|
|
Post by lahaine on Sept 12, 2014 13:32:22 GMT -5
The failure of Rattle and Hum to connect to their fan base resulted in Achtung Baby. Rattle was such a hodge podge effort anyway. I don't even consider it a real album. More like a soundtrack to their documentary. And IMO the movie sucked. Caught it solo I was.so psyced I didnt want my then girlfriend with me to ask dumb questions , epic dissapointment IMO begining of the down slide God bless them but U2 at the time were so serious and earnest they weren't the most interesting bunch to meet. The Film is awful to be fair. The album could have been cut down to a EP, All I want is you, Desire and Angel of Harlem are some of U2's best. The Album did sell 12 million so it did well enough. |
|
|
|
Post by lahaine on Sept 12, 2014 13:34:08 GMT -5
Achtung Baby is one of the bravest moves by a big band ever, to truly involve and change your style is amazing even now and pull it off to that great extent is still mind blowing now. Zooropa is even braver and is a fantastic album, Stay is one of their greatest ballads too and Lemon is funky as hell. Pop I think maybe it was a step too far for some fans at the time, Larry Mullan was supposedly fed up with the dance side of the music too (he was always the rocker in the band) while Edge and Bono got more heavier into it. I think Pop is nowhere near their most hated ( Rattle And Hum must take that honor) but it is problematic but it's no means a awful record. Mofo, The Playboy Mansion, Staring at the Sun, Discotheque, Last Night on Earth are some of their best written songs and the tour (although the costumes did suck) they were even better then ever. I think the truth is many fans wanted to them to return the 80's grandstanding U2 by this time. The failure of Rattle and Hum to connect to their fan base resulted in Achtung Baby. Rattle was such a hodge podge effort anyway. I don't even consider it a real album. More like a soundtrack to their documentary. There cover of Helter Skelter is one of the worse Beatle Cover Versions, pity as U2 did some awesome covers at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Sept 12, 2014 13:34:27 GMT -5
Yeah, there wasn't even a hint that they could go in that direction, from the american roots music sound of Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum to the modern european music influences of Achtung Baby, a totally 180º turn. Radiohead get clapped on the back to often about changing their style but for me U2's was far bigger cause they are a bigger band and they had lot more to lose in a commercial and critical sense at the time, Rattle and Hum did sell 12 million Worldwide so it wasn't a disaster in a commercial sense. But it was a cul de sac they needed to get out off , it wasn't the first time they did this Unforgettable Fire was a big change too after War, they were getting knocks that they were getting to similar at the time. But Acthung Baby was just crazy, still their best album to date for me. Bono should bring the "Fly" back into action.   |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Sept 12, 2014 13:38:29 GMT -5
And IMO the movie sucked. Caught it solo I was.so psyced I didnt want my then girlfriend with me to ask dumb questions , epic dissapointment IMO begining of the down slide God bless them but U2 at the time were so serious and earnest they weren't the most interesting bunch to meet. The Film is awful to be fair. The album could have been cut down to a EP, All I want is you, Desire and Angel of Harlem are some of U2's best. The Album did sell 12 million so it did well enough. I haven't listened to Rattle and Hum probably since I was 15 years old, and that was a really fucking long time ago. |
|
|
|
Post by lahaine on Sept 12, 2014 13:41:16 GMT -5
The fact that people are legitimately complaining about this album in their music library just shows you how disillusioned we are as a society. I mean really complaining about a free album? There's a million things out there that deserve more complaining. I think a lot of people have a double standard with U2. They've been a band for 38 years, it should be clear to just about everyone that their best days are long behind them. I don't expect them to keep creatively reinventing themselves after nearly being in a band for 40 years. It'd be great to see what they'd come up with if they fooled around and just released anything, but U2 is such a huge brand that I doubt they'll ever do something truly exciting musically again. Instead they'll try and be exciting by using tactics like the ones used on this album release. U2 had an incredible 8 year run from War to Achtung Baby. They made 4 legit classic albums in my mind and were at the peak of their creative powers. Achtung is probably my least favorite out of albums released during that period (not including Rattle & Hum), but it is still a great album in its own right. I think that the rest of their 90's stuff doesn't really reach the highs of that 8 year run but they were still a very creative and forward thinking band. They were still captivating band in the 90's. At the dawn of the new century with the release of ATYCLB, it is pretty clear to me that they've settled into their own MOR brand of U2 rock/pop. And that's actually cool with me. They've done their fair share of experimenting and they've always been a grand, spectacle arena rock band at heart. None of the four albums that they've released in the 00's are great but 3 of them are decent enough. I rarely give passes to bands that just stick to their status quo but don't think it is fair to expect U2, who are in their mid 50's to make a glorious reinvention of themselves. 