Author Topic: The U2 of the 2000's  (Read 10561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bads316

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,221
  • Ain't nothin' but a muffin
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #75 on: October 23, 2013, 07:23:48 AM »
That's some funny stuff right there.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 02:42:33 PM by Droo »

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #76 on: October 23, 2013, 07:25:20 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #77 on: October 23, 2013, 07:28:41 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
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.

Wow, I didn't realize you were only 17. My friends and I had seen U2 multiple times and met the band, and been to Dublin to see all the U2 sights 4 years before you were even born. Are your parents U2 fans?

Offline ZooClothes

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,616
  • This is where you can reach me now.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #78 on: October 23, 2013, 08:59:21 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

Edge, your passion for HTDAAB is awesome. But album sales and Grammy wins are facts which do not support whether or not an album is good. See Milli Vanilli for one of many reference points.

Offline neilkap

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 173
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #79 on: October 23, 2013, 09:12:38 AM »
So bethere/edge, you must think eric clapton unplugged is better than achtung baby?

Grammys are meaningless

And now you know a bunch of people who prefer 90s U2 to 00s.





Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #80 on: October 23, 2013, 10:02:21 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
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!

Grammy Awards

Milli Vanilli      1
Baha Men       1
Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass  1

Led Zeppelin   0
The Who         0
Pink Floyd       0
Beach Boys     0

Ya, the Grammy's really mean a lot

Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #81 on: October 23, 2013, 10:09:29 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

Anyone who lists Bomb as "the best album of the 21st century" either doesn't get out much, or has musical tastes so different from mine that interaction with them is pretty much pointless. So while others can do what they want, I won't be feeding the Bethere Attention Machine any longer.


Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #82 on: October 23, 2013, 10:19:09 AM »
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #83 on: October 23, 2013, 10:23:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #84 on: October 23, 2013, 10:41:43 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I liked "bethere" better when his argument of choice to prove a point was concert attendances/grosses....

In my mind, we can talk about how musical taste is solely subjective all we want, until someone who has listened to U2 all their life says Bomb is one of their best albums. Then it's like, "Umm, no, taste is mostly subjective, but yours is just wrong."

Its individual and highly subjective even within discussion amongst fans of a certain artist - I can see how bomb would be lauded and appeal to individuals and a demographic though to be fair - to the point where it is lauded as not only u2s best but the best of the 21st century to date. . . . . . . . Those with a hearing impairment!  :)
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 10:44:04 AM by an tha »

Offline The Wanderer

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 537
  • U2360 Stage for Babies
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #85 on: October 23, 2013, 10:51:23 AM »
So would you have prefered the band called it quits on Dec 31st, 1999?  Or is there any appreciation for anything recorded since then. 

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #86 on: October 23, 2013, 11:03:30 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So would you have prefered the band called it quits on Dec 31st, 1999?  Or is there any appreciation for anything recorded since then.

No I wouldnt have liked them to jack it in because then there wouldnt be any hope that the band who made the records I love the most would be able to do it again!

As for post 99 songs - breathe, kite, fez, mos, are songs I like.

Offline big_willy_wonka

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 351
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #87 on: October 23, 2013, 11:58:43 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

The last sentence of my post was subjective yes. The rest of it was an objective commentary on the styles of music U2 produced pre and post 2000.

But seeing as you're being purely subjective, my subjective opinion is that ATYCLB and HTDAAB and to a greater extent NLOTH are horrible U2 records. Populist, badly produced and so concerned with marketing and sales they barely know who they are. But seeing as the majority here are so obsessed with chart positions and how many units each record shifted I would have to admit by those standards they were a success. As artistic statements they were a failure.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #88 on: October 23, 2013, 12:16:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

Edge, your passion for HTDAAB is awesome. But album sales and Grammy wins are facts which do not support whether or not an album is good. See Milli Vanilli for one of many reference points.

              Correction, they are facts that CAN support or CAN indicate excellent quality in an album. Pointing out certain exceptions like you did does not change that.

             At the end of the day, I have something other than my own personal opinion to support the idea that HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century. What do the haters of HTDAAB have other than their own opinion? NOTHING!

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #89 on: October 23, 2013, 12:19:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So bethere/edge, you must think eric clapton unplugged is better than achtung baby?

Grammys are meaningless

And now you know a bunch of people who prefer 90s U2 to 00s.

          Just because there are exceptions does not make the Grammy's meaningless. Far from it! Once again, its an indicator of quality.