intedomine

I think the problem is that they seemed to have a disproportionate amount of content for each era.

Not enough 90's content.

U2 76-86 seems to be the entire first half of the book, while the second half is 86-05

The Sad Punk

It's okay. That's really all I can say about it. It gets some jobs done, it doesn't get to others. I wasn't expecting too much.

I didn't think there was enough 76-86!

david

Uhm, U2 by U2 was great. The book about them released in 1987 called Unforgettable Fire was too soon and kind of crap and really premature.

__________________
The more of these I drink the more Bono makes sense.. - Bean from the KROQ Breakfast with U2.

Aardvark747

I liked it. Though it bugs me how I paid £35 for something so huge that it doesnt fit on any shelf, and the other day I saw it for a fiver in HMV in a new "squashed down comfortable bookshelf" size.

Edge_Orchestra

Loar

Got it for $15 at a used bookstore.

It's a coffee table book, and when I'm bored and have nothing better to do, sometimes I read bits and pieces out of it.

If you want a good, solid book about U2 (at least, up through Zooropa), read Flanagan's book. This one is bubble gum, and I knew most of the stuff in it anyway, but it's still fun to read.

Galeongirl

Seems like the original poster took an awful lot of time to read the whole book if he bought it the moment it came out.

__________________
| |

ImOuttaControl

Naw...I've read the book multiple times..the first time strait through and later readings were more selective.


Eh, I see I'm in the minority here which is fine. While there are parts of the book that are good, I think that overall it's not up to U2's high standards.

BTW, the title of this thread says "another mistake of the 2000's"....that doesn't mean that I think they've made mistakes with their music--I love ATYCLB and HTDAAB and the DVD's. The major mistakes come mainly from poor decisions on the two greatest hits albums and the fact that we've had only 12 album songs plus 4 non album singles released in the last 8 years since ATYCLB.

65980

Well, but where do you draw the line? They've been together for 30 years -- probably long enough to have a retrospective. Should we wait until they're 65 to do it? What if one member leaves the group, passes away unexpectedly (such things do happen), or whatever? The Beatles' Anthology has no contemporary comments from Lennon (for obvious reasons). Imagine a U2 by U2 with no new comments from Bono... it would be pretty lame.

As a Beatles' expert, I may be qualified to comment on this. I agree that the Beatles' Anthology thing was probably (a) necessary, and (b) interesting (more or less), but it is also referred to by many Beatle-fans as Mythology -- that is, The Beatles are such prisoners of their own fame and legend that they themselves often cannot separate fact from popular belief, or they simply can't remember from the haze of pot smoke they were in. I think, by comparison, U2 did a very good job of remembering small details accurately... Sometimes, when they don't, their mis-remembered comments are actually more revealing than accurate ones. Nevertheless, I think U2 have clearer memories of their more recent (and less chemically influenced) history than do The Beatles.

I don't understand your nitpick -- if they never played "Acrobat" live, then in fact it "never became a live favorite." Where's the problem?

I think their commentary on Pop, from 9-10 years distance, is fascinating. You're quite right -- they do seem to have a self-esteem issue about it, which is itself very interesting. If you like the album more than they do, that's fine, but don't act as if you're right and they're wrong. It is their band, you know, not yours!

I know where you're coming from, but there are two issues you have to keep in mind: (1) U2 are a bit dry and boring, as people -- they're not (Bono aside) the most entertaining or charismatic personalities in rock. This is revealed, to an extent, in the book, but that's just accurate to who they are. (2) The Beatles had been broken up for 25 years when they did Anthology. This means that they have free-reign to say anything, without worrying about the "beatle-machine" and its active components. Besides which, as the most analyzed pop-culture phenomenon of the 20th century, the Beatles story has been dissected into such lurid details by historians and biographers that nothing they say could possibly out-do popular products already long-since on the market. In short, they were free to say anything, U2 are not. Maybe if U2 did this book after breaking up and shutting down their activities, it would be more candid.

Agree that At the End of the World is the best book on the market, but it's also just one person's perspective, and it's completely out of date. I think U2 By U2 is a nice complement to a book like that.

