This month marks the 20th anniversary of one of the last great culturally and musically dominant albums of the rock era — Achtung Baby by U2. The album introduced a wild new industrial wall of sound, rhythm, and psychedelic swirl to the world. It sat on top of the charts for months, won the Grammy for album of the year, and regularly appears on critics’ lists of the best albums of all time. It may be my generation’s Sgt. Pepper.
Not long after Achtung Baby dominated the airwaves, the radio and music industry changed forever. Market micro-segmentation and the diminished relevance of terrestrial radio meant that no single album would again capture the rock nation as did Achtung Baby, and Nirvana’s Nevermind did earlier that fall. Sure, musical acts still explode to riches and some fame, but culturally unifying musical dominance doesn’t occur the way it once did.
There are no more Michael Jacksons or The Beatles, or groups like U2. These days, it is difficult to name any single contemporary song that the vast majority of Americans are familiar with as they were with Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” in 1984 or U2’s “One” from Achtung Baby. Like our politics, our music has frayed apart.
“Well it’s too late, tonight
To drag the past out into the light
We’re one, but we’re not the same”
— “One,” Achtung Baby
The first time I heard “The Fly,” Achtung Baby’s first single, in November 1991, it was sonically radical. It was an unfamiliar but delightful experience, similar to what the first listen to “Love Me Do” by the Beatles in 1963 must have been. U2’s new radical sound was intentional. Faced with creative stagnation after Rattle and Hum in 1988, U2 sought to reinvent themselves. To record Achtung Baby they traveled to Berlin, a city that was undergoing its own reinvention in the fall of 1990.
Aided by Brian Eno, the aural master of little known but spectacular works like Here Come the Warm Jets, U2 set up in Berlin’s Hansa Studios. Eno and Bono sought to push the album toward an industrial, rhythmic, and distinctive continental European sound. Others in the band resisted the radical new direction, but eventually they hit upon genius. The post-punk guitar explosions, a giant dancehall bass, and drums thrust to the forefront created something never done before, and never done since.
Simply, Achtung Baby was one of those rare moments in the rock era like Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys or Rubber Soul by the Beatles. Achtung Baby sounded like nothing else.
“Time is a train — makes the future the past
Leaves you standing in the station
Your face pressed up against the glass”
— “Zoo Station,” Achtung Baby.
For lovers of deep tracks, the album even produced a fantastic array of B-side special releases including “Lady with the Spinning Head.” (Find it! It’s on the newly released two-disc deluxe version of Achtung Baby.) In all, five of the 12 songs hit the charts in the United States and the Zoo TV tour filled football stadiums around the world.
OMG that was soooooooo kewl!!!
Wise up, kid (for that’s what you come off as). Pop music isn’t very important. At least not as important as you think it is. It isn’t very good music, either. (Tom Petty: “It (rock and roll) isn’t supposed to be good.”)
All it is, is a (sometime) pleasant diversion.
As for Boner, he has to be one of the biggest chumps on the planet. He’s been hustled by con men. His charity, ONE, is a sadly joke, riddled by fraud and mismanagement.
And he’s another one of those left wing bozos, but you want to buy his product so he can give more money and support to the people who want to destroy everything you believe in.
Reading your comments where you say “Pop music isn’t very important” and “It isn’t very good music, either” , I think of what a friend of mine who has played in and put together several bands over years once told me. When someone auditions and calls himself a “musician” he tells them “if you think your a musician go try the New York Philharmonic, if you are going to play with me, you are an ‘entertainer’”
Bah Humbug
And you get entertained by…what?
Written like a true old fart who’s connection to society has faded along with his ability to form new memories.
Man…Holy cow…I could not disagree more. Actung Baby marked the beginning of U2 sounding like nails on a chaulkboard for me. Maybe it’s because I spent too much time in Irish bars in NYC and Boston where the jukeboxes play U2 and only U2. How a bartender can hear “Where the Streets Have No Name” for the 40,000th time and not smash all the glasses is beyond me. From Actung Baby they went on to write passionate heart wrenching songs about…Batman? Spiderman? And they keep giving these jerks Grammy’s. Is there no one better? No one? And take off those uggg…stupid colored glasses for cryin’ out loud. Please retire, U2, please.
PS everytime I hear the song “One” I think of Heineken beer so, to give them credit, that obvious product placement in the video worked really well.
I’m with you. I never heard of the album, and just listened to samples of every song. Never heard a single one on the radio. That’s how annoying they are.
J. Adams, that is a great story about how you met U2 at the airport. I have been fotunate enough to meet a couple of my musical heroes, but I look back with a mixture of happiness and embarrassment. I felt like Mr. Bean greeting the Queen, too formal and self-concious to be oomfortable. But it’s better than not having met them at all.
I know a lot of people love Achtung Baby, but for me, The Joshua Tree is the better album. Everything they had done previously, from Boy, October, War, and the Unforgettable Fire, led directly to the overwhelming gradeur of the Tree. Everything afterward was anticlimactic, including Achtung (but especially clunkers like Zooropa and Pop).
But everyone has their favorites. As a Rush fan, I have noticed that everyone’s favorite album seems to be the one that got them into the band. In my case, it was Moving Pictures. I was dumbfounded when I learned others held albums like Power Windows and Counterparts in similar esteem.
Anyway, your column was a good read. Thanks for sharing it.
One other thing – to Fluvius Maximus: maybe pop music isn’t as good as we think it is, but its importance is something that can only be gauged on an individual basis. What isn’t important to you might be extremely important to someone else. It’s also more important culturally than you give it for. The Beatles had a bigger impact on Western society than any contemporary classical or jazz musician, no matter its musical sophistication.
Seriously, The Beatles had a greater impact than Frank Sinatra? The Beatles were very talented but Frank Sinatra was an influence from the Late 30′s until the 70′s and continued to chart into the 80′s and even 90′s. Sinatra invented the idea of the concept album. His influence is exponentially greater than the Beatles.
Forget Sinatra (not that he isn’t great and I’m a big fan). Look at Bing Crosby for most impact on popular music. The man led the way on most everything that everyone else has done.
