Bono: 'U2 album was too challenging' - Page 10

mikal · 10-26-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MilotheMayor

I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Just wanted to give you some props before you get flamed.

woah. Atease at Interference?

not gonna flame Ultraviolet353. it's not like he's right and i'm wrong or vice versa. it's all a matter of opinion. i think NLOTH is amazing, he doesn't.

nielsgov · 10-26-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MilotheMayor

I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Just wanted to give you some props before you get flamed.

Yes the flaming can begin now.

senrab · 10-26-2009, 01:56 PM

I find Boots to be a Vertigo re-write. You could sing the chorus to Vertigo over the Boots chorus and it would fit.

BVS · 10-26-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65980

BVS, as usual, your post is laced with a heavy dose of undeserved elitism and arrogance. But don't worry, I'm here to straighten you out:

And I guess your thinking was to answer any perceived arrogance with real arrogance tenfold?

I'm not sure what personal issue you have with me, I've been kind enough to answer any misconception you had of me through PM, you apologized, yet you still stir this shit every time I respond to something you say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65980

My perceptions are coming from reading the ads about the album in the weeks before it came out, buying it on the day of its release, and then talking about it (and U2) to dozens of people my age in classes, on campus, and in a city where they're hugely popular. I maintain that if Zooropa had come out in Nov. 1991 instead of Achtung Baby, it would have been perceived as a major disappointment, but because it was (a) released in the midst of ZooTV, and (b) released at the peak of alternative rock in North America, it was welcomed and given an easier acceptance than, say, Pop.

Well this is a little different than what you stated before. Yes if Zooropa was released before AB it wouldn't have had made sense, BUT to the general public there was not a whole lot insight into this being a quick album done admist a tour, this was just the follow up to AB and for the most part marketed as such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65980

By whose accounts? I cannot really understand your English here, sorry. U2 were anything but "coming off a hugely successful time in their lives" in 1997. At best, they had had a long layoff, and at worst, they were actually considered kind of washed up... which they were, sort of.

Washed up? How do you figure? Their previous tour was considered groundbreaking, the previous two albums were huge critical successes, they owned the early 90's along side grunge and hip hop. So by all accounts Pop should have done well just by riding on those coattails. I don't know how you could say they were washed up!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65980

I see. It's not U2's fault that they're not as popular, it's society's!

You deny that media markets have an effect? Really?

BVS · 10-26-2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by senrab

I find Boots to be a Vertigo re-write. You could sing the chorus to Vertigo over the Boots chorus and it would fit.

Um... no.

mikal · 10-26-2009, 02:21 PM

U2 is good. no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not!

ultraviolet353 · 10-26-2009, 02:28 PM

I agree it is all a matter of opinion--after all Pop is their best record, IMO.

However, I think to say the album is too complex is laughable. If anything (and even many who love this album claim) it is the poppy stuff that ruins the album, and that is 27% of the record. Of the songs that I like on the album NLOTH, BB, MOS, COL there just seems to be something missing--I find myslef wnating something to happen in these songs, and it doesn't. Especially on MOS.

one last thing about Magnificent--when I first heard this song, I thought it was an instant classic. But...again after some time, it just comes off as "thin." Almost like cotton candy, it now melts on impact--lacks any crescendo as it starts at 10 and ends at 10. It starts with such a rush, it has nowhere to go. It is also a very poppy song, IMO, which bumps the record up to 36% pop. Complex!?!?!?! I think not.

Zoocoustic · 10-26-2009, 02:33 PM

Bono sure has come a long way from the "we may lose some of the pop kids but we don't need them!" comment from the glorious zoo-tv days...

elevated_u2_fan · 10-26-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultraviolet353

However, I think to say the album is too complex is laughable.

not as complex as their 90's material but certianly more complex than their last two albums.

BVS · 10-26-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultraviolet353

If anything (and even many who love this album claim) it is the poppy stuff that ruins the album, and that is 27% of the record.
It is also a very poppy song, IMO, which bumps the record up to 36% pop. Complex!?!?!?! I think not.

You see? That's complex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultraviolet353

I find myslef wnating something to happen in these songs, and it doesn't. Especially on MOS.

How can you want anymore out of MOS? It's

worthy. It's the one song that could have easily been given an obvious crescendo, but's it's just implied making it a beautifully complex creature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoocoustic

Bono sure has come a long way from the "we may lose some of the pop kids but we don't need them!" comment from the glorious zoo-tv days...

