Bono: 'U2 album was too challenging' - Page 8

indra · 10-25-2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjboog

I agree with Bono when he said that if you love your music, you want to communicate it to an audience. It's about a bigger experience. It's not just something you make for your own little artistic pleasure. That clip where he said if you want to make art just for yourself, you can go become a potter.

Hmm. I wonder what that makes someone who does paintings of pottery then?

JoRu · 10-25-2009, 04:37 PM

I simply think that the music industry has changed since the glorious days of the '80s (man, I loved music so much back in the '80s) and I think U2's not willing to change that much to be able to get the love from the radio, since it's perhaps too risky. They could lose a lot of their fanbase that way.

Instead, it feels like they're landing somewhere in between and they don't really know what to do here. They have a large fanbase that seems to be perfectly fine if they continue doing what they're doing. But at the same time they want to be out on the radio and the radio doesn't want Joshua Tree-esque music anymore like it did before. That's where we end up with songs like GOYB, and although I like GOYB a lot more now than back in February it still feels very unnatural as a song. It attempts to be radio-friendly while still pleasing their fanbase and based on most opinions around here and other places it fails in both.

It's a great album, but I'm starting to understand all the Swedish reviews I read that all gave it 3/5 and calling it a "mixed bag". I think it's better than 3/5, but it is a mixed bag. When you're trying to make a couple of radio-friendly pop songs and then a couple of songs that are more experimental and very different from the others it's hard to please anyone completely. It seems like they truly want to be experimental and release songs like Fez-Being Born for example but their instincts to get noticed on the radio and in media keeps them from doing an album that completely relies on such songs, since they know that it will probably get out there unnoticed with only those who already liked U2 taking note of it. I truly hope U2 releases Songs of Ascent without caring one bit how it's recieved by the media and the radio, only caring about what they wanted with the album and what their fans may enjoy. Sort of like Zooropa, just not the same music style.

I also think U2 may have lost that little extra required to make a true classic. Memorable songs they seem to handle (Magnificent for example), but I don't think they'll make classics like ISHFWILF or Pride ever again. Unfortunalety.

coolian2 · 10-25-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

And those 5 lines (or so) the original poster quoted are just a hack job from some person with Internet access. The full article can be found here:
U2 and Bono adapt to changing times - Yahoo! News

And that full article also includes lines like:

well....that's actually much less worrying.

Utoo · 10-25-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

And those 5 lines (or so) the original poster quoted are just a hack job from some person with Internet access. The full article can be found here:
U2 and Bono adapt to changing times - Yahoo! News

And that full article also includes lines like:

The panda eats shoots and leaves

vs.

The panda eats, shoots, and leaves

Brilliant

Salome · 10-25-2009, 05:00 PM

Bono is trying to say that all of you just don't get it and that they don't need you
kiss the future

Slapnutz · 10-25-2009, 05:19 PM

It's not catchy enough for the pop kids and not experimental enough for those who want to be challenged. Tough shit.

powerhour24 · 10-25-2009, 06:14 PM

They've always doubted themselves, they need to just stick to their guns and create, you have a big enough permanent audience to sell concert tickets to no matter what kind of music you release, now trust your creativity.

Someone really needs to get into U2's inner circle and make them understand, screw the mainstream, there's been so much evidence of creative vitality coming from you this decade, unfortunately you doubt that after Pop, that it's streamlined enough to go over well, and it's mostly been watered down or left on the cutting room floor.

I'm an apologist and I've greatly enjoyed most of their output in this decade, but I've also heard everyone say how irrelevant they are and that clearly worries them, but you know what would make you relevant? Trusting those instincts, releasing NLOTH as the world-inspired experiment you conceived of, the Bomb as the garage-rock U2 you conceived of, and SOA as the meditative companion album you've talked about. Just stick with your ideas, and release them, let the creativity promote itself, maybe you'll win over some snobby young people with a taste for new music, even if they hate the mainstream.