I didn’t realize it was a contest. Both Sinatra and The Beatles were incredibly influential on different shades of the musical spectrum. To argue otherwise is blindness of sorts.
Umm…I wasn’t aware Sintatra was a classical or jazz musician – unless your definition of the terms is extremly loose. He was just as “pop” in his time as any pop artist of subsequent generations. The only reason old folks take him more seriously is because he is of their time. Just like the Beatles for the Boomer generation. Or Nirvana/Kurt Cobain for mine.
For the record, I have plenty of Sinatra on my MP3 player. Plenty of Beatles, too. And a few U2 songs. And Kurt Cobain was awesome.
I was at that Columbia concert! A friend of mine at the newspaper got me in as a press photographer, and I was down front for the first couple of songs. During the opening song, Bono, in his rock star persona, plucked the camera from the guy next to mine to pose with.
Unfortunately, the camera I had was broken, so I had no photos from that time, but the memory is still rock solid, as is my affection for the CD.
DRayRaven,
I know how you feel. I met Adam Clayton once outside of Hanover Quay. I had no idea what to say and he finally had to break the ice by asking me if I wanted a piece of gum! haha. He asked me a few questions which I managed to answer with some coherence then he excused himself and walked to his car. I forgot completely to ask him for his autograph on the CD’s I had brought for that purpose. I finally managed to whip out my camera and snapped a pic of his retreating back.
So, it was not one of my better moments but at the same time I will never forget even a second of it. He was very gracious and patient with me. I will always appreciate him for it.
Quote “Not long after Achtung Baby dominated the airwaves, the radio and music industry changed forever.” Like changed to power chords and morons comparing Lennon to Cobain; give me a break. If you turn on the radio today it is just as empty as it was in 1991. Usually 4 or 5 decent new sounds vs. a mountain of rubish!!
U2 jumped the shark for most of us with auctung baby. Between their red rock Colorado concert on MTV and 1991 they were a good band after that their sound got sucked into the rubish.
The Stones jumped the shark in 1980 (some girls) J. Giels (Freeze Frame) REO Speedwagon (Can’t stop this feeling) etc.. The list is endless.
Christian you need to get out your fathers album collection and do some homework. I suggest 1962 -1980.
…and stay off my lawn, dadgummit!!!
E. Fluvius, you should go back to bed man. Get some sleep and wake up on the right side next time. What J. Christian is talking about here is ‘craftsmanship’ where thought and experimentation so intricately undergird a project, that it becomes timelessly enduring and can never be reproduced to the exact. Its a principle. But a principle that is becoming rarer and rarer these days even though it can be applied to anything, cabinet making, welding or metalwork, government, public industry, private enterprise, music, or whatever. The reason its becoming a lost art is because it requires someting of you. it requires you to abandon your pre-conceived notions and strike out into the unknown. As long as you keep the principle in the forefront of your thinking, you’ll produce something worthy, such as Achtung Baby, which can remain relevant decades into the future. Or you can go the easy route, which might make gobs of money, spent by people who are equally easy and shallow in their character, because they’ve never explored the deep or thought thing through beyond a few moments.
Good call Adams.
Personally, I always found U2 to be a bit overblown and pretentious. Personal opinion, of course. There were a lot of other acts during the 80s, some of whom were far more the consummate musicians, though many didn’t achieve quite the fame U2 did, more’s the pity.
Swing and a miss. As a music lover, every album you mentioned is in my collection……… except Achtung Baby. I await your post on bended knee apologizing for mentioning Sgt. Pepper in the same category as Achtung.
U2? Great rhythm section, mediocre singer with a few good but mostly lame songs but sorry, any rock’n'roll band featuring a guy who can barely play the guitar without a sea of effects pedals is pretty sad. Check out It Might Get Loud for the proof in my pudding. The Edge can’t even hear the relative minor chord in The Weight. Plays a fookin’ D major.
Spoken like a guy who can make chords on a box guitar and assumes an electric guitar is a louder box guitar.
In reality Edge is a magnificent player and the delay techniques he employs require deep seated raw talent (you can’t teach timing like that) to a degree barely fathomable by amateurs. Moreover these techniques require mistake free ultra clean fingering and string attack. Master level. Clean playing is freaking difficult, especially night after night on tour. Most guitar “players” mask their crap ability with distortion and play mistake riddled rubbish. And finally due to the lack of range of the “singer’s” voice Edge has figured out how to put on a 2 hour concert playing a G in fascinating ways to the point that most people can’t seem to grasp that Bono simply can’t sing. Edge has made a career off of the key of G. Incredible, really.
Oh, and I wouldn’t read too much into Edge’s apparent faux pas. The amps were arrayed away from his hearing and they were distorted. Easy mistake if you don’t play distorted crap every single day.
For Adams….
You sir are an idiot. Bono rips off moreso than create. Mysterious Ways is the same tune and chording (and TIMING!) as ancient folk tune “cockles and mussels” played a lot more interestingly by any numnber of Irish bands. You can probably look up the chord progression Bono ripped off for “With Or Without You” yourself. If you want to know the rest of the U2 ouevre, start listening to Irish street folk tunes. And for the unique songs? EDGE, who is an unheralded genius. If you want to be a f**king music critic would it be too much to ask that you know SOMETHING about the subject? Geez.
As for you curmudgeons who think you have a leg up on the youngsters bear in mind that Lennon too was a thieving hack. Do You Want To Know A Secret is the basic chording for Till There Was You which the beatles played before they were famous. In later years he swiped from Armstrong’s Wonderful World to make Just Like Staring Over (e.g. D – D+ Dmaj7 – A7) Half of the Lennon catalogue is ripoffs of elderly English folk tunes and sea shanties. It was McCartney who was original enough to be considered real, and George wasn’t far behind. Lennon? Hack.
Au contraire. Spoken like someone who has played electric and acoustic guitar as well as other instruments for nearly 50 years, can hear a minor third and play one in any key, including G. The Weight is a classic tune and if The Edge (self administered cool nicknames aside) can’t hear it, not only isn’t he much of a guitar player, he’s not much of a musician. Of course, they were playing in the key of A and Dave, the “magificent guitar player” is, apparently the master of G.