I love how this quote gets so misused these days.

ultraviolet353 · 10-26-2009, 02:40 PM

U2 needs to realize that RELEVANCE is their currency. Not sales, not radio.

If they attempt to woo sales and radio as they did with Boots/Crazy/SUC they will cease being relevant, IMO. Just last night, the reference to "new songs" made me cringe. There is a tacit lack of confidence that has been sown by the lackluster reaction to the album and the songs in a live setting.

What has always set U2 apart is people come to see the new songs--they demand it. It seems less full throated this time around. Again, because I feel the songs aren't there. Even NLOTH, a song I like, doesn't sound all that great live--When I first heard that song I thought it was SURE to be the opener, and now I know why it isn't. It lacks something live.

gvox · 10-26-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikal

U2 is good. no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not!

But how do you really feel about U2, Mikal?

Irvine511 · 10-26-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultraviolet353

U2 needs to realize that RELEVANCE is their currency. Not sales, not radio.

generally, in popular music, relevant music is what is selling and played on the radio.

mikal · 10-26-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoocoustic

Bono sure has come a long way from the "we may lose some of the pop kids but we don't need them!" comment from the glorious zoo-tv days...

yeah, but that was 17 years ago. i sure hope i don't act like i do now in 17 years.

Irvine511 · 10-26-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikal

yeah, but that was 17 years ago. i sure hope i don't act like i do now in 17 years.

also, that quote is probably right up there with "don't mean to bug 'ya" and "maybe, maybe too much talk" in the Top 10 Reasons Why People Hate Bono.

10-26-2009, 01:56 PM	#138
senrab Refugee Premium Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Washington DC, formerly Buffalo NY Posts: 1,667 Local Time: 06:20 AM	I find Boots to be a Vertigo re-write. You could sing the chorus to Vertigo over the Boots chorus and it would fit. __________________ http://www.senrab.net

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Rolling Stone Magazine's 5 star rated albums	Maoilbheannacht	Just the Bang and the Clatter	73	03-26-2009 08:59 PM
My U2 audio trade list	CTU2fan	All I Want Is U2	1	09-24-2006 06:35 PM
Because I'm bored ... the progressively growing Dabbing Huts Tour.	Axver	U2 Setlists	44	04-01-2005 02:35 AM
Essay: Faith, Hope & U2 - The Spirit of Love in U2's Music	U2Soar	The Goal Is Soul	3	09-23-2002 03:19 AM

10-26-2009, 02:21 PM	#141
mikal ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Fez Posts: 13,467 Local Time: 06:20 AM	U2 is good. no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not!

10-26-2009, 02:28 PM	#142
ultraviolet353 Acrobat Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 494 Local Time: 03:20 AM	I agree it is all a matter of opinion--after all Pop is their best record, IMO. However, I think to say the album is too complex is laughable. If anything (and even many who love this album claim) it is the poppy stuff that ruins the album, and that is 27% of the record. Of the songs that I like on the album NLOTH, BB, MOS, COL there just seems to be something missing--I find myslef wnating something to happen in these songs, and it doesn't. Especially on MOS. one last thing about Magnificent--when I first heard this song, I thought it was an instant classic. But...again after some time, it just comes off as "thin." Almost like cotton candy, it now melts on impact--lacks any crescendo as it starts at 10 and ends at 10. It starts with such a rush, it has nowhere to go. It is also a very poppy song, IMO, which bumps the record up to 36% pop. Complex!?!?!?! I think not.

10-26-2009, 02:33 PM	#143
Zoocoustic War Child Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 904 Local Time: 11:20 AM	Bono sure has come a long way from the "we may lose some of the pop kids but we don't need them!" comment from the glorious zoo-tv days...

10-26-2009, 02:40 PM	#146
ultraviolet353 Acrobat Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 494 Local Time: 03:20 AM	U2 needs to realize that RELEVANCE is their currency. Not sales, not radio. If they attempt to woo sales and radio as they did with Boots/Crazy/SUC they will cease being relevant, IMO. Just last night, the reference to "new songs" made me cringe. There is a tacit lack of confidence that has been sown by the lackluster reaction to the album and the songs in a live setting. What has always set U2 apart is people come to see the new songs--they demand it. It seems less full throated this time around. Again, because I feel the songs aren't there. Even NLOTH, a song I like, doesn't sound all that great live--When I first heard that song I thought it was SURE to be the opener, and now I know why it isn't. It lacks something live.