U2 80s Discography Review
 

So, my sister has all the U2 albums so far and I thought, "why not?" They are the most shamed band on this forum, and possibly of all popular culture. If not, they certainly have made their once respectable name infamous. Maybe what we all need is to "dream it all up again" and give them a second chance.

I've divided this discography into two parts because their 80s material is so vastly different than their 90s and turn of the century material that it's unbelievable.


U2 in the 80s were, according to allmusic.com, "rock and roll crusaders," and when you think back to that most interesting decade and what was dominant musically, you do think of synthesized pop and hair metal. Not U2. In the 80s they were right up there with Bruce Springsteen: grandiose but accessible, the voices of millions. Ironically, their ideas where better realized when they were younger than when they grew old. The late 90s and within our present decade, U2 (especially Bono) have attempted to regain their youth by all the wrong means. But before they lost their purpose (or rather before Bono's own doucheness completely ruined the band), they were real, they were punk, they were raw, they were alive and we weren't ashamed to close our eyes and feel the music for a moment.

Great idea :)

I haven't heard a post-90s U2 album and in the 90s, they were so and so, but still I think they are underestimated on MB in general .. I quite like a lot of their 80s stuff despite it being regarded as perhaps a bit "safe" today. Other than that, well written start and I'm looking forward to reading your reviews.

However, you might wanna keep your asbestos suit close by.

The first three U2 records were fecking great. Looking forward to this and balls to the rest of the forum.

I haven't given the full breadth of U2's 80s material a good listen for years. The Joshua Tree is ace, and I remember liking War and the Unforgettable Fire a lot.

Looking forward to this.

^ Yeah, I remember hearing from my sister that The Joshua Tree was really good album.

A lot of people on this forum like to bash that one and I can kind of understand because so many of the songs on it are really over played. But it really is a great album, there's not a single bad song on it.

With Or Without You irritates me to no end, but otherwise I agree. One Tree Hill is one of the best songs ever as well.

I actually like "With or Without You" but it certainly is one of the most overplayed songs from the album. I'd say "Trip Through Your Wires" is my favorite on the album though.

Red Hill Mining Town I guess is my favourite from that one. If any song from that album irritates me, it's "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For". Other than that, I think the bleak "Bullet the Blue Sky" is interesting because of it's sound (compared to everything else from them at that point) and of course it's political message.

Definitely, One Tree Hill is gold.

U2 hit the ground running with their debut, waiting absolutely no time to release their first grand album, packed to the brim with an 8 minute rock epic and unforgettable soaring melodies. You don’t often hear much about Boy - except (maybe) for the opening track “I Will Follow” that re-appears in their first greatest hits compilation – and that’s unfortunate because it’s just as immediate as War, their third and often considered most energetic album.

But here’s why you don’t hear about Boy: it’s not hosted by big enough hits unlike War and every U2 album thereafter (and even if they don’t, the band will be too popular for the albums to fly this low off the radar again). It was also too rock and naive for punk but also too lo-fi for rock. As such, you don’t know what to make of it, not really, but goddamn it sounds good. There aren’t many choruses here, the emphasis is often on the song progression and development, giving Boy enough density to warrant a few serious listen-throughs.

The band had already gotten a grip around the sound that they would be known for throughought the 80s: Edge’s chiming guitar, Mullen and Clayton’s underappreciated rhtyhm section, and Bono’s passionate vocals. It’s a good start… nay, a great start, but not an essential listen. U2 could have skipped Boy and its successor, October to start with War and they would still be the same band we know today. If you want War before War was War, listen to Boy, otherwise move along.

October is the most overlooked album in U2’s discography. It’s so “tucked underneath the carpet” that no track was included in any of their greatest hits packages, not even “Gloria,” the album’s best track.

The reason this is so is mostly due to Bono having nothing to say, at least nothing profound, after the band lost a briefcase filled with lyrics. As a result it wasn’t as brave as Boy, nor as energetic as War. It is, however, subtler, trading lyrics for more complex song progression. But complex does not always mean better, and October is a perfect example of this. There are more surprises, but the album just isn’t as engaging as anything they released before or after. It also makes less sense as an U2 album as the years go by, as we continue to associate U2 with hooks and choruses.

