tour can you answer this for me. Did they play a short version of Amazing Grace at any point in the show?
I know it's off topic, but of anyone who saw U2 on the 360 tour can you answer this for me. Did they play a short version of Amazing Grace at any point in the show?
I thought How to Dismantle sucked enough that this one wouldn't be worth a damn. I still listen to their older stuff all the time, including my way to work this morning, but their new stuff sounds like a band trying too hard to be the band they once were. They are like Coldplay.
I'll take an opposing view: I think No Line on the Horizon is U2's best album since Achtung Baby, and I'd probably put it among their top three all-time (with Joshua Tree occupying second spot...sorry, can't ever get beyond Achtung at #1 as far as I'm concerned). And the weird thing is, I've thought that from almost the second I first heard it; I even liked "Get On Your Boots" more-or-less right away, which I'm pretty sure makes me utterly unique. The band's last two albums disappointed me tremendously; to me, they sounded like (as someone else wrote) a flagrant attempt to rewrite their older music. I've never gotten that from No Line, not even for one second. To me it's masterful.
Minneapolis 1998 | Jones Beach I & II, Montreal, and Toronto 2000 | Buffalo, State College, Toronto, Montreal and Hershey 2003 | Boston I & II 2004 | Thunder Bay, Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto 2005 | Toronto I & II 2006 | The Vic and Lollapalooza 2007 | Calgary and Toronto 2009 | PJ20 I & II, Toronto I & II, Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton 2011 | London, Chicago, Spokane, Calgary, Vancouver and Seattle 2013 | Ottawa and Toronto I & II 2016 | Chicago I & II 2018 | Ottawa, Hamilton and Toronto 2022
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,209
I'll take an opposing view: I think No Line on the Horizon is U2's best album since Achtung Baby, and I'd probably put it among their top three all-time (with Joshua Tree occupying second spot...sorry, can't ever get beyond Achtung at #1 as far as I'm concerned). And the weird thing is, I've thought that from almost the second I first heard it; I even liked "Get On Your Boots" more-or-less right away, which I'm pretty sure makes me utterly unique. The band's last two albums disappointed me tremendously; to me, they sounded like (as someone else wrote) a flagrant attempt to rewrite their older music. I've never gotten that from No Line, not even for one second. To me it's masterful.
Somebody should start a thread on U2's best and worst album. That song when I firsst heard the album was the one i liked but put it away cause I didn't like the rest. Some months later listened again and the album turns out to be one their better ones for sure. Even better when heard live.
Peace
Post edited by g under p on
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I'll take an opposing view: I think No Line on the Horizon is U2's best album since Achtung Baby, and I'd probably put it among their top three all-time (with Joshua Tree occupying second spot...sorry, can't ever get beyond Achtung at #1 as far as I'm concerned). And the weird thing is, I've thought that from almost the second I first heard it; I even liked "Get On Your Boots" more-or-less right away, which I'm pretty sure makes me utterly unique. The band's last two albums disappointed me tremendously; to me, they sounded like (as someone else wrote) a flagrant attempt to rewrite their older music. I've never gotten that from No Line, not even for one second. To me it's masterful.
i don't know if i'd rate it that highly, but i do think it's sold short. it's a great, moody album. i hate 'get on your boots' though... it might be the worst song they've ever done. but overall, i would agree it's a fine album. i liked the last 2 albums and i like this one. they're all above pop for me.
And i think that quote means hes saying people are less passionate about music these days they just listen to what is popular "Because, to some extent, the concept of the music fan - the concept of the person who buys music and listens to music for the pleasure of music itself - is an outdated idea."
It's funny, cause I would flip that around and say that U2, and Bono in particular, is less passionate about making music these days. They seem more consumed with championing every cause going, and putting on OTT stage shows. All this from a band who used to make songs as exquisite as One. In a time when access to music is so easy, I would argue that people are more passionate about music than ever. The difficulty I have getting tickets to most gigs would seem to support that.
Most bands as big as U2 get paid up front anyways. I doubt they were affected one way or another by album sales financially.
So then it would be more disappointment in not reaching the masses as Bono implied then not making money. You can deny it all you want OP, but its true U2 bias that caused you to reach that conclusion.
I really liked No Line but felt that it was better then only Pop, October, and Atom Bomb in there catalog. Achtung Baby, Joshua Tree, War, and ATYCLB (In a little While and Kite are great great lesser known songs) are there ***** masterpieces.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I even liked "Get On Your Boots" more-or-less right away, which I'm pretty sure makes me utterly unique. .
