ATYCLB lovers thread

[Blue Silken Sky]

Fun(ny) discussion.

I wore out my copy, too.  IALW can't even be read by my computer to add it to my digital music library (insert snarky comment here). Just last night, on a dark, mountainous, and rainy drive, singing along to the first half of this album kept me awake.

But I wore out my copy of Pop, too. It was the first CD I ever bought.  In fact, I just received a brand new copy of Pop for my birthday and looking through the booklet, I was transported back in time to the days when I'd call the mainstream rock radio stations and ask for Mofo. 

Your radio station played Mofo? Nice.

Not at all.  Whoever answered the phone always sounded completely dumbfounded and said, "We'll try to get that on for you in the next half hour." When next I'd hear SATS, I'd consider that my victory.

[U2-obsessed and proud]

FINALLY!

Someone else thinks ATYCLB is U2's best!

[pophater]

FINALLY!

Someone else thinks ATYCLB is U2's best!

Yup! Glad also to here I'm not the only one. IALW is one of the best U2 songs ever made. Bono sang it with so much feeling and The Edge's guitar parts and Daniel Lanois' guitar parts complement each other perfectly.

[BringCitrus]

I heard them do this (IALW) in Detroit while Bono had the raspy voice he referred to in the video from this tour. It really enhanced the performance because it sounded more emotional.

I, too, was at this show. Great indeed.

Worst. Concert. Crowd. Ever.

Where were you? I was right up against the outside of the heart slightly right of center.

[Zoost]

Far from my favorite album by U2, but it has a couple of my favorite songs on it, Grace, Wild Honey, Kite. After Pop it was such a huge let down to me though. U2 did not continue on the path of pushing boundaries and perfecting their craft. They went back to basics, and in my view you should never go backwards artistically.

[ABloodRedSky]

ATYCLB was my first U2 album, I was 11. Loved it. It'll always hold a special place in my mind.

[jick]

ATYCLB was one of U2's most inspired efforts ever.

They just became U2, did not care about what the rest of the music scene was doing, and came up with one of their best.

In that regard, it was very ballsy, brave and risky - which makes it the very anti-thesis of POP.

Cheers,

J

[Bads316]

c***

[Tumbling Dice]

In that regard, it was very ballsy, brave and risky - which makes it the very anti-thesis of POP.

If, as you contend, Pop was a total and utter commercial failure, then how can making an album which is the very antithesis of Pop be "very ballsy, brave and risky?"

Surely they had little to lose?

[jick]

In that regard, it was very ballsy, brave and risky - which makes it the very anti-thesis of POP.

If, as you contend, Pop was a total and utter commercial failure, then how can making an album which is the very antithesis of Pop be "very ballsy, brave and risky?"

Surely they had little to lose?

In POP, U2 took the easy way out. They tried to assimilate the "hot" mainstream music of that day to their music. You can hear the influences of The Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, and Beck in the songs in POP.  U2 tried so hard to be commercial there and "ride the wave" of what was hot.  The result was a failure because U2 tried to be someone they are not just to please the public and be current.

In ATYCLB, U2 stripped down and showcased their being a 4-piece band.  They played music that can be brought to the road and played live.  This was the exact opposite of the manufactured pop acts of that day which was the Britney Spears and boy band era.  They went against the tide of what music was that day.

In some respects, ATYCLB was like Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree.  Achtung Baby went directly against the grunge movement of the Nineties. The Joshua Tree went against the power pop/rock ballads and new wave hits of the Eighties.

U2 make their best music when they go against the tide and not ride with it.

In POP, U2 weren't themselves.  There is also some parallel with that and NLOTH where U2 were not themselves except for a few songs.  Storytelling is not Bono's strongest writing suit and that should be left to other songwriters, or you will get junk like Cedars of Lebanon.

The Eighties had The Joshua Tree.

The Nineties had Achtung Baby.

The Zeroes had All That You Can Leave Behind.