‘It Might Get Loud’ also features a scene in which The Edge, after we hear what it sounds like in concert, shows us what he is actually playing. Da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da on one note, on one string. Oh, the wonders of pedals and power!
So while Mr. Evans is way more successful than I will ever be and has a certain ability to make walls of amplifiers and a sea of effects pedals do what he wants them to, I can safely say that I could still entertain if the electricity failed and he couldn’t fool an audience of tone-deaf six year olds, in the same situation.
Besides your opinion of John Lennon proves you to be, at best, woefully ignorant of what constitutes good songwriting, guitar playing and true greatness. John Lennon was an impeccable rhythm guitar player. The Edge can’t even figure out the right chords.
So the guy who wrote Strawberry fields, A Day in the Life, Norwegian Wood, Ticket to Ride, Girl, Help etc etc was a hack? Tough crowd.
And by the way, you don’t judge whether a song is ripped off by it’s chord progression. You judge by its melody. One of the beauties of music is the myriad of different melodies you can get from the same harmonic structure. And Do You Want to Know a Secret has a totally dissimilar melody to Til there was you.
Aided by Brian Eno, the aural master of little known but spectacular works like Here Come the Warm Jets, U2 set up in Berlin’s Hansa Studios. Eno and Bono sought to push the album toward an industrial, rhythmic, and distinctive continental European sound. Others in the band resisted the radical new direction, but eventually they hit upon genius. The post-punk guitar explosions, a giant dancehall bass, and drums thrust to the forefront created something never done before, and never done since.
Have you ever heard of Gene Krupa or Buddy Rich? Or Rammstein?
Pop music is, regrettably, quite important, as is the adulation by the millions. That it is wretched and appalling stuff just speaks to the general dumbing-down.
Neat story. As good as getting backstage passes.
@Fluvius: Lighten up..
While pop music certainly doesn’t have the social relevance that it thinks that it has, it is still a touchstone and a shared experience for a generation. If I refused to view or listen to media based on the creator’s politics, I’m afraid my choices would be very limited. I think most artists are left wing because in order to be creative, one cannot be too well-grounded in reality. Good for art. Bad for public policy.
The author makes a good point about the “long tail” with respect to the music industry. The multiplication of musical diversity and digital availability has fractured that previously shared pop music experience. That album was probably one of last of the “old media” hit records.
IMHO, U2′s most significant album and creative peak was ‘Joshua Tree’. That’s a fun anecdote, though.
i liked ‘i will follow’. an ok disposable pop song. then u2 somehow became rock gods. i always assume that when a band gets that big without any obvious talent it must be because the singer is cute. in this case u2 with its unbelievable pretensions also provides the rock ‘auteur’ perfect tabla rasa to project their bs on. But please…’Pet Sounds’ and Brian Wilson should not be mentioned along side u2 & bono….get a grip
Adams stroked the ball out of the park. It’s OUR GENERATION’S Sgt. Pepper’s. For a lot of you commenting here: not yours.
Their second-best overall album, next to Joshua Tree, no doubt about it.
I saw them last year on tour. What’s unbelievable is that 20 years later, in concert, they are at the height of their powers (and I’ve seen several U2 shows).
To claim that spam is the new filet mignon is, after all is said and done, not much of a claim. I apologize that my generation didn’t leave you with much in the way of ground to break but hey it’s all still there for the taking. You’re welcome.
Achtung baby!? Yuck. Give me joshua Tree any day? THAT is the album of the 80′s generation!
This is actually one of my favorite albums ever; I’ve never really grown tired of it. I do like Joshua Tree — I was a fan since War — but only a couple/few songs on that album are ones I really love. Someone mentioned Rush earlier and I think the comparison is apt with regard to seminal albums: Rush arguably made their initial mark with 2112 and then followed up with Moving Pictures; many initially became fans with the former, and another new set came in with the latter (Hemispheres got me, for the record) and both were commercially successful. Joshua Tree and Achtung seem similar. Most so-called “purist” U2 fans no doubt prefer Joshua Tree, which I consider kind of the end of U2′s “classic” period (to borrow an archaeological term) with Achtung starting their post-classic period. Frankly, I have about as much interest in pre-Joshua as I do in post-Achtung; both of those albums (along with Wide Awake in America) are the ones that have practically worn out my stereos over the years.
I don’t attach some great societal or musical significance to it; I just love all but maybe 1 or 2 tracks on it and none of them bore me after all these years. They still had a good sense of melody and despite the more elaborate production still have a punch-in-the-gut rock and roll feel to them. I still like listening to it; not much more complicated than that.
Bleh. U2 is all full of itself, which is reflected in its work. Typical for a pop band (it’s SOOO not a rock band, sorry).
Most significant album in 20 years–I can’t really think of one. Maybe Nirvana’s “In Utero.” But Nirvana pales in comparison to Rush, Zeppelin, The Who, Stones, Talking Heads, Yes….
Taxpayer – you left out Foghat and Molly Hatchet!
Dang! And I saw both of those groups, too!
(My boss gave me a little sign that says “I may be old, but I got to see all the cool bands.”)
I was in college in the early 80′s, but I never did get into U2 nor its American sibling, REM. Once a group gets a “mission,” then the music goes into the toilet, IMO.
The grumpy old man contingent is out today, I see. Sorry for stepping on your lawns. I especially like the guy who says that Frank Sinatra was more influential than the Beatles. Out-old manning the old men, well done.
Your day, too, will come young friend. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Or how about someone claiming Bing Crosby? I was waiting for the “/sarc” tag at the end of that comment, but none to be found. Don’t get me wrong, Bing had a great voice and did wonders for Christmas music, but seriously?
Har dee har. Nothing like writng about ’90′s music to bring the gasbag elitists out of the old farts.