Despite its short comings, October does have some amazing tracks within it, namely the first three tracks. The album also has a better sense of momentum than its predecessor, cooling down for two tracks, “Tomorrow” and “October” before firing the canons again. You can tell that the band tried to make this another great album, but its short comings do outweigh its strengths, making for a relatively impressive first listen but you never feel like going back to it again, especially when the ideas explored within are presented better from then onwards.

I loved the review of Boy. Unfortunately their early work gets forgotten amidst the constant Bono bashing (which is deserved) but it is a shame that their early stuff doesn't get talked about more. They were an angry young band with something to say.

I also like your reviews and I wish I could think of something else smart to say, but I find myself agreeing with just about everything you write. Looking forward to War. :)

Great reviews. God I hate Bono more than almost anybody, but their early stuff is ace.

War is U2’s most powerful album, no matter what decade is considered in the comparison. The band will never be this electrifying and naked again. Its successor and virtually every album afterward will be produced by Brian Eno, who gave the band too much density, giving with it weight and stage power, but before Eno (and Flood, and a billion others) there was only Steve Lillywhite, Mullen’s underrated drumming, Clayton’s funky bass, Edge’s fantastic guitar and Bono’s soaring voice, which will coincidentially never sound this young and unlidded again. There are no synths to add mood nor a guitar mixed to become so predominant that Bono’s voice takes the back seat. It’s just the band and the listener, and that’s why War is so powerful. Every rhtyhm aims at your spirit, hoping to grip a nerve and sticking to it with all its might, and they often succeed.

In War, U2 marry the punk spirit with rock grandeur to be the superheroes they were considered to be for such a long time. But unlike what's often considered punk and rock, War is a record you can listen to and rebel with without your parents knocking on your door, asking whose awful voice they hear.

The album’s short comings are only evident if you like the post Eno U2 better, which is the U2 most of us are familiar with. It takes a lot to discard Eno’s take on the U2 sound, and for those who hate the band, it’s tough to discard what’s arguably their most accessible sound. U2 detractors wouldn’t know what to think of War. I mean, it’s not sh!t, and that’s what they expect. They expect soaring hooks and choruses, like with “Pride” and “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” and “Mysterious Ways,” “Beautiful Day” – you name them, they aren’t here. They expect tracks their Danielle Steele reading wives will like and would love to get married to - they aren't here. War is catchy and accessible, and there certainly are hooks, but they aren’t produced the same way, so they don’t resonate with radio stations. That’s why you wouldn’t hear “The Refugee,” or “Seconds” on the radio. “Sunday Bloody Sunday” manages to be a huge hit thanks to its inarguably powerful rhtyhm and unforgettable chorus, and “New Year’s Day” is also popular because its reminiscent of Eno’s sound. If you do hear any of the other tracks on the radio, then count it as a rare occasion. Why play the rawer U2 that audiences today probably wouldn’t recognize (save for Bono’s voice) when their hits are still just as catchy as they have always been? It helps that the two aforemtioned tracks from the album were released as singles, but so was “Two Hearts Beat As One.” How many of you know how that song goes? Okay, now how many of you can sing along to it? There you go.

War is everything that Boy and October did but streamlined, refined, and put together better, making for a much more rewarding experience. Unfortunately, though you might love what it stands for, subsequent U2 albums will be easier to listen to, keeping War below The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby in terms of popularity. But as U2’s most powerful and alive album ever, it’s a blast to listen to, so do listen to it. You might just respect the band afterward.

War & Boy are probably my favorite among the first 3 albums. I would hate to choose between them. "An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart" might be my favorite early 80's U2 song. I also think I might be one of the few who prefers the studio version of "40" to the live version. October has some great moments IMO, but it seemed a bit rushed, and I know Bono's lyrics were stolen. Don't forget many of the U2 B-sides and non-album tracks through out the 80's. Many of the tunes are better than some of the album cuts IMO.