Don't over-produce, don't rework tracklistings to include conceived of hits, and don't worry about the sales numbers or news reports, guess what, you have the biggest album worldwide of the year, face it, people are stealing music, but they can't steal a concert experience, and you're embarking on the biggest, most successful tour in history. Your fans love you, the haters can be proven wrong if you trust your instincts, they just continue shouting when you try and pander to the pop crowd. Who cares what a 12 year old girl is listening to on her iPod this week, she won't remember your name tomorrow.

65980 · 10-26-2009, 01:21 AM

I think JoRu made a good post, above, and has outlined the dilemma U2 face. I think their status right now is exactly like it was in 1997 -- almost uncannily so. Studio album is released early in the year after a looooong wait, so the stakes are high. The album is a compromised "mixed-bag" of relatively experimental tracks and standard U2-anthems. The songs feel somewhat labored and overproduced, perhaps because they spent too long recording or because too many cooks spoiled the broth. The first single turned off some and was met with a collective yawn by the pop mainstream, and the strong but underwhelming album sales (by U2 standards) are set against an international stadium tour with a more-urgent-need-than-usual to put asses in seats.

All of the above could describe 1997 or 2009.

Now, I have a solution for U2. The most non-commercially-considered album they've made yet, I think, is Zooropa. It sold well during the ZooTV tour even though it failed to produce any big radio hits, largely because U2's star and profile were BIG at the time, and the alternative rock boom made Zooropa accessible to many younger fans (an advantage not enjoyed today when U2 are old and the younger fans listen to Miley Cyrus). Still, the left-of-centre Zooropa did very well on its own terms, and nobody complained about its underwhelming commerciality.

Yet, many complained about the underwhelming commerciality of both Pop and NLOTH. Why the big difference in perception?

The difference is down to the fact that Zooropa was perceived as an offshoot of the Achtung Baby / ZooTV era. It didn't follow years of waiting, and it wasn't hyped at all when it came out.

So, here's what I think they should do from now on: Instead of releasing another compromised mixed-bag album (like NLOTH, which I think is easily their weakest record since October), they should release two albums almost at the same time. First the big one, which is more accessible to the casual music fan, and then the more self-indulgent / experimental one, just a few months later. The first one to satisfy their seemingly obsessive need to be "big", and the second to satisfy their artier impulses (which aren't that arty -- even at their most experimental, U2 are still pretty mainstream).

I'm not saying the second album should be Russian polkas in 6/8 time produced by Eno with a Vietnamese monk chanting over it; it could potentially still be quite a commercially successful work (like Zooropa), but it can be more of a piece, and it can come after the big one that has the radio hits, etc. If it sells, great, and if it flops, who cares?

My idea would be unnecessary if they would put out an album every year or two, but the releases are so infrequent now that I don't think the mixed-big approach of NLOTH is going to serve them well (or satisfy them) in the years to come, especially with the sound-byte / 3 seconds' attention span audience they're continuously trying to win over.

Saracene · 10-26-2009, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65980

I think their status right now is exactly like it was in 1997 -- almost uncannily so.

Except that now they're nearing their 50s instead of 40s, which I think makes their wish to get back into the mainstream near-impossible. Thing is, can they really be happy with retreating to the edges of the mainstream?

mikal · 10-26-2009, 09:20 AM

http://u2.interference.com/f189/this...ws-202843.html

Irvine511 · 10-26-2009, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65980

I think JoRu made a good post, above, and has outlined the dilemma U2 face. I think their status right now is exactly like it was in 1997 -- almost uncannily so. Studio album is released early in the year after a looooong wait, so the stakes are high. The album is a compromised "mixed-bag" of relatively experimental tracks and standard U2-anthems. The songs feel somewhat labored and overproduced, perhaps because they spent too long recording or because too many cooks spoiled the broth. The first single turned off some and was met with a collective yawn by the pop mainstream, and the strong but underwhelming album sales (by U2 standards) are set against an international stadium tour with a more-urgent-need-than-usual to put asses in seats.

