U2 90s Discography Review
 

The 90s were an interesting time for U2, one of the most successful bands of the 80s. They pulled a Madonna and completely re-invented themselves after anticipating the rising popularity of club/dance music. Their re-invention turned them from wild boys you felt still lived in your neighbourhood to a gimmick act, dressing up and assuming different personas. But no matter what they did to their image, their music was still interesting and occasionally engaging. Although their 80s material is much more genuine than their 90s output, the 90s are arguably more accessible.

We'll explore these statements when my review of Achtung Baby hits MB very soon.

I'm looking forward to these reviews Roygbiv! I'm particularly looking forward to your review of Zooropa since I think it's easily U2's most underrated album.

I'd be lying if I said I had a soft spot for U2's 90s work, but who knows, you might be able to sway me with this thread. That said, Achtung Baby's still a damn good album.

When U2 set out to reinvent themselves, they weren’t kidding around. Achtung Baby was released in 1991, three years after the lukewarmly received and bloated Rattle and Hum, to huge critical and fan appraisal. U2 used the dance and electronic music that was growing in popularity as their muse, creating something more ethereal, danceable, denser and, ironically, more rock & roll than ever. The wizards behind the studio are mega producers Daniel Lanois, Brian Eno, and Steve Lillywhite; Eno, who most famously produced Talking Head’s most rewarding albums, is key, for the man knows how to mix a key riff and beat, and so is Lillywhite, the man who has been there since the band’s debut. But what does this all mean? It means that everything that needs to be brought to the forefront absolutely is, exactly when it should be, constantly thrilling the listener.

It’s hard to listen to Achtung Baby without anticipating the hits, and the album is filled with them. “One,” “Mysterious Ways,” “Until The End Of The World,” “Ultraviolet” – I can keep going on and on. Truth is, you’ve heard most of these tracks somewhere, from movies to commercials to radio – they are inescapable. For some, the album resonates slightly less so, for they know exactly what’s coming, but if you haven’t heard these songs before, or at least in a long, long while, then Achtung Baby will feel as exciting as it is. For everyone who's tired of the songs, try approaching it from a first listen point of view. It’s what I did, and the album does amaze – there are sounds and soundscapes that radio just isn’t fit for replicating. The album is simply worth it, and this is the only U2 album I can say that about without thinking twice.

There are some weak tracks here, namely the last two songs "Acrobat" and "Love is Blindness," mostly because they don’t resonate the same way that everything prior does. Fortunately, they are trumped by treasures like “Who’s Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses” and U2’s absolutely coolest track, “The Fly.”

My verdict is: listen to it, again and again. If you have already done that, listen to it one more time. The album only gets better when you can anticipate it. U2 have only sounded this genuine and powerful in The Joshua Tree. As the years go by, and as long as U2 keep releasing derivative, alt-rock yawn fests like they have this entire decade, and as long as The Joshua Tree remains the most overplayed U2 album of all time, Achtung Baby will continue to impress. It deserves all the praise it gets.

9.7/10

It's funny, my memory of the reaction to this album is a little different from what you describe. I seem to recall a lot of longtime fans thinking they had sold out with this album because of it's glitzier sound and imagery. That may have just been the people I knew though. Personally, I loved it though I agree with you that the last two songs are pretty weak.

I mention fan appraisal due to the popularity of its singles selling millions among the fans, so while many thought they had sold out, most thought they were pretty amazing, not to mention the slew of new fans they acquired. But I think people today still feel that this is their first "sellout" album. To hell with 'em : P it's deep enough to stand against poorly founded criticism.

I also liked Achtung Baby a lot at some point in the 90s. Since then, I've of course grown tired of it, but I still agree that it's a very solid album. I much prefer it to Zooropa personally (which I think lacks direction) ..

I've always thought it was a pretty silly criticism of the album too. If anything, I would think making an album with an accompanying theatrically released movie a la Rattle and Hum is more of a sell out move than anything they did with Achtung Baby. In fact, I've never understood what people thought was the big difference between Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree. I mean the band changed their sound a bit but the circumstances were no different; both were Brian Eno produced albums chock full of radio friendly songs. The only real difference I see is that The Joshua Tree has somber black and white photography of the band looking very serious on the cover. Can it really something as superficial as the packaging makes people perceive Achtung Baby as somehow more commercial?

I'm totally with you about Zooropa and I actually think the lack of direction is the best thing about that album. They really seem like that were having fun recording it and had a real anything goes attitude about it. I think that translates into one of their most energetic and interesting albums.

Somber photography can also make one look more douchey, but at the time U2 were "superheroes." If they pulled that stunt today we'd all laugh at them, like how they titled their second album this decade "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb." That's an inspired title, but we all scoffed. So the predominant perception at the time allowed them to get away with the photography, which in turn made the album seem more mysterious, and everyone loves mystery, hence the reason why some people thought Achtung Baby had too much flash. I thought that the raw photography was perfect for the era.