My favourite of the first 3 albums this, and one I haven't listened to for years. Still a good album though - New Year's Day is probably my favourite track off it.

Great review, great thread. Keep this going man.

I'm trying a new thing: Saying more by typing less. Hope it worked!

The Unforgettable Fire [Island; 1984]

http://www.irelandlogue.com/files/20...ttablefire.jpg

The Unforgettable Fire is U2’s first plunge into experimentation. No longer settled for writing the rallying rhythms that were so effective in their first three albums, U2 hired ambiance master Brian Eno to add buoyancy to their sound. They also hired Daniel Lanois, but Eno’s influence is predominant.

As their first musical sharp turn, The Unforgettable Fire has it’s moments of brilliance (U2’s track-ography would be sorely incomplete without “A Sort of Homecoming,” “Pride,” “Bad” and the title track) but it’s often unimpressive. Eno’s contribution to U2’s sound often weighs the songs down, except for “Pride,” which wouldn’t be the same astonishing track without Eno. But songs like “Promenade” and “4th of July” just don’t work. They feel so awkward when considering how energetic and free the band sounded a year ago, and they are still weak links post Joshua Tree. Sure, Eno and Lanois will refine and perfect U2’s sound the next time around, but all they did in The Unforgettable Fire was tell Bono he was too old to be waving flags around – it was time to sell some records.

7.3/10

I forgot how much I really like War until I read this. I'm being assaulted by the drums on "Like a Song" as we speak. It's probably my favorite U2 release that I've heard.

And so we’ve reached what’s arguably the pinnacle fo U2’s 80s sound. Arguable because War was on its own a pinnacle of their mid-80s sound, but that’s just tedious to consider. I argue that The Joshua Tree is the pinnacle of U2s overall 80s output because many of the ideas expressed in their earlier material is revisited, albeit more personally.

An Allmusic journalist perfectly described The Joshua Tree as the aftermath of the ideas presented in War, and that’s probably due to what Bono sings about and what the songs actually sound like. Imagine War as U2 leading a marching band through the climax of a great battle. The battle ends, they’re surrounded by a destroyed land incapable of birthing life again. Uncertainty is in the horizon; that’s what the Joshua Tree sounds like. It’s a different kind of anthemic – the songs feel as if they are living, breathing entities – which his exactly why a song like Bullet The Blue Sky doesn’t work. It probably would have worked an album or two ago, but not in the Joshua Tree where everything else is much less aggressive. But that’s about the only weak link in the album. It may be tough to believe for people who have come to know U2 after they became so popular, but there are some incredibly powerful tracks in the album aside from the overplayed triumvirate of hits that open it. “Red Hill Mining Town” and “One Tree Hill” stand out as the two most unfairly overlooked highlights.

There’s nothing has hasn’t been said about The Joshua Tree by now. It’s an outstanding LP that’s high on hits but low on surprises, which is unfortunate because I like to think of a time when “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” resonated to a spine chilling degree before it was beaten to death by radio stations everywhere. Coincidentally, the amount of critical acclaim bestowed on The Joshua Tree is so overwhelming that the album transcends its creators, which is tragically more than what War, their bravest, boldest musical statement, can say about its own influence.

9.2/10

I've said a few times before that One Tree Hill is almost as good as music gets - blissful song, especially the last 40 or so seconds of it. In fact the last four tracks makes for one of the best closing sequences of songs on any album. This is the only U2 album I still listen to to this day, so you're about right with your rating of it.

All in all, top review sir :thumb:

Yup, I agree with Bulldog - very insightful and very good review :)

One Tree Hill is good and sure gets a lot of praise. I noticed you mentioned Red Hill Mining Town as well which is perhaps my favourite from Joshua Tree!

Looking forward to Rattle and Hum, hehe ;)

I so detest the first three tracks from this album but 'Bullet The Blue Sky' and 'Exit' are great tracks. I haven't heard this album for a few years now. In fact any U2 at all. A timely reminder.

Great review Roygbiv! I totally disagree with you about "Bullet the Blue Sky" but I thought the review as a whole was really, really well written and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. :)

What do you guys think of Bullet the Blue Sky? is it essential?