Actually I like Boots, and liked it more after hearing it within the album and then even more live. The lyrics may not be profound, but its a great little piece of rock music.
The album as a whole I like, but wouldn't put in the top 3(but I also really like October, so that makes me utterly unique), a few songs that are a bit weak, and "White as Snow" just bores me. but there are a handful of great songs, "Magnificent" being the best.
I like many others think U2 imploded after The Joshua Tree.
I've never understood this...at all.
Has no one ever listen to Rattle and Hum or Achtung Baby??? After that, yeah their material is a bit iffy at times (although I still like most of it) but Achtung Baby is just as good of an album as the Joshua Tree, I even like it a little bit more. The band (Edge especially) are on there game on that album.
"Well, I think this band is incapable of sucking."
-my dad after hearing Not for You for the first time on SNL .
U2 were simply diappointed that the album wasn't as popular as some past releases. I honestly don't think money is an issue at this point.
This was more of a moody album somewhat like The Unforgettable Fire and Zooropa, a contrast to the more popular ones like Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and War. Those tend to sell more to the hardcore fans than the "pop" fanbase. I like it. I don't LOVE it, but I like it.
No line should have just gone for the mood and not the singles, if it had occupied the MOS , Unknown Caller vibe all way through it would be a much stronger record.
The problem is songs like Magnificent and Crazy are just plain obvious singles, as for Boots it's a B side at best and Stand Up Comedy as well.
I really hope Songs of Ascension adopts the mood that Bono said it would and not an obvious grab for singles, creating a mood sustained all over album to me is far more important.
I think NLOTH is their strongest album since the Achtung/Zooropa era, I use to think it was the strongest since Achtung period but those singles for me sit awkwardly with the atmospheric tracks like Fez. No Line is an uneven record and although it's much better than All You Can't & Atomic Bomb it could of been a better album with more consistency.
U2 should give up on trying to find singles and just go with the flow, I don't think they were decrying the money not made but the fact they didn't make the connection with their audience with this record although they still seem determined to look for singles. They should have stuck with Eno & Lanois and not bothered with bringing in Steve Lillywhite to produce singles that they obviously can't pull them off anymore as the best tracks on the album clearly aren't singles.
Notice the title of that article: "U2 and Bono Adapt to Changing Times" The focus is thus not on the sales of the album, but on the 'changing times'. In a way, it's 1984 all over. History gets written, re-written and re-written until the facts have been edited away. And then people are starting to act based on the re-written (and falsified) information.
Choice quote from the original article:
U2's Blackberry partnership includes an application that allows users to download the CD and photographs, liner notes and more.
Yet the band is also careful not to be too unwieldy when it comes to attempting new avenues to promote its music.
"We're trying to do everything we can on that front without having to change what we're about artistically: The music stays sacrosanct," The Edge says. "We are much more focused on being the best than being the biggest."
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,209
Notice the title of that article: "U2 and Bono Adapt to Changing Times" The focus is thus not on the sales of the album, but on the 'changing times'. In a way, it's 1984 all over. History gets written, re-written and re-written until the facts have been edited away. And then people are starting to act based on the re-written (and falsified) information.
Choice quote from the original article:
U2's Blackberry partnership includes an application that allows users to download the CD and photographs, liner notes and more.
Yet the band is also careful not to be too unwieldy when it comes to attempting new avenues to promote its music.
"We're trying to do everything we can on that front without having to change what we're about artistically: The music stays sacrosanct," The Edge says. "We are much more focused on being the best than being the biggest."
"I love to see an outsized band like U2 behaving like they're in the kindergarten and just doing what you do with your first album — taking it to the market, setting up your table, selling your wares, selling it out the street corners, giving out fliers," says an animated Bono, breaking into a wide grin behind his trademark sunglasses. "I think selling out is when you stop believing enough in your music to put yourself out to explain it to people."
To me it's clear from all the articles I read, U2 has a vision on where they want their music to go and how they have to adapt to the changing times in this very difficult music industry today. They appear to not have an intent on NOT selling out, their focus appears to totally on their music not record sales the music is foremost in their minds.
I gather from the postings in your thread 90% of the posters don't agree with the OP and maybe why he has not returned to further state in point from the original article he posted.
peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
U2 is a piece of shit band anyways, so who gives a fuck.
the dumbing down of society starts right here...nice post? real good work here...ummmmm
as far as u2 being upset i think it's just natural that they want every new cd to sell 1 billion copies. pj are the exact same in that respect. when you already have a few million dollars in the bank it aint all about the money, all the time. adam i think is frustrated with the aspect of people perhaps not "getting it", unlike the good old days when vinyl/albums ruled. today the music industry is so hit oriented, so easily disposed of, imo.