25% of me thinks/hopes for one more truly great U2 release but I'm content with just okay/solid albums from them at this point. U2, like Oasis for example, have a massive fan base that will stand up and love them to the day they die. But these band have their detractors even knocking their real classic work, U2 get a lot of hate I think is undeserving. People can't take their hatred for Bono (he can be a dislikeable sod at times but he means well) and pour it onto U2. I think Zooroopa is a really Great album and I put ATYCLB up with their best too. I don't think after Achtung Baby they didn't release any more classic albums, I think Achtung is their greatest album but the two I mentioned are classic U2. I like their new album, it's their best since 2000. |
|
|
|
Post by lahaine on Sept 12, 2014 13:43:06 GMT -5
God bless them but U2 at the time were so serious and earnest they weren't the most interesting bunch to meet. The Film is awful to be fair. The album could have been cut down to a EP, All I want is you, Desire and Angel of Harlem are some of U2's best. The Album did sell 12 million so it did well enough. I haven't listened to Rattle and Hum probably since I was 15 years old, and that was a really fucking long time ago. Had a listen to it a few months ago, apart from the tracks I mentioned it really is their weakest effort. It's half assed album from band who thought they release anything and it would sell, and it did to be fair  . |
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Sept 12, 2014 15:00:19 GMT -5
If they had cut some songs (about half of it) out of Rattle and Hum, it would be a very good record I guess. Til today I don't know if it is a live album, a studio album, don't know exactly what RH stands for.
|
|
zgb
Oasis Roadie
"I'll paint you the picture..."
Posts: 224
|
Post by zgb on Sept 12, 2014 18:30:09 GMT -5
Achtung Baby is one of the greatest records of all time... and that ZooTv tour was something else... don't know if any band can do that kind of shit in today's world.
|
|
|
|
Post by lahaine on Sept 12, 2014 18:56:54 GMT -5
Achtung Baby is one of the greatest records of all time... and that ZooTv tour was something else... don't know if any band can do that kind of shit in today's world. I think it's U2's Masterpiece and the only time you really can say U2 were ever cool. There's two songs on Achtung Baby I really love Love is Blindness, Edge did a beautiful version of it solo a few years back and Jack White did a amazing version of it too a few years back. And Ultraviolet (light my way), they were obviously listening to The Stone Roses and Happy Mondays heavily for this song. Beautiful song was used brilliantly in the film The Diving Bell and The Butterfly. It's Bono's best vocal performance that album. Did anyone get that Achtung Baby boxset that was released a few years back. Brilliant and well worth the 200 Euro I paid for it. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 12, 2014 19:25:28 GMT -5
This album sounds fresh and refreshing and sometimes that's all that's needed even when the songwriting isn't great, which the songwriting here is average (check Don't Believe the Truth for Oasis for a case study of this, though the songwriting is actually slightly above average on that album). However, I did enjoy Iris and Trouble and found those two to be stand out and high quality tracks. I'm just glad they made an album that I could listen through the entirety of again. That's probably the most refreshing quality of this album. That and Danger Mouse's production. He's just as much of the star as the higher quality of lyrics present, Bono's voice, and the Edge ceasing to make every simple riff deeper with far too much delay. Danger Mouse is one of the prime examples of what a great producer can do with artists who are willing to listen and adhere. U2 did and thankfully they'll be interesting, even if for only a little bit longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 12, 2014 19:59:39 GMT -5
My brother is the only person I know who absolutely loves U2 - apart from him, I get derision from folk who think they know better. It's very strange - for such a massive band - far bigger than the likes of Oasis who I know many people who love them - I don't know any genuine fans of U2. There must be closet fans who are frightened of receiving derision like myself!