All of the above could describe 1997 or 2009.

Now, I have a solution for U2. The most non-commercially-considered album they've made yet, I think, is Zooropa. It sold well during the ZooTV tour even though it failed to produce any big radio hits, largely because U2's star and profile were BIG at the time, and the alternative rock boom made Zooropa accessible to many younger fans (an advantage not enjoyed today when U2 are old and the younger fans listen to Miley Cyrus). Still, the left-of-centre Zooropa did very well on its own terms, and nobody complained about its underwhelming commerciality.

Yet, many complained about the underwhelming commerciality of both Pop and NLOTH. Why the big difference in perception?

The difference is down to the fact that Zooropa was perceived as an offshoot of the Achtung Baby / ZooTV era. It didn't follow years of waiting, and it wasn't hyped at all when it came out.

So, here's what I think they should do from now on: Instead of releasing another compromised mixed-bag album (like NLOTH, which I think is easily their weakest record since October), they should release two albums almost at the same time. First the big one, which is more accessible to the casual music fan, and then the more self-indulgent / experimental one, just a few months later. The first one to satisfy their seemingly obsessive need to be "big", and the second to satisfy their artier impulses (which aren't that arty -- even at their most experimental, U2 are still pretty mainstream).

I'm not saying the second album should be Russian polkas in 6/8 time produced by Eno with a Vietnamese monk chanting over it; it could potentially still be quite a commercially successful work (like Zooropa), but it can be more of a piece, and it can come after the big one that has the radio hits, etc. If it sells, great, and if it flops, who cares?

My idea would be unnecessary if they would put out an album every year or two, but the releases are so infrequent now that I don't think the mixed-big approach of NLOTH is going to serve them well (or satisfy them) in the years to come, especially with the sound-byte / 3 seconds' attention span audience they're continuously trying to win over.

i think this is an astute post, but for two things:

1. the 360 tour is considered a smashing success, setting box office and attendance records and selling out almost everywhere; the reviews have been stellar. by contrast, what's most remembered about Popmart is that no one went to it, and the half empty stadiums particularly on the second N.A. leg. that was a dismal time to be a U2 fan. that has not and will not happen this time.

2. despite your personal feelings, NLOTH, while not a commercial smash, is certainly a stronger album than Pop -- "stronger" in the sense of critical acclaim and the general satisfaction of long-time U2 fans with the album.

i certainly agree that GOYB = Discotheque, but GOYB didn't have an insane video nor do they look like they're trying to play dress-up with a culture that they dont really understand, like they did with Pop. nor are they jumping on the bandwagon of trendy sounds, like they did with Pop.

what i think U2 needs to do, and it's similar to what you think, though streamlined, is release the meditative SOA but spend time making sure that the rumored Every Breaking Wave is a world beating, classic, montage-at-the-Olympics U2 anthem for All Time. and then let the rest of the album simmer. add EBW and 1-2 other tracks from SOA to keep the 360 Tour thematically consistent with the NLOTH stuff.

in 2011 release the poppier stuff and then start to come to terms with the fact that much of pop chart success is, as youtoo says, about sex. and, yes, they're too old and too happy to be successful in that vein. however, what i'd add to the "sex" aspect that it's about:

1. on a basic level, wanting to have sex with the singer of the song -- Bono was quite attractive at 32 (look at him smolder in the "One" video), not so much at 50.

2. the subject of sex and relationships, something which all the members of U2 seem to be quite successful at, and good on them, but we're not going to get the blood and guts of a divorce like we did in 1991.

BVS · 10-26-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65980

I think JoRu made a good post, above, and has outlined the dilemma U2 face. I think their status right now is exactly like it was in 1997 -- almost uncannily so. Studio album is released early in the year after a looooong wait, so the stakes are high. The album is a compromised "mixed-bag" of relatively experimental tracks and standard U2-anthems. The songs feel somewhat labored and overproduced, perhaps because they spent too long recording or because too many cooks spoiled the broth. The first single turned off some and was met with a collective yawn by the pop mainstream, and the strong but underwhelming album sales (by U2 standards) are set against an international stadium tour with a more-urgent-need-than-usual to put asses in seats.

