--- i and lots of other folks would rate Achtung Baby higher than 6. Zooropa and Pop are fair dismal. All That You Can't... is very uneven, but certainly better than Zooropa. How To Dismantle... is quite good, maybe not up to War or Fire, but certainly the equal of Boy, IMO. An important consideration in evaluating U2's music is how much the technical side has changed since the early 80s. Boy sounds very thin compared to later output, but that's less a feature of U2 than the progress of production values and pop music in general. Groups that can spend X million dollars on producing an album don't make it sound like Guided By Voices. What I read into your assessment of U2, and I'm not saying that you're wrong, is that you prefer the earlier, more spare work. My keenest sense of that is your rating of Achtung Baby, which was the first jaunt into the "experimental" realm. In that way, they resemble Radiohead, who were making pretty accessible music and then came out with OK, Computer, which everyone loved, and followed that up with Kid A, which everyone* hated. The main difference between U2 and Radiohead in this regard is that Kid A was actually pretty good for what it was, and Zooropa and Pop were horrid. *I'm exaggerating for effect...
U2 is my favorite... so I'm just curious: what are your favorite songs of theirs? Bad- (but live in the Rattle and Hum movie) studio would have to be Heartland (they should play that one live)
can't pass up any Ian comment.... and you are correct in the assement of the Evens and The Argument.... have you sseen the video for "Vowel Movement?"... snippets here: http://www.pancakemountain.com/clips.html sroll right for the clip...
True, although Guy has mainly been producing since the last Fugazi record, so that's 16 years from Rites of Spring to "The Argument" if you want to get technical Still, RoS, One Last Wish (highly underrated), Happy Go Licky (meh), and Fugazi is quite a resume. Ian, on the other hand, has been kicking around and relevant since the Teen Idles in 1979. 26 years of quality. That's serious longevity.
I agree, Achtung Baby is not only their best album in my opinion but one of the five best albums of the 90's. They haven't matched it since but their last two efforts are much better than Pop and Zooropa, makes me wonder what their next two albums will be like.
Time to put on my Official Zooropa Apologist hat. It's good. People that dislike it are poopyheads. There you go.
Zooropa isn't bad, per se. It's just effectively an album's worth of Achtung Baby B-sides - it's not different enough to be interesting on its own.
See, I think it's a vital album on its own in the catalog--as my sig should give a hint of. Sure, Daddy's Gonna Pay and Some Days aren't the strongest songs on their own--giving the album a bit of a donut-like existence. But the rest is good stuff.
Personally, I think Zooropa, Dirty Day, and Stay are all really the whole album is so much more interesting lyrically than the Phil Collins type crap that Bono has been putting forth the past 2 albums.
My take is, too uneven. The good songs on that album match up with any "all-star" team from any U2 album...but the bench is weak.
It also contains the truly awful--TRULY awful--"I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." Do they have a worse hit? ("Vertigo" may be worse. That "Don't this, don't that" song "sung" by The Edge was pretty terrible too.) Earlier today, a co-worker and I were talking about music, and he mentioned a friend of his who has "dialectical" reactions to bands. The friend will say things like, "X album was the worst thing I've ever heard in my life, except for the last track, which is a masterpiece." My opinion of U2 is a less extreme version of that: I don't care for or actively dislike nearly all U2 I've heard, but a handful of songs ("New Years Day," "Mysterious Ways," maybe "The Fly") I love a great deal. I thought that "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" wasn't bad, either. (Oops--edited to add that I just realized I'm thinking of The Joshua Tree.)
You are. The thing is, at the same time, they recorded a couple of brilliant, brilliant songs (Spanish Eyes, Silver & Gold) that were much much better. But either of those in place of Haven't Found, and the Joshua Tree would be the best album ever made.
