Author Topic: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?  (Read 2201 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chip

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 939
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #45 on: March 03, 2017, 03:02:17 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I already said this on Twitter on atU2's post, but I'd start with after the PopMart tour (just to appease certain fans... I actually like the true timeline as is.)

From what I remember, All That You Can't Leave Behind was hailed as a great U2 album when it was released, and the Elevation tour sold out its tickets and was well received. I wonder what's changed people's minds about it almost 17 years later?

It received very mixed reviews (re: few very enthusiastic ones) from those of us who were hanging out here way back then. But we were not the general public; we liked what U2 was doing in the '90s and generally didn't want to see their experimentalism reversed. What ATYCLB did was to some extent bring back (briefly, lasting only through HTDAAB at longest) American '80s U2 fans who didn't like what the band did during the '90s (i.e., the majority of the American general public). It also to some extent got them a new, younger audience for a fairly brief period as well. By the end of 2001/beginning of 2002, it seemed that U2 really was the biggest band in the world again.

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,471
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #46 on: March 03, 2017, 06:38:16 AM »
I probably wouldn't have changed anything up until after HTDAAB.  Granted, ATYCLB wasn't my favorite album of theirs, but I understand they probably HAD to "return to their roots", at least musically.  I got a lot of enjoyment out of those tours, too.

If anything, maybe HTDAAB would have been more of what SOI was.  I could almost see a double album in there somewhere, using the theme of looking back at their history and early days.

But in my timeline, Bono and Edge had nothing to do with Spider-Man, and NLOTH didn't happen, at least not as it currently is.

Offline Spaderholic

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 376
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #47 on: March 03, 2017, 05:40:52 PM »
Everything up to, and including, Pop and the PopMart tour, is perfect. After that I would rather have had U2 take their inspiration from the likes of Pantera and Cannibal Corpse and become a Death Metal band than release the next couple of dull albums they did! NLOTH I do like (mostly) so I'd have still have had them make that album but then, instead of the Spiderman musical I'd have had Bono and Edge record a beautiful melodic album with possibly one of the greatest singer/songwriter/pianists around today - Sara Bareilles, on a special project together and then I'd have had U2 back together to record and release an album produced by Mark Ronson, mixing together a collection of songs with a perfect blend of rock and 'funky' edgy dance elements. Then I'd want Bono to take time out to play the role of a really freaky character from the Black Lodge in David Lynch's new series of Twin Peaks, before the band get back in the studio again to make the GREATEST album of their career to date! :-)

Offline very good

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 553
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2017, 09:41:39 AM »
Biggest mistake by a million miles was what happened afyer ATYCLB/Elevation Tour. If they had followed this up with the kind of experimentation that they are clearly capable of, 2000-2001 would he viewed as a continuation of a band at the peak of it's powers. The blandness that has consistently followed means it is viewed as the beginning of the end.

Offline PopMart_1997

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 132
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2017, 08:36:49 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I already said this on Twitter on atU2's post, but I'd start with after the PopMart tour (just to appease certain fans... I actually like the true timeline as is.)

From what I remember, All That You Can't Leave Behind was hailed as a great U2 album when it was released, and the Elevation tour sold out its tickets and was well received. I wonder what's changed people's minds about it almost 17 years later?

It received very mixed reviews (re: few very enthusiastic ones) from those of us who were hanging out here way back then. But we were not the general public; we liked what U2 was doing in the '90s and generally didn't want to see their experimentalism reversed. What ATYCLB did was to some extent bring back (briefly, lasting only through HTDAAB at longest) American '80s U2 fans who didn't like what the band did during the '90s (i.e., the majority of the American general public). It also to some extent got them a new, younger audience for a fairly brief period as well. By the end of 2001/beginning of 2002, it seemed that U2 really was the biggest band in the world again.
But then again, after 1987, U2 has ALWAYS been the biggest band in the world, never let up on that. Although Nirvana came close.

