U2 new album "Songs of Experience" coming December 1st, plus 2018 tour.*

Pop sold upwards of 5-6 million copies. Wait 6 months and October, Passengers, Horizon, SOI and SOE may have sold fewer copies.

 

Commercial disaster, yes. But the critical assessment of Pop when it first came out was actually very positive. Both Rolling Stone and Spin praised it rapturously when it was first released--sure, Rolling Stone was probably a given, but Spin had never been overly kind to them. Then the album sales stalled, tickets for the tour were low, the opening show of the tour was flubbed, with the ABC TV special getting the lowest ratings apparently ever recorded. By that point, the blood was in the water, and everyone was happy to point out what a failure it was, saying things like "commercial and critical flop". It's one of the few times I can actually remember actually seeing public opinion change in real time.

 

Well, October was always the black sheep of their catalog, and Passengers wasn't even marketed as a U2 album. The other albums you mentioned came out after the bottom fell out of the music industry. Simply: Pop didn't sell what the band were predicting it would, judging by current industry standards and their own history.

 

U2's global appeal is massive. They are perhaps, more beloved in Central and South America than any other band in history. Their audience there is young, passionate and loyal. Openness to veteran artists on the charts is not something we in America possess (this obviously breaks my heart.) The UK is better and more willing to embrace older artists. Other territories though are exuberant and excited by bands' new music.
If I were Bono, all of the second guessing I would do would be to ensure that audiences in developing markets had access to my new work. Singing in Spanish or Portuguese would be overkill, but connecting with that audience would be the best shot at creating new hits that stand the test of time.

 

I mean, it isn't hard to see why people might not be into a lot of the post-2000's albums, right down to the formula of the songwriting to the production and whatnot. I like SOI overall, and I dig a lot of individual songs from post-2000's U2 so I don't hate the post-2000's output but I can talk about why to me the older albums hold my interest a bit more

When you look at an album like Achtung Baby, hell even Joshua Tree for that matter, there weren't just merely catchy hooks that the public could relate to. There was edge (no pun intended). There was a daring nature to it, there was depth in the production and the sound of a band that was trying to push their limits songwriting wise. To me, How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb and especially the lead single off SOE, sound like they are just plugging in lyrics to a songwriting template and pushing "go" on a computer, it doesn't sound like a band that is daring. It is a band that sounds to me like they are playing it safe.

I have seen a lot of your posts talking about how U2 fans just want U2 to make albums that are critical disasters filled with experimentation. But great songwriting that gets on the radio, and a bit of experimentation and sounding like a band that has a fire lit under their ass, are not mutually exclusive by any means.

 

Good ole Bob Dylan hasn’t tried to matter to kids since, well, too long to remember. U2 should take a page from Bob.

That’s coming from a lifelong fan. I agree entirely that after the “failure” of Pop, they’ve tried their damndest not to be top ten irrelevant. I thought No Line on the Horizon was an attempt at splitting the difference and when that “failed”,they fell back into “gotta be number one” mode.

You can just FEEL the effoooooooort being put into the songs musically. I don’t know if it’s production, the band, or both. Bono’s Voice is great, the playing is great, the lyrics are great...but somethings happened with the music. Are they all on the same page as to their direction musically? I’ll bet that’s where the rubber is meeting the road. Obviously, I don’t know jack. Lol

 

SOI was my favourite album since POP, really felt like their most consistent set in decades, only saw it live on TV and not on the tour and agreed the songs did sound even better live but I still listen to the album an enjoy it.

I didn't mind the last single and I hold out hope that SOE is another cracker (for me at least that is) but I think they do need to stop paining over being relevant. A band around as long as they have must realise the kids just aren't interested.

Early middle part of your career you can thrive to be like that but now you are huge, rich and are afforded the oppoortunites artistically many other bands aren't just play to your audience and stop being worried about being relevant, you had your time being that just accept what you are and give your many fans out there something to enjoy.

Is it really that hard to work this out? You are all 50+ you don't see Neil Young bothered about this market or the Rolling Stones, they do what they do and the people that care will always be there, stop thinking about who else you can capture this late in the game.

 

By that measure, this should be U2's 50th album. They better get crackin'!

 

I agree. Big U2 fan but I haven't really loved an album start to finish since All That You Can't Leave Behind. I liked moments from Atomic Bomb and Horizon, but I thought Songs of Innocence was really boring. Listened to it several times, trying to get into it but it just wasn't memorable. Hoping Experience is much better.

 

Zooropa sold 7 million copies and Pop sold 6 million. The only sales cratering really happened in the US and some of that was due to the rule changes of US radio ownership in 1996 hurt the band.

 

U2’s last interesting album for me was Zooropa. Stay is a great track and it holds my attention more than the recent stuff. I can see why some might like All you can leave behind, but it’s not for me.