It's one of my favorite songs on the album. I think it adds a little edge to everything so yeah I think it's essential.

But doesn't it throw the whole album off balance? There's just no other song that sounds like it.

Personally, I like the track .. It's a bit bleak and apocalyptic, but in a good way :D

Also, it has a clear political message which something I'd expect from one of the band's greatest albums.

I don't think it throws album off balance, I think it works to break up the sound a bit.

Sure, but it disrupts the flow of the album. It just comes suddenly after the soaring beauty of With or Without You.

On it's own it's a good song, but when judging the album in its entirety it's the weakest link.

I think it comes too suddenly. Maybe it's personal taste, then : P

Here's an interesting bit of trivia regarding the order of songs :

This was found in the album's wikipedia article -> The Joshua Tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That IS interesting. However, Bullet The Blue Sky > Red Hill Mining Town AND One Tree Hill?

I think my order would be .. Red Hill > Bullet > One Tree .. Sorry tree-huggers!

edit :

Actually, I've reconsidered. Red Hill > One Tree > Bullet.

That's a good choice.

My Joshua Tree would look like this:

1 - Where The Streets Have No Name
2 - I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
3 - With Or Without You
4 - Running To Stand Still
5 - Red Hill Mining Town
6 - Bullet The Blue Sky
7 - In God's Country
8 - Trip Through Your Wires
9 - One Tree Hill
10 - Exit
11 - Mothers of the Disappeared

Not because I like Bullet the Blue Sky or anything, but because it would flow better that way.

I decided to review these two albums at the same time because I found myself saying similar things about them when I tried reviewing them individually. There’s also no score because it’s pointless to score two albums that were clearly terrible.

Both Rattle & Hum and Pop share the unfortunate fate of being considered the worst albums of their respective decades. The reasons differ slightly, but they both arrive at the same conclusion. In Rattle & Hum’s case, fans had already listened to what most considered the pinnacle of U2’s 80s sound in The Joshua Tree. In Pop’s case, fans were no longer interested by the electro/dance gimmick that the band took to ridiculous levels by the time Zooropa came out. It didn’t help that Pop came out five years after Zooropa – by then I imagine fans were expecting something else from the band. You’d think that Rattle & Hum, which came out a year after The Joshua Tree, wouldn’t suffer from what Pop suffered from, but it did. Fans didn’t need another album after The Joshua Tree, not for awhile, especially because most of its singles were played on the radio in full force even a year later (and, heck, decades later).


Both albums also suffer from being too bloated. At 72 and 60 minutes respectively, they are U2’s longest albums. The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby, at over 50 minutes apiece, were allowed – and dare I say embraced – because there were hits all over them. Otherwise their albums are no longer than 42 minutes (Zooropa is the odd one out, running for 51 minutes).

There are some good tracks within both albums, namely within Rattle & Hum, which hosts my favourite U2 song, “Angel Of Harlem.” Pop has a much more forgettable set of okay songs, however – the only real highlight being Discotheque and maybe If God Will Send His Angels.

If there’s one really good thing to say about each of these albums is that they finalized a stage of U2’s sound. After Rattle & Hum, U2 would reinvent themselves with a distinctly 90s sound, and after Pop they would reinvent themselves by embracing an alternative radio, allowing U2 to adapt to the shifting tides.

Maybe after No Line On The Horizon, they’ll try going “indie.”

Angel Of Harlem is a fantastic song - it'd be my favourite U2 one if it weren't for that one song off the Joshua Tree that I've mentioned before. Other than that, Rattle and Hum's pretty forgettable. Pop, on the other hand, is just absolutely terrible.

I agree that none of the albums are good, but I find enjoyable moments on both. On Rattle & Hum, I can sort of enjoy Desire, Hawkmoon, Silver & Gold, Heartland .. On Pop, Gone, Miami, Wake Up Dead Man. I don't think they're awful, but mediocre perhaps. But of course, mediocre albums from such a big band are gonna disappoint.

I think Pop might just be U2's most underrated album.

Rattle and Hum was ****, though.