Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
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?
|
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.