Yeah, I like the photography too and it suits the album well, but I also like the photography on the cover of Achtung Baby a lot.

I think the first half up to and including "Stay (Faraway, So Close!)" is fairly interesting. The title track with it's oscillating synths and slightly nonsensical lyrics, Babyface the straightforward pop song, the very different Numb and the slightly crazy Lemon. Stay is also nice and slightly more reminiscent of their earlier stuff ..

.. However, Daddy's Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car and the rest is a bit of a bore I think!

edit :

Might be worth mentioning that they really were monsters of stadium rock at this time in the early 90s. The Zoo TV tour was rather extraordinairy!

I like the whole thing, but I agree with you that side one is stronger than side two (can you tell I own this one on tape?). The only song that doesn't really do it for me is "The Wanderer". Johnny Cash is fine but they made that boring, farty-sounding keyboard so high in the mix that I wish I had access to the master tapes so I could just fix it.

I might just mention a few things about the Zoo TV tour when I review Zooropa, only because it's one of those things you have to SEE to get. I agree that it was freaking extraordinary.

Hah! I agree .. The Wanderer song is a bit of a curiosity. A wild stab in the dark maybe. :D

Zooropa [Island; 1993]

Things started going awry when Zooropa hit store shelves in 1993. As the most direct presentation of the sound U2 was inspired by when they reinvented themselves, Zooropa is only surprising in how different it sounds compared to any U2 album that came before, including Achtung Baby. It’s got more dance, techno and electronica than Achtung Baby, which was also influenced by the dance/techno scene, but alas it was more a product of alternative rock. Zooropa is also their most incoherent statement since 1981’s October, the circumstances under which it was created allowing U2 a free pass not renewable here. Truth is, Zooropa should have remained an EP – it would have been a great EP if it was made up entirely by the first half of the album’s current playlist. But the band was riding high in 1993 and Zooropa ended up a full length album that coincidentally did very well considering its lackluster self, but that’s mostly due to how popular U2 were at the time.

As the album it is, Zooropa does have some good moments, namely when “Zooropa,” “Numb,” “Lemon,” and “Stay (Faraway So Close!)” are cued. Some close listeners might appreciate the more relaxed second half, namely “Some Days are Better Than Others” and “Dirty Day,” but that’s too forgiving a thing to say.

Some might call U2 circa Zooropa spontenous, you know, because they decided to convert an EP into an LP, but spontenous U2 is Bono jumping off stage and dancing with a fan; spontenous U2 is the band reinventing themselves with Achtung Baby and creating something that was actually very good. Zooropa is U2 testing their luck and popularity, something they will do again, next time very, very unsuccessfully with Pop.

In all honesty, don’t skip Zooropa entirely, just be ware that the second half has less hits than the first. That first half is probably U2’s last great playlist.

7.3/10

Nice review on Zooropa :) I agree with most of what you write. I also think it should've remained an EP containing essentially the first half.

Before they recorded Pop, they also recorded the very strange album Original Soundtracks 1 with Brian Eno and a guest appearance by the late Luciano Pavarotti. They released the album in 1995 under the pseudonym Passengers, so it usually doesn't come up in their discography .. and rightly so, because if you want to listen to the U2 which is farthest removed from anything else they've ever done, that's the album you should listen to. Still, it did chart in Norway and likely other countries with the song "Miss Sarajevo", giving it some attention.

I don't consider it part of their discography because if they had wanted it to be regarded as such, they wouldn't have released it under the name Passengers. Still, it is definetly a curiosity so some people like to mention it. I reviewed it in my own journal if you wanna have a closer look at my thoughts on it.

I'm not sure if I'll review Passengers. I consider it one of those Eno side projects, like how he had a side project with David Byrne of Talking Heads (My Life In The Bush of Ghosts) but it's not a Talking Heads album. I'll read your review before disregarding it altogether, though.

I think Atchung Baby is a solid album but I must admit to not hearing any other of their 90's releases.

I think you're justified in thinking of it as another Brian Eno collaboration .. A lot of it is Brian Eno-esque and little of it if any is U2-esque. Also, aside from a couple of gems, it's not that good!

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.”

You want to hear something funny? I've seen the above image thousands of times in my life and never until this moment noticed that Bono was in the picture holding the spotlight. I always thought it was just a picture of the Edge.

In my defense, I think it's usually a darker image so it's harder to see Bono, like this version of it:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6F4Tp8FFd9...320/rattle.jpg

Part of me kind of wishes it WAS just Edge...nothing against Bono, but I think that would have been cool - just having Edge represented on the album. Also, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) this is the only album cover that features band member prominently, to NOT feature Larry and Adam.

They got very american with joshua tree and rattle and hum by the way. It's like desert dust, heartland, mining towns, diggin' for gold and all that jazz.

Yeah, it's especially noticeable on Rattle and Hum. Though the photos on Joshua Tree make the American influence pretty blatant.

I have to agree. I don't really think Achtung Baby (even though it was a ****ing quality album) was that much of a departure from what they had previously done in terms of sound.