The more hate they receive, the more I defend them to the death. Ironically so, it's the hipsters who hate on them - those of the most 'original' and 'enlightened' minds jump on the bandwagon simply because everyone else is thinking Bono's a twat. Very original if you ask me....
As a result, my stubborness makes me love U2 more, and I love to rebel against that type of pathetic and narrow minded thinking! I bring the argument forward on them, and trying to divert it away from Bono, they say the music is bland ('Zoo TV is bland' nobody ever said). Well, I must admit that U2 from 2000 onwards are pretty MOR but to base your opinions on just a small section of their discography is like saying The Godfather films are utter shit just because you've seen the third one.
Then there's 'The Edge is a one trick pony'. The Edge is not the most technically gifted guitarist of course, but his sound IS orginal. It offers an ethereal sound to an instrument I didn't realise could be ambient and spiritual sounding creating wonderful soundscapes - it's no wonder then that Brian Eno so successfully worked with U2 considering The Edge's visionary guitar playing. Achtung Baby offers a wide range of imaginative musical textures which is down to The Edge's guitar playing. What's more, the whole 'delay pedal' obsession doesn't take into consideration U2's 90s work, so suggests to me these critics have only been listening to the first few tracks from The Joshua Tree.
It makes me sad that so many people could so easily dismiss such an impressive body of work with genuinely some of the best albums ever made in my opinion. It's almost a crime to music in my opinion to hate on U2 - I simply cannot understand it. To hate a band with one of the most gifted singers ever who at his best could be lyrically profound, in addition to a very tight rhythm section who have put on some of the greatest live performances in the history of music does not add up. Under A Blood Red Sky, Live Aid, Zoo TV, the Slane Castle gig in 2001 - how on earth is that a shit band?
To strive to be not only the biggest, but the best, band in the world is an ambition that shouldn't be sneered at - god help us all if it is. And for a time they were the biggest and the best. That same ambition also gave us a band who successfully reinvented themselves not once (War to Unforgettable Fire transition) but twice (Rattle & Hum to Achtung Baby). Bands who reinvent themselves usually have to sacrifice commercial success for critical success - but U2 achieved both ends impressively. Rarely any band does that - how mind boggling is that? But ambition comes at a cost - the same ambition also gave us a small preachy man who was irritatingly hellbent on changing the world which in turn sowed the seeds of disdain for U2. But the benefits far outweigh the negatives - I have literally hundreds of CDs I've collected over the years but if you were to take my U2 albums away from me, there would be a huge gaping hole which I could never replace. I love Oasis but I don't think they are one of the greatest musical acts of all time. And there are many many more acts I love that I don't think are truly great. But I honestly believe U2 are one of the greatest musical acts of all time.
They are what I call 'true greats', up there with my personal favourites like The Beatles, Bowie, Springsteen, Kate Bush, Joy Division, The Smiths. You don't have to like 'true greats' - I can't say I'm a Led Zeppelin fan for example but I have massive respect for their achievements. And in the same way, I wish people would recognise U2's achievements and I don't think irrational hatred of Bono (which seeps through to the whole band) should interfere with what he has genuinely achieved as an artist.