However, I do have this one elitist remark of my own to make, to commenter “11bravo”: REO Speedwagon never did anything *except* jump the shark. They ALWAYS sucked. Anything by REO always made me want to drive red hot nails into my ears. Why would you single out “Can’t fight this feeling”?
Most of what is mentioned here is good, fun music. Some of it was artistry, and some of it was pure dreck, but often even the dreck is fun to listen to, if our inner snobs will admit it. Radio *always* was “4 or 5 decent new sounds vs. a mountain of rubbish”. Rubbish or treasure is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
P.S. I like Achtung Baby. I still drag it out every so often. May do that this afternoon.
Here’s a list of bands that people loved/love but that stink:
AC/DC
Boston
Kansas
Journey
Bruce Springsteen
U2
Talking Heads
Blondie
REO Speedwagon
Styx
Guns and Roses
Iron Maiden
Judas Priest
Genesis
Duran Duran
Motely Crue
Poison
Def Leppard
Ozzy Osbourne
INXS
Tom Petty
In fact there is not much music in the world of rock that does not emanate from a stereotype factory or aimed at people who are 12. Calling people old farts who don’t watch Johnny Quest and Penelope Pitstop any more or their equivalent is stupid.
The problem with rock since the end of the 60s is this: how many times can someone call themselves Lewis and Clark and set off to find whatever it is Lewis and Clark set off to find? If people tear holes in the knees of their pants or wear safety pins in their ears I can’t hear that on headphones.
You know what they say about opinions.
I don’t like all of the bands on that list, but I like enough of them to tell you that’s where you can put yours.
Mostly right but whatever you think of Springsteen, he is a great rock’n'roll guitar player and The E Street Band is not too shabby either. So too is Tom Petty and the Heatbreakers’ Mike Campbell. ACDC’s Angus Young is a first class riff meister even if his band is tiresome. Talking Heads’ David Byrne is a very interesting player, as well. Afterall, a great rock’n'roll band has a great guitar player or two. Even Elton John realized that. As for The Edge, cool self-assigned nicknames aside … meh.
Those bands are on the level of H.R. Pufnstuf. If people singing about school being out forever or smokin’ in the boys rooms turns you on what’s wrong with that?
I liked H.R. Pufnstuf…
…when I was 9.
Vintage Warner Bros. cartoons are far more adult than the bands on that list.
I take it you have never listened to Genesis’ Selling England by the Pound or Foxtrot. And Iron Maiden has first class musicianship, a superb singer, and lyrics that deal with history and literature, not getting out of high school and partying. And the Talking Heads’ reputation speaks for itself…not to mention the millions of Springsteen fans (who I’m no fan of, myself).
To dismiss ALL of those bands as “crap” in one sentence is the act of a close-minded jackass who likely doesn’t know as much about music as she thinks she does.
I’m not saying they’re crap, I’m saying they aren’t even as nuanced as a ’60s Marvel super-hero comic book. I saw Talking Heads and Iron Maiden with their giant puppet monsters at the first Rock In Rio and I’ve also seen Peter Gabriel of Genesis wearing the most crazy costumes.
It’s fun music and shows and some of the songs are really good but it’s children’s music essentially and so is rap which is unfortunately depraved beyond belief. It’s not a question of being “wrong” or “bad”; is Hannah Montana bad or something adults have no interest in?
Older, I prefer Coltrane, Krall or The Sundays not dressed up like spacemen in tinfoil suits. I’m over Space Ghost too in case you’re wondering but I used to love it.
I’m a huge U2 fan but I don’t view “Achtung Baby” with anywhere near the reverence I feel I should after reading that.
I started with “War” when I was 13, then the Red Rocks tape, followed by the majesty of the “Unforgettable Fire”, but I fu*ken hated “The Fly”, and
“Zoo Station” should have been a b-side.
“One” is sublime, and memorable because it is nothing like those two, and doesn’t rely on those tricks U2 try to pull when they’re “trying”.
Utilizing the experimental stuff only worked well when they learned to live with their legacy on tracks like “Lemon” off the next album.
What has lived on from that album has been the crafted pop and ballads that were an extension of the “Joshua Tree”, and they have only lived on in the sense that they are radio staples; “Mysterious Ways” is just as bland today as was back then.
I hated “Nevermind” too, but to hear “Achtung Baby” and “Nevermind” being equated with each other is almost ridiculous.
“Nevermind” was generation defining.
It also marked the point where what was previously classified over the previous 6 or 8 years as alternative/underground/whatever was now just mainstream.
Just as astonishing was how separate it was from the likes of Pearl Jam that to this day ride on it’s coat-tails, even though Pearl Jam was miles closer to U2 than Nirvana.
Never liked anything U-2 did; never understood what all the hoo-hah was about. I wouldn’t go to see them in concert for free, even with a backstage pass. I put them in the same class of music as Springsteen’s sound and arrangements: a wall of noise. I understand why people like them, just not why anyone past 17 would.
Jane, you make the comparison I was going to make. Like Springsteen, occasional catchy hooks or earworm melody, but I could go the rest of my life without hearing them and be perfectly content. Bands for a younger age, political songs dated and insipid to my ear. I was fortunate enough to be around for the classically based, jazz oriented, mostly British meaning-of-life rock and roll bands that hid amongst the pop of the late 60s to late 70s. Someone above mentioned Yes; still touring, just released their latest album ‘Fly From Here”, which sounds as fresh and vital as ever. The title suite is several songs set in an old airfield, would have been side one of an lp; as unlikely to get airplay as a Schubert symphony, and as uplifting; it is only an accident of language that the same term “music” is also used for the output of U2. IMNSHO: YMMV.
I liked Joshua Tree too, but really got into Achtung Baby. Favorite U2 song is zoo station. That said, I personally can’t stand Bono or his polotics.
Another RUSH fan here…Fly by Night is my “got into them” album, but like the older and newer stuff. They don’t sit still, that’s for sure.
Had I known there were so many Rush fans in here, I’d have written about them earlier. Maybe I’ll write about Hold Your Fire…. just kidding. Though it did have Amiee Mann on backing vocals.
That was the album they recorded at Sting’s studio in Montserrat, right?
