Classic or Dud: U2

Anyhow, how is Achtung Baby the stupidest album title? It's just there and bland, it's not like, say, Enter the Dragon. I still haven't figured out what that means.

The music itself is a bunch of hammy guitar effects pedal tricks, overlaid with a straining, toilet seat voice trying hard to be epic and enigmatic but just ending up thoroughly, soddenly middlebrow.

However their first LP - although still ultimately crap - was a leaner, artier thing, when they were grooving to northern soul and joy division. Worth checking out, if only to confrim to yourself it's a blind alley.

BTW where the fuck is the kudos attached to "meaning it"? Hitler meant it!

I read a funny story about John Lydon sacking his manager circa 1989 because he told him he should "try to be more like Bono". I wish I'd been a fly on the wall when that conversation took place..

i don't care how much joy division they listen to (i mean, so does mogwai from all accounts). the overcooked grandiose "epic" vocals and cornball lyrics ("we eat and drink while tomorrow they die" *slap*) and totally nondescript rhythm section ruin very promising guitar parts and eno's production. i'd at least listen to an instrumental album by the edge.

search: "new year's day"

if one doesn't like bono's voice or even bono himself, then there's not much you can do. though if you can dislike the band just because of bono, you probably don't much like the music in the first place. for example, i hate thom yorke. truly and thoroughly. but when the music's fine, i can put that aside. (stunning revelation: i quite like "pyramid song.")

i'm arguably the most classic rock person on this board, so it should be no surprise that i'm a sucker for their grandiose arena rock. here's a question: how many of you that rate the rolling stones a classic, rate u2 a dud?

Michael, I don't understand your argument. Is it of '50 000 000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong!' variety? The majority is always right, huh? Not that it even is a majority.

But I won't use the argument that U2 has millions of followers around the world, because so do NSYNC and Britney Spears, and we all know how talented (gag) they are. Instead, think about their 20+ year career history, and the number of hits they've produced. Whether someone likes U2's music or not should not be criteria in considering a group to be a classic. I'm not a Rolling Stones fan, but I have to admit, they are a classic, whether I like their music or not. U2 is in the same category- despite personal musical preference, they supercede personal taste because, in essence, THEY ARE A CLASSIC! You do not need to be a fan of U2's music to realize that they are a classic. Besides, how many are involved with Greenpeace, Amnesty International, etc etc and donate countless hours and money to causes, such as relieving 3rd world debt? Too many other rock groups are too high on coke and are too self-involved to partake.

Many of the previous arguments I've read are hardly convincing and seem petty, "U2 = dud, their music sucks and it's for old people and like, Bono's a twat and egomaniac...blah blah blah" So what if Bono's a drama queen? It's all part of the Rock act and makes it more interesting to the fans and followers (of which, you all know, they have millions). The group isn't just about Bono, come on, it's the entire package. U2 is without a doubt, a classic, and an undeniably great group.

Oh, that's a completely rubbish argument. Why is wrong for people to consider things on their own terms, and not accept pronouncements from Rolling Stone, Q et al at face value? I rather like the idea of people actually thinking for themselves instead of blindly accepting what they are told.

I can't hardly stand early U2 (whiny, monotonous, overblown), but everything from Joshua Tree on I find to be real groovy. Even Rattle & Hum. Achtung Baby is a great classic. The first side of Joshua Tree is flawless. Am I crazy?

Early U2 is quite clearly the bomb. The first three albums are glorious in their entirety. After that, they tend to be a mixed affair (the sole exception being _Achtung, Baby_ which is pretty much brilliant except for one song which is so dull that I can no longer recall its name or tune).

Are you sure you mean this? Though I entirely agree.

Look guys, U2 is a powerful band. They inspire extreme hatred in some people, but they inspire extreme love in far more. Regardless of how much Bono offends you (I'm still unclear as to how that can happen... he's quite harmless) the facts still stand: U2 is one of most artistically and commercially successful bands of all time.

Many of you mantain that they were good in the 80's but sold out in the 90's. I suggest looking up the word "irony" in the dictionary. During their ZooTV and PopMart stadium tours they flat out refused corporate sponsorship (unlike the Rolling $tones) and lost money as a result. Just as you wouldn't assume that a battered old book is of poor literary quality based on its cover, you shouldn't attribute shallowness to a band just because they have video screens and flashy lights.

