Author Topic: The U2 of the 2000's  (Read 11016 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DGordon1

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,199
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #180 on: October 26, 2013, 09:41:16 AM »
NLOTH was largely not radio-friendly. I think that notion is a bit of a myth that has built up on fan forums (like ATYCLB being a rehash of their 80's sound). The only songs on that album that could be seen as made for radio are the middle 3, which make up a small portion of the running time. To me the only mis-fires on NLOTH are GOYB and SUC - Crazy Tonight is a good enough song to overcome its cheesy lyrics.

Any album that has Fex/Being Born, WAS, Cedars, MoS, UC, NLOTH is not a radio-friendly album. In fact, it showed U2 at their boldest and most adventurous for a while. It turned out to be too disjointed and lacking in cohesion to be considered a classic along with JT and Achtung, but it's filled with great music and I find it as enjoyable as Pop, TUF and Zooropa. I hope U2 go further down this road with the upcoming release but we shall see.

Offline big_willy_wonka

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 351
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #181 on: October 27, 2013, 05:20:18 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
NLOTH shared more in common with the 80s than the 90s, if you ask me. Everyone points to Fez - Being Born as some sort of 90s-era Achtung Baby or Zooropa experiment, but I think the song shares more in common with The Unforgettable Fire than anything on those two albums. It would have fit comfortably alongside the title track, Promenade and Indian Summer Sky.

I'd agree - the best moments on NLOTH are when U2 are more impressionistic rather than ramming the music down peoples throats. I'd say that pretty much goes for all of U2's output. The big dumb singles are when they lose it - the subtler moments are much more satisfying.

Offline Cam501

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 317
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #182 on: September 28, 2014, 09:03:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Most fans here, ie U2 fans not the here today gone tomorrow types, agree pop was the greater success. All the polls you started as bethere showed that.

Ultimately the ONLY thing that matters is what one personally thinks of the albums.

And I don't know or care what's played in Birmingham or nationally, but I know I rarely heard a Pop song on the radio and beautiful day and vertigo were played relentlessly

               Well, I don't know where you live, so I just picked a city. Whether you live in Birmingham or some other city in the United States, what you happen to hear on the radio station there is NOT an accurate measure of what is being played across the entire country. The only way to find that out is to look at the charts which are measured by Broadcast Data systems which electronically monitors radio airplay across the entire country constantly.

                The people on this specific message forum total only about a few dozen people I think. Its not an accurate measure of most U2 fans taste. I personally don't know anyone that prefers POP to 00s material and my friends and I have been U2 fans since the 1980s.

I think people over state the degree to which POP was unfinished and not polished.  While I understand that it was rushed, I believe it gets way too harsh of criticism and would pick it over HTDAAB (though I like both albums  The reworks for the best of were all worse than the originals for that matter as well.  Here's my album list from top to bottom (not including ep's or 100% live releases)

Achtung Baby
The Joshua Tree
All That You Can't Leave Behind
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
Songs of Innocence
Unforgettable Fire
Rattle and Hum
No Line on the Horizon

This was tough because I put October way below all other U2 albums.  So even though I have NLOTH ranked second last I don't view it as a garbage album.

Offline miketighe

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 166
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #183 on: September 30, 2014, 06:54:57 AM »
I'll just offer Bono's response. If you don't like it, delete it. Here's the link.

Offline SlyDanner

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,520
  • A white dope on punk staring into the flash.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #184 on: September 30, 2014, 11:59:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Yeah everything SD said.

Personally if I grade the eras its 80s first, then 90s then 00s, with tbe bottom of tbe U2 canon being HTDAAB. Not because its 'dad rock' , but because its 'bad rock'

Im not sure what 'dad rock' means exactly. I'm a dad and I like rock.

'Dad rock' is a term most often used by people who have not matured - emotionally and intellectually -at the same rate as the band we are discussing.  They are, in other words, 'stuck in a moment they can't get out of'. 

Offline satellitedog

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,500
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #185 on: October 01, 2014, 04:05:41 AM »
You can believe that, but that alone won't make any song better.

I wouldn't call Leonard Cohen, Lou Reed, Tom Waits or Nick Cave dad rock... I would call some of U2's '00s output dadrock though. Musical nostalgia is where it begins I think. There are high points strewn across that period though, and true emotional charge lets even less adventurous music off the hook of DR accusations, like Kite for a shiny example.