Rush still plays “Time Stand Still”, by the way. Aimee Mann is reduced to samples on a synthesizer, with the notes played out one by one.
(And I’m the weirdo. My favorite Rush album is “Grace Under Pressure”.)
Rush. Is. Awesome! One of my absolute faves, especially their early stuff. Everything after “Moving Pictures” is meh.
I just got through putting a whole lot of U2 (who I had never paid attention to first time around) into my I tunes random play thingy, and deleting them as they came up. Every one.
I first saw U2 at the San Francisco Civic Auditorium in June of ’83. THAT was the best musical experience of my life. It was better than any album they ever did. It was akin to a religious epiphany. And to think several dozens, if not hundreds of Romeo Void fans walked out after Romeo Void finished their set!
I know what you mean about a “musical experience.” Yes 1979 (Tormato/in the round tour). Best. Concert. Evah.
Every generational decade thinks they have a lock on the best music. The Boomers are such a huge and narcissistic group, their belief that the 60′s was some kind of musical pinnacle practically reads as gospel. And each era had their own superstars; Sinatra, Elvis, Stones, Beatles, U2, REM, Madonna, Pearl Jam, Nirvana. And each generation derides the generations following as not having any musical sense or appreciation.
In certain respects, I have always felt that my cohort (H.S. class of ’79) had the most unbiased perspective on music. Having come of age in the disco era, we make no claims about the quality or importance of the music we grew up with. Most of us knew it was S#!t then, and recognize most of it as s#!t now. There were some decent bands then, but they were few and most left no lasting legacy. But like the other generations, we have a soft spot for it because it was still OUR music, no matter how unspectacular it was. However, I’d never be so presumptuous to declare it as better or worse than what came before or after.
It chafes me when people claim that such and such era had better music. Today, as it has been for 50 years, most pop music is crap. However, if you listen with an open mind, you’ll still find some decent stuff being played on the radio. Also, you’d realize that oldie stations play the best of the best. The drivel that makes up the bulk of any pop era, has mercifully been relocated to the amenesia bin.
I disagree: there is a difference between innovative contributions to music an artist or band displays over and over again and novelty acts.
Sinatra, Elvis, Stones, and The Beatles will be remembered long after U2, REM, Madonna, Pearl Jam, Nirvana are forgotten as novelty fads. Take away the clothes and hair styles of the former and you still have the music. Take away those same things from the latter and little is left.
“Every generational decade thinks they have a lock on the best music.”
Not quite, and you by your own testimony are a living refutation of your own argument.
For instance, many people who were teens in the 80s don’t consider the 80s as the best decade for music, and many people born after the 60s consider the 60s the best era. In practically every poll I’ve seen on the question “which was the best era in popular music?” the 60s got a majority vote. Except perhaps in niche polls (if you conduct the poll in an 80s New Wave fans club the 80s are sure to get a majority, but that will not necessarily be the case in a poll representing the entire 80s generation).
Personally I don’t make the artificial distinction between different eras according to decades or generations, but more so according to the internal evolution of music, so I don’t separate the 60s from the 70s because the second half of the 60s and first half of the 70s are a single era, parts of a single process, a process that led to a rapid and expansive evolution and growth, and explosion of creativity and innovation. It started perhaps with the introduction of folk to rock in the 60s (the greatest significance of which was that there was a lot of folk dealing with social issues, and rock adopted it), the development of psychedelic rock that opened new horizons, started discarding limitations, and brought a lot of experimentations with new approaches to music, new ideas, growing open-mindedness, a different mentality, new sounds, experimenting with existing instruments as well as with new instruments, – whether new technologies like the melotrone and synthesizer, or traditional, but foreign instruments, – influences by foreign music and philosophies, growing virtuosity, the development of art rock – a process starting with psychedelic rock and culminating with progressive rock that finally discarded all the rules and limitations imposed on pop music (short songs that are not inter-related, 4/4 rhythms, the verse-chorus structure, few and mostly simple chords, simple catchy melodies etc.). Then in the mid 70s punk reverted it back to the old rules and predetermined limitations common to pop music, which signified the end of that era. I was a teen in the 80s, not the 60s or 70s, but the era of the mid 60s to mid 70s was IMO the golden era, based on all the factors mentioned above.
Personally I don’t often listen to 60s music and am not particularly drawn to it more than to other eras (the best era to me is the pre-punk 70s, the birth of prog, though I listen more to contemporary prog), so my respect for the 60s is not so much a matter of taste, but of great respect based on the recognition of its achievements in terms of expanding the horizons, innovation and experimentation.
That doesn’t mean that there weren’t great music and also innovations made in other generations, but just that the 60-70 were perticularly ground breaking and rich.
“… no single album would again capture the rock nation as did Achtung Baby, and Nirvana’s Nevermind did earlier that fall. ” Hmmmmm, lemmie think, no, this is too over the top. I could never do without my Foo Fighters. Not that I can’t stand a little U2 now and then. Bono’s pretentiousness is a little hard to take, tho, Lear-jetting back & forth from Africa and his various villas in Geneva, Corfu, Telluride (or WHATever …) — my point being that he is the perfect limo-liberal poster child. We all need to SAVE Africa, but if we adopt his elitiist socialist agenda, there will, of course, be no capital resources to do so. So what’s to do? I dunno, buy another Bono product, I guess.
Bono is such a two-faced liberal I can’t believe you’re even allowed to write about him on PJ.
And agree with Amy and Jane Stair.
U2 has produced some great music….despite its political leanings.
There’s no accounting for musical taste. I’ll take Counting Crows “August and Everything After” as perhaps the best album of the 1990s. And U2′s “Joshua Tree” over “Achtung Baby” any day.
Finally someone else who loves August and Everything After as much as I do!
Though partial to Achtung’s subsequent sister-album Zooropa, love the write-up. Achtung smacked me upside the head in the latter years of college like no U2 had since Unforgettable Fire (and I even like Rattle and Hum more than most U2 fans care to admit), quite an accomplishment since I could barely tear myself away from The Replacements catalog at the time.