As a result of people's preconceptions of their MOR albums and Bono's personality in recent years, they are so unfashionable to the extreme. But when was fashionability ever a mark of greatness? It never is - true quality is not synonymous with fashionability, and I think many people struggle to separate the two. To spout such negativity and hate is depressing, because it undermines and neglects such genuine brilliance from previously that it is almost completely dismissed. And to completely forget the best of U2 in favour of the worst kind of excess from them is an utterly damning indictment of society - to forget what's good and only focus on negativity to suit your own agenda..... it's so destructive and you see it in all walks of life. Though I am an optimist - just like many great musicians, artists or writers who go through phases of unfashionability, their greatness outlasted any fads, and I think as long as there's justice, good sense and taste, U2 will one day be seen in a positive light again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Sept 13, 2014 1:23:21 GMT -5
Two excellent posts above me. Yeah matt I agree with you on the notion that it is hard to encounter a massive U2 fan anymore. They are a HUGE band so that makes the public's reception of them that much more complex. The public's complex feelings for U2 definitely appear in their music reviews. You see Rolling Stone giving this album 5 stars, which is kind of an tradition at this point. It is kind of annoying to see them praised when they don't really deserve it. This album is enjoyable and it is the first listenable record that they have made in a decade, but there's no universe where this album is perfect or essential. It isn't even a top 5 U2 record. Then you have another group that is overly snotty and dismissive of U2. Probably just because they are so huge and they've had enough longevity to garner hate, which is kinda of impressive to be honest. In some respects they judge U2 as if they are capable of making another true 5 classic, so they are overly critical of their music output. That's the great thing about art. People are gonna have their opinions. Just wish people were a little more open minded with regard to their expectations. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Sept 13, 2014 1:42:45 GMT -5
My brother is the only person I know who absolutely loves U2 - apart from him, I get derision from folk who think they know better. It's very strange - for such a massive band - far bigger than the likes of Oasis who I know many people who love them - I don't know any genuine fans of U2. There must be closet fans who are frightened of receiving derision like myself! The more hate they receive, the more I defend them to the death. Ironically so, it's the hipsters who hate on them - those of the most 'original' and 'enlightened' minds jump on the bandwagon simply because everyone else is thinking Bono's a twat. Very original if you ask me.... As a result, my stubborness makes me love U2 more, and I love to rebel against that type of pathetic and narrow minded thinking! I bring the argument forward on them, and trying to divert it away from Bono, they say the music is bland ('Zoo TV is bland' nobody ever said). Well, I must admit that U2 from 2000 onwards are pretty MOR but to base your opinions on just a small section of their discography is like saying The Godfather films are utter shit just because you've seen the third one. Then there's 'The Edge is a one trick pony'. The Edge is not the most technically gifted guitarist of course, but his sound IS orginal. It offers an ethereal sound to an instrument I didn't realise could be ambient and spiritual sounding creating wonderful soundscapes - it's no wonder then that Brian Eno so successfully worked with U2 considering The Edge's visionary guitar playing. Achtung Baby offers a wide range of imaginative musical textures which is down to The Edge's guitar playing. What's more, the whole 'delay pedal' obsession doesn't take into consideration U2's 90s work, so suggests to me these critics have only been listening to the first few tracks from The Joshua Tree. It makes me sad that so many people could so easily dismiss such an impressive body of work with genuinely some of the best albums ever made in my opinion. It's almost a crime to music in my opinion to hate on U2 - I simply cannot understand it. To hate a band with one of the most gifted singers ever who at his best could be lyrically profound, in addition to a very tight rhythm section who have put on some of the greatest live performances in the history of music does not add up. Under A Blood Red Sky, Live Aid, Zoo TV, the Slane Castle gig in 2001 - how on earth is that a shit band? To strive to be not only the biggest, but the best, band in the world is an ambition that shouldn't be sneered at - god help us all if it is. And for a time they were the biggest and the best. That same ambition also gave us a band who successfully reinvented themselves not once (War to Unforgettable Fire transition) but twice (Rattle & Hum to Achtung Baby). Bands who reinvent themselves usually have to sacrifice commercial success for critical success - but U2 achieved both ends impressively. Rarely any band does that - how mind boggling is that? But ambition comes at a cost - the same ambition also gave us a small preachy man who was irritatingly hellbent on changing the world which in turn sowed the seeds of disdain for U2. But the benefits far outweigh the negatives - I have literally hundreds of CDs