All of the above could describe 1997 or 2009.

Now, I have a solution for U2. The most non-commercially-considered album they've made yet, I think, is Zooropa. It sold well during the ZooTV tour even though it failed to produce any big radio hits, largely because U2's star and profile were BIG at the time, and the alternative rock boom made Zooropa accessible to many younger fans (an advantage not enjoyed today when U2 are old and the younger fans listen to Miley Cyrus). Still, the left-of-centre Zooropa did very well on its own terms, and nobody complained about its underwhelming commerciality.

Yet, many complained about the underwhelming commerciality of both Pop and NLOTH. Why the big difference in perception?

The difference is down to the fact that Zooropa was perceived as an offshoot of the Achtung Baby / ZooTV era. It didn't follow years of waiting, and it wasn't hyped at all when it came out.

So, here's what I think they should do from now on: Instead of releasing another compromised mixed-bag album (like NLOTH, which I think is easily their weakest record since October), they should release two albums almost at the same time. First the big one, which is more accessible to the casual music fan, and then the more self-indulgent / experimental one, just a few months later. The first one to satisfy their seemingly obsessive need to be "big", and the second to satisfy their artier impulses (which aren't that arty -- even at their most experimental, U2 are still pretty mainstream).

I'm not saying the second album should be Russian polkas in 6/8 time produced by Eno with a Vietnamese monk chanting over it; it could potentially still be quite a commercially successful work (like Zooropa), but it can be more of a piece, and it can come after the big one that has the radio hits, etc. If it sells, great, and if it flops, who cares?

My idea would be unnecessary if they would put out an album every year or two, but the releases are so infrequent now that I don't think the mixed-big approach of NLOTH is going to serve them well (or satisfy them) in the years to come, especially with the sound-byte / 3 seconds' attention span audience they're continuously trying to win over.

A lot of misconceptions in this post. Although many of us would like less time between album releases, it's not that uncommon, even younger bands are waiting longer lengths between releases.

Zooropa was not really considered an offshoot by anyone outside the die hard community, it was just considered another album. It was hyped quite a bit and Numb and Lemon did well on video outlets but not on radio. So I'm not sure where your perceptions of Zooropa are coming from...

But the biggest misconception is that 360 is a huge success compared to PopMart. The other big misconception is that by all accounts, Pop and PopMart should have been HUGE. MTV was still big cheerleaders they had jumped on early with the next biggest thing: electronica, and they were coming off a hugely successful time in their lives. Everything was building this up to be the next coming.

This time around they have very little to no markets for their songs to play. MTV is dead, radio gets worse every year, and now we have the internet allowing anyone to steal music. So almost nothing was on their side this time around.

**KhanadaRhodes** · 10-26-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

Zooropa was not really considered an offshoot by anyone outside the die hard community, it was just considered another album. It was hyped quite a bit and Numb and Lemon did well on video outlets but not on radio. So I'm not sure where your perceptions of Zooropa are coming from...

not to mention it did win them a grammy, which some consider to be a sign of success. (two if you count the zoo tv concert, actually.)

plus, i look at it this way. i was 10 when zooropa came out. there was no internet back then, at least not for most people. yet i somehow new the album was out. i remember buying it on cassette with my birthday money. sure, it didn't sell nearly as much as achtung baby and ten year old me knowing the album existed doesn't mean anything really, but i thought it was worth sharing.

elevated_u2_fan · 10-26-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

This time around they have very little to no markets for their songs to play. MTV is dead, radio gets worse every year, and now we have the internet allowing anyone to steal music. So almost nothing was on their side this time around.

agreed and they can't even take more unorthodox marketing routes like the younger acts do for fear of being branded as sell-outs by their jaded fanbase.