Re. Eno, though, not like he was a stranger to the band. He’d been working the boards with them since Unforgettable Fire.
Rattle and Hum is inconsistent, but there are a few great tracks on it. “All I Want is You” comes to mind – one of my all time favorite U2 songs. I also like “Desire” and “Heartland.”
Unfortunately, those songs aren’t enough to make a solid album, let alone a double album.
P.S. To each their own (and who says their can’t be multiple examples), but Beastie Boys’ Paul’s Boutique just as much a generational “Sgt. Pepper” as Achtung Baby.
Cool story, bro.
“This month marks the 20th anniversary of one of the last great culturally and musically dominant albums of the rock era — Achtung Baby by U2.”
This statement is more a sad commentary on just how pathetically low the bar is for “great culturally and musically dominant” albums these days rather than what it says about the album in question.
I blame it on hip-hop, and (c)rap.
Pink Floyd when not being too political.
What a bunch of angry commenters!! “My favourite band is better than your favourite band”……”I don’t like U2 so they must be rubbish”….”The lead singer is a bit of a tool so therefore the bands music is meaningless”. “Today’s teenagers have no respect and the world is not as good as it was in the olden days”" (OK, I made that last one up but thats how sad some of the comments come across as)
Grow up for goodness sake.
Frank Sinatra and the Beatles leave me utterly cold – I wouldn’t voluntarily play more than a handful of their songs but guess what? I respect that huge numbers of people love them and dig their music so just because I don’t doesn’t make me feel the need to declare them to be rubbish.
Jane Stair’s list of bands she doesn’t like is exactly the kind of drivel you’d expect from a 9 year old. A very silly and needless comment.
Actung Baby was a good album but not U2′s best. In my opinion. And, also in my opinion, Bono is indeed a tool.
I’m not angry: there is an actual and real difference between H.R. Pufnstuf, laughing at school being out forever or singing about smoking in the boys room as opposed to a thing called growing up.
What kind of a person past 12 yrs. old is impressed by “Sludge” or whatever his name is wearing a top hat, sunglasses and his frizzy hair obscuring his face like “Cousin It” or a character from Li’l Abner?
If that’s your Desdemona more power to you but it has nothing to do with anger and everything to do with saying good bye to diapers. There’s this thing called “Mad” magazine you might like: they make fun of adults and stuff.
No matter what era we hail from, there is nothing better than the music we loved during our youth, and no one will be able to convince us otherwise. It’s an argument that’s fun to have because we all know we won’t convince each other, but it’s also a chance to relive all those fun, crazy days.
Seems you need to loosen up more than we need to grow up.
That’s not true: I fell in love with a lot of music in my 30s and 40s which I like and listen to more than anything from my childhood.
Some people “fall for” music at different times during life. Doesn’t make me wrong. I’d be willing to bet the music you loved in your 30s and 40s is great beyond debate, much the same way others feel about music they loved in their teens. Heck, my dad loved Aerosmith and Enya more than some of the groups he liked when he was a teen in the 1950s.
The point is that I have “fallen” for music all my life and am not stupid enough to think one era is better just because I was a certain age. That’s called nostalgia; give us credit for knowing the difference.
What kind of a person past 12 yrs. old is impressed by “Sludge” or whatever his name is wearing a top hat, sunglasses and his frizzy hair obscuring his face like “Cousin It” or a character from Li’l Abner?
Slash is actually a pretty good player and has an ear for arrangement. I’m impressed with his abilities. Another phenomenal player in that mould is Zaak Wylde who like Slash essentially practices 5+ hours every single day. These guys have a work ethic that puts most conservatives to shame (i.e. those who write about work ethics etc yet seem to have none.) Just because Slash doesn’t have a buzz cut or wear a suit doesn’t mean anything at all; he’s faster / smarter / better and crafts an image for his professional stage persona. MBA’s who wear suits would refer to this as a “brand.” Seeing how this brand is iconic enough that you noticed it, a nof of your own top hat towards Mr Slash is in order.
No matter what era we hail from, there is nothing better than the music we loved during our youth, and no one will be able to convince us otherwise.
Wrong. Unless there’s a magical age bandpass filter in operation, I don’t see anyone here pining for a return to disco. Try again.
If it would replace rap, I’d be thrilled to see a return to disco. Actual melodies, musicians who could play, including drummers, since the Linn Drum Machine hadn’t yet been invented. I would never have been anti-disco back in the 1970s, had I known what was going to succeed it, perhaps just out of spite.
The disco years were fun for me because I dated a dance instructor–learned all the cool dancees for free and looked mighty cool on the dance floor!
Face it, Ed, disco simply sucked, and disco is the origin of hip hop.
Based on responses here it would appear that the perception that dicso sucked is due to the dominance of keyboards and — of all things, HORNS — as opposed to strings. Disco also saw the rise of deejays since most (rock) bands of the era were simply not instrumented to play disco.
There are those of us who don’t go for any sort of piano/keyboard based rock (raises hand) no matter how well it’s constructed. Can’t stand Elton John for example, and coincidentally there’s been no mention of Mr John or any other keyboard oriented rock and/or seminal works on this thread despite keyboard bands selling a gazillion records.
Rap and hip hop are keyboard oriented and eschew guitar. Connection?
Tough audience.
It’s popular sound that wouldn’t generate discussion if it didn’t appeal to enough listeners. I’ve always found it funny how upset fans get when their favs aren’t shared by others, or worse, are derided by equally insistent advocates of other performers. The “better than” approach is reminiscent of a conversation with an acquaintance who declared Mozart to be perfection, after I had said my favorite composer was Beethoven, making no claims for his standing at the top of any Better Than list.
So, since we’re opinion swapping (or slinging if you like), I’ll proclaim Chuck Berry the father of rock ‘n’ roll; paraphrasing Bob Segar, we’re all Chuck’s children.
ROCK
ON
Totally agree with Jane Stair.
And U2 is a fraud. If they stopped preaching, they could maybe find some time to actually compose a song without compromising the music to push their stupid agenda.