I've collected over the years but if you were to take my U2 albums away from me, there would be a huge gaping hole which I could never replace. I love Oasis but I don't think they are one of the greatest musical acts of all time. And there are many many more acts I love that I don't think are truly great. But I honestly believe U2 are one of the greatest musical acts of all time. They are what I call 'true greats', up there with my personal favourites like The Beatles, Bowie, Springsteen, Kate Bush, Joy Division, The Smiths. You don't have to like 'true greats' - I can't say I'm a Led Zeppelin fan for example but I have massive respect for their achievements. And in the same way, I wish people would recognise U2's achievements and I don't think irrational hatred of Bono (which seeps through to the whole band) should interfere with what he has genuinely achieved as an artist. As a result of people's preconceptions of their MOR albums and Bono's personality in recent years, they are so unfashionable to the extreme. But when was fashionability ever a mark of greatness? It never is - true quality is not synonymous with fashionability, and I think many people struggle to separate the two. To spout such negativity and hate is depressing, because it undermines and neglects such genuine brilliance from previously that it is almost completely dismissed. And to completely forget the best of U2 in favour of the worst kind of excess from them is an utterly damning indictment of society - to forget what's good and only focus on negativity to suit your own agenda..... it's so destructive and you see it in all walks of life. Though I am an optimist - just like many great musicians, artists or writers who go through phases of unfashionability, their greatness outlasted any fads, and I think as long as there's justice, good sense and taste, U2 will one day be seen in a positive light again. Well depending on the circle of friends you roll with, a massive U2 fan should be in their late 40s, early 50s. U2 were in their prime and cultural zenith 20-25 years ago. That fan base of diehards is ancient at this point. Generally a band that old doesn't have legions of fans currently in their 20s, early 30s.....thought it's not impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Sept 13, 2014 1:46:31 GMT -5
Two excellent posts above me. Yeah matt I agree with you on the notion that it is hard to encounter a massive U2 fan anymore. They are a HUGE band so that makes the public's reception of them that much more complex. The public's complex feelings for U2 definitely appear in their music reviews. You see Rolling Stone giving this album 5 stars, which is kind of an tradition at this point. It is kind of annoying to see them praised when they don't really deserve it. This album is enjoyable and it is the first listenable record that they have made in a decade, but there's no universe where this album is perfect or essential. It isn't even a top 5 U2 record. Then you have another group that is overly snotty and dismissive of U2. Probably just because they are so huge and they've had enough longevity to garner hate, which is kinda of impressive to be honest. In some respects they judge U2 as if they are capable of making another true 5 classic, so they are overly critical of their music output. That's the great thing about art. People are gonna have their opinions. Just wish people were a little more open minded with regard to their expectations. Coldplay suffer a similar fate to U2. People love to dump on Chris Martin and company all the time. They are a talented rock band with 2-3 really great albums and put on amazing live atmosphere. They are also genuinely nice people just like U2. I think that turns some people off who think rock n roll is football hooliganism. |
|
|
|
Post by tcgallagher on Sept 13, 2014 3:11:34 GMT -5
The album is rubbish. Took it out after track 6.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Sept 13, 2014 4:47:29 GMT -5
My brother is the only person I know who absolutely loves U2 - apart from him, I get derision from folk who think they know better. It's very strange - for such a massive band - far bigger than the likes of Oasis who I know many people who love them - I don't know any genuine fans of U2. There must be closet fans who are frightened of receiving derision like myself! I've never met a U2 fan but meanwhile they had 73,000 people at the last show here in Miami three years ago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2014 8:53:20 GMT -5
forgive my ignorance but if you don't have i-tunes how the hell are you supposed to hear these new songs? everytime someone uploads them to youtube the audio is muted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Sept 13, 2014 9:04:32 GMT -5
forgive my ignorance but if you don't have i-tunes how the hell are you supposed to hear these new songs? everytime someone uploads them to youtube the audio is muted. Download itunes. Download the songs. Delete Itunes if you dont want it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Sept 13, 2014 9:54:14 GMT -5
Song For Someone has really grown on me. Great Bono vocals during chorus.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 13, 2014 9:56:41 GMT -5