One other point as to why I like TUF so much, is that it is very much an album; its length and song placement designed for vinyl play (it was the last last U2 album I would buy as an LP). I think side 1 is flawless-one of the great "sides" in rock music, right up there with side 1's like Zeppelin's 4th album. It's only the poor quality of Indian Summer Sky and Elvis Presley And America that keep this album from being a complete work. As a collection of songs, I would agree with Dave that there are some weak entries. But if you listen to the album as a single, thematic piece (which is the way I think they wished for it to be listened to), it's a quite a work. Maybe that's too esoteric/artsy-fartsy, but that's the perpsective I view that album from, not as a collection of songs. Joshua Tree is very much in the same vein. Even now, in the digital era, there is still this little bit in me that thinks after Running To Stand Still, it's time to let it sink in for a bit and then flip it over to side two. The post-Joshua Tree albums really lack that quality IMO. The CD vs LP aesthetic has some relevance to how their music has changed IMO-and I think makes their ability to stay relevant even more of an achievement. I think the digital delivery hurts bands that have a larger artistic sweep. Imagine what some of the Radiohead albums would be like if vinyl was the dominant format? I think they would have had a far deeper impact on the pop culture-more like Pink Floyds, The Wall.
Apparently I am in a minority, but I think that U2 gets better with age. How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and All That You Can't Leave Behind are two of the best albums I have ever heard by any band, not just U2. I think they are the greatest band of the past 25 years.
I'm not a huge U2 fan so I can't really comment on how they hold up over the years. However, I take umbrage with you implying that Bob Dylan is not artistically important at his 20 year mark and beyond. First of all, Infidels is one of his best albums. Solid the whole way through. A big fan favorite. Second, while Dylan has released few albums since 1983 and some of those have been poor, that time period does include some huge albums such as Oh Mercy and Time Out of Mind. And that's not to even mention Love and Theft which won him a Grammy. Third, Dylan tours constantly and if you go to see him, you'll hear a musician that is relentlessly reinterpreting his catalog. Each song gets a new musical interpretation which is a sign of an artist that is still going strong rather than just dragging around the classics So, while I can't comment on U2's strength after 20 years, please don't short Dylan the respect he deserves in such a comparison. He's still keepin' on keepin' on.
No I agree-I like Infidels a lot as well. And to be fair to Dylan, it would be a HUGH ask, for his work 20 years out to match his prime's output. I debated in my mind Dylan vs Iggy in my original post, and I still feel that Iggy Pop's work 20 years out has a vitality that holds up well with say Raw Power. And even today as a live act, he his very, very good. But as I noted above, Iggy's bar isn't as high as Dylan's. I didn't list those other performer as a knock, but as a way to create some kind of historical context for the thread.
i, for the most part, agree. However, I do recognize the 'touch' quite an awful lot of people around the world with their music.
How can you hate "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" it might have been overhyped but it is a great song that Coldplay wished they wrote. As for U2's relevance I think they will unfortunately not become as relevant as The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Pink Floyd, THe RAmones and THe Clash. Unfortunately they are not considered great by the new rock generation. Which is quite unfortunate since I am part of that generation and they are one of my favorite bands. Even though I am 19 I have been to quite a few concerts and the best concerts I have ever been to where U2 concerts. Love him or hate him Bono has charisma that no other lead singer in rock has today. I'd personally put them in my top 5 bands ever: 1) Led Zeppelin 2) The Beatles 3) The Rolling Stones 4) U2 5) The Who oh yeah, how can anyone rate Achtung Baby a 6 that album is a perfect 10!!!
I kinda lost interest in U2 around Zooropa, after being a big fan since Boy (I'd seen them their first time through NYC in '81 and every tour until Unforgettable Fire). This year I've had the opportunity to see them twice at The Garden from "inside the heart" in front of the stage, and have to say that they put on an amazingly great show. The rock songs rock hard, the slower songs are pretty moving, and they sound great for a bunch of old-timers. I'm totally not an arena-rock kinda guy, but for the true "arena rock experience", I can't imagine any band does it better. Photos here.