Think you're missing the key premise of the book: U2 by... U2 (not U2 by various producers and hangers-on). The idea is that the 4 guys alone (okay, and McGuinness) can tell their own story at last.

You raise an interesting point: could the book be simply updated in the future? It's certainly possible, but I doubt it will happen. When the time comes, I think they would rather take up a totally new project rather than go back in the past to recycle an old one. There's also the problem that comments you made in 2006 might not match how you feel about things in 2018 or whatever...


By the way, did anyone else find Bono's comments in the book to be a bit off-base? For the most part he seemed to either wander off topic, or just repeat things he's said a million times. I actually skip over his comments when I pick up the book, because they aren't very interesting -- and he mostly talks about himself, as though he's trying to account for his actions of the past!

On the other hand, I thought Adam's (briefer) comments were the most revealing. I recommend reading only his comments in the book because they seem to say the most, with the fewest words!

ImOuttaControl

I disagree. U2 are self admitted in saying that they are not adequate musicians to get the material they've put out on their own.

U2 simply are not U2 without the various producers that created their sound...and without their memories, opinions and viewpoints heard, U2 by U2 is a one-sided, incomplete story in my opinion. Is there anyone in this forum that honestly believes that U2 would have had the same sound without the Eno, Lillywhite, or Lanois? Or had the same live shows without Willie Williams? They've done to the creative side what Paul McGuiness has done to the business side of U2, so they should have been included.

God, Part II

I'm reading the book for the first time now (huge U2 fan, but I was able to support my affection for them in other ways until the hardback went on clearance pricing) and am just finishing the ZOOROPA section. If I have any one complaint (because, otherwise, I love it) it's that (along with the liner notes for the new remastered CD releases) U2 really seems to despise most of their catalog. I mean, discussion of almost every single track seems to be summed up with a thought like, "you can tell there's a great song in there, but we just didn't quite work it out". I mean, for God's sake, Adam disses on "Where the Streets Have No Name"! "Where the Streets Have No Name"!!! The greatest rock song ever recorded! I dread getting to their comments about POP. I realize we're all our own worst critics, and probably should be, but shit, guys, give yourselves some props. There are reasons why you'll go down in history as truly one of the greatest bands in rock history...

BVS

I see that as humility not despise...

__________________
my music

Music Facebook

^Apparently he did.

MyBloodySleeve

Popmartijn

Or maybe it's even something else. Maybe they couldn't get it to sound like it would sound in their head (or even in the studio while playing it). When you're dedicated to your art, you often just hear the imperfections, not the amazing end result. Even though Brian Eno was probably right (as I think he convinced Bono to keep it that way) Bono still cringes over the first two lines of Where The Streets Have No Name. He doesn't just hear the rush, he hears two lines that maybe could've been so much better.

Going off track, but still on a related note, Elvis Costello has often (and publicly) derided his album Goodbye Cruel World as his worst album ever. And yes, the production is dated on that album, but it isn't half bad. However, he once commented on what might be the deeper reason for his distaste of that album. He made it while going through a painful divorce. So when he hears that album, he gets transported back to that time. The emotions connected to that divorce, make him dislike that record (and mostly not the musicianship, lyrics or its sound).
I guess the same applies to U2. They often might not hear the songs, but what was going on in their lifes at that time.

BVS

I agree, and that's kind of what I meant by humility, they knew it could have been much more but they just couldn't(like you said) get it to sound like what's in their heads. I think this is probably the majority of artist's thinking...

__________________
my music

Music Facebook

^Apparently he did.

MyBloodySleeve

ImOuttaControl

I write/record my own music, and I usually nitpick at the end result---so I see your point.

However, how much acclaim does a band need before they get over what looks like a self esteem issue? How many awards, sold out stadiums, classic albums, hit songs and fans does a band need before they finally say...."You know...even though we think this song isn't the song we heard in our heads, our fans love it...so it's great." I'm a high school teacher and what this reminds me of is the kid who has it all, who is extrememly gifted and has the world going for them, yet this kid cannot accept a compliment and constantly gloomy about things they've done that aren't "perfect."

What one person views is humility another person can view as self-loathing.