And if U2 were a dud band, why would they go out of their way time after time after time to change their musical style, often against what is currently popular. 'War' was a big success, so why go do 'The Unforgettable'? If 'The Joshua Tree' made them the most popular thing to come out of Ireland since the potato, why do something like 'Rattle and Hum'? And if their earnest, save-the-whales style of the 80's worked so well, why in God's name would you go off with something like 'Achtung Baby' and ZooTV? And why then change into 'Pop'? Why?

Because they've got balls. U2 just keeps changing and growing, usually with success (UF, JT, Achtung) but sometimes getting burned (Rattle and Hum, Pop). Instead of choosing the quick and easy path by just repeating a familiar sound over and over, U2 never let the critics, the media, or any of you punks drag them down.

Because like the Beatles and the other established classic bands, U2's twenty-year career has been a continuous growth process. U2 just keeps evolving, so they ALWAYS HAVE SOMETHING NEW AND INTERESTING TO SAY.

And THAT is the critical component in seperating the wheat from the chaff. THAT is what makes U2 a classic, and THAT is what makes the Rolling $tones a dud.

Amen.

classic in the sense that they came out with a few good pop songs and records

dud in the fact that they are absolute crap now, are absoulute hypocrites and sellouts (the abc documentry sponsored by McDonalds, ticket prices only the rich can afford, bono dissing the "violence" by anti-capitolist protestors in Genoa whilst he was on a luxury yacht with tony blair without one mention of that protestor who was shot twice in the head, etc), were influenced by punk and yet at the same time sneered at the genre, along with the fact that bono's ego is larger than the size of the american continent and believes that the world revolves around him

i also think they ripped off depeche mode-badly-when they came out with achtung baby, only a few good songs on that record, and pop was much, much worse

i no longer buy u2 albums anymore, not even used

Uh, no. They just *bore* me. Is that so hard to understand?

If so, dud.

If not so -- liked them well enough when I was a teenager. Thought Rattle and Hum (a/k/a Boring and Dumb) was the aural equivalent of a clump of pubic hair in the shower. Originally hated "The Fly," and thought Bono's Fly-schtick was stupid, but came to like Achtung Baby well enough. Stopped caring not soon thereafter. Like the fact that Bono speaks up for Jubilee and Amnesty International, but since when does being a do-gooder necessarily = being a good music-maker?

Verdict: classic, but barely.

A very good way of putting it.

Your name is not Lestat.

Well I guess you buy more than one album a year since "_Achtung Baby_ deserves death", U2 just bore you and "This _Rattle and Hum_ album is pretty shit, one or two tracks aside". Just curious, I wonder what kind of music has your favour and what albums you didn't drown in your acid remarks this year.

Emeline Brunet.

Last year? Lateralus, Exciter, Group Sounds, The Blueprint, Ended Up a Stranger, Amnesiac, How I Loved You (and the Michael Gira solo) for starters, I could go on if you wanted me to. Point is, I love *that* and find U2 objectionable -- and I really don't care what you think. If you're a U2 fan in turn, you shouldn't be caring what I think. ;-)

I also love that guy at the top who said they experimented with electronica on 3 of their albums. you can't buy comedy that good. Don't you love when bands don't actually "experiment with electronica" but they say that they did and then all their fans are like "HEY THIS E-L-E-CTRONICA STUFF IS VERY GOOD".

I was so not a fan of that song when it came out. It's been years since I've heard it, so maybe time has dulled the pain -- though I suspect not.

TS: "Pop" vs "Rattle and Hum."

I liked the Batman song, as far as U2 in the '90s sounding very '90s goes.

When did Bowie's "Earthling" come out? Around the same time, right?