65980 · 10-26-2009, 10:16 AM

Irvine511, your points are all reasonable:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511

1. the 360 tour is considered a smashing success, setting box office and attendance records and selling out almost everywhere; the reviews have been stellar. by contrast, what's most remembered about Popmart is that no one went to it, and the half empty stadiums particularly on the second N.A. leg. that was a dismal time to be a U2 fan.

Yes, it is quite a difference, you're right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511

2. despite your personal feelings, NLOTH, while not a commercial smash, is certainly a stronger album than Pop -- "stronger" in the sense of critical acclaim and the general satisfaction of long-time U2 fans with the album.

Again, you're right. However, I was thinking only of the album's sales and commercial immediacy. It's worth noting that the Pop album also got great reviews at the moment of its release -- the backlash didn't start setting in until the tour started. If we were to compare the contemporary reviews of Pop to NLOTH, I'm not sure that the latter's are any better than the former's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511

...nor do they look like they're trying to play dress-up with a culture that they dont really understand, like they did with Pop. nor are they jumping on the bandwagon of trendy sounds, like they did with Pop.

I enjoyed this comment, because you perfectly summarized what turned off a lot of people to the whole Pop campaign!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511

...we're not going to get the blood and guts of a divorce like we did in 1991.

Right. Unless Adam starts writing the lyrics!

10-25-2009, 05:00 PM	#110
Salome you are what you is Premium Gold Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: last fm Posts: 20,523 Local Time: 09:55 AM	Bono is trying to say that all of you just don't get it and that they don't need you kiss the future __________________ "Never look at the trombones, it only encourages them." Richard Strauss

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

10-25-2009, 04:37 PM	#107
JoRu The Fly Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 252 Local Time: 09:55 AM	I simply think that the music industry has changed since the glorious days of the '80s (man, I loved music so much back in the '80s) and I think U2's not willing to change that much to be able to get the love from the radio, since it's perhaps too risky. They could lose a lot of their fanbase that way. Instead, it feels like they're landing somewhere in between and they don't really know what to do here. They have a large fanbase that seems to be perfectly fine if they continue doing what they're doing. But at the same time they want to be out on the radio and the radio doesn't want Joshua Tree-esque music anymore like it did before. That's where we end up with songs like GOYB, and although I like GOYB a lot more now than back in February it still feels very unnatural as a song. It attempts to be radio-friendly while still pleasing their fanbase and based on most opinions around here and other places it fails in both. It's a great album, but I'm starting to understand all the Swedish reviews I read that all gave it 3/5 and calling it a "mixed bag". I think it's better than 3/5, but it is a mixed bag. When you're trying to make a couple of radio-friendly pop songs and then a couple of songs that are more experimental and very different from the others it's hard to please anyone completely. It seems like they truly want to be experimental and release songs like Fez-Being Born for example but their instincts to get noticed on the radio and in media keeps them from doing an album that completely relies on such songs, since they know that it will probably get out there unnoticed with only those who already liked U2 taking note of it. I truly hope U2 releases Songs of Ascent without caring one bit how it's recieved by the media and the radio, only caring about what they wanted with the album and what their fans may enjoy. Sort of like Zooropa, just not the same music style. I also think U2 may have lost that little extra required to make a true classic. Memorable songs they seem to handle (Magnificent for example), but I don't think they'll make classics like ISHFWILF or Pride ever again. Unfortunalety.

10-25-2009, 05:19 PM	#111
Slapnutz War Child Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Under Your Bed Posts: 924 Local Time: 08:55 AM	It's not catchy enough for the pop kids and not experimental enough for those who want to be challenged. Tough shit.

