Author Topic: The U2 of the 2000's  (Read 10414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DGordon1

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,199
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #60 on: October 22, 2013, 04:21:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Depends how you define failure.

I know I've heard beautiful day and vertigo a lot more on the radio. Both then and now.

POP was a massive artistic success. Whereas Htdaab was a massive failure.


HTDAAB did what it set out to do, so it wasn't an artistic failure. It would only be considered such if it missed its goal. It appeals to simpler tastes - I really don't understand those who can't enjoy a deep, challenging album and a more basic to-the-point piece of work for what it is.

I think Pop was a great album (although the mixes of IGWSHA, LNOE and Please weren't perfect). HTDAAB is a good album, with solid songwriting throughout. I find Pop more exciting, but they're not really comparable as pieces of work in my mind.

Offline Droo

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,170
  • don't expect, suggest
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #61 on: October 22, 2013, 04:34:13 PM »
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

Offline neilkap

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 173
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #62 on: October 22, 2013, 04:48:40 PM »
Exactly. Yes its a "basic" album for which there's always a time and a place. But they don't do that type of music very well.


Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #63 on: October 22, 2013, 05:15:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Depends how you define failure.

I know I've heard beautiful day and vertigo a lot more on the radio. Both then and now.

POP was a massive artistic success. Whereas Htdaab was a massive failure.

           Well, there is what you hear on the radio as one person and then what electronic monitoring of radio airplay says about what is being played across an entire country like the United States. Perhaps in Birmingham Alabama, Vertigo received a higher level of airplay when it was released than Staring At The Sun. But nationally, that was not the case. Its a fact that Staring At The Sun made it to #16 in national radio airplay across the United States, while Vertigo peaked at #30!

           POP was a relative failure both in terms of sales and artistically. Even the band has admitted this. They failed to finish the album. They needed another 6 to 8  months in the studio to finish it, but they had already booked the tour so they simply dropped their raw unfinished product on the public in March 1997. The only songs that feel completely finished and polished on the album are the first three songs, Discotheque, Do You Feel Loved and Mofo. The rest of the songs on the album either need to be re-written or re-recorded, and the band tried to do that with Please before it was released as a single.

          HTDAAB was an amazing success for U2. Its U2's third best album and the greatest album released so far in the 21st century. It has sold 10 million copies and won 8 Grammy awards including album of the year. The tour in support of the album grossed almost $400 million dollars and was attended by almost 5 million people. There is always someone out there that is going to call any album terrible or a failure, even the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby would not be immune to some individuals saying that. But the majority of U2 fans and music fans consider HTDAAB to be a success and so does the band!

A commercial success without doubt - whether it was an artistic success is another story/ argument altogether, and a very subjective one- I'd say it was absolutely not one. IMO it may be U2's worst album..... artistically

Offline parkman

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • His love is continually teaching me how to kneel.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #64 on: October 22, 2013, 07:56:41 PM »
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #65 on: October 22, 2013, 09:41:31 PM »
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.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #66 on: October 22, 2013, 09:43:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #67 on: October 22, 2013, 09:45:36 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)

                 They played there on the ZOO TV tour back in 1992! Outside Broadcast in the fall. Did you live in Alabama back then?

Offline ZooClothes

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,616
  • This is where you can reach me now.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #68 on: October 22, 2013, 09:58:29 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

This is just as subjective a benchmark as anything else you can judge music by. To the Extreme by Vanilla Ice sold 11 million, etc etc I could name a few others as well. If NLOTH had come out in 2004 with an iPod commercial push, at the tail end of when CDs were still relatively big, would it have sold 10 million copies and won 8 Grammys? Hard to tell. I think I've said it before, but to me, HTDAAB is U2's most frustratingalbum. Moments of blast and beauty surrounded by mediocrity. Remember, U2 also enjoyed a great renaissance in the US when ATYCLB came out, and they were touring after 9/11, and they played the Super Bowl with the tribute to the 9/11 victims. The US fanbase seemed to "welcome back" U2 from the cyberterrain of Zooropa/PopMart. I sincerely believe they rode that wave through HTDAAB (playing under the Brooklyn Bridge as a promo didn't hurt either). Just my observations.

Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #69 on: October 22, 2013, 10:25:50 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 12:38:11 AM by The Exile »

Offline big_willy_wonka

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 351
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #70 on: October 23, 2013, 01:37:33 AM »

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

Offline parkman

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • His love is continually teaching me how to kneel.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #71 on: October 23, 2013, 03:39:22 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Funny enough, I live in Birmingham, Alabama. 
What's weird is, in TWO separate interviews, Bono mentions Birmingham, Alabama,  :o but I don't think they've ever played here! Like come on guys!!!! I want!!!  ::)

                 They played there on the ZOO TV tour back in 1992! Outside Broadcast in the fall. Did you live in Alabama back then?

 :o I'm gonna go get that bootleg! Right now! ..And sadly, I wasn't living anywhere. I wasn't born yet.  ;) Wish I could've been there.

satellitedog01

  • Guest
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #72 on: October 23, 2013, 05:20:16 AM »
That Birmingham gig was my first ZooTV bootleg back in '98... The first time I heard Throw Your Arms... live.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #73 on: October 23, 2013, 07:16:59 AM »
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
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

This is just as subjective a benchmark as anything else you can judge music by. To the Extreme by Vanilla Ice sold 11 million, etc etc I could name a few others as well. If NLOTH had come out in 2004 with an iPod commercial push, at the tail end of when CDs were still relatively big, would it have sold 10 million copies and won 8 Grammys? Hard to tell. I think I've said it before, but to me, HTDAAB is U2's most frustratingalbum. Moments of blast and beauty surrounded by mediocrity. Remember, U2 also enjoyed a great renaissance in the US when ATYCLB came out, and they were touring after 9/11, and they played the Super Bowl with the tribute to the 9/11 victims. The US fanbase seemed to "welcome back" U2 from the cyberterrain of Zooropa/PopMart. I sincerely believe they rode that wave through HTDAAB (playing under the Brooklyn Bridge as a promo didn't hurt either). Just my observations.

HTDAAB came out over 4 years AFTER ATYCLB. Almost as long a gap in studio album releases that were currently in right now. That's definitely not wave riding. HTDAAB sold well on its own.

          The Grammy awards are voted on by the Grammy Academy. The Grammy Academy includes several thousand people involved with the production of music, including artist, producers, and engineers. For the artist, it is an award from their peers, not the public.

        Given that, why would an album that is "dull,  insipid", "poorly produced", has a "terrible mix" and is "dull and boring" win more Grammy awards than any other album in history from the very people that work every day in producing music?

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #74 on: October 23, 2013, 07:20:43 AM »
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
My problem isn't that HTDAAB is to the point, it's that it's so very dull, insipid, and boring as well as terribly mixed and produced.

             So why did it sell 10 million copies and win more Grammy awards than any other album in history?

It sold 10 million because it was really, really good. If it had been twice as good, it would have sold 20 million. If it had been a masterpiece, it would have sold 1 trillion.

Because the best albums of all time are the exact same as the top selling albums of all time.

             Oh, ok, so its "dull, boring, and poorly produced" because it sold 10 million copies and won 8 grammy awards? Again, in my opinion it is by far the best album released so far in the 21st century. The fact that it was the most heavily awarded album in Grammy history gives that support. The Grammy awards are voted on by people involved with the production of music. When an artist wins a Grammy award, it is recognition from an artist peers, NOT the general public!