 

This can't be quantified, but the last decade's of their LPs just sound very "professional"---that is, like they are aware it is their job to record and release songs, so they are doing it---but with no sense of verve, passion, invention, interest. I find it all about as boring as a band who I know had something very special in them could possibly do. They might better serve their future rep by just Rolling Stones-ing it, recognizing themselves as a beloved institution with a body of work the world adores (in large part) and just presenting it on tour forever and ever amen.

 

What do you call someone who consistently says everything U2 does is great. It works both ways.

 

And I guess I would ask when was the last time Bob Dylan sold out stadiums? The last platinum album he had was 2006's Modern Times, and before that it was 1997's Time Out of Mind. And besides, that's an apples to oranges comparison. If your argument is that U2 no longer have Bob's artistic integrity, then fine. Okay. Whatever. But I don't think u2 has ever, even during the days of War, TJT, or AB, tried to be Bob Dylan. U2 have always wanted to be the biggest band in the world.

And the paint by numbers thing, it seems that folks are basically ragging on U2 for recording so many U2-ish sounding songs. I mean, if that's what they're saying, then I guess my response is why is that an issue? Do people rag on Bob Dylan because he still sings like Bob Dylan and has an overall acoustic/rock sound. What songs on Bob's latest album, Triplicate, were so original and groundbreaking, and so different from everything else he had done in his career that they truly broke new ground in the world of music and rock? If there aren't any, then that's fine! And IMO that doesn't make Triplicate a bad album in any way shape or form. In fact, it may even be a great album despite still not being comparable to his gems from the 60s and 70s. But people seem to hold U2 to a different standard.

I dunno, I mean, artistically, is modern U2 as cutting edge as 80's-90's U2? No, probably not. But neither are the modern Stones, modern Metallica, or even modern Bob Dylan. It doesn't mean Beautiful Day, Elevation, Walk On, Kite, Vertigo, City of Blinding Lights, Magnificent, Moment of Surrender, Breathe, Winter, Every Breaking Wave, Volcano, Sleep Like a Baby, The Troubles, and Crystal Ballroom aren't great songs in their own right. Does a new Stones song suck simply because it's not as hungry-sounding or as boundary pushing as Satisfaction?

 

I just have no idea what that would sound like. But then again, I guess I'm just not as sophisticated as you in my artistic palette, since I actually really like the post 2000 output. Sorry for posting so much.

 

I still enjoy U2's music but I'm afraid I'm stuck on the 1981-87 period. Such great albums from that time!

Wide Awake in an Unforgettable Fire – U2 in 1984

 

If you look at Stones threads on here you will find many people saying just that.

Lots of people will not accept anything but greatness from bands that were once great.

 

Then unfortunately that's an impossible standard for any long lasting band to live up to, and if true, then IMO every band in history that goes beyond a few decades will inevitably have its "fans" hate them in the end. Has any band, ever, stayed consistently "great" through 4 decades?

If the Beatles had gone on and Lennon had lived, would their 1987 and 1995 albums have been as classic as Sgt. Pepper or the White Album? If not, does that mean a hypothetical 1987 or 1995 Beatles would've "sucked?"

 

I’m not saying the artistic integrity is gone. As I said, the voice is great, the lyrics are great and playing is great.

I’m saying they’re trying too hard. And it shows. The music has suffered for a long time now. I can guess the exact tempo and structure of near every song they come out with at this point. They’re all blending into one another.

As for sounding too U2-ish. Everyone has their own sound. That doesn’t matter to me One bit. I just want songs that don’t sound like they went through exceuciating pain to produce.

Ps...some of the songs you listed are some of my late period favorites.

 

Excruciating pain to produce? Have you not heard any of the stories about the recording process of AB?

 

That’s completely different.

They were trying to reinvent themselves sonically and artistically after the mega success of The Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum.

 

Touché! But that’s different, in that, they were reinventing themselves at the time. Chopping down the Joshua Tree.

However, you make a good point.....perhaps they’re not all on the same page now, as they weren’t at the time. Is this why they’re saying there WILL be a Songs of Experience companion lp, but then they’re not, but now they are? Got me. All I know, is they’re not chopping down the Joshua Tree anymore and yet, they seem to be going through excruciating pain to craft perfect mid tempo, over produced, pop songs with great lyrics. Heck, Songs of Experience has some of Bono’s best lyrics ever! I just wish the music matched up.

 

I hate to say it, but I have found them a complete **yawn** since Joshua Tree.

 

Every U2 album has something that I enjoy. "Moment of Surrender" from NLOTH is among their very best songs.

 

Not really. By definition, trolling is negative in nature/intent.

Someone who spouts pro-U2 content might seem annoying, but that person likely won't rile up other fans like someone who says they suck...