10-25-2009, 06:14 PM	#112
powerhour24 Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Boston Posts: 5,073 Local Time: 04:55 AM	They've always doubted themselves, they need to just stick to their guns and create, you have a big enough permanent audience to sell concert tickets to no matter what kind of music you release, now trust your creativity. Someone really needs to get into U2's inner circle and make them understand, screw the mainstream, there's been so much evidence of creative vitality coming from you this decade, unfortunately you doubt that after Pop, that it's streamlined enough to go over well, and it's mostly been watered down or left on the cutting room floor. I'm an apologist and I've greatly enjoyed most of their output in this decade, but I've also heard everyone say how irrelevant they are and that clearly worries them, but you know what would make you relevant? Trusting those instincts, releasing NLOTH as the world-inspired experiment you conceived of, the Bomb as the garage-rock U2 you conceived of, and SOA as the meditative companion album you've talked about. Just stick with your ideas, and release them, let the creativity promote itself, maybe you'll win over some snobby young people with a taste for new music, even if they hate the mainstream. Don't over-produce, don't rework tracklistings to include conceived of hits, and don't worry about the sales numbers or news reports, guess what, you have the biggest album worldwide of the year, face it, people are stealing music, but they can't steal a concert experience, and you're embarking on the biggest, most successful tour in history. Your fans love you, the haters can be proven wrong if you trust your instincts, they just continue shouting when you try and pander to the pop crowd. Who cares what a 12 year old girl is listening to on her iPod this week, she won't remember your name tomorrow.

10-26-2009, 01:21 AM	#113
65980 War Child Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Taiwan Posts: 753 Local Time: 04:55 PM	I think JoRu made a good post, above, and has outlined the dilemma U2 face. I think their status right now is exactly like it was in 1997 -- almost uncannily so. Studio album is released early in the year after a looooong wait, so the stakes are high. The album is a compromised "mixed-bag" of relatively experimental tracks and standard U2-anthems. The songs feel somewhat labored and overproduced, perhaps because they spent too long recording or because too many cooks spoiled the broth. The first single turned off some and was met with a collective yawn by the pop mainstream, and the strong but underwhelming album sales (by U2 standards) are set against an international stadium tour with a more-urgent-need-than-usual to put asses in seats. All of the above could describe 1997 or 2009. Now, I have a solution for U2. The most non-commercially-considered album they've made yet, I think, is Zooropa. It sold well during the ZooTV tour even though it failed to produce any big radio hits, largely because U2's star and profile were BIG at the time, and the alternative rock boom made Zooropa accessible to many younger fans (an advantage not enjoyed today when U2 are old and the younger fans listen to Miley Cyrus). Still, the left-of-centre Zooropa did very well on its own terms, and nobody complained about its underwhelming commerciality. Yet, many complained about the underwhelming commerciality of both Pop and NLOTH. Why the big difference in perception? The difference is down to the fact that Zooropa was perceived as an offshoot of the Achtung Baby / ZooTV era. It didn't follow years of waiting, and it wasn't hyped at all when it came out. So, here's what I think they should do from now on: Instead of releasing another compromised mixed-bag album (like NLOTH, which I think is easily their weakest record since October), they should release two albums almost at the same time. First the big one, which is more accessible to the casual music fan, and then the more self-indulgent / experimental one, just a few months later. The first one to satisfy their seemingly obsessive need to be "big", and the second to satisfy their artier impulses (which aren't that arty -- even at their most experimental, U2 are still pretty mainstream). I'm not saying the second album should be Russian polkas in 6/8 time produced by Eno with a Vietnamese monk chanting over it; it could potentially still be quite a commercially successful work (like Zooropa), but it can be more of a piece, and it can come after the big one that has the radio hits, etc. If it sells, great, and if it flops, who cares? My idea would be unnecessary if they would put out an album every year or two, but the releases are so infrequent now that I don't think the mixed-big approach of NLOTH is going to serve them well (or satisfy them) in the years to come, especially with the sound-byte / 3 seconds' attention span audience they're continuously trying to win over.

10-26-2009, 09:20 AM	#115
mikal ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Fez Posts: 13,460 Local Time: 03:55 AM	http://u2.interference.com/f189/this...ws-202843.html