Offline WookieeWarrior10

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,658
  • Every Artist is a Cannibal, Every Poet is a Thief.
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2017, 09:17:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I already said this on Twitter on atU2's post, but I'd start with after the PopMart tour (just to appease certain fans... I actually like the true timeline as is.)

From what I remember, All That You Can't Leave Behind was hailed as a great U2 album when it was released, and the Elevation tour sold out its tickets and was well received. I wonder what's changed people's minds about it almost 17 years later?

It received very mixed reviews (re: few very enthusiastic ones) from those of us who were hanging out here way back then. But we were not the general public; we liked what U2 was doing in the '90s and generally didn't want to see their experimentalism reversed. What ATYCLB did was to some extent bring back (briefly, lasting only through HTDAAB at longest) American '80s U2 fans who didn't like what the band did during the '90s (i.e., the majority of the American general public). It also to some extent got them a new, younger audience for a fairly brief period as well. By the end of 2001/beginning of 2002, it seemed that U2 really was the biggest band in the world again.
But then again, after 1987, U2 has ALWAYS been the biggest band in the world, never let up on that. Although Nirvana came close.
Nirvana came close? I mean, I get that they were wildly popular... but Nirvana only released three albums, right? And they were only a big deal for like five years. Compare that U2's 40, or over 20 at the time of Pop.

Offline tigerfan41

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,362
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2017, 10:36:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I already said this on Twitter on atU2's post, but I'd start with after the PopMart tour (just to appease certain fans... I actually like the true timeline as is.)

From what I remember, All That You Can't Leave Behind was hailed as a great U2 album when it was released, and the Elevation tour sold out its tickets and was well received. I wonder what's changed people's minds about it almost 17 years later?

It received very mixed reviews (re: few very enthusiastic ones) from those of us who were hanging out here way back then. But we were not the general public; we liked what U2 was doing in the '90s and generally didn't want to see their experimentalism reversed. What ATYCLB did was to some extent bring back (briefly, lasting only through HTDAAB at longest) American '80s U2 fans who didn't like what the band did during the '90s (i.e., the majority of the American general public). It also to some extent got them a new, younger audience for a fairly brief period as well. By the end of 2001/beginning of 2002, it seemed that U2 really was the biggest band in the world again.
But then again, after 1987, U2 has ALWAYS been the biggest band in the world, never let up on that. Although Nirvana came close.
Nirvana came close? I mean, I get that they were wildly popular... but Nirvana only released three albums, right? And they were only a big deal for like five years. Compare that U2's 40, or over 20 at the time of Pop.

The thing about Nirvana is even though they were only around a very short time, they left a lasting impact on an entire genre of music. Personally, I'm not a fan of their music (I think it's too simplistic, not terribly creative, boring lyrically, vocally it's nothing special) but a lot of people seem to love them. As far as critics go, they've got a better reputation than U2 does. They're still critically adored whereas U2 have taken a LOT of flak over the years.

It would be interesting to see how Nirvana's reputation would have held up had Cobain not committed suicide. I feel like the band still would have stuck around, at least for a few more years before Grohl inevitably started a side project. I don't think they would have stuck together as consistently as Pearl Jam have, though. I think the band's reputation would have gone down a bit (in the eyes of critics) and they perhaps wouldn't be viewed as favorably as they are today.

Some could argue that, at various points, U2 have had serious competition for the "best band" award. There have been some bands who have been absolutely massive for a stretch of time before (usually) fading. It seems like U2 have been the most consistently popular/commercially successful since '87, though.

Offline PopMart_1997

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 132
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2017, 11:57:38 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I already said this on Twitter on atU2's post, but I'd start with after the PopMart tour (just to appease certain fans... I actually like the true timeline as is.)

From what I remember, All That You Can't Leave Behind was hailed as a great U2 album when it was released, and the Elevation tour sold out its tickets and was well received. I wonder what's changed people's minds about it almost 17 years later?

