Old U2 vs. New U2
bigbadbill
Posts: 1,758
Which do you prefer?
Old = Boy through Achtung Baby
New = Zooropa through ...Atomic Bomb
I personally enjoy the older U2 more, but the newer material is okay.
Maybe to some,
Old = Boy through Joshua Tree and New = everything else afterwards
Old = Boy through Achtung Baby
New = Zooropa through ...Atomic Bomb
I personally enjoy the older U2 more, but the newer material is okay.
Maybe to some,
Old = Boy through Joshua Tree and New = everything else afterwards
11/6/95, 11/18/97, 7/13/98, 7/14/98, 10/24/00, 10/25/00, 10/28/00, 6/2/03, 6/3/03, 6/5/03, 7/6/06, 7/7/06, 7/9/06, 7/10/06, 7/13/06, 7/15/06, 7/16/06, 7/18/06, 10/21/06, 4/10/08, 4/13/08, 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, 10/9/09
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
Looking at it in those terms-I have to say new. I absolutely love most of their work, but nothing matches up to Achtung. Zooropa, Pop, and All That You Can't Leave Behind are also favorites. The 90s was just such a cool, experiemental time for them and has many of my favorite songs. Of course, there are tons of attractive aspects to the 80s as well but we also had the mullets, the 80s-ified production of Unforgettable Fire, and October, one of the only U2 albums I think of as not a complete step forward. It's very, very similar to Boy, which is far superior, and in my opinion their weakest record.
Some die just to live.
*edit* nevermind, someone already said all this. i think id lean towards new... the old u2 has some moments of sheer genius, but the later u2 is more consistent. even the weaker albums are more solid than october, or boy/unforgettable fire (both have amazing songs, but also some forgettable ones).
but I don't even listen to the old albums anymore...they've moved onto pop and I moved onto harder rock
Old-boy-rattle and hum
Mid Achtung-Pop
new-All that you...-present.
becasue the split between my "old" and "mid" is just as grand as any split they did, but at the same time you can't rightly equate Pop with all its experimentation and all you can't leave with it's "back to basics" approach, I have a thread I created sometime last week after the bar where I rant on how I can't stand "new" U2 because of it's redundancy so I won't go any further into that. I can't say which I prefer on your original question, although if it's Boy-joshua tree and everything else being new I'd go with new in that regard.
Chris Cornell
http://www.myspace.com/mrwalkerb
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
With maybe a disc full of stuff from the first era.
Nothing against the older stuff though. "I Will Follow," "An Cat Dubh," "A Sort of Homecoming," "Bad," "With or Without You," plus dozens more, lots of good stuff there. But I listen to the newer stuff a good deal more.
we sit around and wonder exactly why our marriage should feel threatened by gay marriage
Everthing they did up to and including Achtung Baby is brilliant
Cant listen to anything they did after that.
Joshua Tree, War, Achtung Baby.......fantastic albums! Not that there's anything wrong with new U2!