ImOuttaControl

I've recently come to the conclusion that U2 by U2 is mainly crap. For a band still relevant and in the mainstream and whose story isn't yet finished, is a book like this not a little premature?

I bought the book right when it came out and was first excited to see the format copied from The Beatles Anthology. The only difference between the Beatles book and U2 by U2 is that the Beatles Anthology is actually interesting.

If I'm gonna nitpick, they don't even know their own history at times! I love the part where edge says that Acrobat never became a live favorite....ummm...is that because it was never played live?

Another annoyance of the book is the fact that U2 seem like they have a self esteem issue about anything POP related. Rather than tell anything insightful or even interesting, most of U2's comments about this era are "it was a good idea that never really became a great song."

U2 At The End of the World was a great book, full of interesting, fun stories but mixed with the serious side of U2. I think U2 by U2 shows a pretty dry, boring version of U2.

What could have saved this book?

Time--U2's story is not complete. Maybe if they'd waited a few years...I mean, how can you put an album that's only been out a couple of years into perspective?

Interviews-- They should have included the people who've made U2 who they are, such as Willie Williams, Eno, Lanios, Flood, Lillywhite...heck I would even love to hear Thomas's take on recording with U2 for HTDAAB. This in and of itself would have given the book a much greater perspective and allowed some outside opinion; much like the Beatles Anthology included George Martin, Derek Taylor...etc. Their perspectives are as much fun to read as those of the actual band members.

Anyway, time for me to shelve U2 by U2...hopefully in 10 years there will be a revised edition that includes the many "5th members" of U2.