Two excellent posts above me. Yeah matt I agree with you on the notion that it is hard to encounter a massive U2 fan anymore. They are a HUGE band so that makes the public's reception of them that much more complex. The public's complex feelings for U2 definitely appear in their music reviews. You see Rolling Stone giving this album 5 stars, which is kind of an tradition at this point. It is kind of annoying to see them praised when they don't really deserve it. This album is enjoyable and it is the first listenable record that they have made in a decade, but there's no universe where this album is perfect or essential. It isn't even a top 5 U2 record. Then you have another group that is overly snotty and dismissive of U2. Probably just because they are so huge and they've had enough longevity to garner hate, which is kinda of impressive to be honest. In some respects they judge U2 as if they are capable of making another true 5 classic, so they are overly critical of their music output. That's the great thing about art. People are gonna have their opinions. Just wish people were a little more open minded with regard to their expectations. Haven't read one good review so far - either overrating it with 5 stars or underrating it. That said, Neil McCormick's review is the most accurate I think. |
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Sept 13, 2014 10:06:31 GMT -5
I'm expecting a massive U2 tour to be announced in the coming weeks. Hopefully it'll be an arena tour. I've loved their arena tours the most. They take complete control in that setting. Football stadiums are too big for every band in my opinion. Less personal. It wouldn't shock me to see them at the Super Bowl again but that honor will probably go to Taylor Swift or Coldplay. Would love to see them in an Arena but they'd have to play 20 nights at The Point for them to satisfy demand in Ireland. Can see them doing Slane next summer. I like the album, sounds great and it's a lovely collection of songs but I need more time with it. I've been listening to Ryan Adams new one a lot more at the moment though. Pleasantly surprised with U2's effort though, will definitely be buying a physical copy. |
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Sept 13, 2014 10:46:58 GMT -5
Rolling Stone Magazine is crap, for most britsh bands they only give something like 3,5 stars, and for most american artists they give 4,5 or 5, but for U2 it's much more than that, there is much money involved in there, 5 star review from RS, a deal with Apple, people just can't believe in that review.
U2 is a great band, but for most people that great band died some decades ago, nowadays they look more like a corporate company to save Africa or to win Oscars, and this aproach "hey listen to me" tatic, pushing their new album in everybodys throat, with a partnership with a great corporation like Apple is a bit strange for most, and the worst thing is that it reflects on their songs too and on their new album, album which has dozen of producers that labored to much over the songs stripping the souls out of them.
But sadly in the end people tend to link those stuffs with their music, but also the band can't help themselves, they like to do this stuffs and ended up looking lie a buch of sellouts.
I like U2 a lot, but this side of U2 is totally awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Sept 13, 2014 11:58:19 GMT -5
Rolling Stone Magazine is crap, for most britsh bands they only give something like 3,5 stars, and for most american artists they give 4,5 or 5, but for U2 it's much more than that, there is much money involved in there, 5 star review from RS, a deal with Apple, people just can't believe in that review. U2 is a great band, but for most people that great band died some decades ago, nowadays they look more like a corporate company to save Africa or to win Oscars, and this aproach "hey listen to me" tatic, pushing their new album in everybodys throat, with a partnership with a great corporation like Apple is a bit strange for most, and the worst thing is that it reflects on their songs too and on their new album, album which has dozen of producers that labored to much over the songs stripping the souls out of them. But sadly in the end people tend to link those stuffs with their music, but also the band can't help themselves, they like to do this stuffs and ended up looking lie a buch of sellouts. I like U2 a lot, but this side of U2 is totally awful. I count 3 producers on this album with Danger Mouse working on 10 of 11 songs. If you know his music, you know he had a hand in shaping this current sound. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2014 12:13:59 GMT -5
They don't even need it anyway, they are veterans with a big fanbase. Isn't Bono pro-charity too? Seems fishy he would even allow it Nothing Fishy about it to be fair, Apple must have offered them that crazy amount of money how could any band turn that down plus it's great publicity. I say Bono and Co have made enough money for Charity to be questioned to be fair. I think imagining any dodgy dealings is a bit OTT tc. So if you give some money to charity everything you do must go unquestioned. What a stupid way to think. |
|
|
|
Post by lahaine on Sept 14, 2014 17:01:51 GMT -5
Nothing Fishy about it to be fair, Apple must have offered them that crazy amount of money how could any band turn that down plus it's great publicity. I say Bono and Co have made enough money for Charity to be questioned to be fair. I think imagining any dodgy dealings is a bit OTT tc. So if you give some money to charity everything you do must go unquestioned. What a stupid way to think. And it's a stupid to think something sinister is going on Ross. Both Apple and U2 are getting great publicity out of it so what's the problem. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5