I listened thru the album one and a half times when it was on the band's myspace page. The songs were either pointless or annoying. I've been a U2 fan for a long time, and considered them my favorite band once upon a time, but I have no use for this album. I have all of their other albums, but I won't waste money or shelf space for this one. Interesting that the band realizes it didn't work out either, although I guess it took poor sales and fan response for it to hit them. Ridiculous that Rolling Stone gave the album 5 stars... but RS has been a pretty silly magazine for many years now.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,209
I listened thru the album one and a half times when it was on the band's myspace page. The songs were either pointless or annoying. I've been a U2 fan for a long time, and considered them my favorite band once upon a time, but I have no use for this album. I have all of their other albums, but I won't waste money or shelf space for this one. Interesting that the band realizes it didn't work out either, although I guess it took poor sales and fan response for it to hit them. Ridiculous that Rolling Stone gave the album 5 stars... but RS has been a pretty silly magazine for many years now.
I was given a free 2 year subscription to RS and I barely read anything inthere especially musically and most of all reviews.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I like many others think U2 imploded after The Joshua Tree.
Makes me laugh. According to some on this forum every band implodes after one of their early albums. Some seem to think it's cool to like the old stuff.
Comments
OMG! have you seen them in concert? it is still a great experience. i always love how people say they lost it after The Joshua Tree. actung baby was a great record and so was POP. they were different from The Tree but still great records. POP was a vrey well done written record with songs like Please, Wake up dead men amoung others. ther eare peopel who liek to go to shows where it seems liek an experience. U2 provides that.
ah, so pearl jam can talk about sales and it doesnt bother you becos it benefits your company, but if u2 does, they're soulless whores? so if you worked for the label u2 is on, would it not bother you anymore while pearl jam would?
many of the people that posted disagreeing with you say they don't really like u2. this isn't some u2 superfan beatdown, your argument is just lame. which is why nobody else is buying it.
i dont know if that's true. october is not a good album. neither is pop particularly. for the biggest band in the world, u2 honestly has ALWAYS had a spotty history when it comes to full albums. even the unforgettable fire had some duds. i think you're re-writing history a bit there. yes, the stage show exploded, but that was intentionally in line with the band's change in direction with achtung... one of the best albums any band has ever done. they went too far with pop, but then scaled back remarkably with the next 2 albums. this tour is the first time since pop where they've done that elaborate stage set up, and they have said they don't intend to do anything quite like it again once they finish. i would agree that they seem a little lost and uncertain of where they want to go at the moment, but i don't think they're a shadow of their former selves. they just had their obligatory stumble album/tour, as they have done multiple times throughout their career.
I agree and don't think for a moment Pearl Jam has had there failures too. I think PJ would have the same difficulties if they hit the worldly big time as U2 appears to have done through the years. October was not very good, Boy I loved, War very good, UF 75% good so yes it has been up and down with as far as U2 albums. However, if you love the band and it's music with it's ups and it's downs like some do with Pearl Jam. I didn't like at all their 2006 release Pearl Jam and I STILL don't but I still love their music overall and I don't foresee that changing anytime soon.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I have seen evey tour since The Unforgettable Fire, most multiple shows. (Only 1 Pop show).
The tie in to the stage set which began with ZooTV was morabout enhancing the music, not overshadowing it. Also as they grew and began playing stadia at the end of the Joshua Tree tour, they knew they'd need something to make the stadium concert experience worthwhile for those in the cheap seats. This is not exclusive th U2, you have seen some of what the likes of The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd have done with stadium concert staging I assume. As fife mentioned, the 2 tours prior to this one, Elevation and Vertigo had very little excess staging save the runway which allowed concertgoers to get closer to the band, so I don't see how they used extravagance to cover their cracks. Musically they are still solid live. You may not enjoy the post Joshua Tree material, but some of it (Achtung Baby as a whole and various pieces of the other albums, usually the non radio stuff) is some of their strongest work.
I was about to mention "Pop". Do you remember that whole album was kind of a slant on the easy, casual nature of music? Its a similar thing to what Clayton talked about in the article. The band were then disappointed that they rushed "Pop" out, and that ultimately, when they listened to it later on, they didnt think it sounded right. U2 lost a lot of money on the Popmart Tour, but when asked about it since, they dont focus on the money they lost on the mismanaged tour (usually laughing it off as a joke).....but they do focus on how they still feel the album sounds underdeveloped or incomplete.
U2 have more money than they need, anyone who believes they feel aggrieved about how much an album earns should wake up.