Hey E. Fluvius- I call him Boner too. that Edge guitar work is so endless and pointless. Best band with sweet guitar waves in that era is the Cure- and gang? the writer has one thing right- start with Eno’s Warm Jets and forget this U2 jazz. My most listened to album: Eno’s Taking Tiger Mountain. And no pop revolution took place but Eddie Cochran could out-rock Elvis and who knows that?
The Cure was awesome when they were focused but a lot of their stuff was more art project and not so much music. Cure fans rave about “Faith” but even back in the day I thought it was one of the worst albums ever…this from a HUGE Cure fan. Disintigration is probably widely hailed as their peak, but in my opinion Wish was the best album. Guitar and beat driven rock…comparable to what U2 did with Achtung in the same year (although i think Wish came out a little later). Porl obviously a much better guitarist than Edge (hell, he toured with Page/Plant) but the void was very evident when he wasn’t around (I think everything after Wish).
In my early thirties (born 1947) I began transitioning out of rock and into jazz and then classical music. Earlier in life these forms didn’t seem to have the energy I was attracted to (I hadn’t heard much Beethoven or any Buddy Rich yet!) Younger listeners today, immersed primarily in pop, have a wide, wonderful spectrum of listening adventures awaiting them; your mind will tell you when the time is right. Enjoy it all.
TonyR is right on target. So many people take an artist from “back in my day” then freeze it in time as the be all and end all of music, and excoriate all music before and since. I respect Sinatra, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and like hearing their songs once in a while, though as far as 60′s bands go, the Doors appeal to me much more than the Beatles and Stones. U2 made some great contributions to music, though I haven’t liked a song of theirs since 2000. I preferred Nirvana as the music from back in my day, and their album brought alt music to the mainstream. If I believed all music after Nirvana was crap, I would miss out on some great electronica artists (Massive Attack, Chemical Brothers), alternative bands like Radiohead (in my opinion, better than U2 and less appreciated), etc.
The music today, admittedly, seems crappier than in the past, with whiny American idol type chicks, boy bands and hip hop clones, but if you dig deeper you’ll find a few gems:
Foster The People
Gorillaz
Broken Bells (or any Danger Mouse collaboration)
MGMT
There is good music in every era, and those calling Bono “Boner” and Slash “Sludge” don’t reflect very well on the maturity level to be expected in someone of their advanced years.
But maybe I shouldn’t be suprised there are perputual adolescent refugees from the 60s who think juvenile insults and nicknames are the height of mature and intellectual discussion. These are the same guys who gave us Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
They didn’t denigrate “sludges’s” musical abilities on a guitar, but pointed out that his persona is one aimed at children and that is accurate. Again, who past 17 would think “Cousin It” with a guitar awesome?” That’s Nickelodian stuff. There’s nothing “wrong” with it but it’s kid stuff and not even as sophisticated as Mad Magazine.
Much the same could be said of Elvis Presley, John Lennon, or any other rock musician who has come down the pike.
Besides, rock “personas” are not aimed at children. For the most part, they are aimed at teenagers – and that goes even for the immortal gods of 60s rock who were supposedly so much better than anyone else, ever.
But enless I’m mistaken, this article is about U2′s music, not their image. And as for Slash, who cares what he LOOKS like? I never picked up a GnR album because of their hair styles. Hearing “Welcome to the Jungle” blast out of the radio in all its sleazy, bluesy glory was enough.
If you’re worried about what rock stars LOOK like, maybe you should stick with pop artists who more closely adhere to your idea of what “mature” looks like. Get some Justin Bieber CDs for Christmas.
Elvis Presley was stylish-cool and Lennon had a weird then long hair style to separate himself out from convention, not necessarily adults.
“Slash” projects a cartoon character which is quite a different thing. As for who cares, if it doesn’t matter, why just not dress down? Obviously it mattered to them.
I don’t know exactly when a concert had to start looking like a bad science fiction movie with shiny jumpers and monstrous puppets and giant artifacts with lights descending from the ceiling. I have nothing against it and am not saying one is better than another. However, Diana Krall is clearly not aimed a a Nickelodeon crowd nor are her fans into grafitti. Also, showmanship can also be a cheap thrill and I am talking about the difference between pro and college wrestling. Music is a show in itself and dressing up is fun but hardly more than that. Nobody’s giving out music scholarships for having cool outfits and I hope Esperanza Spalding never starts dressing like a futuristic prostitute as is common now.
Arrogantly dismissing an observation or argument as “worried” is straw man straight out of Nickelodeon. No one here is worried or angry but when they are I’m sure they’ll say so.
How can it be a straw man when you’re the one making a big deal out of Slash’s personal appearance? The guy has long hair and he wears a hat, not unlike most other hard rock artists. The idea that he’s trying to look like a cartoon character is your delusion, not his.
Speaking of straw men, what’s that bit about graffiti all about? If someone likes GnR, now they’re into spray painting and vandalism, too? What if I were to say that all Diana Krall fans were panty-waisted yuppies who hang out in coffee shops and listen to NPR? Do you generalize this much about everything?
Besides, Slash is not all about showman ship. The man is a great guitar player who is regulary recognized as one of the best of all time according to music critics and fellow musicians. Maybe you should try to look past your own preconceptions and prejudices before passing judgement in a public forum. For example, I do not like Diana Krall – but I wouldn’t cast aspersions at her as you do toward artists you don’t like.
And if you knew anything about GnR’s music or lyrics, you would know it is NOT aimed at the Nickalodeon crowd. Intitially, it was aimed at young adults, say between 18 and 30…but he has managed to keep a lot of the same fans as they have gotten older.
Hell, I’m not even a huge fan. But I feel compelled to him against blind ignorance. Is there anyone else you want to go after simply because they aren’t in your CD collection?
Slash could be the best guitarist of all time but what he put that talent towards was trash. Give me Derek and the Dominos and not some guys who are so interested in impressing people with how cool they are. And I’m not sure what you’re talking about: a top hat and hair look that never changes is obviously a costume and a conformist uniform one at that since it never changed, just like Barney the Dinosaur.