Cheers,

J

[Zoost]

In that regard, it was very ballsy, brave and risky - which makes it the very anti-thesis of POP.

If, as you contend, Pop was a total and utter commercial failure, then how can making an album which is the very antithesis of Pop be "very ballsy, brave and risky?"

Surely they had little to lose?

In POP, U2 took the easy way out. They tried to assimilate the "hot" mainstream music of that day to their music. You can hear the influences of The Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, and Beck in the songs in POP.  U2 tried so hard to be commercial there and "ride the wave" of what was hot.  The result was a failure because U2 tried to be someone they are not just to please the public and be current.

In ATYCLB, U2 stripped down and showcased their being a 4-piece band.  They played music that can be brought to the road and played live.  This was the exact opposite of the manufactured pop acts of that day which was the Britney Spears and boy band era.  They went against the tide of what music was that day.

In some respects, ATYCLB was like Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree.  Achtung Baby went directly against the grunge movement of the Nineties. The Joshua Tree went against the power pop/rock ballads and new wave hits of the Eighties.

U2 make their best music when they go against the tide and not ride with it.

In POP, U2 weren't themselves.  There is also some parallel with that and NLOTH where U2 were not themselves except for a few songs.  Storytelling is not Bono's strongest writing suit and that should be left to other songwriters, or you will get junk like Cedars of Lebanon.

The Eighties had The Joshua Tree.

The Nineties had Achtung Baby.

The Zeroes had All That You Can Leave Behind.

Cheers,

J

Jick, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have everything completely the wrong way round. Call yourself a U2 expert. LMAO. Your forum named needs to be changed to Joke.

Fool!

Pop was pushing the boundaries of their artistic ability and growth. A risk. They then s*** themselves that they would not make any more money or win any more awards, because like you, they gauge their success on those two factors. Therefore they went backwards and played it safe, just so they could be relevant and win awards. I like my bands grow and evolve. U2 did this magnificently from 1978 through 1998. Then stopped.

[pophater]

In that regard, it was very ballsy, brave and risky - which makes it the very anti-thesis of POP.

If, as you contend, Pop was a total and utter commercial failure, then how can making an album which is the very antithesis of Pop be "very ballsy, brave and risky?"

Surely they had little to lose?

In POP, U2 took the easy way out. They tried to assimilate the "hot" mainstream music of that day to their music. You can hear the influences of The Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, and Beck in the songs in POP.  U2 tried so hard to be commercial there and "ride the wave" of what was hot.  The result was a failure because U2 tried to be someone they are not just to please the public and be current.

In ATYCLB, U2 stripped down and showcased their being a 4-piece band.  They played music that can be brought to the road and played live.  This was the exact opposite of the manufactured pop acts of that day which was the Britney Spears and boy band era.  They went against the tide of what music was that day.

In some respects, ATYCLB was like Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree.  Achtung Baby went directly against the grunge movement of the Nineties. The Joshua Tree went against the power pop/rock ballads and new wave hits of the Eighties.

U2 make their best music when they go against the tide and not ride with it.

In POP, U2 weren't themselves.  There is also some parallel with that and NLOTH where U2 were not themselves except for a few songs.  Storytelling is not Bono's strongest writing suit and that should be left to other songwriters, or you will get junk like Cedars of Lebanon.

The Eighties had The Joshua Tree.

The Nineties had Achtung Baby.

The Zeroes had All That You Can Leave Behind.

Cheers,

J

Jick, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have everything completely the wrong way round. Call yourself a U2 expert. LMAO. Your forum named needs to be changed to Joke.

Fool!

No need for personal insults here. Jick is just stating the obvious facts that every real U2 fan knows.

[Zoost]

In that regard, it was very ballsy, brave and risky - which makes it the very anti-thesis of POP.

[/

In that regard, it was very ballsy, brave and risky - which makes it the very anti-thesis of POP.

If, as you contend, Pop was a total and utter commercial failure, then how can making an album which is the very antithesis of Pop be "very ballsy, brave and risky?"