I don't like a lot of U2's music, but I think the OP took WAY too many liberties in making gross assumptions from that article. You were fed from the journalistic trough, and you ate it all up.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
the encore begins with one/amazing grace/streets
Somebody should start a thread on U2's best and worst album. That song when I firsst heard the album was the one i liked but put it away cause I didn't like the rest. Some months later listened again and the album turns out to be one their better ones for sure. Even better when heard live.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
how constructive. :roll:
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i don't know if i'd rate it that highly, but i do think it's sold short. it's a great, moody album. i hate 'get on your boots' though... it might be the worst song they've ever done. but overall, i would agree it's a fine album. i liked the last 2 albums and i like this one. they're all above pop for me.
It's funny, cause I would flip that around and say that U2, and Bono in particular, is less passionate about making music these days. They seem more consumed with championing every cause going, and putting on OTT stage shows. All this from a band who used to make songs as exquisite as One. In a time when access to music is so easy, I would argue that people are more passionate about music than ever. The difficulty I have getting tickets to most gigs would seem to support that.
So then it would be more disappointment in not reaching the masses as Bono implied then not making money. You can deny it all you want OP, but its true U2 bias that caused you to reach that conclusion.
I really liked No Line but felt that it was better then only Pop, October, and Atom Bomb in there catalog. Achtung Baby, Joshua Tree, War, and ATYCLB (In a little While and Kite are great great lesser known songs) are there ***** masterpieces.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
The album as a whole I like, but wouldn't put in the top 3(but I also really like October, so that makes me utterly unique), a few songs that are a bit weak, and "White as Snow" just bores me. but there are a handful of great songs, "Magnificent" being the best.
I think "no line" is the best they've put out since "Achtung baby".
I've never understood this...at all.
Has no one ever listen to Rattle and Hum or Achtung Baby??? After that, yeah their material is a bit iffy at times (although I still like most of it) but Achtung Baby is just as good of an album as the Joshua Tree, I even like it a little bit more. The band (Edge especially) are on there game on that album.
-my dad after hearing Not for You for the first time on SNL .
i think it is a good record but not their best since then. i still like POP. very underrated record.
This was more of a moody album somewhat like The Unforgettable Fire and Zooropa, a contrast to the more popular ones like Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and War. Those tend to sell more to the hardcore fans than the "pop" fanbase. I like it. I don't LOVE it, but I like it.
The problem is songs like Magnificent and Crazy are just plain obvious singles, as for Boots it's a B side at best and Stand Up Comedy as well.
I really hope Songs of Ascension adopts the mood that Bono said it would and not an obvious grab for singles, creating a mood sustained all over album to me is far more important.
I think NLOTH is their strongest album since the Achtung/Zooropa era, I use to think it was the strongest since Achtung period but those singles for me sit awkwardly with the atmospheric tracks like Fez. No Line is an uneven record and although it's much better than All You Can't & Atomic Bomb it could of been a better album with more consistency.
U2 should give up on trying to find singles and just go with the flow, I don't think they were decrying the money not made but the fact they didn't make the connection with their audience with this record although they still seem determined to look for singles. They should have stuck with Eno & Lanois and not bothered with bringing in Steve Lillywhite to produce singles that they obviously can't pull them off anymore as the best tracks on the album clearly aren't singles.
And that is also a re-write based on the original article in which these quotes appear:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/WireStor ... 336&page=1
Notice the title of that article: "U2 and Bono Adapt to Changing Times" The focus is thus not on the sales of the album, but on the 'changing times'. In a way, it's 1984 all over. History gets written, re-written and re-written until the facts have been edited away. And then people are starting to act based on the re-written (and falsified) information.
Choice quote from the original article:
To me it's clear from all the articles I read, U2 has a vision on where they want their music to go and how they have to adapt to the changing times in this very difficult music industry today. They appear to not have an intent on NOT selling out, their focus appears to totally on their music not record sales the music is foremost in their minds.
I gather from the postings in your thread 90% of the posters don't agree with the OP and maybe why he has not returned to further state in point from the original article he posted.
peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
the dumbing down of society starts right here...nice post? real good work here...ummmmm
as far as u2 being upset i think it's just natural that they want every new cd to sell 1 billion copies. pj are the exact same in that respect. when you already have a few million dollars in the bank it aint all about the money, all the time. adam i think is frustrated with the aspect of people perhaps not "getting it", unlike the good old days when vinyl/albums ruled. today the music industry is so hit oriented, so easily disposed of, imo.
I was given a free 2 year subscription to RS and I barely read anything inthere especially musically and most of all reviews.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)