Maturity level? Kids used to admire The Lone Ranger and John Wayne. Then the cult of cool came along and a dedicated drug user who dresses like Cousin It is cool because he sneers at convention and society.
The former is now considered boring and the latter exciting but the latter is cultural suicide cuz kids as grow up loving destruction and sneering at construction. Bono is no hero: his charity has amassed millions and yet has given over 1% of its money to help Africans. Bono’s excuse: his charity promotes the IDEA of charity. Screw Bono: he’s a politically correct moron who knows the right buzzwords and buttons to push to ingratiate himself with Leftist society.
Bono’s idea of brave commitment is to declare he won’t make tuna salad out of children or bake baby seals into a pie.
What does any of that have to do with my post or U2′s music?
I never made any claims about Bono’s charity work. To tell the truth, I have never paid much attention to it.
To tell even more truth, I’m not a huge U2 fan. A couple of their albums, like War and The Joshua Tree, are brilliant, but I’m only a casual fan at best.
What I objected to was a bunch of boomers making up names like “Boner” and slamming all music that came 1969 or so. I further objected to the smears and generalizations about subsequent generations and their music while displaying the maturity level of ten year-olds themselves. I also pointed out that it’s not surprising from a generation of people who notoriously never grew out of adolescence from their childish hippie ethos in the 60s to their selfish, hypocritical greed as adults.
Sure, it was a generalization, but there seems to be a lot of that going around.
Achtung Baby holds a special place as a snapshot of where I was in ’91. 16, just got my first car (used Ford Tempo), having fun with girls, job, music, comics….good stuff that youth is made of. Achtung, Nevermind, Ten, and several of the other big albums of the day….along with the more rebel type (bad religion, misfits, etc) can really take me back. Out of all the songs, The Fly had the biggest impact on me for years and years….the solo from 3:05-3:30, although simple, is one of my all time favorites.
What exactly is “back in my days”? Everyday of my life is my day as far as I’m concerned.
I am not defending the music of “back in my days”, I like a lot the music of Phillip Souza, but not from Scott Joplin, for instance. IMO, the best was the age of the Big Bands (Glenn Miller, the Casa Loma orchestra, etc) even when many of the songs were composed in previous periods. And so in many other times: I prefer the Rolling Stones (great composers, not great singers) to the Beatles. I prefer Christina Aguilera (great singer even if it’s not my favorite musical genre) to Britney. And so on.
But now it’s U2 bashing fest here
and so it goes. Because those guys have no clue about art. If you like them, fine. If you think they are a phenomenon, ok, arguably but fine. Just don’t dare to say they are good composers, good musicians, or that The Edge is a guitar player. The Edge have no talent. Ok, perhaps the Edge is like Picasso (another overrated artist) knowing how to play virtuously (like Picasso really knew how to do a good classical painting) but is not really showing, so what I see is a guy without talent.
If U2 sells good, that’s fine with me. I’m all for marketing and capitalism. They are good vendors, not good artists.
Let’s see:
Showmanship: I don’t see any. Freddy Mercury or Michael Jackson were showmen, not Bono.
Song crafting: Even Hanson is greater than U2; and better not compare them with the Rolling Stones.
Virtuosism: The Edge would never play like Slash, let alone Brian May (yet, the contrary is quite possible)
Singing: Now, don’t tell me Bono is the male version of Christina Aguilera or Aretha Franklin.
Conclusion: U2 is an overrated band with no talent. Get over it.
For the non-U2 haters, check out From The Sky Down–a new documentary about the making of Achtung Baby and how the band almost broke up over it… Some great footage and commentary, particularly around the genesis of One.
Being the youngest of 4 kids, I was fortunate to have grown up to U2′s ‘Boy’, ‘October’ ‘War’ and ‘Live at Red Rocks’ album (much of the War album. The live song, ‘Party Girl’ is awesome at the RR show). Nearly as good as The Talking Heads ‘Stop making Sense’ live album.
Each of those albums and every song are quite strong.
It’s when ‘The Unforgettable Fire’ and ‘The Joshua Tree’ came out where the sanctimonious pop sound reared its ugly head more so and ‘The Edge’ using way too many foot pedals for ‘different sounds’ (i.e. pop music crapola). Bono also took himself far too serious for ‘humanitarian’ ventures.
When does a preachy, do-gooder philanthropist EVER use their own money?
As for ‘Achtung Baby’ and their following albums, it was ballad pop. Sadly what happened to Aerosmith. Aerosmith’s, ‘Toys in the Attic’ started out promising but..
Come on, Mr. Adams. ‘Who’s Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses’? Synthesizers and distortions were in full force on this album. At times it sounded like a Pet Shop Boys and/or Bauhaus album albeit with more cheer!
Soundgarden’s, ‘Badmotorfinger’, The Cult’s, ‘Ceremony’, Smashing Pumpkins, ‘Gish’, Anthrax’s, ‘Attack of the Killer B’s', My Bloody Valentine, ‘Loveless’, Massive Attack’s, ‘Blue Lines’, AiC, ‘Facelift’, My Life with.., ‘Sexplosion’, Fugazi’s, ‘Steady Diet of Nothing’, Mudhoney’s, ‘Every Good Boy..’, Primus, ‘Sailing the Seas of Cheese’, Nitzer Ebb’s, ‘Ebbhead’, A Tribe Called Quest’s, ‘Low End Theory’, Kyuss (later members forming QOTSA) and of course RHCP’s, ‘Blood Sugar Sex Magik’ -1st concert. (worked.. well volunteered at a college AM radio station in Colorado Springs at the time.. 16 years old).
I have never liked U2. They are boring. Long time bands? Slayer and Megadeth have survived the decades just fine. F Bono and U2.
I’m the last person to have liked Metallica post-Burton but ‘The Big 4′ concert with Slayer, Metallica, original members of Anthrax and Megadeth.. whoaaaaa!
Barney the Dinosaur meets H.R. Pufnstuf meets fetishist leather meets mother ship descending from the heavens on stage equals crap.