1,001 Best Songs (By Q Magazine)

Do you think people went to see the Zoo and Pop tours just to see U2 play the songs from Zooropa and Pop? In fact, during the Pop Tour U2 found themselves unable to sell out most of their venues.

Even Bono admits that Zooropa and Pop weren't their best albums. Both of them reached #1 thanks to media over hype and in the long run they failed to deliver the goods. At least compared to their previous material.

The fact that an album reaches the #1 spot doesn't make it successful. A lot of albums that have reached #1 in the US fail to get a platinum record, or hardly make it past it but in the end they just tank. They are hyped thanks to the image and history of the artists. Take for instance the last studio albums released by Madonna and Michael Jackson.

At the same time, there are a lot of albums that never reach #1 but become widely successful and reach an stability that makes them some of the best selling albums ever. Ej. Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side Of The Moon'.

Yes, but Bono has said that The Wanderer was the greatest song they ever wrote, and apparently The Edge considers Zooropa one of his favorite albums.

Zooropa suffers from being released too soon after Achtung Baby, and POP suffers from being released too early. The band does not deny that.

Again, the albums were not failures nor does U2 consider them bastard albums. Perhaps to the U2 fan who thinks they should stick to playing the greatest hits, they don't get the albums and consider POP and Zooropa failures. But the fact that U2 still plays tracks off them gives you an idea of their feelings for the albums. Don't confuse personal feelings with facts.

Brian also said once that he doesn't regret anything that Queen did (that includes 'Hot Space'... I guess).

Yet still, I doubt that Queen would have dared to release another 'Hot Space'. Just like U2 might think twice before releasing again something that sounds like Pop or Zooropa.

Since you edited your post:

Perhaps you should give the Danny-definition of success. Clearly, number one albums are not sufficient since many crap albums can be number one. Clearly, album sales are not sufficient, since many crap artists can sell millions of records. Clearly, press and critical praise is not suffcient, since most of those rags have wacked out opinions. So what is sufficient for you to consider it a success?

Again, don't confuse personal feelings with facts. Just because some fans may hate an album, like Hot Space, does not mean it wasn't a success.

Then give me the Zeni-definition of why Zooropa and Pop were good albums.

I remember recently you said that Michael Jackson's latest album was crap. Well, perhaps you could explain that definition. I happened to buy the album myself, and although I was kinda dissapointed I happened to find excellent tracks like "You Rock My World", "Butterflies" and "Whatever Happens". Acceptable IMO... but definitely not as great as his previous albums. I happen to have a friend who is also a big MJ fan and he loved 'Invincible' but then he said that 'Dangerous' was an awful album. As you see, it's all a matter of taste anyways.

Once again, you could end up saying that "success" or "talent" are undefined terms, and end up having the same ol' discussion we always have.

Are you ready to make this thread 5 pages long?

I thought I already did. Let's see:
Band likes them (to an extent I admit, Larry doesn't much care for POP apparently)
Number one sellers
Platinum sellers
Press liked them
Big Tours

Now, I'm not claiming they are bigger or better than Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby. Never said that. But you claimed that by releasing those albums, their career was tanking. I think it's fairly obvious that that is your opinion and not what the facts show. So just admit it. I don't care what your opinion is on those albums, but stop trying to put it forth as canon.

Since you edited your post again:

"Once again, you could end up saying that "success" or "talent" are undefined terms, and end up having the same ol' discussion we always have."

If you would state that it is your opinion, then the discussion would end quickly. Your free to your opinion, I really don't care what it is. But as long as you make statements that imply that your opinion is fact, I'll debate them.

Ok, let's analize this whole thing...

- Band likes them (to an extent I admit, Larry doesn't much care for POP apparently)
That explains itself. So did Queen with 'Hot Space'.

- Number one sellers
When an artist reaches the status of U2, all their albums due to media hype and fan expectiations are more than expected to reach #1. But will all this sucess last than more a couple of weeks? Take for instance Bon Jovi's Bounce, which reached #1 and in 2 weeks it was out of the Top 40 list.

- Platinum sellers
Same as the above

- Press liked them
U2 is one of those bands that no matter how bad is one of their albums, they will always be praised by the press.
Can you explain why 'Pop' and 'Zooropa' got 4 stars from 'Rolling Stone', while 'All That You Can Leave Behind' which had 4 Top 10 radio hits and was widely accepted by public in general, still got the same rating?

- Big Tours
The Stones haven't released a good album in 20 years and they're still selling out stadiums.

Ok, nice deconstruction. I agree 100 percent with everything you just wrote.*

Now, explain to me how that is considered "tanking"?

.
.
.
* as for the issue of why POP and Zooropa got 4 stars just like ATYCLB, I cannot explain to your satisfaction. Personally, I like them better than ATYCLB, so my answer won't work for you.

Okay, guys, come on. There are good, trustworthy music critics out there, many of whom write things for Q.

If you want some examples - Cameron Crowe, David Fricke, Anthony DeCurtis, Ann Powers, Lorraine Ali, Allan Jones, Parke Puterbaugh, Steve Pond, Michael Azzerad, etc. Just because Queen got stuck with the dinosaurs doesn't mean all music critics are evil.

And by the way, for the record, Zeni and Dan are both wrong. The Stones have put out several good albums in the past 20 years, and big sales and a big tour, not to mention critical apeal, do not a great album make. The critics also liked "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots", which I thought was heinous. And everyone raved over "Elephant". And if Voodoo Lounge isn't a great album, I don't know what is. Sorry, guys :)

And I thought the Q list was BS.