It received very mixed reviews (re: few very enthusiastic ones) from those of us who were hanging out here way back then. But we were not the general public; we liked what U2 was doing in the '90s and generally didn't want to see their experimentalism reversed. What ATYCLB did was to some extent bring back (briefly, lasting only through HTDAAB at longest) American '80s U2 fans who didn't like what the band did during the '90s (i.e., the majority of the American general public). It also to some extent got them a new, younger audience for a fairly brief period as well. By the end of 2001/beginning of 2002, it seemed that U2 really was the biggest band in the world again.
But then again, after 1987, U2 has ALWAYS been the biggest band in the world, never let up on that. Although Nirvana came close.
Nirvana came close? I mean, I get that they were wildly popular... but Nirvana only released three albums, right? And they were only a big deal for like five years. Compare that U2's 40, or over 20 at the time of Pop.
Yes, 5 years out of the 7 they existed as a band. They did come pretty close... the impact of Nevermind supports that. You don't have to be a band or artist for 20-40 years to obtain that status. U2 achieved that in 11 years and 5 studio albums... Nirvana formed in '87 when The Joshua Tree was the new record at the time and changed music forever with their 2nd album 4 years later... in the meantime, knocking Michael Jackson off the top of the charts forever. That's a pretty impressive feat. Even U2 invited Nirvana on tour with them during ZOO TV (Kurt declined, staying true to his punk ethics -- didn't want to be associated w/ a big "corporate rock band"). If Nirvana had chosen to repeat themselves and make Nevermind II instead of alienating & weeding out the fake fans by staying true to themselves and making In Utero, they probably would have been the biggest band in the world instead of the USA.

But back to U2....
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 12:00:18 AM by PopMart_1997 »

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,305
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #53 on: March 06, 2017, 01:53:20 AM »
This 'biggest band in the world' tag is in my view

1. a load of B.S. that actually means nothing really

2. a big reason why u2 have become what they have in terms of how they work etc.

Offline xy

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,404
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #54 on: March 06, 2017, 02:16:01 AM »
If I had to change anything it'd be to hear more stuff like Stateless and Ground beneath her feet that they worked on ATYCLB.

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,305
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #55 on: March 06, 2017, 03:22:36 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I had to change anything it'd be to hear more stuff like Stateless and Ground beneath her feet that they worked on ATYCLB.

Stateless is easily my favourite u2 song from the 00's

Offline The Exile

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,785
  • Been around the back, Been around the front.
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #56 on: March 06, 2017, 12:15:26 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I had to change anything it'd be to hear more stuff like Stateless and Ground beneath her feet that they worked on ATYCLB.

Whoever manages U2 should tell the four of them to go into the studio to do a side project under a different moniker. Then when it's done, say "Thanks lads, you just recorded the next U2 album."

Offline PopMart_1997

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 132
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #57 on: March 06, 2017, 08:25:36 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I had to change anything it'd be to hear more stuff like Stateless and Ground beneath her feet that they worked on ATYCLB.

Whoever manages U2 should tell the four of them to go into the studio to do a side project under a different moniker. Then when it's done, say "Thanks lads, you just recorded the next U2 album."
That would be Guy Oseary, Madonna's manager. Paul McGuinness retired from the U2 business a few years ago.

Offline pdk

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 294
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #58 on: March 06, 2017, 09:39:05 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I had to change anything it'd be to hear more stuff like Stateless and Ground beneath her feet that they worked on ATYCLB.

Whoever manages U2 should tell the four of them to go into the studio to do a side project under a different moniker. Then when it's done, say "Thanks lads, you just recorded the next U2 album."

DUDE - that's exactly the approach I would love to see and I BELIEVE they need.


Could it be.... that it was all.... so simple them?
Or has Edge....rewritten every line.....?

Offline Ultrafly

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Alternate History: Where would you change the U2 timeline?
« Reply #59 on: March 07, 2017, 02:03:56 PM »
Listening to the 1990 Salome demos, I honestly think you should just let the band jam for weeks, give the tapes to a perfect editor, and then you'll have a great U2 album. Get Bono to fly in vocals over the top, with a max of one day per lyric, and you can do a record that will - at least - be as good as any of the 2000-2009 ones.