Surely they had little to lose?

In POP, U2 took the easy way out. They tried to assimilate the "hot" mainstream music of that day to their music. You can hear the influences of The Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, and Beck in the songs in POP.  U2 tried so hard to be commercial there and "ride the wave" of what was hot.  The result was a failure because U2 tried to be someone they are not just to please the public and be current.

In ATYCLB, U2 stripped down and showcased their being a 4-piece band.  They played music that can be brought to the road and played live.  This was the exact opposite of the manufactured pop acts of that day which was the Britney Spears and boy band era.  They went against the tide of what music was that day.

In some respects, ATYCLB was like Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree.  Achtung Baby went directly against the grunge movement of the Nineties. The Joshua Tree went against the power pop/rock ballads and new wave hits of the Eighties.

U2 make their best music when they go against the tide and not ride with it.

In POP, U2 weren't themselves.  There is also some parallel with that and NLOTH where U2 were not themselves except for a few songs.  Storytelling is not Bono's strongest writing suit and that should be left to other songwriters, or you will get junk like Cedars of Lebanon.

The Eighties had The Joshua Tree.

The Nineties had Achtung Baby.

The Zeroes had All That You Can Leave Behind.

Cheers,

J

Jick, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have everything completely the wrong way round. Call yourself a U2 expert. LMAO. Your forum named needs to be changed to Joke.

Fool!

No need for personal insults here. Jick is just stating the obvious facts that every real U2 fan knows.

If, as you contend, Pop was a total and utter commercial failure, then how can making an album which is the very antithesis of Pop be "very ballsy, brave and risky?"

Surely they had little to lose?

In POP, U2 took the easy way out. They tried to assimilate the "hot" mainstream music of that day to their music. You can hear the influences of The Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, and Beck in the songs in POP.  U2 tried so hard to be commercial there and "ride the wave" of what was hot.  The result was a failure because U2 tried to be someone they are not just to please the public and be current.

In ATYCLB, U2 stripped down and showcased their being a 4-piece band.  They played music that can be brought to the road and played live.  This was the exact opposite of the manufactured pop acts of that day which was the Britney Spears and boy band era.  They went against the tide of what music was that day.

In some respects, ATYCLB was like Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree.  Achtung Baby went directly against the grunge movement of the Nineties. The Joshua Tree went against the power pop/rock ballads and new wave hits of the Eighties.

U2 make their best music when they go against the tide and not ride with it.

In POP, U2 weren't themselves.  There is also some parallel with that and NLOTH where U2 were not themselves except for a few songs.  Storytelling is not Bono's strongest writing suit and that should be left to other songwriters, or you will get junk like Cedars of Lebanon.

The Eighties had The Joshua Tree.

The Nineties had Achtung Baby.

The Zeroes had All That You Can Leave Behind.

Cheers,

J

Jick, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have everything completely the wrong way round. Call yourself a U2 expert. LMAO. Your forum named needs to be changed to Joke.

Fool!

No need for personal insults here. Jick is just stating the obvious facts that every real U2 fan knows.

And that is the most ridiculous post you have put on this forum, and there have been many of those from you I have read.

[Tumbling Dice]

I like jick, I think he’s a valuable member of this forum, and I think many of his posts make for interesting reading.  Simply because many people here on the forum disagree with his views, it doesn’t justify labelling him a ‘troll’, or treating him contemptuously, especially since his posts are invariably polite and good natured.

[pophater]

I like jick, I think he’s a valuable member of this forum, and I think many of his posts make for interesting reading.  Simply because many people here on the forum disagree with his views, it doesn’t justify labelling him a ‘troll’, or treating him contemptuously, especially since his posts are invariably polite and good natured.

I agree with you. Other members of this forum have a tendency to make personal insults to other members they disagree with. As a new member of this forum reading Jick's posts, he always has a good point and is one of the rare, real U2 fans.