Yup, in February

i was just noting U2 doesn't necessarily get credit for being ahead of the curve on it, compared to some others. And Bowie, as well!

some of the individual tracks dropped during the period after Rattle and Hum

or even on Rattle and Hum (God Part II)

the real great U2 dance-rock song of the late 80s is the 9-min Promo Mix of Desire, with those Adam Ant drum lattices - addition of soul singer (Iovine's idea?) doesn't even undermine it much at that length

I've always wanted to do a thing on U2's relationship with club culture. It begins in 1980 and I don't know if it's even ended, but Junior Vasquez dedicating 40 minutes of a set to different mixes of Lemon alone is a symbolic enough image that the mid-90s is the most fertile period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Of7h3stuHs

shit is so good it makes you want to swap genders and become the devil

i mean “two hearts beat as one” had François Kevorkian mixes fer god’s sake

xp yep that's the best one right there, i like how unlikely seemingly every element is but they gel in such an undeniable (and even slightly menacing) way

perfecto mix is a ten also but yeah

TS: "Pop" vs "Rattle and Hum."

it's so easily pop and it's not even close

rattle and hum is maybe one of the most confusing releases anyone has ever put out

things i have likely already said in this thread:

pop is among my ten most listened-to albums ever. which isn't to say it's one of my ten favourites, but 1997 u2 is p much my ultimate rabbit hole.

rattle and hum gets real good and stays real good once it reaches 'heartland', though it's an awfully choppy 50-min ride to that point

(and even then you do have to put up with some further dumb bono moments in god part ii and bullet)

It's so peak Bono that I can't even imagine those moments not existing.

It's so peak Bono that I can't even imagine those moments not existing.

oh yeah i take it as it is, also there are preachier versions of bullet out there (the now-censored elevation tour version; some of my most favourite edge playing on that though).

about half the studio tracks on R&H are vv good (Desire, Hawkmoon, God Pt II, AIWIY) the rest are either curios or awkward efforts, and Heartland is the single masterpiece. the live tracks are definitely a test of one's strength in terms of how much pure Bono one can take.

It's such a frustrating listen, feels like it never develops momentum. "Van Diemen's Land", "Desire", "Angel of Harlem", "Heartland", "God Part II", "AIWIY" are excellent but scattered throughout the album. Not a fan of almost any of the live tracks

It literally singlehandedly killed my fandom as such, and by the time they came back I was much more interested in the bands and musicians they were aiming to emulate. A pretty hard break, really.

I was still onboard for Achtung Baby but I remember how the vinyl version of Rattle and Hum my sister bought remained in pristine condition (and has up until the present day) because after 1-2 listens we were like "nah, this sucks"

it moves in mysterious ways!

It’s still the only pre-Songs of (x) era album they haven’t reissued.

and i think is possibly the biggest-selling album in history that hasn't been properly remastered/deluxed, as in if you're going to the shop to buy it you're buying the tinny 1988 version.

i think it's partly because paramount own the film (a remaster programme of just the album alone wouldn't make much sense) but more because they ignore the ones they're iffy about (excusing the straight vinyl reissue here and there, zooropa and pop never had proper reissues either; the former was reduced to a bonus disc in the massive achtung box in 2011).

even Passengers just received a vv nice RSD reissue on LP

Hawkmoon never did anything for me and hate God Pt 2 but the other studio tracks are sound solid entertainment. I have a soft spot for Angel of Harlem.

"Songs of Innocence" is the first U2 album with no song titles I recognize, and if I ever gave it a listen I can't remember. I think I did? And I don't even recall hating it, just feeling no need to come back to it. "Pop," I know everything from that record, like a lot of it, don't like some of it, only dislike one or two tracks. "Rattle and Hum" (looks at track list) I know pretty much everything on it, don't really mind the singles one way or another but appreciate some of the deep cuts. I did see the movie in the theater, though, and even bought a souvenir poster in the lobby afterward.

Having done a listen to the new EPs this morning, I feel confident in saying that the Easter Lily EP is better and generally features their best music in a vv long time. Days of Ash has a couple songs which are just as good, though it falls short elsewhere. I think it's nice to hear the Edge bringing his classic guitar sound back to the fore once again, after it mostly vanished into the churn of their last couple albums, and was only intermittently featured on NLOTH. I hope someone told him no one wants to hear his attempts at recreating the Vertigo sound over and over. The very beginning of Resurrection Song even sounds akin to mid '80s ambient Edge.